goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Inappropriate Content
<ED: ONCE AGAIN: DO NOT FUCKING HINT AT THE NAME OF THE PERSON>
Last edited by a moderator:
BBC presenter Huw Edwards suspended over paying for sexual pics.
- Thread starter Calamity1971
- Start date
bimble
floofy
No they’re not, that’s just you quoting the DM, who spoke ‘exclusively’ to some windbag MP who doesn’t like lefty lawyers , we don’t know when.
Allegedly to ‘stop the speculation’. Seems a weird intervention though if no crime has been committed.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Sounds like nonsense.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
He may well have paid for photos, but that isn't necessarily illegal!
Paying for photos isn't illegal if it all happened after the person turned 18. It is hard to know what's gone on but it looks like maybe it was a bit off - a big age gap - but not illegal. And that the parents are trying to stretch the truth a bit to bring it in just under 18. Because they think this person took advantage. And The Sun a bit too keen to run the story without checking because of Murdochs hatred of the BBC.
bimble
floofy
They’re a calling a 20 year old a ‘ teen’ to push their faux concern. Twats.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
To make sure people remember they exist
What's your point?
Peter Tatchell rightly calling out the homophobic witch hunt that’s been going on.
www.thepinknews.com
There may or may not be one victim here, the anonymous 20 something year old.
But every dickhead on Twitter etc have created a lot more victims by throwing names around in baseless accusations.
BBC presenter speculation steeped in homophobia, says Peter Tatchell
Speculation around the BBC presenter sex scandal has echoes of past homophobic witch hunts, Peter Tatchell has said.
www.thepinknews.com
There may or may not be one victim here, the anonymous 20 something year old.
But every dickhead on Twitter etc have created a lot more victims by throwing names around in baseless accusations.
Could be doing it pro bono.
The precedent set and the publicity will pay off many times over in future privacy cases from celebs who can pay their rates.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
It will be no win no fee. Lots of these cases are fine like that.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
I doubt they will be billing anyone. It will be an investment for a share of any future massive pay out and publicly. They will have got a couple of very bright young things on decent pay and stupid hours to research and draft the letter and a partner on stupid money to check and sign it. All opportunity costs…
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
That's not 'no win, no fee' though is it.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
I don’t think there really is a single type of ‘No win no fee’ it’s just a lazy label that we apply to a whole range ( because lawyers love lots of complex and complicated different arrangements) of models.
But if the client doesn’t pay if they don’t win a settlement then the label seems a good fit to me. You can, of course, hold a different view if you want.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
As I understand it 'no win, no fee' involves a contract between the client and the law firm regarding claims where part of any recovery is retained by the law firm. This would not appear to be appicable in this case unless you are suggesting that the client is going to sue the sun or their parents?
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
It seems highly likely they'll sue the Sun if they have evidence that the paper was informed it was in error and published anyway. Absolute nailed-on payday if that's the case and highly tempting for any law firm to invest a bit of free time in - the brand recognition alone is worth it.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I've been away. Why is everyone talking about Valerie Singleton?
If nobody has been named then what can they sue for? What damages have occurred?
Also unlikely to sue if it means going through sleazy-but-legal activities in great detail in court for the delight of the reporting media.
Ms T
Honey-coloured ramparts
Privacy laws. There have been a couple of high-profile cases (Cliff Richard being one) where is has been ruled that until charged with a crime people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Even if it turns out to be true.
MrCurry
right after this urgent rest
Of course papers do get it wrong sometimes and lose lawsuits as a result, but generally they know exactly where the lines are drawn and make sure they don’t overstep and leave themselves liable.
Having said that, it would be awesome to see this particular dirt rag lose money.
I've just been quoted £1k from a small time family lawyer to send one single letter to my son's mother about custody so god knows how much this one cost.
And yes, the implication is that a 20yo with a drug problem would in no way be able to foot this bill by himself. Which is the point the parents are making. All very sketchy.
But I do get the point that they may have seen an opportunity to get their firm's name in the papers and described as one of London's law firms.
Similar threads
