Page 6 of 10
Re: Testing Rumours
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:05 pm
by Sam Slater
[quote]The point I am trying to make to you is that people who work in the industry thought of your suggestion, long before you ever did, but you seem to think you are giving us all an education[/quote]
Well if they thought of it, they obviously didn't take it further. And don't be too sure of yourself about me just being 'just a surfer'.
Since these discussions started, I've had quite a few e-mails backing me up, but pointing out I'm wasting my time. Two performers I know feel particularly grieved that fellow performers would put them at risk, a director as well, but stay silent. Why? Because they'd be criticised and abused, a bit like I have been here, by a few.
I feel sorry for the performers who just want to make a career in porn, but are put at a higher risk than they need to be because of others selfishness, greed and ignorance.
I guess a performer who doesn't escort, feels like a Jew in Tehran right now.
Re: Testing Rumours
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:09 pm
by Paul Chaplin
Sadly, we are bound to reply to this post. Matt 414 is simply lying. All certificates are kept on file. A duplicate of current certificates sits in the Green File on the green room table, available for inspection. Matt's inaccuracies in his recollections further undermine his testimony. (1) The Surrey shoot was with Steve Hooper and 3 (not 4) contract girls. Contract girls are contractually required to be tested at SameDayDoctor. The proposition that they had shown up on a BB shoot without certs and that Steve Hooper was prepared to work under such conditions only needs to be stated to demonstrate its absurdity. (2) The Polish girl was another contract girl, Gabriela Glaser (same certification conditions apply). No such event as that stated by Matt occurred. What did occur was that Matt was replaced with other talent on the Scene because his performance was inadequate. Perhaps this explains his animus. Matt's communication is clearly false and defamatory. Without prejudice to our legal rights of action, Matt is invited to withdraw his statements and apologise in this open forum. Otherwise we reserve the right to sue Matt for damages in Court. We would expect the Moderator of this Forum to delete defamatory and potentially defamatory posts and to apply the 'Killergram' rule to all producers. And no, Matt, no one who has ever actually worked at BB will believe you. Including in particular the performers you have just libelled. Now do the decent thing and apologise.
Re: Testing Rumours
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:16 pm
by Andy Mann
Wayne? Belgravia?
Belgravia? Wayne?
Hmmmm hard to believe a word you say really when you clearly have an identity crisis going on!!
Re: Testing Rumours
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:26 pm
by Andy Mann
As for Matts comment, he wasn't naming and shaming, merely stating his experience of working for Bluebird and I am sure that counts for something considering this threads title and the obvious concerns for models in the U.K industry!
I for one applaud his honesty, it's just a shame other people who I won't mention but who know who they are don't take a leaf out of his book..
Re: Testing Rumours
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:31 pm
by matt414
Paul,
Your so full of shit and you know it. Take me to court if you want? Purgery carry s a naughty sentence though.....
Re: Testing Rumours
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:32 pm
by Sam Slater
He's not going to have you up in front of his mates....can you imagine it? !laugh!
Re: Testing Rumours
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:33 pm
by matt414
And where did I name performers? You did that, not me.
And it was YOU who jumped in on the scene with the Polish girl, WHO HAD REFUSED to work with you without certs. You took her outside, probably gave her a backhander and then did a condom shoot with her!
And it was YOUR performance that was not good enough, even your cameraman said it was shit! As it always is I was told.
So take that with a huge sticky facial pal, because your the one who is wrong!
Re: Testing Rumours
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:33 pm
by Paul Chaplin
No Andy. Matt was not 'stating his experience' and 'being honest'. He was lying. You are patently not in a position to know the truth of the matter. By endorsing his lie, you open yourself up to an action for libel. So, please email us your address for service of court proceedings and we will happily take your money too. Or alternatively, learn to exercise your right to air your views in a public forum with responsibility. Oh dear, another person off our contract girls' christmas card list.