Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Laurence Fox. The twat.

Because he's litigious, the use of allegedly is a necessity.

But, although it won't suffice for the offences he has allegedly committed, it will be relatively pleasing to be able to refer to him as a particular kind of wrong un. If he gets what he deserves.
Agreed, allegedly is appropriate. His defence might be that other individuals were accessing his social media etc. Of course, highly unlikely, but possible etc.
 
Because he's litigious, the use of allegedly is a necessity.

But, although it won't suffice for the offences he has allegedly committed, it will be relatively pleasing to be able to refer to him as a particular kind of wrong un. If he gets what he deserves.
To use your weird logic, that would surely be ‘if he gets what he allegedly deserves’?
 
Seems that picture was removed from most of the net when the revenge porn law came in to force, yet he dug it out of somewhere and posted it precisely to harass, cause alarm and distress. It's open and shut. When the Met come-a-knocking will he have any devices left for them to take this time..?
 
Adding 'allegedly' isn't always a defence btw as I understand it. From stackexchange:
If Bob publicly says "Rob killed Alice", Rob could sue (and win) Bob for defamation — unless Rob gets convicted for that crime.

But if Bob instead says "Rob allegedly killed Alice" then Rob would have no defamation case — at least so long as Rob has been charged with that crime. This is how the media reports ongoing criminal cases.
and someone apparently needs to have said it before - so they've already alleged it.

Looks like not in this case though :)
 
Adding 'allegedly' isn't always a defence btw as I understand it. From stackexchange:

and someone apparently needs to have said it before - so they've already alleged it.

Looks like not in this case though :)
Allegedly is surely unnecessary when the proof is (or was) was up there for all to see?
 
Could well do him more damage than alot of his previous tbh. It's one thing to say "all's fair when targeting the enemy" and another entirely to turn on/bully your own. Even the biggest scumbag grifter will think twice about bringing him in if discretion towards his own side can't be relied on.
 
Could well do him more damage than alot of his previous tbh. It's one thing to say "all's fair when targeting the enemy" and another entirely to turn on/bully your own. Even the biggest scumbag grifter will think twice about bringing him in if discretion towards his own side can't be relied on.
Yep, could have properly cooked his goose, this time.
 
He’s now having a pop at voters being too stupid to fill in forms to get voter IDs, which is rich from him, considering his inability to fill in his application to run for mayor

He was still, sadly, on a ballot today (the party list Assembly one).

Sorry if this has already been said but I was a bit shocked when I saw it.
 
Surely he's blown that one by not immediately taking it down and apologising.

I suppose this all depends on where the image has come from (not having seen it myself) - if its an image taken by him, he is in serious trouble. If its come from elsewhere it will depend on where its come from - a private image that someone has shared with him would tend to be more serious than one that is on the interwebs already, I think.
 
I suppose this all depends on where the image has come from (not having seen it myself) - if its an image taken by him, he is in serious trouble. If its come from elsewhere it will depend on where its come from - a private image that someone has shared with him would tend to be more serious than one that is on the interwebs already, I think.

Well I just meant in terms of 'it was someone else hacked my account' as a getout really. Can't really pull that off once you've spent the day doubling down can you.
 
I suppose this all depends on where the image has come from (not having seen it myself) - if its an image taken by him, he is in serious trouble. If its come from elsewhere it will depend on where its come from - a private image that someone has shared with him would tend to be more serious than one that is on the interwebs already, I think.
Does the relevant law cater for such nuance?

e2a: I mean, from the victim's perspective, it doesn't really matter where the image is from, does it? The damage is the same, whatever.
 
I suppose this all depends on where the image has come from (not having seen it myself) - if its an image taken by him, he is in serious trouble. If its come from elsewhere it will depend on where its come from - a private image that someone has shared with him would tend to be more serious than one that is on the interwebs already, I think.
Surely the size and reach of his platform comes into consideration. I'm guessing that this was a pic somewhere out there in an obscure corner of the internet; he's actively pushed it straight to his not insubstantial number of followers (and that is a lot, of both pro and anti Fox), and the resultant back and forth of the condemnation and justification amplifies the whole story.

Looked at from the victim's point of view, the harm done is not dependent on where it originated, but the size of Fox's audience.
 
I suppose this all depends on where the image has come from (not having seen it myself) - if its an image taken by him, he is in serious trouble. If its come from elsewhere it will depend on where its come from - a private image that someone has shared with him would tend to be more serious than one that is on the interwebs already, I think.
Someone in the replies to the victim said that this is not the first time they'd seen the image which to me at least implies it came from elsewhere.
 
Back
Top Bottom