kimhollamby
Active member
Re: That Solicitors Letter!
Only £900 per hour? Yet another bargain revealed by these forums.
Only £900 per hour? Yet another bargain revealed by these forums.
Phantom Phantom 42
- Thread starter petem
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Drinks on Kim then! (nm)
.
.
petem
Well-known member
After sifting through the best part of 50 MBM and MBY's I found the answer to my own question. Phantoms DO GET STOLEN, see September 99 MBM. Can't make out if a 38 or a 42, Kim/JFM can you? Boat was called Bombay Sapphire and stolen in Jersey.
This boat was obviously recovered and has no doubt been put back together after the £50k worth of damage to the stern gear and hull. It's maybe even as good as it was before the theft.
I'm not saying that this boat is at all related to the one that Chris was looking at but I wonder if when Bombay Sapphire is sold on that the owner would advertise the fact that it had been badly damaged. He may even wish to hide the fact!
Now should Chris advertise the name of the boat he was looking at buying. Normally I'm with Matt but feel a bit uncomfortable about this one. I have no reason to doubt Chriss's integrity but most of what he said is uncorroborated. We were quick enough to slate what-a-rip-off for being one sided.
As Kim says, anyone who reads all the posts would be able to spot the boat a mile off. I'm also sure that Chris would be happy to supply the name on a more discreet basis.
This boat was obviously recovered and has no doubt been put back together after the £50k worth of damage to the stern gear and hull. It's maybe even as good as it was before the theft.
I'm not saying that this boat is at all related to the one that Chris was looking at but I wonder if when Bombay Sapphire is sold on that the owner would advertise the fact that it had been badly damaged. He may even wish to hide the fact!
Now should Chris advertise the name of the boat he was looking at buying. Normally I'm with Matt but feel a bit uncomfortable about this one. I have no reason to doubt Chriss's integrity but most of what he said is uncorroborated. We were quick enough to slate what-a-rip-off for being one sided.
As Kim says, anyone who reads all the posts would be able to spot the boat a mile off. I'm also sure that Chris would be happy to supply the name on a more discreet basis.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Don\'t publish and be a wimp
I still don't see how saying "xyz boat has mashed HIN's as reported by a surveyor" (and why need it be corroborated?) is in the least bit libellous or risks anything, still less from Mr Driven Off In Boat. Even so ipc oftentimes report fact and indeed (ooer risky) opinion of products/boats. Braver car mags appraise individual cars for sale, saying they are "rubbish" or otherwise. At least a year ago, one of the boat mags said it wouldn't be too critical of manufacturers "because they're often small family companies". Isn't it more likely...that they have a legal department?
Oh and RicardC will NOT release the name of the boat, nor will IPC be publishing it. Yet isn't this what a publication should do - publish stuff in the public interest? Frit!
this month: The latest Fairline/Sunseeker/Sealine/other stuff is a highly practical [cut paste press release here] and here are some pictures of bloke with clipboard which make it seem like we actually found it out ourselves after very rigourous test instead of being scared of the manufacturers'. Which we are. Aargh I mean the manufacturers'. Oh heck another apostrophe court case looms...
Breaking news: Several cars in the IPC car park were broken into today and had lots of stuff stolen. One person saw the whole event, and reports that a gang with stockings over their head and big bags drove off in a dark blue BMW M535. However, after consultation with IPC staff, it was agreed that the thieves might get a bit nasty or even write a solictors letter, so they all kept quiet and decided that it will probably be best not to tell anyone the registration number.
Seriously, I have informed Squadron Yachts in Mallorca of this thread and of strange non-HIN bearing P42 in their waters. They're nice people, see? And if they did do work for the "owner", they don't demand payment right that instant, so they almost certinaly won't get paid. I imagine they don't have weird sales terms in the small print either, and a lien ain't worth a fig if it ain't the "owners" boat is it? No. I invited RichardC to email the boatname to them but even less likely that to tellem the name of his company. Is it A.H.A GOTCHA Ltd, per chance?
Here's an idea for MBM/MBY. You know that page of corrections to charts in the mags that nobody reads? How about a page of stolen boats info now and again instead? okay, as reported by lloyds or whatever? Hmm?
I still don't see how saying "xyz boat has mashed HIN's as reported by a surveyor" (and why need it be corroborated?) is in the least bit libellous or risks anything, still less from Mr Driven Off In Boat. Even so ipc oftentimes report fact and indeed (ooer risky) opinion of products/boats. Braver car mags appraise individual cars for sale, saying they are "rubbish" or otherwise. At least a year ago, one of the boat mags said it wouldn't be too critical of manufacturers "because they're often small family companies". Isn't it more likely...that they have a legal department?
Oh and RicardC will NOT release the name of the boat, nor will IPC be publishing it. Yet isn't this what a publication should do - publish stuff in the public interest? Frit!
this month: The latest Fairline/Sunseeker/Sealine/other stuff is a highly practical [cut paste press release here] and here are some pictures of bloke with clipboard which make it seem like we actually found it out ourselves after very rigourous test instead of being scared of the manufacturers'. Which we are. Aargh I mean the manufacturers'. Oh heck another apostrophe court case looms...
Breaking news: Several cars in the IPC car park were broken into today and had lots of stuff stolen. One person saw the whole event, and reports that a gang with stockings over their head and big bags drove off in a dark blue BMW M535. However, after consultation with IPC staff, it was agreed that the thieves might get a bit nasty or even write a solictors letter, so they all kept quiet and decided that it will probably be best not to tell anyone the registration number.
Seriously, I have informed Squadron Yachts in Mallorca of this thread and of strange non-HIN bearing P42 in their waters. They're nice people, see? And if they did do work for the "owner", they don't demand payment right that instant, so they almost certinaly won't get paid. I imagine they don't have weird sales terms in the small print either, and a lien ain't worth a fig if it ain't the "owners" boat is it? No. I invited RichardC to email the boatname to them but even less likely that to tellem the name of his company. Is it A.H.A GOTCHA Ltd, per chance?
Here's an idea for MBM/MBY. You know that page of corrections to charts in the mags that nobody reads? How about a page of stolen boats info now and again instead? okay, as reported by lloyds or whatever? Hmm?
petem
Well-known member
How do we (or Kim or IPC) know he isn't someone with a grudge who's making the whole thing up? Maybe he's trying to rubbbish the boat to beat the owner down by another £10k (surprised that didn't occur to you first).
Besides, it would be a pretty nauseating if we all agreed with you all the time!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by petem on Thu Dec 6 22:05:48 2001 (server time).</FONT></P>
Besides, it would be a pretty nauseating if we all agreed with you all the time!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by petem on Thu Dec 6 22:05:48 2001 (server time).</FONT></P>
jfm
Well-known member
Re: libel law, Bombay
Bombay Sapphire was a P42, 1998 model. It was white hull, not blue like the one RichardC looked at in mallorca. (The MBM pics only showed it from stern so this was hard to see). Actually, RichardC and I had a private email exchange about Bombay when he was looking at another P42 6months ago, and I warned him to check whether the one he was offered was ex-Bombay (I can't remeber, but we had some reason to suspect). I think it turned out that the one he was looking at was not Bombay, but he didn't go ahead with the purchase in any case.
Re libel, this is the internet and info travels. There's nothing wrong with RichardC making a post to say "I went to see P42 named XXX in Mallorca".
And if he were more elaborate than that there's still no problem. If the boat is dodgy, the owner has no case. If the boat is 110% pukka, the owner can explain to any subsequent purchaser why it has a plywood panel where the serial # should be and he will suffer no loss as a result of RichardC's post, therefore no case (libel is not an offence per se, it is only actionable if the libelled person has suffered £££ loss as a result).
That's all IMHO - though I do practise law at, funnily enough, almost exactly aforementioned price
Bombay Sapphire was a P42, 1998 model. It was white hull, not blue like the one RichardC looked at in mallorca. (The MBM pics only showed it from stern so this was hard to see). Actually, RichardC and I had a private email exchange about Bombay when he was looking at another P42 6months ago, and I warned him to check whether the one he was offered was ex-Bombay (I can't remeber, but we had some reason to suspect). I think it turned out that the one he was looking at was not Bombay, but he didn't go ahead with the purchase in any case.
Re libel, this is the internet and info travels. There's nothing wrong with RichardC making a post to say "I went to see P42 named XXX in Mallorca".
And if he were more elaborate than that there's still no problem. If the boat is dodgy, the owner has no case. If the boat is 110% pukka, the owner can explain to any subsequent purchaser why it has a plywood panel where the serial # should be and he will suffer no loss as a result of RichardC's post, therefore no case (libel is not an offence per se, it is only actionable if the libelled person has suffered £££ loss as a result).
That's all IMHO - though I do practise law at, funnily enough, almost exactly aforementioned price
G
Guest
Guest
Re: thought of that..
Early on in his series of posting I diod wonder if he was the owner, blathering on bout what an ace deal, then pulling out, then someone else jumps in. But he'd have named the boat wouldn't he? Same with your idea too.
I can't possibly see how on earth anyone wd agree with me all the time. I change my mind too often, and as soon as I find too many people agreeing, I change sides. Awkward yorkshire type see? I can't help it...
Early on in his series of posting I diod wonder if he was the owner, blathering on bout what an ace deal, then pulling out, then someone else jumps in. But he'd have named the boat wouldn't he? Same with your idea too.
I can't possibly see how on earth anyone wd agree with me all the time. I change my mind too often, and as soon as I find too many people agreeing, I change sides. Awkward yorkshire type see? I can't help it...
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Dramatic Final Courtroom Scene!
So at the final moment, jfm has rushed in ( wearing raincoat) with vital info regarding total lack of chance of succes by dastardly powertool-wielding "owner" in med island. RichardC realises mistaken assumptions, names the boat, and even considers changing his weird sales terms, realising most people are quite nice. Matts, about to get severe duffing from judge KimH is exonerated. Everyone smiles and breathes sigh of relief.
During credits, Jfm presents invoice wrapped in xmas card to matts who drops dead reliasing its for 4million quid as the 900 quid per hour is "or part thereof" and all the few seconds here and there are rounded up to the nearest hour. All laugh. Is this the happy ending?...
So at the final moment, jfm has rushed in ( wearing raincoat) with vital info regarding total lack of chance of succes by dastardly powertool-wielding "owner" in med island. RichardC realises mistaken assumptions, names the boat, and even considers changing his weird sales terms, realising most people are quite nice. Matts, about to get severe duffing from judge KimH is exonerated. Everyone smiles and breathes sigh of relief.
During credits, Jfm presents invoice wrapped in xmas card to matts who drops dead reliasing its for 4million quid as the 900 quid per hour is "or part thereof" and all the few seconds here and there are rounded up to the nearest hour. All laugh. Is this the happy ending?...
boatone
Well-known member
Re: Yawn...yawn....yawn...
If it is.......the ending that is..........i'm happy......
TonyR
boatone@boatsontheweb.com
If it is.......the ending that is..........i'm happy......
TonyR
boatone@boatsontheweb.com
petem
Well-known member
Re: libel law, Bombay
Are you sure, even from a distance you can deffo see blue hull (and blue antifoul and covers)?
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by petem on Thu Dec 6 23:02:29 2001 (server time).</FONT></P>
Are you sure, even from a distance you can deffo see blue hull (and blue antifoul and covers)?
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by petem on Thu Dec 6 23:02:29 2001 (server time).</FONT></P>
jfm
Well-known member
Re: blue or white Bombay
Look really hard. It's in shadow and looks blue at first, but you can see it's white on the starboard side. I do not have the mag anymore, working from memory, but can you see the curved bits where the sides come round to the transom, aren't they white? Sorry if I'm wrong, using dodgy memory only
Look really hard. It's in shadow and looks blue at first, but you can see it's white on the starboard side. I do not have the mag anymore, working from memory, but can you see the curved bits where the sides come round to the transom, aren't they white? Sorry if I'm wrong, using dodgy memory only
jfm
Well-known member
Re: Sorry bout the Dramatic Final Courtroom Scene!
Yes sorry it's late, been out all day and only just looked at forum. Fully accept that this is poor behaviour, almost as poor as the legal advice itself. Bill reduced 10% as token of remorse on my part.
Talking of which, spent an hour with Beckham/Ferguson's lawyer today, fine chap. Nuvver fred. (tomorrow, goin to bed, knackered)
Yes sorry it's late, been out all day and only just looked at forum. Fully accept that this is poor behaviour, almost as poor as the legal advice itself. Bill reduced 10% as token of remorse on my part.
Talking of which, spent an hour with Beckham/Ferguson's lawyer today, fine chap. Nuvver fred. (tomorrow, goin to bed, knackered)
G
Guest
Guest
Re: More Flames!
I'm now quite pleased that I'm not a forum junkie spending half my life replying to posts here. Normally just once at the end of the day is quite enough.
Perhaps somebody will count up the number of posts that this Phantom 42 has generated in the different threads: I suspect that it might take some kind of prize for the largest number of postings. Of course some have drifted from the subject and some have degenerated into rather more personal attacks. I could enjoy replying in kind but I'll resist that temptation; it could go on and on and I'm getting a bit bored with it. I've got better things to do with my time.
I must comment that some of the posts (again I'll not name names here matts!) have rather embroidered the background and I think it's sad that when someone is looking for their first boat at £150,000+, it's suggested that it's a really cheap one. From reading other threads and posts, I believe that many people posting here have spent much less on their boats. OK so some people can afford/want to spend far more than that but there's no need to try and belittle others of more modest ambitions.
Most of the comments that I've had have been very helpful, I've learnt a lot about boats. Even the other comments not about boats have taught me something about boaters - it takes all sorts to make a world.
I'm now quite pleased that I'm not a forum junkie spending half my life replying to posts here. Normally just once at the end of the day is quite enough.
Perhaps somebody will count up the number of posts that this Phantom 42 has generated in the different threads: I suspect that it might take some kind of prize for the largest number of postings. Of course some have drifted from the subject and some have degenerated into rather more personal attacks. I could enjoy replying in kind but I'll resist that temptation; it could go on and on and I'm getting a bit bored with it. I've got better things to do with my time.
I must comment that some of the posts (again I'll not name names here matts!) have rather embroidered the background and I think it's sad that when someone is looking for their first boat at £150,000+, it's suggested that it's a really cheap one. From reading other threads and posts, I believe that many people posting here have spent much less on their boats. OK so some people can afford/want to spend far more than that but there's no need to try and belittle others of more modest ambitions.
Most of the comments that I've had have been very helpful, I've learnt a lot about boats. Even the other comments not about boats have taught me something about boaters - it takes all sorts to make a world.
kimhollamby
Active member
Alternative final courtroom scene
Kim cannot stand it any longer, being a chap short of stature and therefore short of temper occasionally. He jumps to his feet from the gallery, shouts at most esteemed £900/hr lawyer asking on what grounds he can suggest "Re libel, this is the internet and info travels. There's nothing wrong with RichardC making a post to say "I went to see P42 named XXX in Mallorca"." without allowing for the fact that "I travelled to X" is not the point but identifying X as a possible problem boat with statements of absolute fact muddled with subjective opinion and a lack of evidence to be able to back up plywood floor and other ascertions.
Then he takes a much needed breath, anguished that anyone can effectively suggest that the internet is neutral territory as far as libel and slander is concerned, but then turns and faces Matt.
"And you sir, fail to see the reason I asked you to back off, namely that your attacks were getting unnecessarily personal against a forum user and that your request was immaterial given the airing of the subject and that, in saying IPC and others wouldn't hesitate to name names in other circumstances misses the point that of course we would do so if we were comfortable with the facts, not least perhaps because we knew there was evidence to back all the things that were being published."
Then he takes another much needed breath, having completely forgotten to punctuate his excited words in the...um...excitement. As his shoulders lift to draw oxygen for one last effort he turns and stares into the middle distance, addressing the whole court and says:
Richard C could of course make a statement but I've asked him not to, so please leave him alone, or at least stop implying that he wears a Q flag ion his ensign staff. IPC could of course make a statement but I'd like evidence in my hand on this occasion please, including a photograph or surveyor's report of said plywood panel and a definite investigation that the internal HIN has been removed or disguised. And in any case, what is the point because who in their right mind is now going to buy a P42, or anything else for that matter, without checking history. What is a boat name anyway; the way our lousy registration system works it could be changed tomorrow, so the only thing worth quoting is the HIN number and..."
At this point, Judge Haydn has heard enough and commands in a booming voice: "take Hollamby down for contempt of court" and, looking Kim in the eye he follows up with a devastating "and you can take those things out from behind your ears too!"
Kim is subsequently locked up one night for contempt but has to serve another 4 years and 364 days for the ear decoration.
Kim cannot stand it any longer, being a chap short of stature and therefore short of temper occasionally. He jumps to his feet from the gallery, shouts at most esteemed £900/hr lawyer asking on what grounds he can suggest "Re libel, this is the internet and info travels. There's nothing wrong with RichardC making a post to say "I went to see P42 named XXX in Mallorca"." without allowing for the fact that "I travelled to X" is not the point but identifying X as a possible problem boat with statements of absolute fact muddled with subjective opinion and a lack of evidence to be able to back up plywood floor and other ascertions.
Then he takes a much needed breath, anguished that anyone can effectively suggest that the internet is neutral territory as far as libel and slander is concerned, but then turns and faces Matt.
"And you sir, fail to see the reason I asked you to back off, namely that your attacks were getting unnecessarily personal against a forum user and that your request was immaterial given the airing of the subject and that, in saying IPC and others wouldn't hesitate to name names in other circumstances misses the point that of course we would do so if we were comfortable with the facts, not least perhaps because we knew there was evidence to back all the things that were being published."
Then he takes another much needed breath, having completely forgotten to punctuate his excited words in the...um...excitement. As his shoulders lift to draw oxygen for one last effort he turns and stares into the middle distance, addressing the whole court and says:
Richard C could of course make a statement but I've asked him not to, so please leave him alone, or at least stop implying that he wears a Q flag ion his ensign staff. IPC could of course make a statement but I'd like evidence in my hand on this occasion please, including a photograph or surveyor's report of said plywood panel and a definite investigation that the internal HIN has been removed or disguised. And in any case, what is the point because who in their right mind is now going to buy a P42, or anything else for that matter, without checking history. What is a boat name anyway; the way our lousy registration system works it could be changed tomorrow, so the only thing worth quoting is the HIN number and..."
At this point, Judge Haydn has heard enough and commands in a booming voice: "take Hollamby down for contempt of court" and, looking Kim in the eye he follows up with a devastating "and you can take those things out from behind your ears too!"
Kim is subsequently locked up one night for contempt but has to serve another 4 years and 364 days for the ear decoration.
zefender
Active member
Re: See you in court!
Whilst you have been concentrating on this thread Kim, I regret to inform you that your eye has been taken off the ball viz law of contract.
Top left of my screen there's an ad for best thread and Raytheon prize thing. Click it and firm details of an offer are made - is it still a real competition or is it just taking the P42? I think we should be told...
Whilst you have been concentrating on this thread Kim, I regret to inform you that your eye has been taken off the ball viz law of contract.
Top left of my screen there's an ad for best thread and Raytheon prize thing. Click it and firm details of an offer are made - is it still a real competition or is it just taking the P42? I think we should be told...
G
Guest
Guest
Re: epilogue, libel, sorry Richard
So Matt (already £3.6million down in legal fees) says just a minute: What is subjective about repeating a survey report? Seems quite objective to me, exactly what a real court wd do to test tyrekicking opiniion against actual objective fact. Note that it would be for the owner (plaintiff, he's bringing the case) to prove a) facts wrong (yet there was plywood etc) and b)a loss because of fact wrong.
Further, if we did say (frexample) "I used to own the badly-named Illiuonsti and the engine blew twice" or "I inspected Illisonstu, and the genny was seized and the HIN's rubbed off and theowner seemed a bit of a strange bloke"....where's the loss? Note that the owner CANNOT say that the info published thwarted a sale hence a loss...because he still has the boat, worth £150k (instead of £150k cash) so there's no loss.
Much more dodgy to turn up with that ear decoration at a party, KH cos that might (would) ruin the reputation of a starlet hence only worth £1m per crappo movie instead of £20m, likely to make 10 movies so £190million to the lady in the red dress. ...
...thort you were judge, so no speech requirement, just a big gavel? Maybe time for Gavel-bashing to close the case? Hm? ... ooh look you've smashed the valuable keyboard, now £191million...
Re: RichardC - didn't mean to get too personal. A bad case of altruism came over me. Difficult situation, you ask for opinions, we all pitch in, then drift off, Kim carries can. However, since he is so skint now, praps it doesn't matter. Happy boat-hunting.
So Matt (already £3.6million down in legal fees) says just a minute: What is subjective about repeating a survey report? Seems quite objective to me, exactly what a real court wd do to test tyrekicking opiniion against actual objective fact. Note that it would be for the owner (plaintiff, he's bringing the case) to prove a) facts wrong (yet there was plywood etc) and b)a loss because of fact wrong.
Further, if we did say (frexample) "I used to own the badly-named Illiuonsti and the engine blew twice" or "I inspected Illisonstu, and the genny was seized and the HIN's rubbed off and theowner seemed a bit of a strange bloke"....where's the loss? Note that the owner CANNOT say that the info published thwarted a sale hence a loss...because he still has the boat, worth £150k (instead of £150k cash) so there's no loss.
Much more dodgy to turn up with that ear decoration at a party, KH cos that might (would) ruin the reputation of a starlet hence only worth £1m per crappo movie instead of £20m, likely to make 10 movies so £190million to the lady in the red dress. ...
...thort you were judge, so no speech requirement, just a big gavel? Maybe time for Gavel-bashing to close the case? Hm? ... ooh look you've smashed the valuable keyboard, now £191million...
Re: RichardC - didn't mean to get too personal. A bad case of altruism came over me. Difficult situation, you ask for opinions, we all pitch in, then drift off, Kim carries can. However, since he is so skint now, praps it doesn't matter. Happy boat-hunting.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Eh?
You post questions, on a BB, but when we answer them we're "wasting time". Duh!
You give a model of a boat, and asking price, and now say that it's "sad" when someone remarks that it is "too cheap". It is, against the market. Doesn't mean you're "cheap" . Some other have spent twice that though. If it was something else, then it might be fabulously expensive and diamond encrusted. Did you really want us to say "ooh gosh how very very lucky you are RichardC wow it is wonderful how very astute?". I saw no attempt to "belittle" your ambitions. Don't be so precious.
And what better things could there be (since end of season) than if not on boat - talking bout boats. Eh? After all, you want one too. But not many wd (actually) waste so much time cogitating over strange one -several weeks since "walk away" posts were made.
Good luck.
You post questions, on a BB, but when we answer them we're "wasting time". Duh!
You give a model of a boat, and asking price, and now say that it's "sad" when someone remarks that it is "too cheap". It is, against the market. Doesn't mean you're "cheap" . Some other have spent twice that though. If it was something else, then it might be fabulously expensive and diamond encrusted. Did you really want us to say "ooh gosh how very very lucky you are RichardC wow it is wonderful how very astute?". I saw no attempt to "belittle" your ambitions. Don't be so precious.
And what better things could there be (since end of season) than if not on boat - talking bout boats. Eh? After all, you want one too. But not many wd (actually) waste so much time cogitating over strange one -several weeks since "walk away" posts were made.
Good luck.
zefender
Active member
Re: Flaming Christmas
Ding dong merrily on high ....la la la la lal la la
Ding dong merrily on high ....la la la la lal la la
jfm
Well-known member
Re: Legals and Bakewell tarts
Re the question KH asked when jumped to his feet in first paragraph, about my statement "This is internet and info travels".
What I mean is that on the internet and BBs in particular it is a clear fact that opinions and statements fly around all over the place, substantiated and unsubstantiated. This is fine, but it does de-value the opinions and statements. So if someone sues RichardC or anyone else for saying there was a dodgy HIN, the defence inter alia (quite apart from the defence that statements were true) is that it was just a BB somewhere on www which is like blokes and gals chatting in a pub and everything is in effect qualified by "AFAIK" and opinions given are just chat and alleged facts are obviously prone to error and few peeps wd take these things seriously without doing more digging etc etc. So, Mr plaintiff Spanish chap, even if your P42 did have a proper HIN in the wardrobe instead of plywood, you suffered no £££ loss from this BB banter because it was just banter. OK, if the plywood floor story had been run in the leader column of the Times it would have been a different story, but this is a BB and everyone knows it contains banter and personal views and incorrect (not maliciously so) facts, that's the idea.
Also you say "I travelled to Mallorca...." is tantamount to identifying the boat as the dodgy one. To get £££ payout in libel the plaintiff has to do better than that, eg Sun headlines " 'I shagged the Prime Minister' says girl from Bakewell" get away with it because of the quotation marks even though the substance is clear enough
On the other hand maybe you need Financial Services Act regulation re allowing Byron to tip BA shares? Damned fine advice it turned out to be too! ;-))
Re the question KH asked when jumped to his feet in first paragraph, about my statement "This is internet and info travels".
What I mean is that on the internet and BBs in particular it is a clear fact that opinions and statements fly around all over the place, substantiated and unsubstantiated. This is fine, but it does de-value the opinions and statements. So if someone sues RichardC or anyone else for saying there was a dodgy HIN, the defence inter alia (quite apart from the defence that statements were true) is that it was just a BB somewhere on www which is like blokes and gals chatting in a pub and everything is in effect qualified by "AFAIK" and opinions given are just chat and alleged facts are obviously prone to error and few peeps wd take these things seriously without doing more digging etc etc. So, Mr plaintiff Spanish chap, even if your P42 did have a proper HIN in the wardrobe instead of plywood, you suffered no £££ loss from this BB banter because it was just banter. OK, if the plywood floor story had been run in the leader column of the Times it would have been a different story, but this is a BB and everyone knows it contains banter and personal views and incorrect (not maliciously so) facts, that's the idea.
Also you say "I travelled to Mallorca...." is tantamount to identifying the boat as the dodgy one. To get £££ payout in libel the plaintiff has to do better than that, eg Sun headlines " 'I shagged the Prime Minister' says girl from Bakewell" get away with it because of the quotation marks even though the substance is clear enough
On the other hand maybe you need Financial Services Act regulation re allowing Byron to tip BA shares? Damned fine advice it turned out to be too! ;-))
kimhollamby
Active member
Re: See you in court!
Ta, you are right. It'll be gone on Monday.
Ta, you are right. It'll be gone on Monday.