Heartland

Look at the second picture. Carefully.

Wtf is coco the clown doing there?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4201022.stm

Well. It's all a fecking joke innit?

Sure that's not the queen? She is getting old and Barbara Cartland-y

This whole Diana thing is frankly cocking distasteful. It just goes on and on and on and on and gets worse and worse and worse. And the story is over. Long ago.

For the benefit of our overseas members, the tale goes like this:

Directionless school girl daughter of fat aristocrat with poor eyesight and tasteless second wife takes up job as infants school teacher whilst treading career water and waiting for right man to come along. She drives a Mini Metro and wears see-through skirts. Eventually, seeing a picture of her knickers through a thin cotton skirt, the wrong, but rich Prince decides he has the horn for her. They get together but she sits on his Aston and gets him angry at a Polo match. So he wanders off and snogs a woman he mistakes for a horse. The directionless thin waif bears two offspring for the Prince, one of which is the product of His Royal Penis and the other may not be. So shocked and appalled is she by the one and only moment of carnal congress with the Prince that she suffers significant self-esteem difficulties and gets nervous in his company, in fear of his doing it again. This makes her throw up her food when they dine together. He cannot get used to the amount of vomit everywhere and ships out. All alone in Kensington Palace, she lurks in the Gardens at night, sometimes turning up in hospital operating theatres in a ghoulish fashion, and sometimes picking up inappropriate strangers with whom she develops over-dependent relationships. Whilst coming back from a night watching heart surgery in Paddington she stumbles into the son of a local shopkeeper who takes her to his boat and then to his hotel in Paris. They got into a dodgy minicab with a drunk driver and she died. So did he. And so did the driver. People wept because people wept. The Prince married the horse. Everyone cheered.

The end.

Nicley put

An excellent parody, but...

Isn't this one of those potentially libellous post things in the vein of those which Mr Fiend removed?

Is there a way of blanking all Diana related things from my world perception as it takes valuable milliseconds of my time to dismiss them?

Even in parody - I. don't. care.

I still can't believe they cancelled the football for that woman.

What happened to a sense of priorities?

Motz wrote:An excellent parody, but...

Isn't this one of those potentially libellous post things in the vein of those which Mr Fiend removed?

its only libellous if its not true, surely?

A valid point. :lol:

Motz wrote:An excellent parody, but...

Isn't this one of those potentially libellous post things in the vein of those which Mr Fiend removed?

Really? Good job I never went to any lectures on libel / defamation at university then. Amazing what you don't need to know to be a lawyer.

Just seen this in popbitch, maybe these milliseconds weren't wasted. A hilariously awful DodiDi statue with an albatross, "a symbol of eternity". I thought they were bad luck....

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europ ... statue.ap/ absolutely hatstand.

@ andymackem they cancelled Tellytubbies as well, my little lad woke me up when I was supposed to be getting a lie in.

"So he wanders off and snogs a woman he mistakes for a horse."

"The directionless thin waif bears two offspring for the Prince, one of which is the product of His Royal Penis and the other may not be."

"So shocked and appalled is she by the one and only moment of carnal congress with the Prince that she suffers significant self-esteem difficulties and gets nervous in his company, in fear of his doing it again."

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not stupid either. The first is defamatory and unless you have reasonable evidence, the remaining two are quite reasonable targets for libel. As I understand it, the requirements for libel are that it's stated in a public place (publically accessible forum), the statement is not true (none of the above are proven) and could damage the person's reputation (go figure).

Glad that my friendly heads up was turned into flamebait with such grace

Motz wrote:"So he wanders off and snogs a woman he mistakes for a horse."

"The directionless thin waif bears two offspring for the Prince, one of which is the product of His Royal Penis and the other may not be."

"So shocked and appalled is she by the one and only moment of carnal congress with the Prince that she suffers significant self-esteem difficulties and gets nervous in his company, in fear of his doing it again."

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not stupid either. The first is defamatory and unless you have reasonable evidence, the remaining two are quite reasonable targets for libel. As I understand it, the requirements for libel are that it's stated in a public place (publically accessible forum), the statement is not true (none of the above are proven) and could damage the person's reputation (go figure).

Glad that my friendly heads up was turned into flamebait with such grace

I thought it was the case that you can say pretty much what you like providing the person in question is dead?

Quite possibly so, but all of the above statements apply equally to Charles, who is decidedly un-dead

They cancelled some Glastonbury coverage on Channel 4 as well, I seem to recall...

I was 13. I cared then.

I think Motz could be right here.

However, by long-standing tradition, the Royals don't sue. As for shopkeepers in West London .....

Of course, it could be the trial of the century. Bags a place on the press benches, with a big box of popcorn.

I assume we can all be very thankful, that it is even more unlikely that the Royal Family checks Heartland than that does.

Ooops.

All I said was I hadn't given it much thought, and then was rude about myself along the lines of not knowing anything about defamation etc (which I don't really) despite being a lawyer (which I have been for the last ten years).

I expect that somewhere in the laws on the subject there is some stuff about fair comment / clear parody / have to show loss / clearly a joke / no defamation about a dead person etc etc etc which would partly address the valid concerns you raise in your friendly heads up, but given I avoided all that stuff at university, not going to look now.

Ah, the joys of an uncurious mind.

It was such a long time ago. Can't stand the sentimentality of it really. No more sad than if it happened to the rest of us.

Why is there a clown in the photo though?

Thank you markfiend. Finally back on topic.

It's almost as if Coco was wandering along Kensington High St and saw it all kicking off and thought "!" for a moment and silently went up to the gathering and, in a great moment of appalling taste, just stood there with a classic clown/mime artist's "down" face as if making it into a bit of street art. That is the only reason I can muster. Can anyone do better.

Motz wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not stupid either.

Interesting implicit assumption by the way. I'm sure plenty would disagree.

canon docre wrote:
I assume we can all be very thankful, that it is even more unlikely that the Royal Family checks Heartland than that does.

I dunno Jessica, I've always had my suspicions about you...

You are German, after all!

Motz wrote:Quite possibly so, but all of the above statements apply equally to Charles, who is decidedly un-dead

zombie or vampire?