Close
Vegas: That joke isn't funny anymore.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Norman Wisdom said:
http://petermusgrove.com/2008/05/06/this-joke-isnt-funny-anymore/
Comments please. Again have tried to keep to a strong journalistic style.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, thing said:
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?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
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.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, thing said:
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?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Norman Wisdom said:
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.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: Norman Wisdom @ May 6 2008, 11:51 AM BSTThe 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?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Barbs said:
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...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, thing said:
Quote: Norman Wisdom @ May 6 2008, 11:51 AM BSTThe 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.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, wayne lewis said:
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.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
I'd suggest fudging the names. Jimmy Blackpool maybe, if the stories strong enough people will get what you're talking about.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, wayne lewis said:
Fudging the names would work. Very vizesque. It was also make it funnier.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Sofa_Matt said:
Are you writing comedy or writing for Private Eye? This work seems to sit somewhere between the two.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Norman Wisdom said:
Quote: Barbs @ May 6 2008, 2:22 PM BSTIt'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 BSTIt'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.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
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.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Marc P said:
You can't be sued for satire.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Norman Wisdom said:
Quote: Marc P @ May 7 2008, 4:14 PM BSTYou can't be sued for satire.
View original
??? So you can write anything as long as it's classed as satire ?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Griff said:
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6938554.stm
Private Eye gets sued all the time, of course, but I think that is mostly due to the "factual" content rather than the obviously satirical.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
i think the lawyers at HIGNFY may disagree!
you cant just say what you want about someone and then say "only joking"
Quote: Marc P @ May 7 2008, 4:14 PM BSTYou can't be sued for satire.
View original
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Marc P said:
You can write a positive piece about someone and get sued, but you can't be sued for a nasty piece about someone if it is deemed satire.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
ripped from the BBC:
To win at court you have to convince a jury that your comic tormentors have lowered your reputation in the eyes of society at large or made you an object of hatred, ridicule or contempt.
Martin Soames of London law firm Biddle says that satirists and comedians, however funny their material, can find the courtroom a tough venue to play.
"Technically there's no defence that it was only meant as a joke. It might not seem half as funny in front of a crusty old judge."
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Griff said:
Quote:you cant just say what you want about someone and then say "only joking"
No, obviously this is true. And I am not a lawyer.
However I think there are some useful points to make.
I believe there is a legal concept called "vulgar abuse". The law believes, I think, that vulgar abuse, while unpleasant, does not seriously damage someone's reputation. So someone saying "Gordon Brown is a ******* ****" on stage can get away with it, because they are not making a specific allegation. Someone saying "Gordon Brown is a traitor and sells secrets to the Russians" might conceivably get into hot water. I also believe that the degree of intent to damage someone's reputation is also taken into account. So someone saying that during an improv night at a comedy club, who is clearly not trying to convince the audience that it is true, would be treated differently to someone publishing it as a leader in a broadsheet newspaper.
Secondly, obviously it is possible to say all kinds of horrible things about people in all kinds of media because it happens every day and most of the time, no-one gets sued. It's a risk you run I guess. Also, I think the first step in any legal proceedings in most cases would likely be a "desist" notice asking you to take down the blog, or stop using the gags in your theatre show, or print a retraction in your newspaper, rather than the other party seeking damages. Unless they are Tom Cruise or the McCanns.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
While the above is all true - it still leaves an online article that has ripped half its content from newspapers and then claimed someone was raped very exposed. In simple terms it ticks most of the boxes needed to get the "writer" in trouble.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, steven said:
Its true you can't be sued for satire. But it must be clear that it is satire. I think people were just pointing out that as the beginning of the report is actually genuine. For anybody who didnt know any better it would be difficult to tell where the facts end and where the fiction begins.
I would just rewrite it and begin with him having full sex with an audience member, but completely ham it up.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Norman Wisdom said:
I have changed his name and location and age. Does that help. Suppose I should change the pic. Still it would take a right toss pot to sue a struggling comic/psychiatric nurse for that, and I believe Johnny V IS A GOOD BLOKE BY ALL THAT I HEAR.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: Norman Wisdom @ May 8 2008, 8:44 PM BSTI believe Johnny V IS A GOOD BLOKE BY ALL THAT I HEAR.
View original
Well, if it sheds any light on the matter, the man in question broke both my legs with a mallet while simultaneosly shagging my girlfriend on stage in Swindon. Take from that, whatever lesson you will.
I believe changing names won't protect you in court, so the original dilemma remains the same. If the person being lampooned is easily recognised from the 'clues' (which is the whole point behind lampooning a celebrity) then it's the same as using their real name. Allegedly.
Also saying allegedly isn't a defence. You have to have reasonable grounds / sources from which to make the allegation.
It seems to be about 'context'. If the Spitting Image personalities weren't damaging to certain reputations then I don't know what else qualifies. But because the show was clearly set in satire / parody then the joke element is firmly established. In a show like HIGNFY (or even Private Eye) the content is funny but sometimes serious points and barbs are concealed within and this is what may place them on the edge of comedy / slander / libel. Spitting Image may well have been succesfully sued but I guess nowhere near as often as P.Eye etc.
Only 500 hits per day? Well done, Pete. We top Googles on certain keywords but still only average 100 a day, if that. I think including famous names as often as possible within your content will help drive people to your website. It's something we've been moving towards as part of our 'strategy'.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Norman Wisdom said:
I have been known to put the odd link on forums Slag A. For example the article I did on JK Rowling I put on a Harry Potter website. Had over 1000 hits that day alone. And then hopefully some people like what you do and come back on a regular basis.
Other good forums...Football fan sites, digital spy, mirror forum.
Even put this one on a Psychotherapy forum. Seemed to get good feedback. Shows these shrinks actually do have a sence of humour.
http://petermusgrove.com/2008/03/11/desperate-gang-members-demand-psychoanalysis-at-gunpoint-2/
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, steven said:
Digital spy is very good for attracting traffic.
I had this blog going last summer
http://tossed-salads.blogspot.com/2007/06/charley-snubs-kieran-shocker.html
And i attracted around 15k hits in a couple of months. A lot of it returning traffic. Due in no small part to a few entries that were posted on DS.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, thing said:
Quote: thing @ May 6 2008, 11:39 AM BSTAhem.
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?
View original
You might want to read this Peter
!Vegas acts over 'assault' claim
Johnny calls in the lawyers
Johnny Vegas has launched legal action against The Guardian for a story which claimed he sexually assaulted an audience member on stage.
Chortle understands that the comic has instructed leading libel lawyers Schillings to act on his behalf over an article printed on May 1 entitled: ‘Since when is sexual assault funny?’
The story claimed Vegas had ‘gratuitously groped’ a young woman on stage at London’s Bloomsbury Theatre, and accused him of being ‘a powerful, famous man on a stage seedily touching up a young woman’.
The paper’s allegations were widely repeated over the internet.
The original article has now been removed from the Guardian’s website, along with a follow-up opinion piece by comic Jackie Clune, also condemning Vegas, which appeared in this Sunday’s Observer.
Clune, who was not at the gig, began her article: ‘Stand-up comedy, like rape, is mostly about power’ and claimed the show ‘sounds like any night at an ordinary brothel - a fat, sweaty bloke getting his jollies with a captive young woman way out of his league. Except it was he, and not she, going home with a fistful of cash.’
A spokesman for Guardian News and Media said: ‘I can confirm that we have received a complaint from solicitors acting for Johnny Vegas about the two articles and we are currently investigating it.’
Schillings – whose recent clients include David Walliams, Nicolas Cage, Lisa Marie Presley and Marco Pierre White – did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
- and your link is still active ? Pretty arrogant, in my view.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Griff said:
I believe Mr.Vegas is on Jonathan Ross tonight. I wonder if the matter will be discussed. (Obviously I won't be watching as (A) Peep Show is on the other side, and (B) Jonathan Ross is rubbish.)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I bet they won't even mention it. Especially if there are legal matters now.
I wish they would though.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, waring said:
Quote: SlagA @ May 8 2008, 9:39 PM BSTI believe changing names won't protect you in court
View original
sey sadie what have you done?
you've ruined it all for everyone.
Anyway who'd be stupid enough to sue a website with a small number of readers - that would only bring attention to it and keep the medias attention on the incident that inspired it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, thing said:
Quote: waring @ May 10 2008, 3:13 AM BSTsey sadie what have you done?
you've ruined it all for everyone.
Anyway who'd be stupid enough to sue a website with a small number of readers - that would only bring attention to it and keep the medias attention on the incident that inspired it.
View original
Fair comment. Maybe correct, I wouldn't know.
Thing is though it was still pretty 'cheap' - the pre-amble, as some spotted, was a direct steal from the media and the joke itself not severe enough to be considered obvious 'satire'.
Having read some of the other offerings on Mr Musgrove's site I had a favourable first impression - so this has somewhat tainted it all. In this instance, the name change is laughable in response to the views of several posters who have advised some caution. Maybe he's a lawyer and feels quite confident - who knows.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Norman Wisdom said:
Name change and picture change. I feel this is now safe, and as I think Waring said it would be madness to sue a website with such small readership.
http://petermusgrove.com/2008/05/06/this-joke-isnt-funny-anymore/
p.s. Though I am sure there was some piss taking going on I genuinely thank people for there advice on this one. You never know, with my luck at the moment things would probably have gone tits up. It would have been great publicity for the website though. Lose my wife and kids, but gain some comic notoriety 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Quote: waring @ May 10 2008, 3:13 AM BSTsey sadie what have you done?
you've ruined it all for everyone.
View original
It's a beautiful song
One of my faves. Am going to dig out the White album now.Agree with the general consensus here in that suing you over the joke would be counter-productive. But if your readership went galactic, Peter ...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Norman Wisdom said:
Slag A..Do you think the rewrite is safe ?...Even in the unlikely event of my site going galactic !
http://petermusgrove.com/2008/05/06/this-joke-isnt-funny-anymore/
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
I'd think you're reasonably safe unless Vegas reads this 
I think maybe this line:
"If you want to watch a good clean family show maybe you should go to see Peter Kay!!"
I'd change to a really blue comedian like Chubby Brown to over-sell London's act. And maybe have the police interviewing the on-stage persona and charging him, perhaps having the persona serve time.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Marc P said:
Jackie Clunes' agent is on holiday for the next two weeks apparently.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
he seemed pretty genuine on JR.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Norman Wisdom said:
Absolutely. I love Johnny Vegas. One of the funniest guys around. Article was just a piss take.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, waring said:
i'm simply delighted that everyone got my sexy sadie quote.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
I got it, Waring. Honestly. 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, waring said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_Sadie_(song)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, DIKTURNIP said:
I don't know what depresses me more, someone getting Beatles lyrics wrong, or learning that people are putting famous names on their websites just to get googled.!!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Yep, I realised the song was about the old bearded yogi and that Lennon changed the name, mainly so that Harrison could play on the track and still save face with his Hindu mates. The lyrics without the name Maharishi are vague and could apply to anyone so the name change would have saved litigation. Now if he'd have sung:
"Sexy Sadie, you guru twat / We came to India and you touched up Mia's sis."
Lennon would have been facing legal action because it's clearly based on well-known accusations of the time.
Any one suspect as I do who Lennon was writing about in "Come Together"? The vicious verses, as opposed to the clarion call to simultaneous orgasm.
Quote: Norman Wisdom @ May 10 2008, 2:19 PM BSTAbsolutely. I love Johnny Vegas. One of the funniest guys around. Article was just a piss take.
View original
No need to defend that, Peter. You can still have a pop at people and think they're decent.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Vegas does seem perfectly nice off stage.
I remember when he did Room 101 he was very funny, admitting I think, that he went on to dating chat rooms or something...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nigel Kelly said:
Quote: zooo @ May 11 2008, 9:48 PM BSTVegas does seem perfectly nice off stage.
I remember when he did Room 101 he was very funny, admitting I think, that he went on to dating chat rooms or something...
View original
I saw that. I think he said he was online for 20 hours in some fantasy/role playing site.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Yeah!
Something Knighty or castley.
Sounded dreadful. But very sweet.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
It was funny, but sounded so scripted. Like one of Tarrantino's dreadful funny stories.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Well, it's Room 101. Everything's pretty much scripted. With most guests, anyway.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
True, I find my self playing spot the script these days. It gives me hope/
e.g. Steph K Amos on HIGNFY almost deffo not scripted.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
He was so funny.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
And I love the way he makes Hislop look like a mini, nervy, BJ.
Merton of course is unflappable. You could stick him on with a hungry grizzly and he'd be fine.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Did you mean Reginald D Hunter?
Reginald D Hunter = funny
Stephen K Amos = not funny.
Chalk and Cheese.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
Bloody hell, it's a good thing I'm not a hangman.
I'd have to write so many letters of apology.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Badge @ May 12 2008, 12:00 AM BSTDid you mean Reginald D Hunter?
Reginald D Hunter = funny
Stephen K Amos = not funny.
Chalk and Cheese.
View original
Correctamundo.
Why must everyone have confusing unnecessary middle initials? It's not like there's already a Stephen Amos or Reginald Hunter in the business.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
I have the same confusion with Samantha J Anus.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
teehee.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
That's just smutty, mind you know she made a film where she was in the nip.
Up and Under.
Nude she was in it, absolutely.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, waring said:
Quote: DIKTURNIP @ May 11 2008, 9:04 PM BSTI don't know what depresses me more, someone getting Beatles lyrics wrong, or learning that people are putting famous names on their websites just to get googled.!!
View original
Me getting some lyrics wrong depresses you? That's a bit depressing.
as for the google thing - i don't think anyone knows what you're talking about.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, DIKTURNIP said:
I think people who do it (namedropping)know what I mean, try reading the posts again; and try checking lyrics before you post them. Then you won't be depressed by my being depressed by your getting Beatles lyrics wrong.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, waring said:
it's not name dropping if you don't know the person! It's just talking about celebrities! We're not allowed to do that now? It's a national obsession!
And I don't give two shits shy of a sixpence if i got some Beatles lyrics wrong. I'm not the Beatles, it doesn't matter.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, DIKTURNIP said:
You have no idea what I'm talking about and I can't be bothered explaining it again.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Paul W said:
Quote: DIKTURNIP @ May 13 2008, 4:47 PM BSTYou have no idea what I'm talking about and I can't be bothered explaining it again.
View original
Well, that's one problem in this thread sorted then.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, waring said:
and you don't have a clue what name dropping means.
It's letting people know that you're friends with someone famous or important by casually dropping their name into a conversation.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: waring @ May 13 2008, 7:03 PM BSTand you don't have a clue what name dropping means.
It's letting people know that you're friends with someone famous or important by casually dropping their name into a conversation.
View original
I was saying just that to Cilla Black earlier
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, SlagA said:
Waring, DickTurnip was referring to my comment:
Quote: SlagA @ May 8 2008, 9:39 PM BSTIncluding famous names within your content will help drive people to your website. It's something we've been moving towards as part of our 'strategy'.
View original
I should have mentioned it earlier to save hassle. Apologies.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, waring said:
well i take some of it back but it's still not really name dropping.
And i regret nothing when it comes to the beetles.