Vegas himself has not commented fully but has said
I haven't done anything wrong(ETA: since I wrote this, the Press Gazette has covered the story and has comments from Vegas[3]). Given the nature of the UK libel laws this makes sense—his lawyers will've told him to stay quiet and not mention specifics, and they'll likely push for an out of court settlement. If it does go to court, unfortunately, the odds are in his favour to win the case. English libel law notoriously favours the plaintiff and all he he needs to demonstrate is that his reputation was hurt (uncontestable); the Guardian'll need to, they need to demonstrate that their version of events is a reasonable interpretation (and he'll only need a few audience witnesses to say otherwise unfortunately). Teh Graun pretty much needs the girl herself to come forward else they've lost. Have I mentioned English libel law is an arse? I think I might've.
Of course, he does have a few witnesses on his side already, this commenter at the Evening Standard Comedy Blog for example:
I too was at the show on Friday and from my vantage point in the second row, I can honestly say that the female audience member in question appeared to thoroughly enjoy the experience. Coming off stage she looked as if she had just won the lottery.and as Chortle observes:
Did his ‘victim’ feel uncomfortable, too? Undoubtedly. I certainly did. Did she feel abused? Only she can tell. It’s the million dollar question that Vegas’s reputation rests upon. Or maybe the damage has already been done.We'll be watching this one closely I suspect. Tim? I'll be in touch mate.
[1] Guardian has removed the story as a result of the action, it was here.
[2] A few of the articles I link to have now been removed or locked down by the sites that published them due to liability concerns—no one wants to get sued for libel. Worth reiterating to commenters that under the T&Cs of Livejournal, each individual is responsible for their own comments—this is a public post and Schillings have a rep for searching blogs (see tag).
[3] From Tim at Bloggerheads in his post linking here.
Also? If you're new here, OpenID is the preferred commenting method for non-LJ users, it's easier than it looks and you've undoubtedly got an OpenID from somewhere.
Introspection
There probably ought to be a Creative Commons licence in here somewhere but in the meantime consider this permission to quote me (link) & link to what I write.
If you decide to keep reading, please do say hello, let me know where you found me from, etc. I promise not to bite (well, unless you want me to...)
| Blog: |
| Mat Bowles |
Topics: |
| politics, humour, miscellania |
Page Summary
Designed by ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
matgb
matgbProfile
- matgb
- Mat Bowles
- Mat Bowles
Comments
I've never found him at all funny, and now I know why - because he's a repugnant, loathsome little turd.
I hope this effectively ends his career, and if the incident was what it seems to have been, I hope the girl in question comes forward and presses charges. Although I suppose too much time has now elapsed to make those stick.
Same here. He's not quite Bernard Manning kind of repugnant but close.
Regarding the main post, I saw him on Jonathan Ross as well and I was actually surprised the incident was mentioned at all but then they talked about it (shortly) in such a laadidaa fashion that they might as well not have brought it up.
However, compared to the previous times I've seen him on talk shows, his stuff felt quite understated so I'm sure he's trying to play nice until this thing blows over.
As to what he's done or not, I won't comment as all I have are second hand sources.
To clear this up once and for all, the woman in question needs to come forward and tell her side of the story.
And I'm sure the dismissive way they apparently handled it was entirely deliberate - to diffuse the situation and make those who are up in arms about the incident look foolish.
I wasn't there either and I'm only reacting to second hand accounts, but it's pretty clear that he crossed the line here, and I'm quite sure he'll be playing nice from now on, for fear of his career disappearing down the toilet.
You mean sewer, his act is already in the toilet and had been before this incident. :oP
Jennie covered it, I meant to but it got added to my list. I did this post as I knew a lot were interested and I got copied in on correspondence to Lib Con which is where I saw it first (as did Jennie).
Witness statements contradict, but I hope there's a case.
I'm all for comedy "pushing boundaries" but only boundaries of taste. If this happened as described, it goes way past that.
What next, are comedians going to ask members of the audience to the stage and knife them?
Thanks for the heads up.
Privacy lock it for now if you're worried, I wouldn't be, there are far more damning posts out there.
Obviously I know not one way or t'other, we shall see though. Possibly, if there isn't an out-of-court settlement.
What wouldn't be? We don't know what happened, only a contested description of what happened, which is his point—if the guardian journo was wrong in her description, then maybe everything was innocuous. We don't know, which is why a court case is happening—he contests the version, and we shall see.
Do newspapers go after poor nobodies? No. They go after the rich and/or powerful. These people have (or are the) connections, so they make it easy for them to sue and win.
What's it going to take for that to change?
At least in America, the truth is a defense.
So a paper delivery boy can be sued for delivering a paper with libellous content (really, that's not a joke), even if he never reads it. Plus a webhost can be sued for hosting libellous content, even if its a reseller deal (so friends of mine got shut down when one of their clients put something online—a takedown order was issued, and rather than counter it, the hosts were so scared of the laws they cancelled the entire reseller deal, really not good).
So the laws really do need clarifying, even if just to take service providing third parties out of the deal completely.
That is just insane! It's even more ludicrous than I thought.
I thought the Graun piece was a shoddy piece of work. I'm not in any case fond of the way journalists snip out and decontextualise message board discussions as 'quotes' for articles, as if they were mere source material in the way that direct interviews are. I'm particularly not fond of the way in which this journalist did so in order to unfairly characterise aspects of the discussion.
At least the framesets link properly, although I don't think that's a good thing overall.
But there are enough other comments in various places from witnesses to back up that interpretation—then there are others completely debunking it. Interesting legality on the whole thing anyway.