This forum has gone down the pan

12467

Comments

  • Andy BAndy B Posts: 15,151
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    hitchins wrote:
    Because members on this DISCUSSION forum start them, I suggest to people who think it is crap etc, to post threads they are interested in! Simple really! :rolleyes:
    Do you have a problem with me? :confused: :mad: Your attitude suggests that.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Andy B wrote:
    Do you have a problem with me? :confused: :mad:

    LOL no I just have problem with everyone harping on about the constant bitchy threads blah blah blah but there is absolutely nothing stopping other FM's starting up topics they find of interest. Chill. ;)
  • Andy BAndy B Posts: 15,151
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    windstone wrote:
    :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
    ??? .

    I really can't be bothered arguring with you lot :sleep:
  • The PrumeisterThe Prumeister Posts: 22,398
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Andy B wrote:
    Please stop the not-needed bitching about celebs, don't forget DS can be sued for comments said on here, thats why they lock threads and ban users.

    Yes there is free speech but use it wisely.



    Define what you mean by this. Are you saying that no celebrity should be criticised? Do you have only fond feelings for famous people and refuse to say negative things about them?
  • Andy BAndy B Posts: 15,151
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Define what you mean by this. Are you saying that no celebrity should be criticised? Do you have only fond feelings for famous people and refuse to say negative things about them?
    How I meant, is every time I visit there is always a thread mostly saying "I hate Jodie, Jordan is stupid" etc.. I admit I don't like Jodie Marsh but those kind of threads can get tiresome.
  • artlesschaosartlesschaos Posts: 11,345
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Andy - why have you come onto Showbiz to tell us you don't like our style...did you get scared on the Terri Hatcher thread? You rarely post here yet think it is okay to tell people how to post - do you not see how this might be construed as a bit presumptuous? A tad arrogant?

    If the big bad world of Showbiz scares you honey, may I suggest you go back to a thread in a forum far, far, away. :D
  • Andy BAndy B Posts: 15,151
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Andy - why have you come onto Showbiz to tell us you don't like our style...did you get scared on the Terri Hatcher thread? You rarely post here yet think it is okay to tell people how to post - do you not see how this might be construed as a bit presumptuous? A tad arrogant?

    If the big bad world of Showbiz scares you honey, may I suggest you go back to a thread in a forum far, far, away. :D
    I wish I never posted now. :( *walks off to another forum*
    Sorry if the comments seemed arrogant, Am I forgiven? :(:o
  • pairofpantspairofpants Posts: 7,098
    Forum Member
    Andy B wrote:
    WTF?
    I've seen some quite bitching and dispicable comments on Showbiz, somethings I'm not suprised when people get frequently banned. :confused: :rolleyes: :mad:

    Why are they so much threads about the same celebs with the same context?!!!!!!

    You proclaimed that DS could get sued for bitchy remarks, which was a truly bizarre comment - please clarify as I have explained the law of libel to you previously.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I like Jordan! :D
  • OuchthathurtOuchthathurt Posts: 2,102
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I would save your breath Pru. It looks like yet another example of sanctimonious, moral high ground verbalising to me. You get one coming out of the woodwork, you get the lot.

    But to answer your question. As I am beginning to understand this celebrity thing, I am starting to realise that once someone has attained the giddy heights of the bottom rung of the Daily Star, The Sun, the NOTW. CBB, CLI and OK magazine they then become 'aascended' to the point where it's sacrilege to say anything negative about them.

    We are all supposed to now worship at the altar of celebrity, where once we worshipped at the altar of religion.

    It used to be exactly as Karl Marx said:
    Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. ...

    Now you need to substitute 'religion' for 'celebrity' and the saying is no less true today.
    Celebrity is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. ...

    We've apparently become so empty of ambition for ourselves that we worship people just for becoming well known, no matter how they achieved it. What a sad world we live in.

    These celebrities are simply not worthy of that kind of worship. Discussion and slagging off yes. They're more than worthy of that because in essence they are no better and no worse than the rest of us poor mortals.
  • Andy BAndy B Posts: 15,151
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You proclaimed that DS could get sued for bitchy remarks, which was a truly bizarre comment - please clarify as I have explained the law of libel to you previously.
    Look, I've been on other forums where a TV presenter lawyer's nearly threatened legal action of what a member said/alleged about them. Isn't that the case here called Depletion of Character?

    I really don't wanna talk about this subject anymore.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Andy B wrote:
    Look, I've been on other forums where a TV presenter lawyer's nearly threatened legal action of what a member said/alleged about them. Isn't that the case here called Depletion of Character?

    I really don't wanna talk about this subject anymore.

    Depletion of character??? We are discussing what the lady (ahem) in question has said herself, and the award for depletion of character is on her mantlepiece!

    I know what you are saying but if you had followed things from the start you would see we are within our rights!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,673
    Forum Member
    Andy B wrote:

    I really don't wanna talk about this subject anymore.




    Best not to then. :)
  • OuchthathurtOuchthathurt Posts: 2,102
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Andy B wrote:
    Look, I've been on other forums where a TV presenter lawyer's nearly threatened legal action of what a member said/alleged about them. Isn't that the case here called Depletion of Character?

    I really don't wanna talk about this subject anymore.


    I've actually never heard that particular legal phrase. Defamation of Character, yes. Slander, libel and defamation have common origins, but they could be treated differently depending on the legal system used.

    In many legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory. Proving them to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel. For statements of opinion which can't be proven true or false some other kind of defense would need to be used.

    In some systems, however, truth alone is not a defense. It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures.

    English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

    A statement can include an implication. A large photograph of Tony Blair above a headline saying "Corrupt Politicians" might be held to be an allegation that Tony Blair was personally corrupt.

    The allowable defences against libel are:

    Justification: the defendant proves that the statement was true. If the defence fails, a court may treat any material produced by the defence to substantiate it, and any ensuing media coverage, as factors aggravating the libel and increasing the damages.

    Fair Comment: the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff.

    Privilege: the defendant's comments were made in Parliament or under oath in court of law or were an accurate and neutral report of such comments. There is also a defence of 'qualified privilege' under which people, who are not acting out of malice, may claim privilege for fair reporting of allegations which if true were in the public interest to be published. The leading modern English case on qualified privilege in the context of newspaper articles which are claimed to defame a public figure is now Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others

    I would say that most of the comments made on these forums come under the 'fair comment' section to be honest
  • charlie1charlie1 Posts: 10,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Andy, are you going to be opening up the chippie later? :)
  • Andy BAndy B Posts: 15,151
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    charlie1 wrote:
    Andy, are you going to be opening up the chippie later? :)
    I guess.. :D
  • charlie1charlie1 Posts: 10,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Andy B wrote:
    I guess.. :D


    Fantastic, I really fancy a nice big bag of cod and chips. :D
  • Andy BAndy B Posts: 15,151
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Open :)
    *leaves this thread* :p
    (BTW, Thanks Ouchthathurt for explaining th elibel laws)
  • macsgirlmacsgirl Posts: 847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm fed up of people joining threads and then moaning about them. If you don't like what's written there don't read them - it's that simple.
    For instance, Paris Hilton is non-existent on my personal radar. If I see a thread about her, I don't join it.

    Some people complain of other FM's being bitchy about a celeb and accuse them of being 'vitriolic' or 'poisonous', but when it comes to a celeb they dislike, their poison knows no bounds!

    I don't believe any celeb could say what was written here was libellous, as the mods whip anything off pretty quickly if it appears even vaguely controversial.
    Freedom of speech and thought has to be allowed, and to say 'Jodie/Jordan is a slapper' is an opinion, not libel.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Andy B wrote:
    How I meant, is every time I visit there is always a thread mostly saying "I hate Jodie, Jordan is stupid" etc.. I admit I don't like Jodie Marsh but those kind of threads can get tiresome.

    But surely this is the point of the showbiz forum, and yes they do get tiresome but it's like any other forum on here- in the soaps section you will always get people saying the exact same thing about Eastenders, Corrie etc. Whilst I agree Jordan and Jodie are boring, they are celebs and these two particuarly put themselves in the position to be criticised.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,104
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just a quick point on the law of libel. (A small but interesting one which didn't make it into Ouchetc.'s excellent summary above.)
    "Vulgar abuse" is NOT libel. Simply calling someone a couple of rude words is specifically excluded from libel.
    Just something I picked up when I was working at the BBC.
  • SystemSystem Posts: 2,096,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    A mate of mine was banned for calling a contestant on Deal Or No Deal a "fat tw*t" <-- he did use the asterix too.

    A bit harsh don't you think? :eek:

    I could understand it if he called another forum member that name but a guy on a gameshow?!?!?! :rolleyes:



    Hmmmm. I would think that a little odd. The current rule I believe is to be respectful to fellow forum members. If someone is on a gameshow I dont think they should be included. Of course they have a POTENTIAL to be forum members but so does everybody.

    On the other hand the balancing act has to be to stop this place decending into the 83,202,311 showbiz messageboards

    "She's pregnant"
    "He's gay"
    "He's porking his sister"
    etc etc etc

    But I think it would harm this place no end if negative views on television personalities (gameshow contestents included) was stamped out. If someone is fat, ugly, old etc then of course its all comparitive but if they are someone's opinions then they should be allowed.

    You can't sue an organisation because someone on their messageboard calls you a t*at. Same as you cant sue McDonalds if a customer accuses you of having bad hygiene while queueing up for a Big Mac.
  • SystemSystem Posts: 2,096,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    GKL206 wrote:
    Just a quick point on the law of libel. (A small but interesting one which didn't make it into Ouchetc.'s excellent summary above.)
    "Vulgar abuse" is NOT libel. Simply calling someone a couple of rude words is specifically excluded from libel.
    Just something I picked up when I was working at the BBC.


    Yes its common sense really. Which why it baffles me why so many Jodie Marsh threads are closed for "legal reasons" ;):D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 113
    Forum Member
    ho1975 wrote:
    When I first started browsing this forum last year I used to laugh out loud at a lot of the posts some FM contributed but within the space of 3 months all I seem to read now is nastiness to other FM and slagging off Jodie Marsh/Kerry Katona/Posh Spice.

    Is this because most of the good contributors have been banned? It is starting to become extremely repetitive and tedious reading. :yawn: :(

    Anyone agree?

    I agree I used to giggle a lot on these forums but the funnier the poster is the more likely they are to fall foul of the rules, which can be a bit harsh at times. There are also people coming on just to wind people up and get them banned
    :(
  • OuchthathurtOuchthathurt Posts: 2,102
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AaronG wrote:
    Yes its common sense really. Which why it baffles me why so many Jodie Marsh threads are closed for "legal reasons" ;):D

    Yeah, as someone with a Law degree it also baffles me. I think perhaps it's a case of shutting the stable door before the horse has bolted.
This discussion has been closed.