Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

'Firearms incident' at Westminster


Teflon Don
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Pistonbroke

Maybe not, but they'd defo think racist England fans had just killed someone called Abu Izzadeen outside Parliament whilst singing songs about beating Germany in the war!

 

England didn't beat Germany in a War, an alliance of various forces did. Not that it stops the English fans singing that shit or you from trying to turn this discussion into something it isn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

England didn't beat Germany in a War, Soviet Blood,US money and grain and the Royal Navy supply ships did. Not that it stops the English fans singing that shit or you from trying to turn this discussion into something it isn't. 

 

 

Fixed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody has mentioned levels of guilt or wrongness.

Just that they're two very different acts. And that there's potentially an argument of damage to reputation to be falsely accused of one event even if you've been convicted of another event.

Can you lot even read properly?

Really well, plus excellent comprehension skills too. It's a requirement of 'selling gas'. Much like what ever it is you do must require your particular set of skills, no matter how hard you try and hide them from us. What is it again? I always feel at a disadvantage when I'm honest and others hide their lights under a bushel

 

But, hey, I'm sure the quick and rather sheepish backtracking by Channel 4 News was because they were just a little bit concerned that they'd hurt Abu's feelings.

Nothing to do with quickly dispensed legal advice, or shit like that. Cos some bloke who flogs gas knows better.

Chortle!

So you can't see the difference between correcting a mistake when new information comes to light and defamation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt channel 4 have backtracked and shit themselves at a possible defamation suit.

Its the typical shit of the press these days wanting to be first to break the news rather than have the facts straight

 

On the other hand he can go fuck himself with a defamation suit imo. 

He has been raising money for bomb makers and terrorists so is as bad as them and deserves to be characterised as such

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pistonbroke

There is no doubt channel 4 have backtracked and shit themselves at a possible defamation suit.

Its the typical shit of the press these days wanting to be first to break the news rather than have the facts straight

 

On the other hand he can go fuck himself with a defamation suit imo. 

He has been raising money for bomb makers and terrorists so is as bad as them and deserves to be characterised as such

 

I agree, the point is that if he can make a claim certain Lawyers will be crawling all over it. He wouldn't be the first cunt sentenced for a serious crime to make money due to the law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've mentioned my employment on here several times in the not too distant past.

I'm not hiding anything.

Thanks for proving my point that you can't read though, sweetheart. Or you might've been too busy to read my posts as you were going on about the muzzies. Again. Again.

You see the difference is I don't follow you around in here, do me the favour of letting me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt channel 4 have backtracked and shit themselves at a possible defamation suit.

 

There is zero chance that a defamation suit in this instance would be successful. Claimants have to prove serious harm has been caused to their reputation. So let's knock this nonsense on the head.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is zero chance that a defamation suit in this instance would be successful. Claimants have to prove serious harm has been caused to their reputation. So let's knock this nonsense on the head.

 

Good

Would you be surprised if they tried it though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt channel 4 have backtracked and shit themselves at a possible defamation suit.

Its the typical shit of the press these days wanting to be first to break the news rather than have the facts straight

 

On the other hand he can go fuck himself with a defamation suit imo. 

He has been raising money for bomb makers and terrorists so is as bad as them and deserves to be characterised as such

 

I can't see them getting much more than a ticking off from the press complaints committee given the very short time period. For the fella to sue he would need to demonstrate damage or loss which he can't . Possible he didn't even know about it in real time 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is zero chance that a defamation suit in this instance would be successful. Claimants have to prove serious harm has been caused to their reputation. So let's knock this nonsense on the head.

I wouldn't say zero chance. Previous bad reputation is not entirely fatal to a defamation claim.

 

Either way, it's quite extraordinary that Channel 4 went to air with their claims without being 100% sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say zero chance. Previous bad reputation is not entirely fatal to a defamation claim.

Either way, it's quite extraordinary that Channel 4 went to air with their claims without being 100% sure.

Sometimes it's wiser to stop digging, or try to dig up at least.

 

Come on, just be honest. Tell me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, surely their retraction would have the same effect an hour later? Why not just go with that again if they're farely certain they're on a safe legal footing?

Are you really being serious? I sure you can't be. It's impossible.

 

Tell you what would be interesting, I'm wondering if you repeating the 'libel' in your post earlier puts you in danger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea who the 'terrorists' were or what their motives are but,if its anything to do with the Middle East then the question becomes 'What do you think you can take away from people who have already lost everything?' The obvious answer is 'nothing' and the cycle of violence continues. Paris,London,New York,Zurich,Berlin,Tunisia,Madrid and on it goes. As SD alludes to,if populations keep voting for things like Brexit and Trump they will never get it and we must live our lives almost under siege as its always the innocent who suffer while the guilty shamelessly continue with the same things that make these attacks a certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...