http://petermusgrove.com/2008/05/06/this-joke-isnt-funny-anymore/

Comments please. Again have tried to keep to a strong journalistic style.
 

---

www.petermusgrove.com
 

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?
 

---

Sorry: It's something to do with Stella.
 

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.
 

---

The ASDA of satire.
AKA Da Pun-da-mentalist
AKA 3rd Chuckle Brother
 

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?
 

---

Sorry: It's something to do with Stella.
 

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.
 

---

www.petermusgrove.com
 

Quote: Norman Wisdom @ May 6 2008, 11:51 AM BST

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.

View original

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 BST

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.

View original

-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.
 

---

Sorry: It's something to do with Stella.
 

Quote: Norman Wisdom @ May 6 2008, 11:17 AM BST

Comments please. Again have tried to keep to a strong journalistic style.

View original

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.
 

---

Come with me and you'll be in a world of pure imagination, we'll begin with a spin traveling in the world of my creation

Feel free to be as negative as you want to my scripts or sketches.

Feel free to make whatever suggestions you want to my scripts or sketches, however by making any suggestions or changes you are then giving me the right to use them without asking your permission. Which is nice.
 

I'd suggest fudging the names. Jimmy Blackpool maybe, if the stories strong enough people will get what you're talking about.
 

---

The ASDA of satire.
AKA Da Pun-da-mentalist
AKA 3rd Chuckle Brother
 

Fudging the names would work. Very vizesque. It was also make it funnier.
 

---

Come with me and you'll be in a world of pure imagination, we'll begin with a spin traveling in the world of my creation

Feel free to be as negative as you want to my scripts or sketches.

Feel free to make whatever suggestions you want to my scripts or sketches, however by making any suggestions or changes you are then giving me the right to use them without asking your permission. Which is nice.
 

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 BST

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...

View original

Quote: Barbs @ May 6 2008, 2:22 PM BST

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...

View original

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.
 

---

www.petermusgrove.com
 

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.
 

---

The ASDA of satire.
AKA Da Pun-da-mentalist
AKA 3rd Chuckle Brother
 

You can't be sued for satire.