|
|
Post by songbirdsally on Jul 7, 2011 14:02:19 GMT -5
In the other clips Noel says 'Liam didn't show up for the V festival...... cause he had a hangover'. The 'cause he had a hangover' bit has been cut out of this official one on the Noel Gallagher YouTube page.
Why?
Why can't he just put it up like he said it? Why do some parts need to be cut? Even though it's nothing important. It's stupid. I don't like NG's sneaky way of acting anymore at all. I don't even know if I still can believe him or not. He's good with words, but full of bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by thuperthonic on Jul 7, 2011 14:09:33 GMT -5
Surely he didn't edit it? Might've been removed by his management in order to prevent a lawsuit. Laryngitis is a legally acceptable reason to cancel a concert...a hangover is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by putthisin ® on Jul 7, 2011 14:12:46 GMT -5
He's good with words, but full of bullshit. He is. I don't know why some people are defending Noel just because he said some stuff on a press conference. But I don't think that cut means anything. Could be for many reasons |
|
|
|
Post by putthisin ® on Jul 7, 2011 14:13:40 GMT -5
Surely he didn't edit it? Might've been removed by his management in order to prevent a lawsuit. Laryngitis is a legally acceptable reason to cancel a concert...a hangover is not. Exactly. Wouldn't be nice to the fans who were at the gig, too |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 7, 2011 14:20:26 GMT -5
Noels management is Liam's. Of course they don't want to publish that.
I always thought Oasis cancelled due to Liam having too good a night the night before @ the MCFC game. Noel just isn't covering for Liam anymore.
Plus I agree there are probably legal repercussions for breach of contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 7, 2011 21:53:13 GMT -5
Well, the official excuse given was that Liam had a sore throat. I guess if Noel said it was being of a hangover he could technically be sued for libel - although the case here would be incredibly weak as 1. He could have stated that that was just an opinion 2. There was no malicious intent and 3. Celebrities and public figures don't really get to fall under protection easily.
That's in the US, though. No idea what the UK is like. So maybe he was just trying to avoid any possible lawsuit? Far fetched, I know. But it's all I can think of.
|
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 8, 2011 0:50:17 GMT -5
Well, the official excuse given was that Liam had a sore throat. I guess if Noel said it was being of a hangover he could technically be sued for libel - although the case here would be incredibly weak as 1. He could have stated that that was just an opinion 2. There was no malicious intent and 3. Celebrities and public figures don't really get to fall under protection easily. That's in the US, though. No idea what the UK is like. So maybe he was just trying to avoid any possible lawsuit? Far fetched, I know. But it's all I can think of. The legal respercussion I refer to are for Oasis not Noel. If they cancelled their headline spot because of a hangover I think they probably owe the V-festival some major cash. Don't forget that even though Noel left Oasis he'd still be on the line for any demand for compensation from Oasis for breach of contract for the V-festival fiasco. THAT is the lawsuit that I think he's trying to avoid. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 8, 2011 12:09:13 GMT -5
Well, the official excuse given was that Liam had a sore throat. I guess if Noel said it was being of a hangover he could technically be sued for libel - although the case here would be incredibly weak as 1. He could have stated that that was just an opinion 2. There was no malicious intent and 3. Celebrities and public figures don't really get to fall under protection easily. That's in the US, though. No idea what the UK is like. So maybe he was just trying to avoid any possible lawsuit? Far fetched, I know. But it's all I can think of. The legal respercussion I refer to are for Oasis not Noel. If they cancelled their headline spot because of a hangover I think they probably owe the V-festival some major cash. Don't forget that even though Noel left Oasis he'd still be on the line for any demand for compensation from Oasis for breach of contract for the V-festival fiasco. THAT is the lawsuit that I think he's trying to avoid. Why? If Oasis said Oasis canceled because Liam is sick with a sore throat, how's that any different from saying Liam is sick with a hangover (which may or may not include a sore throat, even). In both cases Liam is too sick to play..... |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 8, 2011 12:24:08 GMT -5
The legal respercussion I refer to are for Oasis not Noel. If they cancelled their headline spot because of a hangover I think they probably owe the V-festival some major cash. Don't forget that even though Noel left Oasis he'd still be on the line for any demand for compensation from Oasis for breach of contract for the V-festival fiasco. THAT is the lawsuit that I think he's trying to avoid. Why? If Oasis said Oasis canceled because Liam is sick with a sore throat, how's that any different from saying Liam is sick with a hangover (which may or may not include a sore throat, even). In both cases Liam is too sick to play..... Either way he doesn't play. I am sure contractually there is no penalty for being ill. That couldn't be helped. Buy canceling because the lead singer is a moron that decided to get wasted might involve a monetary penalty on Oasis' part. |
|
|
|
Post by bonkers on Jul 8, 2011 12:27:49 GMT -5
doubt it they probably didnt get paid thats all
|
|
|
|
Post by Nyron Nosworthy on Jul 8, 2011 13:45:17 GMT -5
The legal respercussion I refer to are for Oasis not Noel. If they cancelled their headline spot because of a hangover I think they probably owe the V-festival some major cash. Don't forget that even though Noel left Oasis he'd still be on the line for any demand for compensation from Oasis for breach of contract for the V-festival fiasco. THAT is the lawsuit that I think he's trying to avoid. Why? If Oasis said Oasis canceled because Liam is sick with a sore throat, how's that any different from saying Liam is sick with a hangover (which may or may not include a sore throat, even). In both cases Liam is too sick to play..... Ring your employer and tell them you're too sick to come into work because you have laryngitis. Now ring your employer and tell them you're too sick to come into work because you're hungover. You'll be entitled to sick leave at full pay for one of those but will (at the very least) have to use your own holiday entitlement or possibly lose a days pay for the other. I'll let you workout which. As for a lawsuit, Noel is making a potentially damaging accusation against Liam. If Liam was to sue then a) Liam would have to prove how damaging the accusations were, which would be quite easy (accusing him of breaching contract, damage to reputation, etc), and b) the onus would be on Noel to prove beyond doubt that Liam didn't have laryngitis and was hungover, which would be very difficult. Liam may well have been hungover, but unless Noel has conclusive evidence... I highly doubt they would go so far as to sue each other, or that the V Festival would take any kind of action anyway, but Noel and Liam are under the same management and it goes without saying that they don't want to publish anything that could damage his reputation. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 8, 2011 14:06:04 GMT -5
Why? If Oasis said Oasis canceled because Liam is sick with a sore throat, how's that any different from saying Liam is sick with a hangover (which may or may not include a sore throat, even). In both cases Liam is too sick to play..... Ring your employer and tell them you're too sick to come into work because you have laryngitis. Now ring your employer and tell them you're too sick to come into work because you're hungover. You'll be entitled to sick leave at full pay for one of those but will (at the very least) have to use your own holiday entitlement or possibly lose a days pay for the other. I'll let you workout which. As for a lawsuit, Noel is making a potentially damaging accusation against Liam. If Liam was to sue then a) Liam would have to prove how damaging the accusations were, which would be quite easy (accusing him of breaching contract, damage to reputation, etc), and b) the onus would be on Noel to prove beyond doubt that Liam didn't have laryngitis and was hungover, which would be very difficult. Liam may well have been hungover, but unless Noel has conclusive evidence... I highly doubt they would go so far as to sue each other, or that the V Festival would take any kind of action anyway, but Noel and Liam are under the same management and it goes without saying that they don't want to publish anything that could damage his reputation. In the US, at least, the burden of proving libel/slander is on the 'victim' and it's very hard to do. Also, celebrities and public figures really don't get that much protection, either. It's a really hard thing to prove. Again, I'm sure in the UK it's much different but I'm not familiar with how it works there. And no, the V-Festival would have a hard time doing anything either. A hangover could very well include a sore throat. So if Liam says he had a sore throat and Noel says he was hungover both could be factually correct. In fact, Liam could have had an illness in addition to being hungover, so again both would be factually correct. |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 8, 2011 14:10:06 GMT -5
doubt it they probably didnt get paid thats all They defaulted on a contractual commitment and left a festival in a bind. I don't think it's that easy. |
|
|
|
Post by bonkers on Jul 8, 2011 14:16:42 GMT -5
doubt it they probably didnt get paid thats all They defaulted on a contractual commitment and left a festival in a bind. I don't think it's that easy. well seeing that nobody knows the ins and outs of the contract between v and oasis i think playing happy lawyers is stupid  |
|
|
|
Post by Nyron Nosworthy on Jul 8, 2011 14:22:03 GMT -5
Ring your employer and tell them you're too sick to come into work because you have laryngitis. Now ring your employer and tell them you're too sick to come into work because you're hungover. You'll be entitled to sick leave at full pay for one of those but will (at the very least) have to use your own holiday entitlement or possibly lose a days pay for the other. I'll let you workout which. As for a lawsuit, Noel is making a potentially damaging accusation against Liam. If Liam was to sue then a) Liam would have to prove how damaging the accusations were, which would be quite easy (accusing him of breaching contract, damage to reputation, etc), and b) the onus would be on Noel to prove beyond doubt that Liam didn't have laryngitis and was hungover, which would be very difficult. Liam may well have been hungover, but unless Noel has conclusive evidence... I highly doubt they would go so far as to sue each other, or that the V Festival would take any kind of action anyway, but Noel and Liam are under the same management and it goes without saying that they don't want to publish anything that could damage his reputation. In the US, at least, the burden of proving libel/slander is on the 'victim' and it's very hard to do. Also, celebrities and public figures really don't get that much protection, either. It's a really hard thing to prove. Again, I'm sure in the UK it's much different but I'm not familiar with how it works there. And no, the V-Festival would have a hard time doing anything either. A hangover could very well include a sore throat. So if Liam says he had a sore throat and Noel says he was hungover both could be factually correct. In fact, Liam could have had an illness in addition to being hungover, so again both would be factually correct. A hangover is self inflicted though. An employer (or in this case contractor - the V Festival) would have little sympathy as you are expected to keep your end of the bargain and turn up in a fit state to perform. In the UK it is very much up to the accuser to provide the evidence. If you were to allege something about me, it would then be up to you to prove it was true. It could actually be 100% true, but you'd lose the case unless you could back it up with cold hard evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 8, 2011 14:32:11 GMT -5
They defaulted on a contractual commitment and left a festival in a bind. I don't think it's that easy. well seeing that nobody knows the ins and outs of the contract between v and oasis i think playing happy lawyers is stupid It could be a reason or them to want to cut it out. Thats all I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 8, 2011 18:00:55 GMT -5
In the US, at least, the burden of proving libel/slander is on the 'victim' and it's very hard to do. Also, celebrities and public figures really don't get that much protection, either. It's a really hard thing to prove. Again, I'm sure in the UK it's much different but I'm not familiar with how it works there. And no, the V-Festival would have a hard time doing anything either. A hangover could very well include a sore throat. So if Liam says he had a sore throat and Noel says he was hungover both could be factually correct. In fact, Liam could have had an illness in addition to being hungover, so again both would be factually correct. A hangover is self inflicted though. An employer (or in this case contractor - the V Festival) would have little sympathy as you are expected to keep your end of the bargain and turn up in a fit state to perform. In the UK it is very much up to the accuser to provide the evidence. If you were to allege something about me, it would then be up to you to prove it was true. It could actually be 100% true, but you'd lose the case unless you could back it up with cold hard evidence. It's the opposite in the US. All stems from this case: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan"The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases—when they involve public figures—rarely prevail" |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5