http://petermusgrove.com/2008/05/06/this-joke-isnt-funny-anymore/
Comments please. Again have tried to keep to a strong journalistic style.
Vegas: That joke isn't funny anymore.
Ahem.
No comment on the particular incident but your report?
Get a suit on ready for Court mate! "--as Vegas continued to have full sex with the audience member---"
Bit dangerous?
Could jsut be my, but I've got a big smile after reading that. Nicely paced, good idea, and funny.
Mind you I'd play up the fact that it's his comic persona carrying out the crimes.
Also making the commentator a police officer, is a little confusing.
But otherwise very similar to The Onion, Private Eye.
If you could make it in to a skit (e.g. two people discussing the story) I'd send it to NR or TS.
Mind you if you used pseudonyms I'd consider sending it to Viz.
Ok, sorry. I had only read as far as the line I quoted.
Now I see, the joke developed later - obvious spoof kinda thing.
Well written but still not sure about the legal implications?
The sad thing is, this story is only slightly exaggerated. Anyone read The Mirror yesterday ?. Vegas did assault a young women on stage. Sometimes comedy writes itself.
Quote: Norman Wisdom @ May 6 2008, 11:51 AM BSTThe sad thing is, this story is only slightly exaggerated. Anyone read The Mirror yesterday ?. Vegas did assault a young women on stage. Sometimes comedy writes itself.
You been asleep all weekend?
It's 100% libellous.
Honestly mate, I'd stop writing things like this.
The only defences in a libel case are that it's factually accurate (which it isn't), that it's covered by privilege (which it isn't) or that it's a fair comment, written without malice, and that it's clearly flagged as comment. And it isn't that.
If he read it he could sue you as you've clearly defamed him. Bear in mind that although the Mirror ran a story, his reputation, in the eyes of the law, is still fine. He has never (as far as I know) been tried for any sort of sexual assault. Basically, you can't write defamatory pieces in the mistaken belief that it's ok to expand on a newspaper story which may or may not be accurate.
Finally, the Mirror could fight a case. They might have evidence to back up their view should it go to court - also they have a few quid put aside for such cases. But do you have evidence, because that's the one thing that could save you...
Quote: Norman Wisdom @ May 6 2008, 11:51 AM BSTThe sad thing is, this story is only slightly exaggerated. Anyone read The Mirror yesterday ?. Vegas did assault a young women on stage. Sometimes comedy writes itself.
-and you're doing it again there! There is no allegation, arrest or charge for assualt (as far as I know). What you say above is based on the opinion of witnesses who are, at best, biased for their own reasons.
The fact that the story is only slightly exagerated is my point - and why I missed the joke. The first half was copied almost word for word from press articles and then when you go into your joke it is not immediately clear. Not severe enough to be considered a joke.
As Barbs said, appears libel to me.
Quote: Norman Wisdom @ May 6 2008, 11:17 AM BSTComments please. Again have tried to keep to a strong journalistic style.
When you say "strong journalistic style." do you mean just cutting and pasting from a newspaper website? If so then well done.
This isn't very funny and most definitely libel. Just a poor, lazy effort.
I did however like the Smith's reference in the title.
I'd suggest fudging the names. Jimmy Blackpool maybe, if the stories strong enough people will get what you're talking about.
Fudging the names would work. Very vizesque. It was also make it funnier.
Are you writing comedy or writing for Private Eye? This work seems to sit somewhere between the two.
Quote: Barbs @ May 6 2008, 2:22 PM BSTIt's 100% libellous.
Honestly mate, I'd stop writing things like this.
The only defences in a libel case are that it's factually accurate (which it isn't), that it's covered by privilege (which it isn't) or that it's a fair comment, written without malice, and that it's clearly flagged as comment. And it isn't that.
If he read it he could sue you as you've clearly defamed him. Bear in mind that although the Mirror ran a story, his reputation, in the eyes of the law, is still fine. He has never (as far as I know) been tried for any sort of sexual assault. Basically, you can't write defamatory pieces in the mistaken belief that it's ok to expand on a newspaper story which may or may not be accurate.
Finally, the Mirror could fight a case. They might have evidence to back up their view should it go to court - also they have a few quid put aside for such cases. But do you have evidence, because that's the one thing that could save you...
Quote: Barbs @ May 6 2008, 2:22 PM BSTIt's 100% libellous.
Honestly mate, I'd stop writing things like this.
The only defences in a libel case are that it's factually accurate (which it isn't), that it's covered by privilege (which it isn't) or that it's a fair comment, written without malice, and that it's clearly flagged as comment. And it isn't that.
If he read it he could sue you as you've clearly defamed him. Bear in mind that although the Mirror ran a story, his reputation, in the eyes of the law, is still fine. He has never (as far as I know) been tried for any sort of sexual assault. Basically, you can't write defamatory pieces in the mistaken belief that it's ok to expand on a newspaper story which may or may not be accurate.
Finally, the Mirror could fight a case. They might have evidence to back up their view should it go to court - also they have a few quid put aside for such cases. But do you have evidence, because that's the one thing that could save you...
Many thanks Barbs. I think peoples suggestion of changing the name is a good one.
My addition to the Mirror article is that he actually had full sex on stage, obviously he didn't, and that he had fathered seven children in this way.
Just one question . Do you think Vegas would be bothered by such a small website with a daily hits rate of around 500 ?. I ask this as a genuine question not trying to fight my corner.
Now that's an interesting question. The sensible view is, where there's a blaim there's a claim.
Though the News Revue has been cheerfully libelous for years, and never had a scratch. Unless you're a secret millionaire, why bother suing you? If all they're going to come up with is several worn pairs of pants, and your Razzle collection.
That said better safe than sorry, and it's an intersting test of your writing to chnage the names, and see if people can still ID the story.
You can't be sued for satire.