Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Comedian being sued for jokes aboit ex husband.

38 replies

HotCrossBunFight · 20/02/2018 16:52

Here's a link...

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/stage/2018/feb/19/comedian-husband-sues-for-defamation-louise-reay-hard-mode

Basically the ex husband is suing this comedian for joking about him in a negative way in her stand up show.

Don't most comedians do this? Most stand up seems to be them chatting about their own lives.

Is this unreasonable? Seems to have backfired for him either way as it's on tonnes of news websites now.

OP posts:
OP posts:
Nikephorus · 20/02/2018 16:55

If it's identifying him then I think it's reasonable to sue (or to be pissed off enough to want to) - chat about your own life negatively in stand up but not about someone else who isn't in the public domain and therefore has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Quimby · 20/02/2018 16:57

Kind of depends on what she said and how she said it, it’s almost impossible to say without that info if she’s been unreasonable in her statements or not.

If as the husband seems to say at the end she’s intimated he was abusive and he wasn’t that’s pretty defamatory.

Thistlebelle · 20/02/2018 16:57

I think it depends what she said about him really.

If it was materially untrue and he can prove it then I’d say he has a case.

MissionItsPossible · 20/02/2018 16:57

To be honest if someone I was or used to be married to did stand up and made money from making fun of me and how horrible it was being married to me I'd be fuming. It depends if she's telling the truth about whether it was simply just stating her marriage had broken down and whether or not it was 2 minutes worth of material in a 50 minute show

Original poster
HotCrossBunFight · 20/02/2018 16:59

I guess the most famous example I was thinking of is Sarah Milligan who frequently describes hee ex in a negative way.

OP posts:
Cornettoninja · 20/02/2018 16:59

I want to know what she said to be able to judge it tbh.

My gut reaction is that it's ridiculous and people should be able to use accounts of their personal experiences for artistic purposes - we'd lose great swathes of things otherwise.... but I'm getting the impression from that article she used identifying images which may be the boundary that she's crossed.

I wouldn't take kindly to being used as a prop without my knowledge and without the ability to remain anonymous.

Cornettoninja · 20/02/2018 17:01

I couldn't point out Sarah Milligans ex in a room or name him though.

Her stand up doesn't make him interesting in any other way outside of what she's saying about their relationship in her routine.

Elementtree · 20/02/2018 17:02

Ha, I'm seeing a big payouts for mils in the future.

Original poster
HotCrossBunFight · 20/02/2018 17:02

That's a good point. I imagine the images take it to a different level. I didn't consider that difference.

OP posts:
mustbemad17 · 20/02/2018 17:02

I think it definitely depends. I can remember the likes of Lee Evans & Billy Connolly making comedy about their marriages & their family life, but it was always most definitely banter type stuff

Nikephorus · 20/02/2018 17:05

I couldn't point out Sarah Milligans ex in a room or name him though.
But presumably if you googled her his name would come up and therefore people that know him could judge him on what she says? That's what I see as the problem. He's not giving his permission and doesn't have the opportunity to respond to what she says.

DontBuyANewMumCashmere · 20/02/2018 17:08

Most of the way through that article I thought he was being a total prick about her, their breakup and her subsequent success.

But then I read this bit:
"Beamont repeatedly performed a comedy show which identified our client verbally and in still and moving images, contained private information about him and his relationship with Ms Beamont, and made very serious and inflammatory allegations of wrongdoing against him,” it said.

“These allegations included the entirely false suggestion that our client’s relationship with Ms Beamont was an abusive one.”

And he might have a point. Chatting about your life, fine. Sharing images and his name whilst you discuss the minutiae of your breakup/relationship, I think that's a bit shit.

Furthermore, if it was an abusive relationship then I feel less sorry for him and saddened he's using this as another means of controlling or attacking her.

But, identifying someone publicly and implying that they were abusive when they really weren't... not cool. I'd be fucking furious!

worridmum · 20/02/2018 17:19

Just because you consider something art does not mean you can slander / insult people and use the defense but its art. You can and should be held accountable for what you say otherwise I could go on twitter and start spreading really damaging stuff about people and it would be my word against theirs.

For example Norman Freemen is a upstanding guy but I could go about in a stand up comedy act implying that he beat me up was abusive to me (which is complete rubbish) and since he is not their to defend himself people could believe it and his reputation could be damaged.

So unless she has evidence of his unsavory behavior (she has to PROVE that what she says is true not that he has to prove they are FALSE) if she cannot prove her alligations are true she should be stopped from sprouting this rubbish but if she can its all fine (if she can prove it i would seriously doubt someone would take it to court so i am errying on the side that she's making up bullshit to make money for herself through sympathy etc.

MichaelBendfaster · 20/02/2018 17:19

I think it depends entirely on what she said about him, and I haven't read or heard the details.

worridmum · 20/02/2018 17:28

Seriously would you like someone sprouting lies about you uncountable numbers of people so they can make money?

Would you be happy if your image was shown to a crowded arena saying OP real name here is a abusive racist / peodo "any other slanderous thing* and they person sprouting it gets to do this because its art / a joke.

If for one has a clause in my employment contract that such slanderous rubbish unless challenged could cost me my job (bringing company reputation into disrupt) which is a common employment clause even if the "joke" was false (and they admitted it was) the damage would be done and the company could legally fire me as i could be tainted with said image.

Cornettoninja · 20/02/2018 17:30

But presumably if you googled her his name would come up and therefore people that know him could judge him on what she says

Sorry - I didn't want to quote your whole post for the sake of filling up the thread Smile All fair points but he does have the right of reply with people that know him personally the point in my mind is that making him identifiable in her show takes away that right with strangers.

I think googling is a step or two removed from being spoon fed information in this context. People are highly unlikely to leave a performance and try and track down the subject generally and if they do it's publically available information. Plus they're wandering into stalker territory there if they are inclined to act on anything in the public domain.

LostInLeics · 20/02/2018 17:30

I went to see Mark Steel last week, on the first night of his new tour, and his whole show was about the break down of his marriage and how terrible and unreasonable his ex-wife was. It was so boring and he just came across as a bitter and sad old man. It made me wonder what her side of the story was to be honest, and if he had her consent to airing their dirty laundry in public like that. Wonder if she will think about suing him too.

Idontevencareanymore · 20/02/2018 17:32

If it's correct she put pictures up that potentially identify him, I think she'd be on dodgy ground.
We also don't know what she said but the fact that his solicitors state accusations of abuse against her, it's something serious.

Original poster
HotCrossBunFight · 20/02/2018 17:32

If he wins this case I imagine it'll start at least a mini landslide of others.

OP posts:
LakieLady · 20/02/2018 17:34

If taking the piss out of your ex H is grounds for litigation, I'd better leave the country.

BoneyBackJefferson · 20/02/2018 18:15

There is taking the piss and making slanderous comments against someone in an identifiable way.

I suspect that she is doing the latter.

Sparklesocks · 20/02/2018 18:25

As DontBuyANewMumCashmere said, she used actual photos and identifying names and details and that’s where this has come from - I don’t think this would ever apply to standard comedians who don’t use names and refer to ex’s very generally as part of their act.

My ex is a comedian (not a great or famous one, but makes a bit of extra cash from it) and he mentions anecdotes about me in his act. I’m not overjoyed about it but he doesn’t name me or reveal anything identifying..although a slice of the cash would be nice 😄

MissionItsPossible · 20/02/2018 20:15

@Sparklesocks Just out of interest, did you know that you were going to be a part of his anecdotes in his routine beforehand? And if not, how did you find out?

Sparklesocks · 20/02/2018 22:18

MissionItsPossible when he started out I was curious about how good he was so I found a clip of him on YouTube - and I realised he was recounting a story to do with me! But he didn’t name me, it was nothing sexual and I didn’t come off badly or anything so I just let it go. I do feel a bit uncomfortable that he might be saying more, but I feel confident enough that he wouldn’t say anything disrespectful or identifying.