AVFCforever1991 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Why the long face, Dappy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 29, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 29, 2013 Why the concaved face, Dappy? Fixed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folski Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Have got the next 2 weeks off, then one week of work, then two more off, half 5 can't come quick enough. Not to mention a PS4 at home waiting for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 29, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 29, 2013 Catch you in the new year then Folski 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/29/russell-brand-rages-sun-rupert-Murdoch Whatever you think of Russel Brand, he nails it in this excellent article on Murdoch and The Sun. Cheered me up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/29/russell-brand-rages-sun-rupert-Murdoch Whatever you think of Russel Brand, he nails it in this excellent article on Murdoch and The Sun. Cheered me up. He does nail it. But. He's expecting a nation of largely un-wronged people to follow a cause that he only joined after being on the receiving end of The Sun's lies. As well written as it is, it kind of reads like retribution from a man who has been stung from the tabloids. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 29, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 29, 2013 Regardless of his motivation, if he's right and what he's saying is worth saying then fair play. Maybe it takes being wronged to provoke an attack on something that has, let's face it, been worth attacking for a long time now. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) Aren't there editorial laws to keep people like Murdoch from lying out of their arse anyway? (in theory) Edit: A quick wiki search reveals that there are, indeed, such laws. Not sure how effective they are. Edited November 30, 2013 by legov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 We know all this already, Mr Brand. Do something about it, and maybe then we'll take you seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 We know all this already, Mr Brand. Do something about it, and maybe then we'll take you seriously. What do you suggest (other than suing them, which he is already)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted November 30, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 30, 2013 Unless and until the UK amends its defamation law to make it markedly less plaintiff friendly, I have no choice but to root for Rupert.For shame, Guardian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Unless and until the UK amends its defamation law to make it markedly less plaintiff friendly, I have no choice but to root for Rupert. For shame, Guardian. What are you objecting to? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted November 30, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 30, 2013 For starters:The presumption of defamationThe requirement that the defendant prove the truth of the statement as opposed to requiring the plaintiff to prove it to be falseThe absence of a requirement that it be proven that the defendant knew it to be falseThe absence of a requirement that it be proven that the defendant published with intent to defameThe absence of something like Section 230 of the CDA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 We know all this already, Mr Brand. Do something about it, and maybe then we'll take you seriously. What do you suggest (other than suing them, which he is already)? Perhaps going on Strictly and expressing his anger towards the establishment through interpretative dance would be marginally more useful than spouting populist guff in a paper with better thinkers and writers who said it all already. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 For starters: The presumption of defamation The requirement that the defendant prove the truth of the statement as opposed to requiring the plaintiff to prove it to be false The absence of a requirement that it be proven that the defendant knew it to be false The absence of a requirement that it be proven that the defendant published with intent to defame The absence of something like Section 230 of the CDA The article isn't really about the defamation case at all, though. It's more about Newscorp, its vacuous celeb-centric news stories and its complicity with big capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) Perhaps going on Strictly and expressing his anger towards the establishment through interpretative dance would be marginally more useful than spouting populist guff in a paper with better thinkers and writers who said it all already. Calling it "populist guff" is a bit strange, I thought it was 100% true, and can't be said often enough. Brand actually seems to write pretty well anyway, so I don't think there's any need to worry about it having been said before. If anything, a sleb like RB will get more attention than some of the better thinkers and writers, especially if he writes as well as this. Still, getting the opportunity to observe RB getting his point across "through the medium of dance" is not to be sniffed at Edited November 30, 2013 by CrackpotForeigner 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) Troll Snow. Edited November 30, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 The Russell Brand article was great and the Sun have replied with 20 reasons that he is a hypocrite which would be interesting to read. No way am I signing up to Sun+. Not out of principal but everyone that signs up gets a free retro premier league club shirt. Villa not included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jon Posted December 1, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted December 1, 2013 Caption competition? Gandalf: i love Christmas. I can't think of a single improvement to this festive scene. Picard: Make it snow 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 The fact that you can prove with science that the rule i before e except after c, is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts