John Leslie's gonna get ya

[Simster]

I'm sorry but I am a firm believer in 'no smoke without fire'.

That's my opinion & I am sticking by it.

Wozza is right. This is why it is considered that The Sun is worth 8% of the vote. They can publish lies and mistruths, get massive sales and swing voter opinion - and then print a minute apology about 6 months later when it doesn't matter anymore and perhaps be handed a meaningless fine.

It is very very easy to generate smoke without fire.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Few thoughts on the Leslie case. Firstly, he is going to win at least one libel case against Channel 5 and/or Matthew Wright, and quite possibly others against newspapers (notably the Standard) who repeated it. And he is going to win a lot of money from them for damage to reputation, probably seven figures.

'No smoke without fire' is a tricky one with regard to the erstwhile TV presenter. As the judge said, he has left the court 'without a stain on his character'. But I'd be willing to bet that Leslie's behaviour around women - if he was ever single again - would be very different to what it was before this blew up. Stories of his sexploits were legion in the media.

He was the sort of man that had women throwing themselves at him, clearly enjoyed it, and made the most of it. Many would say 'why not'? Maybe you could call it aggressive flirting. There is a grey area in legal terms between that, and something for which you could actually be prosecuted under sexual assault. Even though he isn't guilty of this offence, he will have learned a painful lesson about the boundaries.

And its probably for the best that the thread at the time is no longer generally accessible, even if anyone thought NSC was worth suing (which they wouldn't), much of it was highly libellous. However, the only organisations I can imagine ever wanting to sue this board would be the club, individuals working for it, and possibly Naylor if utter lies were put on here as fact rather than merely opinion, and even then they probably wouldn't bother.

 

[Wozza]

With regards to your final para, Tooting, I agree that no one has much to gain by suing a little ol' messageboard like NSC.

But there will be a test case one day - and I wouldn't want part of it!

Picture the scene where libellous accusations are made on a small messageboard. Only 50 people read it so no big deal. But then, over time, the untrue accusations start to spread onto other websites. Suddenly the public at large want to know more so they go to a search engine like Google and it brings up... cached pages of that little website with the original libellous comments. The owner of that site would be f***ed with a capital F.

 

[marvin]

Well they can sue me if they wish I own nothing of any value and would have no problem going bust owing them all their expensive lawyer bills.

However as the owner of the domain name Darren might hold a different view.

I am not disagreeing with your point BTW just saying I don't personally care, he's a crap presenter that has been taking the public for a ride for too long. I am secretly quite pleased he got a knock down now who's next Jo Brand? (Caught a little of a prog with her on it earlier, no one likes a sartarse, apparently, I'd have thought no one likes Jo Brand or no one can stand a palace fan would be better).