FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

So let me get this straight.....

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

So Janice Dickinson can say Bill Cosby drugged and raped her, she can slander and libel him, potentially ruin his reputation and career, she can make her claims on TV, in magazines and newspapers, but the second he, or more accurately his spokesman, says her claims are lies SHE sues HIM for defamation of character.

Pot kettle black?

And no, I'm not saying he's innocent, not defending him or if he's guilty condoning his actions or behaviors.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *angzMan
over a year ago

Manchester, London & sometimes Newcastle

Yep. Good old USA.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Statute of Limitations protected him. Just a way of getting around it. Many many allegations against him. I am not a supporter of the no smoke without fire crap but I do think a court case might be justified.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Statute of Limitations protected him. Just a way of getting around it. Many many allegations against him. I am not a supporter of the no smoke without fire crap but I do think a court case might be justified."

That's not my point.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

makes you think that she had an ulterior motive from the beginning..Wonga..!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

It's the apparent double standard in play here....

She can throw whatever mud she likes, say what she likes, however and wherever anyone will listen.

But the second her claims are reputed she claims defamation of her character.

Never mind that her words and actions are potentially libelous and slanderous.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People in glass houses should not throw stones I would sue her personally if that's the case

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's the apparent double standard in play here....

She can throw whatever mud she likes, say what she likes, however and wherever anyone will listen.

But the second her claims are reputed she claims defamation of her character.

Never mind that her words and actions are potentially libelous and slanderous."

Have you considered why he didn't choose to sue her?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It's the apparent double standard in play here....

She can throw whatever mud she likes, say what she likes, however and wherever anyone will listen.

But the second her claims are reputed she claims defamation of her character.

Never mind that her words and actions are potentially libelous and slanderous.

Have you considered why he didn't choose to sue her?"

Indeed I did.......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Statute of Limitations protected him. Just a way of getting around it. Many many allegations against him. I am not a supporter of the no smoke without fire crap but I do think a court case might be justified.

That's not my point..... "

Then what is your point?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Statute of Limitations protected him. Just a way of getting around it. Many many allegations against him. I am not a supporter of the no smoke without fire crap but I do think a court case might be justified.

That's not my point.....

Then what is your point?"

As per my post 4 comments up;

It's the apparent double standard in play here....

She can throw whatever mud she likes, say what she likes, however and wherever anyone will listen.

But the second her claims are reputed she claims defamation of her character.

Never mind that her words and actions are potentially libelous and slanderous.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Statute of Limitations protected him. Just a way of getting around it. Many many allegations against him. I am not a supporter of the no smoke without fire crap but I do think a court case might be justified.

That's not my point.....

Then what is your point?

As per my post 4 comments up;

It's the apparent double standard in play here....

She can throw whatever mud she likes, say what she likes, however and wherever anyone will listen.

But the second her claims are reputed she claims defamation of her character.

Never mind that her words and actions are potentially libelous and slanderous.

"

And I explained. She is barred from making a direct claim. The alleged defamation was recent so she is not barred. That is the point.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

He could have sued, but did not.

She is getting her day in court and in effect, his reputation is the one that is being questioned.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"He could have sued, but did not.

She is getting her day in court and in effect, his reputation is the one that is being questioned. "

True. Is that a bad thing?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts


"He could have sued, but did not.

She is getting her day in court and in effect, his reputation is the one that is being questioned.

True. Is that a bad thing?"

No. He's either a wrong-un who needs exposing, or the victim of malicious allegations and it could do with settling either way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"He could have sued, but did not.

She is getting her day in court and in effect, his reputation is the one that is being questioned.

True. Is that a bad thing?

No. He's either a wrong-un who needs exposing, or the victim of malicious allegations and it could do with settling either way. "

This.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So Janice Dickinson can say Bill Cosby drugged and raped her, she can slander and libel him, potentially ruin his reputation and career, she can make her claims on TV, in magazines and newspapers, but the second he, or more accurately his spokesman, says her claims are lies SHE sues HIM for defamation of character.

Pot kettle black?

And no, I'm not saying he's innocent, not defending him or if he's guilty condoning his actions or behaviors.

"

As long as she is correct, she cannot commit defamation.

It is not a crime to recount something that is true - however uncomfortable that might be for another person.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's the apparent double standard in play here....

She can throw whatever mud she likes, say what she likes, however and wherever anyone will listen.

But the second her claims are reputed she claims defamation of her character.

Never mind that her words and actions are potentially libelous and slanderous."

But she's not throwing any mud and her actions are neither libelous or slanderous if what she says is true.

She's forcing the issue and good for her, as Tintitz posted it will hopefully settle it one way or another.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top