Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard (Post 6294143)

I love threads like this, where fans of the housemate concerned wriggle and twist, rather than face reality! ;)

OK, I will make my prediction and everyone is welcome to throw it back in my face if I turn out to be wrong. :D

I predict that Sam will neither sue the Daily Star nor even make a complaint to the press supervisory body.

Why do I say this? Because the Daily Star is a national newspaper. It is not Private Eye. The DS literally cannot afford to accuse someone of being a violent pub lout unless they are at least 99% sure of the accuracy of the story. They could be taken to the cleaners, if they have got it wrong or have made it up.

The press can - and will - make up all sorts of stories, but accusing a person of (in effect) criminality is a very serious matter. I will venture to suggest this story has been vetted at the highest editorial and management levels... maybe even by Richard Desmond himself, given his ownership of both the Daily Star and Channel 5.

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard (Post 6291634)

If the DS have told an untruth, Sam could sue them for tens of thousands when he gets out.

I believe the yob story.

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 6291659)

So the story about Dexter 'rodeoing' women must be true then,what a disgusting perverted man he is then

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 6294147)

To be fair I think they can when the Star are merely quoting the Pub landlord, if they were taken to court or anything all they need to say is that they were relating what they were told, they have named their source after all so the blame would lie with him not the newspaper I believe

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard (Post 6294143)

I love threads like this, where fans of the housemate concerned wriggle and twist, rather than face reality! ;)

OK, I will make my prediction and everyone is welcome to throw it back in my face if I turn out to be wrong. :D

I predict that Sam will neither sue the Daily Star nor even make a complaint to the press supervisory body.

Why do I say this? Because the Daily Star is a national newspaper. It is not Private Eye. The DS literally cannot afford to accuse someone of being a violent pub lout unless they are at least 99% sure of the accuracy of the story. They could be taken to the cleaners, if they have got it wrong or have made it up.

The press can - and will - make up all sorts of stories, but accusing a person of (in effect) criminality is a very serious matter. I will venture to suggest this story has been vetted at the highest editorial and management levels... maybe even by Richard Desmond himself, given his ownership of both the Daily Star and Channel 5.

Originally Posted by lippyzippy (Post 6294210)

I know the man, this story is BS

Originally Posted by lippyzippy (Post 6294284)

I wont say anymore as I don't want to get drawn into some slanderous back and forth, lets just say sam will get a pay out for this complete and utter nonsense. you can also be sure no incident happened nor was it reported nor will any supposed victim come forward nor is there any police report, police call out nothing. the only thing you can be sure of is its nonsense and the star paid this bloke.

Originally Posted by erinp5 (Post 6294285)

Sams family refuse to comment.

Originally Posted by Indy (Post 6294287)

What happened to you being a "former Dexter fan" who only recently went off Dexter and changed your allegiance to Sam?

Originally Posted by lippyzippy (Post 6294291)

nothing? what do you mean? I have always been a dexter fan

Originally Posted by Indy (Post 6294293)

Who just happens to have intimate knowledge of Sam's neighborhood...

Originally Posted by lippyzippy (Post 6294284)

I wont say anymore as I don't want to get drawn into some slanderous back and forth, lets just say sam will get a pay out for this complete and utter nonsense. you can also be sure no incident happened nor was it reported nor will any supposed victim come forward nor is there any police report, police call out nothing. the only thing you can be sure of is its nonsense and the star paid this bloke.

Originally Posted by erinp5 (Post 6294285)

Sams family refuse to comment.

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard (Post 6294301)

If it is untrue I would morally support Sam to the hilt in any legal action
he wished to take.

However, can you not just answer the question: was Sam banned from the pub or wasn't he? It is not slander to tell the truth. :)






Indeed. My family would come out with all guns blazing, if I was in the house and I'd been libelled!

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 6294305)

not always the best way to deal with things! maybe they are not allowed to could be several reasons.

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard (Post 6294316)

What I mean by that is issuing a public statement and, possibly, getting my solicitor to send some letters to Daily Star, Richard Desmond etc.

Complete failure to even comment by Sam's family just looks bad, whatever the rights and wrongs.

Originally Posted by Im_Juz_ChiLLin (Post 6294628)

When they are in the wrong only thing they can say is no comment.... :joker:

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard (Post 6294745)

I'm a bit disappointed that nobody will deny that Sam got banned from his local - even those who say they know the pub etc are keeping very quiet. I have no regard for awful rags like the Daily Star.

But in this instance, I can only conclude the article is basically accurate.