What happened to get the Lily Allen thread deleted?

[Mintyy]

Can anyone briefly summarise or pm me?

Thanks

I wonder what the hierarchy is amongst celebrities themselves.

How strange, I find Celebs interesting, and some are pleasing on the eye. I am not in awe at all, they get up in the morning have a wee, brush their teeth, fart and itch like the rest of us.

Just out of interest about the Loose Women appearance by LA. When she referred to her previous drug abuse, was this followed up by any form of regret (or even tone that it had been dangerous and possibly damaging) or was it publicly presented in such a way as to imply it had been a really 'it' thing to do?

As it was a public forum, I really hope it was the former as impressionable youngsters may have watching.

I am sure it mostly depends on how many complaints are made about a particular thread and if there are external complaints. That is all it will be. I write the terms for websites and we tend to advise sites if in doubt remove rather than getting bogged down into whether it's right or not or whether it's consistent. The terms and conditions always allow sites to be arbitrary if they choose to be.

see for yourself

Surely that means that just about everything on mumsnet, including celeb threads, telly addicts, MIL threads etc is libellous in that case?

Not at all.

ComposHat I agree. I didn't spot that many libels. A couple, by the same poster. I would have deleted those and told the user why.

But then I don't work for MN and wasn't doing a shift on a Friday night.

I believe there were loads (perhaps the majority) of people on the thread who don't share my pov on Lily. That's why its so annoying that the "why does everyone have to be so nasty?" thread reporters win the day.

I agree.

I was one of the Lily fans but whatever I think of her, I reserve a special circle of Hell for those who bleat: 'My granny used to say if you can't say anything nice...'

Fuck off.

This "not in the spirit of Mumsnet" is rubbish and does seem to be very unevenly applied. I don't like the idea of certain people being "off limits".

MNHQ moderation seems to be based on who shouts loudest, rather then any actual ground rules and it's rather frustrating.

I've seen more spite and unhelpfulness on AIBU, then I ever have about any celeb, but AIBU brings all the clicks...

Kids could consider, what is in my opinion an amoral ennui in the delivery of 'relying on 'alcohol' or the sinister implication in 'whatever I could get my hands on', as a too cool for school attitude. I do hope what is being implied is at the very least legal. I'm surprised the moderator didn't at least say "we're not advocating taking drink and anything else you can get, folks or any youngsters who may be watching"

I'm not the demographic targeted by or open to these celeb types and their ilk. Thank goodness I'm past what I personally consider their vacuous and morally bankrupt bs.

They can promote and try to hawk whatever image they want, but the balance to this is others have to be able to say the emperor has no clothes.

limitedperiodonly
Perhaps it is just me, but I am trying to get my head around what you have written.
So if a celeb or ordinary person is deemed by say a judge, to have a poor reputation [by the general public?], then what is written about them cannot be libellous?
So one rule for some celebs and others, and another rule for the rest?

Mintyy, I've just read that old LA thread, where it was widely agreed that she was unlikely to make a good MNer as she wasn't clever or witty enough

She'd sound like Dorothy friggin' Parker now.

So true Boffy ! But I think it was 2009 or summat like that, yonks ago. She was a bit of a marmite figure then, too, I see.

So if a celeb or ordinary person is deemed by say a judge, to have a poor reputation [by the general public?], then what is written about them cannot be libellous?

I think so, rabbitrisen but don't trust me on that. I remember being taught that it would be virtually impossible to damage Peter Sutcliffe's reputation, so arguably a paper could say what it liked about him.

I can't remember, but I think the argument was that a jury would still find for him if they didn't believe the allegation, but that the damages awarded would be so low that he'd end up having to pay his and the other side's massive costs, so he'd never sue even if he did have the money to fund a case.

The other side make an offer before going to court and if you reject it you're gambling that you'll not only win, but you'll be awarded more. If you're awarded just £1 less, you've had it.

I think Lily Allen can be a silly cow sometimes, but she's not that bad

If that is true, I find that pretty abhorent.

And it would explain mumsnets' different stances

Most people aren't mass murderers though rabbitrisen. It was just an interesting 'what if' situation.

People keep saying that MN don't like Katie Price, and maybe they don't, but if someone libelled her, it would get deleted.

I haven't noticed that she's been libelled. Lily Allen was.

People have been nasty about Price, but plenty of others have defended her. Same with Allen.

So limited if a hypothetical person who has publicly declared themselves to be a drugs user and was known by the public to be so, would be unlikely to win damages for being accused of being on drugs on a specific occasion (even if they weren't on that specific occasion) using drugs? I am not thinking of Lily Allen specifically but interested in the underlying principle.

So I could concoct a wholly false story about taking heroin with Pete Doherty or a drinking session with Charles Kennedy and published it in the press they'd struggle to sue for libel.

ComposHat It depends.

Say your hypothetical person is Pete Doherty, then he may be unlikely to sue even if you were lying.

I'm not sure of Pete Doherty's current drug status, or if papers are interested in him any more, but he probably wouldn't care about a false allegation of drug-taking. Though I imagine he would care if he was accused of abusing children - there are libels and libels.

Plus you might claim justification (that the story was true) which is a complete defence. And you might be able tell a convincing enough tale to the jury, who might decide that given Doherty's reputation that you were telling the truth.

It's a lot of mights, though. And you wouldn't be able to just say it. You would have to provide some proof or corroborating details. And a newspaper would demand that.

But, and here's a money-making tip , if you were the sort of scoundrel who makes up stories for money, you might want to try one of those true life magazines because the training standards of their staff are appalling and their legal departments aren't great either, if they exist at all.

You could say Hitler was hiding in your basement and it wouldn't occur to them that he would be a bit old now.

They wouldn't want that story btw. Not unless your daughter had been engaged to Hitler but your wife had shacked up in the basement with him too.

But say your hypothetical celebrity was Eric Clapton. He was a junkie but has been clean for 30+ years. Not only that, he's heavily involved in addiction charities.

He would sue your lying arse off and he'd be right. And when he won, the damages would be staggering, because you'd not only be accusing him of taking drugs, which most people dislike, but accept happens; you'd be accusing him of terrible hypocrisy, which I think most people think is worse.

I don't know whether Charles Kennedy would have the stomach for a fight. It's expensive and gruelling and the odds are stacked against the complainant. I never used to think like that but I'm coming round to that idea. Although I remember the bonanza time when a soap actor only had to turn up in court and say: 'The Sun said I was boring. Boo hoo,' and the jury awarded him silly money.

I do know that Kennedy has sworn off alcohol. I saw him politely leave a table when the drinks arrived, presumably because he wants to get well and can't trust himself around alcohol.

So in that case, you'd probably have a hard time proving your lie because if I heard about it I'd be a character witness for him and so would all the other people on that table.

I'm not a libel lawyer btw. Just an unreliable narrator.

The false Clapton scenario wouldn't even get published. The standard of proof would be so high and you obviously wouldn't be able to touch it.

Wow that's fascinating stuff, thanks!

No, thank you. I am a nerd.

It all goes to prove that celebs are not in any way equal.

Well no, they're not kinsorange. It has nothing to do with whether they are celebrities, it's whether a jury will find the person standing before them credible.

We all make those judgements all the time.

Sometimes jurors make the most extraordinary decisions because they are in thrall to celebrities. I fail to see what is libellous about calling someone boring. Recent events show that William Roache isn't at all boring. Though he is wholly innocent of sex crimes.

That was one of the cases that put an end to juries being allowed to play Sun bingo with someone else's money just because they liked someone from off the telly btw.

The Gillian Taylforth blow job case put the tin lid on the celeb libel gravy train.

What it does say to me is that people with money have the option of being able to sue for libel and those that without it, usually can't. I think that is wrong. Doesn't mean to say I think celebrities are always right.

Also I suppose, if you are regularly rubbished day in day out, aka Katie P, then the chances of your publication being sued are quite small.

Why are you and others wringing your hands over Katie Price, kinsorange?

She can stand up for herself. It's one of the things I admire about her and God knows, there aren't many others.

If Katie Price was libelled she would slap in a writ within hours, and good on her.

I'm not aware that she ever has been libelled. I could be wrong. Maybe you can find an instance.

She extracted an apology from Channel 4 over Frankie Boyle's comments about her and Peter Andre and her son. That was horrible but it wasn't libel. He'd probably have defended it with fair comment and she knew it. Just like he successfully sued The Mirror for calling him a racist. He's not a racist but he's smarter than the dolts making the decisions at The Mirror at the time.

Newspapers are extremely careful about Price. And so they should be. They should also be careful about libelling people who don't have the financial means or public platform to defend themselves. Not because it makes economic sense but because it would be the nice thing to do.

I suggest you save most of your sympathy for them.

Interestingly, HQ could be bothered to moderate the Katie Price thread - I've seen that there are about 6 deletions on there now - but they couldn't with LA.

I can't fathom why that is, inconsistency I spose.