To applaud Justine MN

[cerseissword]

for her put down to LJ printed in today's DM www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2587124/LIZ-JONES-If-trolls-joy-I-wake-scared-day.html

I used to quickly scan the Liz Jones page at the back of the Mail Magazine, for ages I thought it was a spoof.

Still not convinced she's for real.

It was LZj's friend but a friend of her boyfriend. The were at a warehouse party. I was jealous at the time that warehouse parties were back in fashion. It was a very nostalgic fun thread until the op worse for wear said what she said. Most of us told her that Liz could do whatever she wanted to in her private time and that it wasn't fair to expose it on a forum even if it was 2am. It was reported and taken down the next day. Definitely not straightaway.

I don't believe for one minute that Justine is upset by anything written by LJ.

Me neither. It's obviously meant to be taken with a pinch of salt what she writes about this place.

I don't think she actually has any friends, she's more the type of person to have a social group, allegedly.

You'dWatchYourBackIfYouWereInThatGroupThoughTiggaxx

I don't believe for one minute that Justine is upset by anything written by LJ.

But that would mean that Justine lied.

Owl. By posting what you did, you are repeating something potentially libelous according to the link that badgirl linked to.

badbride not badgirl

Slight over reaction there, bluepen.

It is my opinion, it doesn't make it true.

But you are going against Justine's own words.

Am I missing something?

That is what Justine says in Honey's copy and paste is it not?
Or have I got that wrong?

I think possibly Justine was being a little tongue in cheek bluepen and the comment was not meant to be taken literally. That would be my interpretation.

I remember this thread. It was very very late at night, and a number of us on the thread pointed out that it was ill-advised and reported it. MN pulled it first thing the next morning. I doubt many people saw it at all.

Frankly, I'd forgotten all about it until LJ brought it to everyone's attention today.

High 5 to Justine for a marvellous put-down

Apparently it was 2am and pulled mid morning.

On a Sunday. Working hours a bit later than mid-week, not unreasonably.

Who is saying she was falsely accused?

Who is her boyfriend- I thought he was made up?

And why does he have hygiene issues?

Wasn't there a photo? Not on the MN thread, but on a linked Twitter feed? Not anyone imbibing any specific substances, of course (God forbid ) but LJ at the party?
See Liz? You've brought it all back to me. Well done!

I honestly don't believe that repeating, quoting, something that LJ has written herself could land a poster here in trouble.
But just in case it could, perhaps we had better take the HIGNFY line and say "allegedly" after everything.

i'm not a snotty nosed know it all

it's all just media competitiveness

Just wanted to clear this bit up:

LJ says
^As a journalist for more than 30 years, I have only been caught out three times by people I’ve written about, and not once did I accuse any one of them of taking drugs.
Each time I lost the case, and ended up having to pay out vast sums of money.^

In the cases she is talking about, she has been sued by the people she has written about, and in each case she has lost, presumably because she was unable to prove her allegations, and it has cost her a lot of money.

The current one is a real boyfriend. There's photos of them together and everything, accompanying at least one article in the Mail.

No idea about the hygiene thing. Probably something LJ wrote?

Surely there is a difference between:

1. Person X accusing Person Y of something, and that accusation being repeated as fact.

2. Person X accusing Person Y of something, followed by Person Y making that accusation public. Then other people discussing that now public accusation.

Person Y put that accusation into the public domain. So as long as people simply discuss the fact there was an accusation - and not repeat the information as fact they would be okay?

I think so too, Chronic - once LJ started talking about it herself, so long as no one tries to factually state that they saw her doing it, if the story/rumour is just being discussed then she wouldn't have a leg to stand on re. defamation/libel etc., surely?