[News] Laurence Fox Loses Libel Case

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

A photo of someone getting out of a taxi in 1996? How long does it take to get to feel "violated, humiliated and degraded" these days? - 'cause 29 years seems a long time to me!
No further comment, speculation not appropriate.

(and yes, I do realise that 'Lozza' Fox is a bit of a disliked person on here!)

Suggest pick a better hill to die on

 

[Deadly Danson]

A photo of someone getting out of a taxi in 1996? How long does it take to get to feel "violated, humiliated and degraded" these days? - 'cause 29 years seems a long time to me!
No further comment, speculation not appropriate.

(and yes, I do realise that 'Lozza' Fox is a bit of a disliked person on here!)

"On here"?! Surely disliked by any sane person in the known universe.

 

[portlock seagull]

A photo of someone getting out of a taxi in 1996? How long does it take to get to feel "violated, humiliated and degraded" these days? - 'cause 29 years seems a long time to me!
No further comment, speculation not appropriate.

(and yes, I do realise that 'Lozza' Fox is a bit of a disliked person on here!)

Looking back at old photos and the clothes my Mum dressed me in during the 70s, I also feel ‘degraded’ all these years later! Who do I call?

 

[Eeyore]

Well, the article states the image "was taken without her knowledge and consent". If the complainant didn't know the image existed until it was posted on social media in 2024, it is irrelevant how recently it was taken, shirley?

The irony being that newspapers were very keen on taking pictures of women getting out of cars in a revealing way and publishing them. Perhaps even recently. Such images may well remain in the public domain on their old pages. Does this mean The Sun will be getting a visit ? I mean, I'd be fine with that.

 

[A1X]

"On here"?! Surely disliked by any sane person in the known universe.

Put it this way, if he were to go to prison it wouldn’t just be at His Majesty’s Pleasure he was detained

 

[GT49er]

Well, the article states the image "was taken without her knowledge and consent". If the complainant didn't know the image existed until it was posted on social media in 2024, it is irrelevant how recently it was taken, shirley?

I expect there's a photo or two of me being an arsehole in the 1970s. I've been out and about, I've gone to parties, I've got drunk. Quite probably someone somewhere has a photograph of me being a prat. So what?
If someone put it on line now, why would I give a shit?




Apart from the fact that I'm not a minor celeb (presumably that's the issue?), so presumably there's no money in it (or the possibility of revisiting my minor celebrity status for a few tabloid days - if I'd ever had one).

 

[GT49er]

The irony being that newspapers were very keen on taking pictures of women getting out of cars in a revealing way and publishing them. Perhaps even recently. Such images may well remain in the public domain on their old pages. Does this mean The Sun will be getting a visit ? I mean, I'd be fine with that.

Yes of course we should - we ('we' being ironical) wokes just can't find enough unwitting victims to pillory who did something 40 years ago that isn't acceptable now!

Are pitchforks still available on Amazon? - or where can I get them if my moral scruples prevent me from using Amazon? Difficult moral dilemna for some, I realise!

 

[Scappa]

I expect there's a photo or two of me being an arsehole in the 1970s. I've been out and about, I've gone to parties, I've got drunk. Quite probably someone somewhere has a photograph of me being a prat. So what?
If someone put it on line now, why would I give a shit?




Apart from the fact that I'm not a minor celeb (presumably that's the issue?), so presumably there's no money in it (or the possibility of revisiting my minor celebrity status for a few tabloid days - if I'd ever had one).

I think the issue is more that a woman has, without her knowledge or permission, had unwanted images of her splashed over social media. If you can't see a problem with that, then I don't know what else to say.

 

[jcdenton08]

Probs best to lock this one

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yes of course we should - we ('we' being ironical) wokes just can't find enough unwitting victims to pillory who did something 40 years ago that isn't acceptable now!

Are pitchforks still available on Amazon? - or where can I get them if my moral scruples prevent me from using Amazon? Difficult moral dilemna for some, I realise!

Do you understand what an up skirting photo is?

 

[clapham_gull]

Without commenting on this particular case there is significant ignorance on this thread regarding the recent and important changes to the law.

Not so much in paparazzi photo agencies who would have spent a lot of effort checking their archives and removing photographs,

 

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

Probs best to lock this one

Boooo! I only just heated up my popcorn!

 

[GT49er]

Do you understand what an up skirting photo is?

Yes I do. It wasn't specified as one of those. And even if it was, it would have been regarded very differently in 1996. Not saying that makes it OK - it doesn't.......but it does make it a hellovalot more potentially profitable 29 years later.

I expect there's a photo or two of me being an arsehole in the 1970s. I've been out and about, I've gone to parties, I've got drunk. Quite probably someone somewhere has a photograph of me being a prat. So what? I'm not a (very) minor celebrity so there's no pot of gold for me to get my smarmy solicitor to go after if one of my friends at the time posts me looking glaikit on t'interweb.

 

[beorhthelm]

I think the issue is more that a woman has, without her knowledge or permission, had unwanted images of her splashed over social media. If you can't see a problem with that, then I don't know what else to say.

it's an interesting allegation, apparently the image in question has been widely seen and available on image archive services.
some background (a year old story)

 

[The Optimist]

Yes I do. It wasn't specified as one of those. And even if it was, it would have been regarded very differently in 1996. Not saying that makes it OK - it doesn't.......but it does make it a hellovalot more potentially profitable 29 years later.

I expect there's a photo or two of me being an arsehole in the 1970s. I've been out and about, I've gone to parties, I've got drunk. Quite probably someone somewhere has a photograph of me being a prat. So what? I'm not a (very) minor celebrity so there's no pot of gold for me to get my smarmy solicitor to go after if one of my friends at the time posts me looking glaikit on t'interweb.

Yes I do. It wasn't specified as one of those. And even if it was, it would have been regarded very differently in 1996. Not saying that makes it OK - it doesn't.......but it does make it a hellovalot more potentially profitable 29 years later.

I expect there's a photo or two of me being an arsehole in the 1970s. I've been out and about, I've gone to parties, I've got drunk. Quite probably someone somewhere has a photograph of me being a prat. So what? I'm not a (very) minor celebrity so there's no pot of gold for me to get my smarmy solicitor to go after if one of my friends at the time posts me looking glaikit on t'interweb.

It is widely reported as an upskirting photo. For example https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62zy07d60ro.amp
The offence is not the taking of the original photo (laws aren’t retrospective) but sharing the photo on social media.

 

[B-right-on]

I've never heard of the woman so had to Google her and these images came up from Shutterstock (other photos repositories are available).

No idea about the offensive photo, but Ms Kaur doesn't come across as someone shy or not playing up to the media.

 

[Klaas]

Yes of course we should - we ('we' being ironical) wokes just can't find enough unwitting victims to pillory who did something 40 years ago that isn't acceptable now!

Are pitchforks still available on Amazon? - or where can I get them if my moral scruples prevent me from using Amazon? Difficult moral dilemna for some, I realise!

In your ongoing quest to prove to everyone that you are NSC's most independent thinker, did you not stop and think about what's wrong with posting an upskirt photo of a woman online without her permission just because you had a little argument?

 

[The Optimist]

I've never heard of the woman so had to Google her and these images came up from Shutterstock (other photos repositories are available).

No idea about the offensive photo, but Ms Kaur doesn't come across as someone shy or not playing up to the media.

View attachment 199059View attachment 199060
View attachment 199061

What’s your point? That because she’s not shy and is happy to play up to the media that it’s fine for someone to take an upskirt photo and share it?

 

[BadFish]

What’s your point? That because she’s not shy and is happy to play up to the media that it’s fine for someone to take an upskirt photo and share it?

I feel like we have regressed back to the 'look what she was wearing, she was asking for it" nonsense of yesteryear.

I thought we had all moved on from that kind of crap.

 

[keaton]

Yes I do. It wasn't specified as one of those. And even if it was, it would have been regarded very differently in 1996. Not saying that makes it OK - it doesn't.......but it does make it a hellovalot more potentially profitable 29 years later.

I expect there's a photo or two of me being an arsehole in the 1970s. I've been out and about, I've gone to parties, I've got drunk. Quite probably someone somewhere has a photograph of me being a prat. So what? I'm not a (very) minor celebrity so there's no pot of gold for me to get my smarmy solicitor to go after if one of my friends at the time posts me looking glaikit on t'interweb.

So just to check you are once again getting upset over something you knew very little about, without doing any research, and you're still going on?