Page 4 of 5
Re: LET DOWN!
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:34 am
by one eyed jack
Theres one mentioned on the timewasters and no shows right now.
I'm wondering if it is her. If it is then she can use this opportunity to explain your side of it.
I also understand that while it is there, some producers would rather remain quiet about it and thats their choice but I think silence never did anyone any good and only helps protect the guilty to aid them doing it again.
No one is obligated to use it. Just me making a point.
However, in cases like this she may well have a good reason too. Lets not forget that and equally good point to make in clearing her name.
Re: LET DOWN!
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:43 am
by tammielee
Like I've said aqbove, this girl is new, which means she isn't one of the girls who r well known, ie cate harrington ect! I have supplied my email so if you wish to know paul or anyone else then please email me, I have had a few togs already email and tell me they where going to use this girl.
Re: LET DOWN!
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:47 am
by Peter
Matt P wrote:
> Give me an example of a case history where WH Smith Wholesale
> has paid out due to a liable suit concerning the example you
> give & I'll conceed my point.
Linford Christie v John McVicar (author)
v WH Smith v Johnson Press v John Menzies (distributors)
v Wilshire Press (printers)
The magazine, 'Spiked' was defunct and so had nothing to sue for (but could/would have had it still been publishing)
You only tend to hear about the sensational bits, Olympic Gold medallist v Britains (once) most wanted man.
Re: LET DOWN!
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:48 am
by JamesW
"what he fails to grasp is the site wouldn't be a culpable party unless they endorssed or failed to act on a complaint."
Not true.
Publishing a libel is publishing a libel. Endorsement of a libel would not make it anymore libellous and non-endorsement would not make it any less libellous.
Failing to act on a complaint does not make a libel anymore libellous either, although it may provoke the aggrieved party in taking the matter further.
Re: LET DOWN!
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:04 am
by Tanya Cox
Surely they only have a case to make the site and people involved liable, if its untrue,
which is very unlikely anyone would make up something like that......
Re: LET DOWN!
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:08 am
by tammielee
Hi stacey! I'm sorru I don't think I know you? Is this your stage name?
Re: LET DOWN!
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:30 am
by rgb
Just emailed you, Stacey