You know PA is reading this and thinking 'Hey, it's not all bad. At least people are saying that I've got a large petard.'

Acorn (AKA the Cheggars) or Sky remote (AKA the Beiber) - either way Pa is a giant one.

You don't see even a hint of deliciously divine retribution in someone of whose life is one enormous publicity-generating machine being publicly denounced as a desperado who throws all integrity out of the window when the aforementioned publicity machine starts to falter?

It's Euripidean in its irony, it really is.

If that last one happens, forget the drinking game & lay me out with a sledgehammer

Can anyone give us an edited summary of what the heck it's all about? I did have a quick look at the link but I didn't recognise any of the names or the programmes referred to, and struggled to work out what happened or why anyone gave a toss....

Basically - allegedly - Pa's manager (Claire at CAN) was shagging Nev, (The N in CAN). They have a successful business selling Pa and his kids to the world as the World's Best Dad Wholoveshiskidsandwoulddieforthem, built after (according to the court) his showmance with KP on IACGMOOH.

So anyway - C@CAN and N@CAN fall out. She goes on hols with their son, Pa and his kids (who he is shilling) and various hangers-on (I think Amy Childs was one of them this trip) and C@CAN's new shag. N@CAN is v unhappy.

He kicks off all over twitter - I know, right? and she and Pa get him and his production company kicked off the tv shows he has created for pa. N@CAN lost millions or something. Pa and C@CAN lie in court that they were AFEARED FOR THEIR LIVES And WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN????? and the judge tells them he can (not CAN) see their pants burning.

Internet chortles joyously re the fact the judge re-iterated that Pa was more concerned over being seen as the "good guy" than actually being honest and BEING the good guy.

Lols.

You couldn't make it up! (OK, you could if you were PDuh ... on second thoughts, he's such a dim bulb that I think C@CAN made it up for him)

I love this post! Funniest thing I've read in ages


Well summed up, spot on lol!

LOLS certainly but it also finally explains Nev's twitter rage. Their lies cost him his living.

Thanks. I think. I'm still not sure what the case is though? Breach of contract, libel, unfair business practices? PA is a witness rather than a party? Either way, I'm astonished that it attracts such passions in some, I mean it's not exactly wiki leaks, or 12 angry (wo)men....

Breach of contract.

Read the verdict! He's not a witness, he's a fully participating member of the lying team! And no, of course it's not important in the scheme of things but it's still very satisfying to see his 'nice, humble' persona shown up for the joke it is.

Breach of contract.

I suppose N@CAN was quite right to have his passion raised, when it comes down to it, since he lost his livelihood went to Court and won.

Yes, is a tawdry tale but some participants are slightly more tawdry than others.

An unreliable witness according to the judge.. The trial summation makes for interesting reading.

And (back to Strictly) Jamie Dornan thought his trotty qs looked silly.

In a nutshell.

Peter on the front page tomorrow
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQ5tT4CWgAE_jDJ.jpg


and this lol
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQ586QJWwAAbnk7.png

So Stricty judge a liar? Which one??

Jamie Dornan was quite right...as always *sigh*

That picture does him no favours. He looks as if he should be in a cartoon, wearing a baggy raincoat and hanging round outside a school with a pocket full of sweeties.

He looks like he's looming menacingly at you at a height several inches below your eyeline.

He probably is.

Not the Strictly judge, the judge in the court case.

I am sure that we are all looking forward to him slithering down the leader board over the coming weeks.

His followers have certainly deserted his "Appreciation" thread, just 14 messages, even Iwan has 19, and he left last week.

Oddly, his fans don't really like to appreciate, they just don't want to allow others to unappreciate.

Oh yeah

The judge's summation wasn't based on whether it was plausible that PA did or did not feel threatened by N. The view that he was a lying, unsatisfactory witness was based on evidence that the alleged death threats did not take place, given that there were major discrepancies in the alleged timings, as proven by the email audit trail and details given by PA and C to others (including their solicitors) at the time that they were allegedly in fear for their lives. At one point PA alleges a conversation with N which could not have happened as N was out of the country. It appears that the evidence overwhelmingly contradicted PA's account of what happened.

The judge didn't merely give his opinion on how someone may or may have been feeling at a given time. Rather, he weighed up all of the available evidence and concluded that PA's testimony was a tissue of lies. You surely understand that the justice system is founded on more than the 'opinion' of one person.