[MTVN]

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

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.

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.

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

[kistar]

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

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

I believe the yob story.

I was just going to say that, unfounded info wouldn't be published surely?

[Indy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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

Isn't that the point, though? Those who keep bringing up the "rodeoing" incident any time they want to defend Sam by dragging Dexter into it either have to accept this story or admit they're both wrong, and stop bringing up rodeoing any time one of Sam's offensive quotes are mentioned.

[CaudleHalbard]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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

That would be absolutely no defence.

The landlord may have verbally slandered Sam but, by publishing the slander, that becomes libel by whoever published it.

Libel is more serious, but easier to prove, than slander.The DS would not have a leg to stand on.

I reckon Sam could easily get Ł50k out of this especially if (say) he loses his job as a result. But only if it's untrue!

[lippyzippy]

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

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.

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.

I know the man, this story is BS

[CaudleHalbard]

Originally Posted by lippyzippy

I know the man, this story is BS

In what way? Did he not ban Sam from his pub?

[erinp5]

Sams family refuse to comment.

[Indy]

Originally Posted by lippyzippy

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.

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

[lippyzippy]

Originally Posted by erinp5

Sams family refuse to comment.

that's the problem with gossip and kiss and tell stories, if you defend yourself it merely adds fuel to the fire of gossip

[lippyzippy]

Originally Posted by Indy

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

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

[Indy]

Originally Posted by lippyzippy

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

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

[lippyzippy]

Originally Posted by Indy

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

ive been down there many times, theres a famous rugby team down there
you never heard of the scarlets>

[CaudleHalbard]

Originally Posted by lippyzippy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by erinp5

Sams family refuse to comment.

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

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

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!

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

[CaudleHalbard]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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

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.

[Im_Juz_ChiLLin]

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

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.

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

[CaudleHalbard]

Originally Posted by Im_Juz_ChiLLin

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

Lol! Sam is probably a bit of an embarrassment to his family.

That's why they get his pub mates on BOTS for the F&F Support features................

[fingers]

Funny how you just libelled the Daily Star on here!

Originally Posted by lippyzippy View Post
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.

[CaudleHalbard]

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.

[fingers]

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

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.

Most, if not all, will come to the same conclusion!