|
Post by Drums91 on Jul 19, 2013 16:12:38 GMT -5
I agree Liam is wrong if its true but that's been said already, but this woman seems tone using her job in the press to expedite her claim for a so called 2 million dollars when I'm sure this could have been done privately and professionally. No proof it's her that leaked this. It didn't even leak from a publication she worked for. It was being done privately and professionally by all accounts. I don't see how the story being out makes them any more likely to settle. Way I see it she lost her biggest leverage...that he could be allowed to keep the whole thing secret from the world. Now that the secret is out and he doesn't have much more to lose I'm guessing the eagerness to throw money at her to keep her quiet is probably less. The worst of the damage it done. Everyone knows now. What does he care if it takes 3 weeks to settle or 6 months? Bottom line is this child is going to grow up with this, that's the tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by LlAM on Jul 19, 2013 16:16:27 GMT -5
People are assuming a lot of things in this thread and there are just too many variables in this case for any of us to make a justified judgement.
For example; Liam and Nicole may have an open relationship, and the pregnancy was just bad luck.
|
|
|
Post by Drums91 on Jul 19, 2013 16:22:06 GMT -5
People are assuming a lot of things in this thread and there are just too many variables in this case for any of us to make a justified judgement. For example; Liam and Nicole may have an open relationship, and the pregnancy was just bad luck. Very true
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 19, 2013 16:26:04 GMT -5
Can someone summarise for me in no more than 75 words what we know to be true and what is merely speculation at this point? Cbf to read the whole thread. We know that some journalist had a bastard child in January and she wrote an article about Liam in May 2010. Liam has NY legal representation as does this woman. There is a case that is in court about a paternity suit but neither party is named. That case is adjourned until the end of the month. Liam's lawyers are suing the NY Post for an unknown reason and have said they "won't comment on gossip" but didn't deny to story offhand or specify that they were suing for liable. There is speculation that Liam and she had an affair that started in May 2010 and lasted until either she found out she was pregnant (mid-2012) or 3 months after the baby was born (March 2013) depending on the article.,,at which point Liam cut ties because she informed him she was seeking financial support by legal means. A few stories say he has already been court ordered to start monthly child support and this is the first financial contribution he has made to the child so far. Liam may have been told not to come home for several weeks by Nicole which is impossible to verify since he is on tour anyways. A man on tour looks very similar to a man that isn't allowed back home. It may all yet turn out to be Chris Martin or someone...but somehow I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by acrosstheuniverse on Jul 19, 2013 16:27:15 GMT -5
This thread has made for some colossal reading material. I won't make a comment on this whole issue until we know the facts. But Liam showing up to the after party with that 'Fuck off baby' tee was hilarous.
|
|
|
Post by thedon on Jul 19, 2013 16:37:38 GMT -5
Look at Molly now Awwwwwww
|
|
zgb
Oasis Roadie
"I'll paint you the picture..."
Posts: 224
|
Post by zgb on Jul 19, 2013 16:43:55 GMT -5
after all this shite with liam, oasis won't reform. and that's great !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 17:50:50 GMT -5
The people who think this isn't true are kidding themselves. The Sun, Daily Mail, New York Post etc wouldn't run with this if they didn't know it to be true one way or the other. They'd be setting themselves up for a massive libel case otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Bittersweet Split on Jul 19, 2013 17:55:08 GMT -5
The people who think this isn't true are kidding themselves. The Sun, Daily Mail, New York Post etc wouldn't run with this if they didn't know it to be true one way or the other. They'd be setting themselves up for a massive libel case otherwise. pretty sure they're reporting it as the reason for the trial, not as absolute fact.
|
|
|
Post by liamgallagher1992 on Jul 19, 2013 18:21:45 GMT -5
The people who think this isn't true are kidding themselves. The Sun, Daily Mail, New York Post etc wouldn't run with this if they didn't know it to be true one way or the other. They'd be setting themselves up for a massive libel case otherwise. pretty sure they're reporting it as the reason for the trial, not as absolute fact. Agreed. After just doing my first year at uni, I had to do media law as part of my degree so I know how it all works when reporting is concerned. The English papers like the sun are only reporting that the New York paper has said it's him. Liam however is only suing them under privacy laws though and not libel as far as I'm aware. In both cases, privacy and libel the NY paper can use fair comment and honest opinion as a defence. Meaning because its true they had right to report it. They could also say its in the publics interest. However if it emerges this isn't true they are in the shit. Even if it is true lg still had a good case against NY paper for announcing this and I'd actually expect him to win a case against them as there have been quite a few cases like Naomi Campbell being spotted outside narcotics anonymous group where she sued the paper because it was her own private business, as this is with lg. Who knows. Certainly will go on for a while yet anyway
|
|
|
Post by marqueemoon on Jul 19, 2013 18:27:02 GMT -5
Can someone summarise for me in no more than 75 words what we know to be true and what is merely speculation at this point? Cbf to read the whole thread. Liam has a penis that he likes to stick into women.
|
|
|
Post by collibosher on Jul 19, 2013 21:01:32 GMT -5
pretty sure they're reporting it as the reason for the trial, not as absolute fact. Agreed. After just doing my first year at uni, I had to do media law as part of my degree so I know how it all works when reporting is concerned. The English papers like the sun are only reporting that the New York paper has said it's him. Liam however is only suing them under privacy laws though and not libel as far as I'm aware. In both cases, privacy and libel the NY paper can use fair comment and honest opinion as a defence. Meaning because its true they had right to report it. They could also say its in the publics interest. However if it emerges this isn't true they are in the shit. Even if it is true lg still had a good case against NY paper for announcing this and I'd actually expect him to win a case against them as there have been quite a few cases like Naomi Campbell being spotted outside narcotics anonymous group where she sued the paper because it was her own private business, as this is with lg.
Who knows. Certainly will go on for a while yet anyway My recollection is that Campbell won a libel suit against a British paper. Because of the First Amendment, it's much more difficult for a public person to prevail in a libel suit in the US. Not impossible, but the burden of proof in defamation actions is quite high in the case of a public figure. Odds are the source of this story is the actual lawsuit. They're public records. Even if Liam was listed as "John Doe", someone was probably able to put two and two together based upon the information in the Complaint. Fox News even reported that the DNA testing proved Liam was the father. That information is something that probably would have been included in the Complaint.
|
|
|
Post by liamgallagher1992 on Jul 20, 2013 2:12:58 GMT -5
Agreed. After just doing my first year at uni, I had to do media law as part of my degree so I know how it all works when reporting is concerned. The English papers like the sun are only reporting that the New York paper has said it's him. Liam however is only suing them under privacy laws though and not libel as far as I'm aware. In both cases, privacy and libel the NY paper can use fair comment and honest opinion as a defence. Meaning because its true they had right to report it. They could also say its in the publics interest. However if it emerges this isn't true they are in the shit. Even if it is true lg still had a good case against NY paper for announcing this and I'd actually expect him to win a case against them as there have been quite a few cases like Naomi Campbell being spotted outside narcotics anonymous group where she sued the paper because it was her own private business, as this is with lg.
Who knows. Certainly will go on for a while yet anyway My recollection is that Campbell won a libel suit against a British paper. Because of the First Amendment, it's much more difficult for a public person to prevail in a libel suit in the US. Not impossible, but the burden of proof in defamation actions is quite high in the case of a public figure. Odds are the source of this story is the actual lawsuit. They're public records. Even if Liam was listed as "John Doe", someone was probably able to put two and two together based upon the information in the Complaint. Fox News even reported that the DNA testing proved Liam was the father. That information is something that probably would have been included in the Complaint. Naomi Campbell won under the EU law of right to privacy. And in her case there was a strong case for the paper as they thought they were acting in the public interest by uncovering someone who has outspoken against models using drugs. I don't see how the paper would even have the public interest defence. But oh well, who knows. LG will probably end up not suing anyway. If Fox have said that then it looks pretty certain everything is true. Would still love it all to have been a publicity stunt.
|
|
|
Post by collibosher on Jul 20, 2013 2:44:16 GMT -5
My recollection is that Campbell won a libel suit against a British paper. Because of the First Amendment, it's much more difficult for a public person to prevail in a libel suit in the US. Not impossible, but the burden of proof in defamation actions is quite high in the case of a public figure. Odds are the source of this story is the actual lawsuit. They're public records. Even if Liam was listed as "John Doe", someone was probably able to put two and two together based upon the information in the Complaint. Fox News even reported that the DNA testing proved Liam was the father. That information is something that probably would have been included in the Complaint. Naomi Campbell won under the EU law of right to privacy. And in her case there was a strong case for the paper as they thought they were acting in the public interest by uncovering someone who has outspoken against models using drugs. I don't see how the paper would even have the public interest defence. But oh well, who knows. LG will probably end up not suing anyway. If Fox have said that then it looks pretty certain everything is true. Would still love it all to have been a publicity stunt. EU privacy rights will not apply in any litigation Liam brings in NY (and the reports are that he has sued the NY Post, although he denied it yesterday.) His privacy isn't an issue as he would be considered a public figure (that's basically anyone in the public eye) under US law. He would have to argue his character has been defamed. As a public figure he would further have the burden to prove the paper deliberately used actual malice against him in their reporting. They don't need to argue their reporting is in the public interest because of the freedom of the press clause in the Constitution. And finally, Liam would have to prove that his good character was damaged by the reporting. Given that he has at least one other love child that has been addressed in the press already, that might be hard for him to do. If there is a lawsuit involving child custody and Liam, any suit he brings against Post would be tossed immediately because the truth is a total defense to libel. If the paper made an honest error in it's reporting, the suit would be tossed because there would be no actual malice involved. The Post is a wretched tabloid, but they can pretty much get away with their shite reporting because the bar to prove libel is so high. However, it sounds to me like someone has seen the lawsuit (It's been reported that it was filed under Anonymous vs. Anonymous to keep in under the radar). Whether all the details are totally accurate, like the DNA matching and Liam sending an email about the baby's rock star genes, remains to be seen, but reporters in the US are always trolling court documents for stories and odds are the lawsuit itself is the source of the story. Bottom line, it's unlikely Liam would ever prevail against a US paper under these circumstances and it's not fully clear whether he has in fact sued the Post.
|
|
|
Post by Underneath the sky on Jul 20, 2013 3:00:30 GMT -5
Can someone summarise for me in no more than 75 words what we know to be true and what is merely speculation at this point? Cbf to read the whole thread. The fact this woman has come out with her story. If it was bollocks she'd be risking getting sued and ruining her career.
|
|
|
Post by nahuel89p on Jul 20, 2013 3:03:16 GMT -5
People are assuming a lot of things in this thread and there are just too many variables in this case for any of us to make a justified judgement. For example; Liam and Nicole may have an open relationship, and the pregnancy was just bad luck. I don't see how a married woman could have an open relationship with a wanted millionaire who is also the father of their sons.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 20, 2013 3:04:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 20, 2013 3:09:10 GMT -5
People are assuming a lot of things in this thread and there are just too many variables in this case for any of us to make a justified judgement. For example; Liam and Nicole may have an open relationship, and the pregnancy was just bad luck. I don't see how a married woman could have an open relationship with a wanted millionaire who is also the father of their sons. Don't think the money has much to do with it when people agree to open relationships. I daresay it's at least as common amongst the rich as the middle class and the poor. I also don't understand it...but it happens.
|
|
|
Post by collibosher on Jul 20, 2013 3:14:12 GMT -5
Can someone summarise for me in no more than 75 words what we know to be true and what is merely speculation at this point? Cbf to read the whole thread. The fact this woman has come out with her story. If it was bollocks she'd be risking getting sued and ruining her career. Word has it she doesn't have a career to speak of and she's probably not going to get sued even if it's not true. It's going to come down to the DNA testing, and if Liam is the father, child support and any other verbal or written promises Liam may have made to her during the pregnancy and after the baby was born. If I were his attorney and assuming he is the father, I'd advise him to settle out now with a confidentiality agreement from her. If she starts making money from giving interviews, she'll be less likely to settle out for a reasonable amount. If I were her attorney, I'd tell her to start making money from interviews which would also serve to put some pressure on him to quiet her for a sum more to her liking.
|
|
|
Post by Underneath the sky on Jul 20, 2013 3:22:22 GMT -5
The fact this woman has come out with her story. If it was bollocks she'd be risking getting sued and ruining her career. Word has it she doesn't have a career to speak of and she's probably not going to get sued even if it's not true. It's going to come down to the DNA testing, and if Liam is the father, child support and any other verbal or written promises Liam may have made to her during the pregnancy and after the baby was born. If I were his attorney and assuming he is the father, I'd advise him to settle out now with a confidentiality agreement from her. If she starts making money from giving interviews, she'll be less likely to settle out for a reasonable amount. If I were her attorney, I'd tell her to start making money from interviews which would also serve to put some pressure on him to quiet her for a sum more to her liking. Not sure what the law is like in the US but if her claims are completely fictitious then she is surely going to get sued for slandering Liam? Looks like that at the very least Liam did have an affair with her - best he can hope for is that the baby isn't his.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2013 3:26:30 GMT -5
It has the word 'Fuck' on it and the British press wont print it we have standards you know, I'm now off to watch Jeremy Kyle
|
|
|
Post by LlAM on Jul 20, 2013 3:47:08 GMT -5
People are assuming a lot of things in this thread and there are just too many variables in this case for any of us to make a justified judgement. For example; Liam and Nicole may have an open relationship, and the pregnancy was just bad luck. I don't see how a married woman could have an open relationship with a wanted millionaire who is also the father of their sons. Stranger things have happened. All I'm saying is we have very little knowledge and no hard evidence. I'm personally just glad its someone roughly his own age and not an under aged girl (or boy for that matter).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2013 4:03:30 GMT -5
Finsbury Park DVD is awesome.....just saying...
|
|
|
Post by frjdoasis on Jul 20, 2013 5:24:41 GMT -5
Finsbury Park DVD is awesome.....just saying... ahahaha
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2013 7:01:55 GMT -5
|
|