Silly bitch! Just being a loud-mouthed 'celeb' counts for nought in the courts.Tiddley little husband was nowhere to be seen of course.
I don't honestly class her comment/question as shooting her mouth off. And if you're found guilty and fined for basically who you marry then we should all be afraid. After all, there were hundreds, thousands of comments so why wasn't a class action brought? Is she guilty of the crime or persecuted for being a silly cow? If it's for being a silly cow with money then we should all be very afraid!said Pip
Silly Berk-Cow more like.Her tweets were widely read so she must have known how damaging they'd be.
Scrobs: I believe that the damages and costs add up to £100k. Is this the most expensive tweet ever written?Pip: She constantly craves attention for being what, exactly? She's certainly got the attention now!E-K: I don't know why she thought that she could ever get away with that tweet. Being married to The Speaker doesn't place you above the law.
She has 56,000 followers. This is why she was sued.
Well I still don't know what was so wrong about the tweet. She asked why the bloke was trending, what's so bad about that? In this case I think the law is an ass as you can't assume what people are thinking, you have to look at peoples actions and she asked a question. End of. Or it should have been IMHO. She shouldn't be found hauled up in court simply for being disliked. What if you disliked me? What if we disliked you yet all you'd done is ask a simple question? Scary times.Rich man sues woman. Rich man wins.Our heritage wasn't about this.Said Pip
They came for the blonde attention seekers and I cheered.They came for the unemployed and I cheered.They came for the poor and I cheered.They came for the immigrants and I cheered.They came for the jews and I cheered.They came for me and there was no-one left to cheer.
Pip: There have been rumours about who has been involved in such activities for years. She choose to draw her followers' (and what a sorry bunch they must be) attention to the latest lot of rumours. In doing so, she was setting out to damage the reputation of man who had no choice but to sue.Anonymous: The law concerning libel and slander haven't changed much over the years but the way we can broadcast our views have. Anyone can now libel anyone else in a few seconds via their mobile phone.This serves as a lesson to us all. Never Tweet with an empty head...
...and by phrasing it as a question she probably thought she was legally immune.
Post a Comment