Laurence Fox

Ouch. There's a bruise that's gonna linger.

'Laurence Fox told to pay £180,000 in libel damages.'

Laurence Fox has been ordered to pay £90,000 in damages each to two people he referred to as "paedophiles".

The actor-turned-politician lost a High Court libel case with former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal.

The remarks on X, formerly Twitter, came in an exchange about Sainsbury's marking Black History Month.

Mrs Justice Collins Rice said the comments were "gross, groundless and indefensible".

In a post after the ruling, Mr Fox said he intended to appeal.
Click to expand...
 
What's with the huge damages payments in cases like this these days? That seems a bit high to me for basically behaving like kids in the playground and calling each other names. How do they calculate these sums? I doubt anyone seriously thought that the people he was ranting at were actual paedophiles given the context.

Maybe I'm just getting old but it seems a bit like someone running off to the teacher because someone said some hurty words.

That said, it's pretty sad how this fella has totally lost the plot and imploded. Used to like him as an actor and I'm also jealous that he had a go on Billie Piper :D

EDIT: Ahh, OK I'll go read the court comments as suggested earlier.
 
Last edited:
It is impressive how he keeps finding new ways to be more of a pillock. People like him must be very lonely as anyone normal will distance themselves from him and not want to be associated and the only people he is left with are idiots and people who agree with his **** when they take the 30s to tweet some crap.
 
It'll be interesting how this case goes. Because he didn't take the picture. It looks like it was in the public domain via a newspaper. These types of shots used to be regular in the newspapers.
 
BowdonUK said:
It'll be interesting how this case goes. Because he didn't take the picture. It looks like it was in the public domain via a newspaper. These types of shots used to be regular in the newspapers.
Click to expand...

The highly reliable source that is the Mirror would suggest newspapers took down the particular photo as it was an up skirt photo that became illegal under the recent new law. So potentially not helpful for Fox.

Actually as I write I feel the Mirror may be far more reliable in this particular area, I’m sure they took a lot of legal advice about their historic content and the impact of new law.
 
My first reaction was laurence-facepalm.jpg, but after a little thought I don't think the upskirting law would apply. While I can't find the actual wording of the law it was brought in to prosecute the person who takes the photo. If he simply re-published it then it probably doesn't fall under upskirting.

Does anyone have the pic? Asking for a friend.
 
Last edited:
Pudney said:
The highly reliable source that is the Mirror would suggest newspapers took down the particular photo as it was an up skirt photo that became illegal under the recent new law. So potentially not helpful for Fox.

Actually as I write I feel the Mirror may be far more reliable in this particular area, I’m sure they took a lot of legal advice about their historic content and the impact of new law.
Click to expand...
This is why it'll be interesting because he didn't upskirt her. The offender in that law is the one who took the image/video.

I'm not agreeing with what he did. It is distasteful. I'm just not sure with what law he's broken.
 
BowdonUK said:
I'm not agreeing with what he did. It is distasteful. I'm just not sure with what law he's broken.
Click to expand...
Given this is an image online that is now deemed illegal due to the nature of it, would it be classed as a form of porn?
If he has taken it and is now sharing it or trying to force that persons followers to see said image, couldn't this be classed as a form of revenge porn?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom