Friggin' Useless Prats . . .

[Panama Hat]

Honestly FB, don't you ever think before you type? Even for you this is OTT and you're referring to his child here !!

Hypocrisy is great, isn't it?

Flippant remarks about getting a new Audi from your child's mental trauma = OK.
Flippant remarks about getting said child to toughen up = Bad bad man.

I'll send a big bag of cotton wool to PH now so he can protect children for the next 10 years....

Right . . . considering the closest you get to children is on your visits to the fleshpots of Thailand, you seem to know sweet FA about them.

You really are thicker than your waist if you can't see the difference

[Panama Hat]

I would have tried to get a notice published by them in the local major papers apologizing for such mistakes and confirming it won't happen again.

They are doing that. So, it does help to confront them on a legal basis, it does get them moving.

[azzam]

Sounds to me like they are buying you off PH. More accountable, bollix. They can buy the authorities off or they can buy you off. You are probably cheaper.

Nah, sorry Ph, not buying it, it smacks of opportunism to me. Convince me by telling me you will be donating the proceeds to an orphanage, seeing as you don't need the money

[Zephyr]

I reckon your daughter should toughen the **** up a little.

Calling me a hypocrite because I objected to what you said above is hardly fair, FB. You certainly don't have to agree with Panama's actions on how he handled the matter but when you start using profanity to make your point when referring to a forum member's child, .... that's just wrong and a low blow! Surely even you can see that!

[Fat Bob]

Lighten up Zeph, it was a flippant remark. Enough of them get made on here and elsewhere.

[baloo]

Tend to agree with FB here. If anything PH's reference to FB trolling the Thai paedophile haunts is far worse than anything FB has said yet there seems to be no uproar over that.

[Fat Bob]

Even I didn't pick up on that!

[azzam]

Agreed, didn't want to get involved and Fat Bob is good at looking after himself. But hey! Enough already, Hat!

[canuck]

libelous really

[azzam]

Good point and on an open forum too! Who knows how far the damage to Fat Bob's reputation has spread?

[Fat Bob]

Surely the things he said on enhances my rep?:D

[azzam]

Shut up Fat Bob, I'm building a case here.



I always fancied being a lawyer....

[Aliya]

Well I'm a lawyer and I would be mightly pissed off if there was that sort of trailer before a child movie, kids are so impressionable, MsA watched Monsters the other day - well just a bit before I realsied how scary it is - and it took me ALOT of talking to convince her monsters are not coming into her bedroom. It is completely unacceptable to run this sort of trailer before a kids movie, makes you wonder what goes on in the brain of someone who is running this theatre.

Good on you for standing up for yourself and making a point.

[Tas]

agree with making the point and holding people accountable, full round of applause, and standing ovation.

but

just don't prattle on about earning a prestige car out of it in the same breath and instead make your self sound like the frigg'n prat. what Azzam said, hope any financial wins make their way to an appropriate related charity, as you mentioned you're already your doing well enough that you don't actually need it, a Thai orphanage would be fitting from the reading of this topic.

[Lili Von Shtupp]

agree with making the point and holding people accountable, full round of applause, and standing ovation.

but

just don't prattle on about earning a prestige car out of it in the same breath and instead make your self sound like the frigg'n prat. what Azzam said, hope any financial wins make their way to an appropriate related charity, as you mentioned you're already your doing well enough that you don't actually need it, a Thai orphanage would be fitting from the reading of this topic.

Sums it up nicely, I think. Not that it would matter to Wolfie, who saw the Chipmunks "squeaquel" this weekend and fell so head over heels with the pretty lead singer Chipette that they could have previewed Nightmare on Elm Street and he wouldn't have been phased.

[Joseph27]

Someone in the cinema screwed up and you are probably getting some junior employee fired and screwing up their life, which is generally the flow on effect of a complaint like this. Agree with Tas - when you start talking about a car, any sense of righteousness is thrown out of the window. I see where FB's coming from anyway. What happens when your daughter is a bit older and watches an R rated film at a friends house and comes home shit scared - do you sue the parents in that case?

[Scrummy Mummy]

agree with making the point and holding people accountable, full round of applause, and standing ovation.

but

just don't prattle on about earning a prestige car out of it in the same breath and instead make your self sound like the frigg'n prat. what Azzam said, hope any financial wins make their way to an appropriate related charity, as you mentioned you're already your doing well enough that you don't actually need it, a Thai orphanage would be fitting from the reading of this topic.

Sums it up nicely, I think. Not that it would matter to Wolfie, who saw the Chipmunks "squeaquel" this weekend and fell so head over heels with the pretty lead singer Chipette that they could have previewed Nightmare on Elm Street and he wouldn't have been phased.

Ariel must be devastated! So fickle, that Wolfie!

[Satellite]

As a Singaporean, I must have been subjected to this kind of thing frequently. I can't remember if I was terrified when little or if any of my brothers and sister were too. But I/we don't give such things a second thought when watching them.. we must be immune to it. I/we turned out ok as well ....

Reading the thread, FB's remark came across as flippant as well.. nothing to make a mountain of.

[Burbage]

The Lady and the Tramp scared the bejesus out of me.

[Panama Hat]

Sounds to me like they are buying you off PH. More accountable, bollix. They can buy the authorities off or they can buy you off. You are probably cheaper.

Nah, sorry Ph, not buying it, it smacks of opportunism to me. Convince me by telling me you will be donating the proceeds to an orphanage, seeing as you don't need the money

I really do believe that actions like this will make companies more accountable, I really do. Just compare more 'developed' countries to what is so easily acceptable here.
(Never said we don't need the money, just said that the girl's education is covered, but that is not the point)

Lighten up Zeph, it was a flippant remark. Enough of them get made on here and elsewhere.

Flippant to you, but not necessarily to those with children. There's a line which shouldn't be crossed in this regard

Tend to agree with FB here. If anything PH's reference to FB trolling the Thai paedophile haunts is far worse than anything FB has said yet there seems to be no uproar over that.

Hardly . . . I never said that the Fat Slob is a paedophile, nor did I infer it. If you interpreted it as such then that is your decision

Even I didn't pick up on that!

Says a lot, doesn't it

libelous really

Actually not at all libelous

Good point and on an open forum too! Who knows how far the damage to Fat Bob's reputation has spread?

Seeing as it is an open forum and I doubt the name is really Fat Bob . . . none. Why not see this as a flippant remark as well or do you dabble in double standards?

Well I'm a lawyer and I would be mightly pissed off if there was that sort of trailer before a child movie, kids are so impressionable, MsA watched Monsters the other day - well just a bit before I realsied how scary it is - and it took me ALOT of talking to convince her monsters are not coming into her bedroom. It is completely unacceptable to run this sort of trailer before a kids movie, makes you wonder what goes on in the brain of someone who is running this theatre.

Good on you for standing up for yourself and making a point.

Thank you, Aliya

agree with making the point and holding people accountable, full round of applause, and standing ovation.

but

just don't prattle on about earning a prestige car out of it in the same breath and instead make your self sound like the frigg'n prat. what Azzam said, hope any financial wins make their way to an appropriate related charity, as you mentioned you're already your doing well enough that you don't actually need it, a Thai orphanage would be fitting from the reading of this topic.

Yes, a flippant remark . . . but does that detract from the issue at hand? Hardly

Someone in the cinema screwed up and you are probably getting some junior employee fired and screwing up their life, which is generally the flow on effect of a complaint like this. Agree with Tas - when you start talking about a car, any sense of righteousness is thrown out of the window. I see where FB's coming from anyway. What happens when your daughter is a bit older and watches an R rated film at a friends house and comes home shit scared - do you sue the parents in that case?

Any sense of righteousness is thrown out the window? Nice one, Joseph. So, an admittedly flippant remark makes the subject matter redundant?
If you see where Fat Slob is coming from then why not take your children into a horror flick, take them to a strip-show, place them in front of a pair of speakers at a rick concert? You raise your children the way you wish and I shall do as I think is right with mine.
The fact remains that I took my littlest one to a children's movie and did not expect, nor did I wish for her to be exposed to what transpired.

As for your assertion that someone 'minor' will be fired. well . . . that is pure conjecture on your part. Why stop there, Joseph? Why not go the whole hog and say the cinema will close down? How about telling me that my action will cause the whole company to declare bankruptcy, therefore causing untold hardship to hundreds of people?

[canuck]

Hmm

Libel.....
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

Nothing about real names....

[Panama Hat]

So, according to you anyone can see anything as libelous and sue, even if it isn't directed at them by name? Added to which, you must prove libel, which is not that easy unless the statement was direct and difficult to misinterpret.

I may say directly that baloo drinks beer (supposing he doesn't of course). He may see that as being libelous but would never get past event he first stage of a defamation suit because, among other things, I was referring to a 'person' named baloo on an internet forum. Added to which, where is this server based? Do the laws of the country of residence of this 'baloo' character take an over-riding importance to the physical location of the server on which this forum is based?

The law is not as cut and dried as you may think.

[baloo]

Do the laws of this 'baloo' character take an over-riding importance

Yes, of course.

[Panama Hat]

Well, in your case I'd have to agree then . . . never mess with mono-brows!

[canuck]

So, according to you anyone can see anything as libelous and sue, even if it isn't directed at them by name? Added to which, you must prove libel, which is not that easy unless the statement was direct and difficult to misinterpret.

I may say directly that baloo drinks beer (supposing he doesn't of course). He may see that as being libelous but would never get past event he first stage of a defamation suit because, among other things, I was referring to a 'person' named baloo on an internet forum. Added to which, where is this server based? Do the laws of the country of residence of this 'baloo' character take an over-riding importance to the physical location of the server on which this forum is based?

The law is not as cut and dried as you may think.

pretty much, the only people who can't sue for libel are dead,, so yup.. and you didn't accuse someone of beer drinking didja?

If a nickname is well affiliated with a persona, why shouldn't they be able to sue you for libel? we know who he is, you didn't call him mister big socks

You can't defame nicknames when people don't know who they are.

So, if you spread the same Dyke TV licence allegations but called him Big Beardo McFluffy, he can't sue, even if he knows you are referring to him - unless other people know him by the same nickname.

On the internet the rules are exactly the same. There are no special internet defences. The only advantage is that web sites tend to have a smaller number of users, (so less people see it hence it's less defamatory so it's rarely worth the bother of going to court) and allegations can be removed promptly on protest from a defamed party.

On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. A link could also be potentially defamatory if you are linking to defamatory material.

so since we know to whom you are referring as it is well know, yup libel, and the site can be sued too

In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!

so all FB has to do is go home for a visit, and you will provide him with a new car