So does that mean Sullivan can sue them right back at a later... obviously if, allegedly, they were in onvolved, though I'm not for one minute suggesting they were... your honour
(Joe Scaramangawith a G-double-O-D vibration,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:12,
archived)
Hahahhaha!
:D
(Fresh Water Moleloves his baby boy more and more every day,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:13,
archived)
nice one sir.
(god save the queenmaking another unremarkable comeback,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:13,
archived)
(MstandotI suppose I should post more often.,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:16,
archived)
Ningles sir
I think my lack of sporting knowledge is letting me down on this one... got any clues?
(chunderbunnylacking humus since,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:18,
archived)
Front page says sorry
Back page (which is usually sport in a newspaper) has fingers crossed as if to say "ha ha, we're not sorry really" Well that is what I believe the image to be about.
(MstandotI suppose I should post more often.,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:19,
archived)
just know that sport is the back page
So there's an apology on the front page and then...
(Joe Scaramangawith a G-double-O-D vibration,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:20,
archived)
Good afternings
Front page says sorry. Back page (which is usually sport in a newspaper) has fingers crossed as if to say "ha ha, we're not sorry really" Well that is what I believe the image to be about.
WTF! double postage!!!
(MstandotI suppose I should post more often.,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:20,
archived)
haha!~
/simpsons blog
(Geoff the ClownfishYou know Myra, some people might think you're cute,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:23,
archived)
Hahahaha!
But I'm not surprised Chistmas lights have been banned it's EASTER!
I thought this this morning. Normal libel cases require proof that libellous accusations are wrong. Since they've already eaten and shat her body, there's never going to be evidence, so in my opinion, there is no case to answer.
(drbroonabloooobloobloo,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:23,
archived)
Thing is
how can they prove that the daily Express libelled them, when it's not yet been proven that they were/were not involved...
Its very odd.
(Joe Scaramangawith a G-double-O-D vibration,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:26,
archived)
they havemoney
and are therefore, right :)
(discomeatsThis canoe,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:30,
archived)
yeh, this is my problem
which is why it's such a shitty sum for such a big case.
(drbroonabloooobloobloo,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 16:36,
archived)
Who has to provide the proof? If someone libels you, do you have to prove they're wrong, or do they have to prove they're right? I suspect the latter, hence the verdict.
(shrinking manBeen away a while, time I ventured back,
Wed 19 Mar 2008, 17:01,
archived)
Share to
Hide / Ignore
Hide
If you want to unhide this post later, click the "update profile" link in the top navigation bar, and scroll down to the bottom.
Ignore
You will be blisfully unaware of this user for just one week