Melania wins damages from paper who called her a prostitute.

First topic message reminder :

Good for her.

The UK's Daily Mail newspaper has agreed to pay damages and costs to the first lady of the United States over an article about her modelling career.
The newspaper had reported allegations that Melania Trump once worked as an escort, but later retracted the claims.
The story was published during the US election campaign last year.
Mrs Trump accepted damages and an apology from the newspaper at London's High Court.
The article was published by the Daily Mail newspaper, and subsequently the paper's digital operation Mail Online.
Mrs Trump filed a lawsuit against the Daily Mail in the UK, and filed against Mail Online in the US.
The payout settles the case both in New York and the UK, despite London's High Court having no jurisdiction in the US.
The US suit, filed last year, sought damages of $150m (£120m). The amount accepted by Mrs Trump in London was not disclosed in court.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39575680

Syl wrote:You find it hard to admit you were wrong don't you Quill?

Silly question.  If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't have written it in the first place.  

Unlike southerners, I think things through before pulling my guns. RIP Rayshard Brooks.  

Andy wrote:Kaia Gerber. They have a team that appear to be stalking her.
[size=39]http://dailym.ai/2o8rB5i[/size]


and
http://dailym.ai/2oM0BKv

and

http://dailym.ai/2oGZ1GA

You seem to know a lot about this, hand shandy...


I wonder why...?

Original Quill wrote:Syl, the references (marked in red) in the old post, are to an old conservative ethos.  Conservatives make snap judgments, based upon tribal instincts.

Conservatives are law & order devotees--except Trump, but is he a conservative?--and don't like the fuss over the niceties over due process of law...namely presumptions, norms and evidence.  They view it as pc.

That's what that discussion was about.  Again, it is off-topic about the Melania/Trump strained relations...which isn't to criticize, only to say it does not go to what you want to show.

Quill, I started the thread three years ago and it was about Melania suing and winning a libel case against the Daily Mail..
You were the only one who changed the subject which is fine, but that doesn't alter what the actual subject of the thread was about, which was, as I said, Melania.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:You find it hard to admit you were wrong don't you Quill?

Silly question.  If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't have written it in the first place.  

Unlike southerners, I think things through before pulling my guns.  RIP Rayshard Brooks.  

It's not a silly question because you were actually PROVED wrong,,,she sued, she won, two things you said would not happen.
Anyway, it's daft to argue about a thread that was posted 3 years ago when it was topical....it's old news now.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Andy wrote:Kaia Gerber. They have a team that appear to be stalking her.
[size=39]http://dailym.ai/2o8rB5i[/size]


and
http://dailym.ai/2oM0BKv

and

http://dailym.ai/2oGZ1GA

You seem to know a lot about this, hand shandy...


I wonder why...?

What are suggesting?

Write if down here so there is absolutely NO misunderstanding of ambiguity.

If it is what I think you are implying, then I will then take steps to get you banned for life by Ben or Niceboard.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Silly question.  If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't have written it in the first place.  

Unlike southerners, I think things through before pulling my guns.  RIP Rayshard Brooks.  

It's not a silly question because you were actually PROVED wrong,,,she sued, she won, two things you said would not happen.
Anyway, it's daft to argue about a thread that was posted 3 years ago when it was topical....it's old news now.

No, I was actually RIGHT! The lawsuit against the Mail was a sham. It was settled by Melania in order to make it go away.

This is the Trump style. File lawsuits with lots of noise, and when folks are no longer paying attention, slink away. Look over there...don't look over here.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

It's not a silly question because you were actually PROVED wrong,,,she sued, she won, two things you said would not happen.
Anyway, it's daft to argue about a thread that was posted 3 years ago when it was topical....it's old news now.

No, I was actually RIGHT!  The lawsuit against the Mail was a sham.  It was settled by Melania in order to make it go away.

This is the Trump style.  File lawsuits with lots of noise, and when folks are no longer paying attention, slink away.  Look over there...don't look over here.

The actual settlement was never disclosed.
The apology and the admission that they were wrong was obviously at the heart of it all anyway, not the money.. The Mail issued this statement after the payout.

"We accept that these allegations about Mrs Trump are not true and we retract and withdraw them. We apologise to Mrs Trump for any distress that our publication caused her. To settle Mrs Trump’s two lawsuits against us, we have agreed to pay her damages and costs.”

It doesn't look like she lost to me Quill.

Andy wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:






You seem to know a lot about this, hand shandy...


I wonder why...?

What are suggesting?

Write if down here so there is absolutely NO misunderstanding of ambiguity.

If it is what I think you are implying, then I  will then take steps to get you banned for life by Ben or Niceboard.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, I was actually RIGHT!  The lawsuit against the Mail was a sham.  It was settled by Melania in order to make it go away.

This is the Trump style.  File lawsuits with lots of noise, and when folks are no longer paying attention, slink away.  Look over there...don't look over here.

The actual settlement was never disclosed.
The apology and the admission that they were wrong was obviously at the heart of it all anyway, not the money.. The Mail issued this statement after the payout.

"We accept that these allegations about Mrs Trump are not true and we retract and withdraw them. We apologise to Mrs Trump for any distress that our publication caused her. To settle Mrs Trump’s two lawsuits against us, we have agreed to pay her damages and costs.”

It doesn't look like she lost to me Quill.

He can't admit he is wrong. You're wasting your time.

Syl wrote:The actual settlement was never disclosed.

It was $3-million. Chump change.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Andy wrote:Kaia Gerber. They have a team that appear to be stalking her.
[size=39]http://dailym.ai/2o8rB5i[/size]


and
http://dailym.ai/2oM0BKv

and

http://dailym.ai/2oGZ1GA

You seem to know a lot about this, hand shandy...


I wonder why...?

Tommy, that post is below the belt and I think you need to explain it. I’ll wait.

Not below the belt at all Eddie ..

Tommy Monk wrote:


Not below the belt at all Eddie ..

Let's speak openly -- it sounds like you were implying that Andy's a nonce. Either give an explanation that shows you didn't mean that, or please take back your comment (and you really should apologize as well).

Eddie knows why have I have some knowledge.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Not below the belt at all Eddie ..

Let's speak openly -- it sounds like you were implying that Andy's a nonce. Either give an explanation that shows you didn't mean that, or please take back your comment (and you really should apologize as well).

I wasn't implying anything...


Was just glancing briefly through this thread and was surprised at Andy's post...


Given that he constantly declares that he hates the daily mail and never reads it...


But in his first post on this thread he declares that he knows all about the daily mail being full of...


Quote Andy...
"...buxom beauties in skimpy bikinis..."


And then goes on to declare his knowledge of daily mail content to lately be full of...


Quote Andy...
"...young female celeb girls in skimpy swimwear to catch a glimpse of washboard abs, pert boobs and peachy posteriors... And these girls are usually under 16..."



Then he not only reels off a name of someone that nobody here has even heard of... but also a list of links...!?




Hence my earlier post...

That sounds fair enough. Thank you for clarifying Tommy.

And you wonder why so many left this site.

Andy wrote:And you wonder why so many left this site.

What do you mean? He explained what he meant, can’t you accept it? It was quite detailed and to be honest, I don’t think he was calling you a paedo. That doesn’t seem to be his style.

And... just thought I'd mention... I remember a thread on here quite a while back, can't remember the exact details, but it was about some fairly young bloke (late 20s or in his 30s I think) who was in the public eye, who had hooked up with some 17 year old bird... And some on here were making a big deal about it, think mainly because they didnt like his political position or some similar shit... basically trying to condemn his relationship with this young woman as being some sort of abuse etc... because she was under 18...


I remember making a post pointing out that here in UK the age of consent is 16... And in some other country in EU it was 14, can't remember if it was Spain or Portugal... And think I said i thought it might have been the same in Japan too...


I was only interjecting with a bit of knowledge that I thought was an interesting point for the general debate of the thread... and I'm pretty sure that I was also saying about how I thought the "French rule" was good, whereby half your age plus 7 was the age difference you should stick to...


Eg... If the man was 40 then 40/2 = 20 then +7 = 27... So ideally a 40 year old man would be best with a woman at least 27 years old etc...



BUT... I seem to remember Ben jumping in on me and asking "how I had so much knowledge about countries that had arguably low age of consent?"...!


And I remember his line of questioning had distinctly sinister undertones towards me...


I never got any apology for that...!

Sorry about that, Tommy. To be fair, I was probably just in a bad mood, but it was a shitty thing to do and I apologize.

Andy wrote:And you wonder why so many left this site.

Well... If you stop posting here again... Then we might get Brutus back posting some more...


I like Brutus more... but only a little bit... and only because he pretends not to be as much of a twat as you...!

Ben Reilly wrote:Sorry about that, Tommy. To be fair, I was probably just in a bad mood, but it was a shitty thing to do and I apologize.

I'm not fishing for an apology... and it's a bit late now anyway... I knew you were being a twat back then... and I'd forgotten all about it long ago to be honest... Until you jumped in on me tonight, trying to pull me up and accuse me of allegedly doing to Andy, something that you yourself had done to me back then...


It's the hypocrisy and double standards that get me...


All I did was point out some variations in law between different countries...


While Andy is describing young teenage girls being in skimpy swimwear and having pert boobs and peachy posteriors...





But somehow, I'm the badman in both cases...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Sorry about that, Tommy. To be fair, I was probably just in a bad mood, but it was a shitty thing to do and I apologize.

I'm not fishing for an apology... and it's a bit late now anyway... I knew you were being a twat back then... and I'd forgotten all about it long ago to be honest... Until you jumped in on me tonight, trying to pull me up and accuse me of allegedly doing to Andy, something that you yourself had done to me back then...


It's the hypocrisy and double standards that get me...


All I did was point out some variations in law between different countries...


While Andy is describing young teenage girls being in skimpy swimwear and having pert boobs and peachy posteriors...

Okay you made your point and you got an apology from Ben, and rightly so.
Leave it at that.

Tommy Monk wrote:

I wasn't implying anything...


Was just glancing briefly through this thread and was surprised at Andy's post...


Given that he constantly declares that he hates the daily mail and never reads it...


But in his first post on this thread he declares that he knows all about the daily mail being full of...


Quote Andy...
"...buxom beauties in skimpy bikinis..."


And then goes on to declare his knowledge of daily mail content to lately be full of...


Quote Andy...
"...young female celeb girls in skimpy swimwear to catch a glimpse of washboard abs, pert boobs and peachy posteriors... And these girls are usually under 16..."


Then he not only reels off a name of someone that nobody here has even heard of... but also a list of links...!?


Hence my earlier post...

You mean Kaia Gerber?
I'm sure people have heard of her - she is never off the news!!
She is the daughter of one of the top 5 or 6 supermodels in the world in her heyday along with Claudia Schiffer, Naomi Campbell, Linda Evangelista, Christie Turlington etc etc


So, riddle me this
- who is the famous lovely mum of Kaia Gerber?    
clue 1 - she has a beauty spot
clue 2 - Kia's brother has a face tattoo

PS:

@ Andy - I have NEVER seen a young teenage girl in skimpy clothes in the Daily Mail!!

There are superstrict rules about sexualising under-16's and I'm sure the daily mail conforms.

Your post was from 3 years ago but even back then I'd have noticed and complained about it - vehemently. Morally repugnant.

/\  /\  just to clarify my post above ... ''morally repugnant'' was meant to refer to any newspaper which broke the decency rules. Ta for the green.


--------------------------------------------

eddie wrote:I don't think anyone is doubting that Trump is a hideous human being, Quill, it's the fact that everyone is prepared to believe something horrid about someone they don't like.
If the same had been said of Michelle Obama, in the same position  - you would never have even entertained it.

Some snobbish people assume lingerie modelling, glamour modelling etc are only a step removed from prostitution and this is probably the reason for the accusations. But the court case has been resolved and the matter is now closed, I guess.

As for Michelle Obama - jeeezus enough horrible things have already been said about her on SM, without adding something like that to the list as well.

First ladies by and large are harmless and are great role models. It's not usually the done thing to criticise them, criticise their husbands instead.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Andy wrote:And you wonder why so many left this site.

Well... If you stop posting here again... Then we might get Brutus back posting some more...


I like Brutus more... but only a little bit... and only because he pretends not to be as much of a twat as you...!

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



Well... If you stop posting here again... Then we might get Brutus back posting some more...


I like Brutus more... but only a little bit... and only because he pretends not to be as much of a twat as you...!

If Brutus and Andy are the same person would not their ip's show that?
Unless they are using proxies that is, but if they are, would that not be suspicious anyway?

Have never known two posters who's Political views and posts are almost identical !

nicko wrote:Have never known two posters who's Political views and posts are almost identical !

What about Quill and Maddog?

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

If Brutus and Andy are the same person would not their ip's show that?
Unless they are using proxies that is, but if they are, would that not be suspicious anyway?

It is easy for someone to switch internet connection on mobile phone between mobile data and home WiFi...

+1

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

If Brutus and Andy are the same person would not their ip's show that?
Unless they are using proxies that is, but if they are, would that not be suspicious anyway?

It is easy for someone to switch internet connection on mobile phone between mobile data and home WiFi...

Saying it's "easy for someone" is not to say 'someone did this'. Could'ov, should'ov, and would'ov are no substitute for direct evidence. Have you any direct evidence?

I have a mobile phone... I can choose to connect to internet on it by either mobile data connection or WiFi...


Posting via mobile data would show one IP range... Posting via WiFi would show a different IP range...

Syl wrote:

nicko wrote:Have never known two posters who's Political views and posts are almost identical !

What about Quill and Maddog?

hahahaha