Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Legally Speaking, Where Does Ms "The High Society" Stand???

  • 04-12-2007 11:01pm
    #1
    IT Loser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭


    I mean, legally speaking, {as opposed to morally} is it simply a case of making a few outlandish claims without naming names and then walk to the bank laughing??? Should it be that easy, the nature of the "Coke Epidemic":( being what it is?? Is it enough to plead evidence, and then plead destruction of same when questions get asked???:confused::confused:


Comments

  • #2
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    IT Loser wrote: »
    I mean, legally speaking, {as opposed to morally} is it simply a case of making a few outlandish claims without naming names and then walk to the bank laughing??? Should it be that easy, the nature of the "Coke Epidemic":( being what it is?? Is it enough to plead evidence, and then plead destruction of same when questions get asked???:confused::confused:

    It's a kind of fiction I suppose. She may as well have said "The characters portraid in this programme are fictional and any resemblances to real people are merely coincidence.

    Put another way, she provides valuable entertainment and no one's reputation is damaged. Kinda like David McWilliams, oh wait...


  • #3
    IT Loser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭IT Loser


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    It's a kind of fiction I suppose. She may as well have said "The characters portraid in this programme are fictional and any resemblances to real people are merely coincidence.

    Put another way, she provides valuable entertainment and no one's reputation is damaged. Kinda like David McWilliams, oh wait...

    Or Paul Reynolds...or Paul Williams. Cutting Edge dudes that know less than your average Fingal Battalion 5 year old.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

    That said...could False Pretences apply here?? She took money....on the understanding that this was:

    1. True.

    2. Verifiably so.


  • #4
    Rhonda9000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 451 ✭✭Rhonda9000


    False pretences is now the offence of deception is it not? Tabloid newspapers spring to mind as a daily sensationalist machine with unverifiable and frequently false, incorrect or misleading information on every topic under the sun. I see predominantly defamation wrangling involving those - never proceedings for putting out into the public domain, some partially true to life concept.


  • #5
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    IT Loser wrote: »
    That said...could False Pretences apply here?? She took money....on the understanding that this was:

    1. True.

    2. Verifiably so.


    No, she took the money on the understanding that:

    1. It was good television.

    2. It was not verifiably untrue.


  • #6
    IT Loser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭IT Loser


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    No, she took the money on the understanding that:

    1. It was good television.

    2. It was not verifiably untrue.

    What was the basis for her book? That it was [A] an outrageous work of fiction, that it was a loose assessment of Irish Society, intended to be taken with a pinch of salt, or that it was [C] TRUE.

    "Friends" is good TV. Its also total bollox and doesn't pretend to be real.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    IT Loser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭IT Loser


    Rhonda9000 wrote: »
    False pretences is now the offence of deception is it not? Tabloid newspapers spring to mind as a daily sensationalist machine with unverifiable and frequently false, incorrect or misleading information on every topic under the sun. I see predominantly defamation wrangling involving those - never proceedings for putting out into the public domain, some partially true to life concept.[/QUOTE]

    I think this wench deliberately, a la certain Sunday World journos, took an atom of truth and padded it like all hell. Thats what I think.


  • #8
    Rhonda9000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 451 ✭✭Rhonda9000


    IT Loser wrote: »
    Rhonda9000 wrote: »
    False pretences is now the offence of deception is it not? Tabloid newspapers spring to mind as a daily sensationalist machine with unverifiable and frequently false, incorrect or misleading information on every topic under the sun. I see predominantly defamation wrangling involving those - never proceedings for putting out into the public domain, some partially true to life concept.[/QUOTE]

    I think this wench deliberately, a la certain Sunday World journos, took an atom of truth and padded it like all hell. Thats what I think.

    So do I IT, but legally speaking it's not deception.


Advertisement