Beckham goes to Hollywood

[bigmc]

He would have been better goin to Bollywood with Shilpa out of big brother ....well the stick insect would have been in her element!

LOL

 

[(cyderman)]

thats bollox.

he has the right to earn what he likes, and accept offers like that from yanks with too much money.

Yes but hes never been a top sportsman in his sport only a advert to bring in the dollars ,he can hit a free kick but hes never beeen a great footballer !


and why the fcuk is he calling football ,soccer !!!!! eh eh eh eh eh eh eh

 

[Morbyd]

and why the fcuk is he calling football ,soccer !!!!! eh eh eh eh eh eh eh

I saw the press conference on Friday. It was funny... Beckham started out calling it football, but then the presenter posed a question to him pointedly using the word "soccer" and Beckham switched gears and said soccer for the rest of the event.

Laguna has a point... it's a marketing issue at this point. You'll find that most Americans who really follow soccer know that it's called football everywhere else. You find yourself using the word soccer just to avoid confusion with American football.

Disagree with Laguna about who plays football though... the youth leagues aren't only for affluent suburban teenagers. It's very popular among all suburban teenagers... but, as Laguna put so eloquent with his flatulence analogy, interest seems to disapear immediately upon outgrowing the youth leagues.

 

[Morbyd]

also American football = Rugby for lightweights.

*Runs away*

Wrong... the average American football player is about twice as heavy as a rugby player!

 

[sandi]

Wrong... the average American football player is about twice as heavy as a rugby player!

Why wear all that protective gear though. Big Wuss's.

 

[Morbyd]

Why wear all that protective gear though. Big Wuss's.

Ya? You try hitting hitting a 300 pound guy head-on at full speed... you'd want a helmet on too!

Which reminds me... wasn't rugby originally called football?

 

[sandi]

Ya? You try hitting hitting a 300 pound guy head-on at full speed... you'd want a helmet on too!

Which reminds me... wasn't rugby originally called football?

Still think they are wuss's.

 

[Buckley]

Do you really believe what the gutter tabloid press write?I for one am still very sceptical as to whether or not that story was true knowing the tart who was behind it, regardless no real man should ever let his missus dictate to what he says or does, if he does he is a wimp in my book, im sure there's a few of those "metro sexual men" out there who do let their birds dictate to them, sad fcuks

I believe that when the tabloids print express allegations from some no-marks about super-rich folk, but face no legal action, the balance of probability falls on them having conclusive proof.

 

[Morbyd]

I believe that when the tabloids print express allegations from some no-marks about super-rich folk, but face no legal action, the balance of probability falls on them having conclusive proof.

Trust me when I say that your assertion is very very wrong.

There're two things you can sue over in the UK: defamation and invasion of privacy.

You have to be able to prove some sort of financial damage to get the newspapers for defamation, which is nearly impossible on personal stories.

As for invasion of privacy, also a fine line as many in the UK have accepted that the private lives of famous people, whether they intentionally publicize themselves or not, is somehow part of the public domain.

 

[grego]

Trust me when I say that your assertion is very very wrong.

There're two things you can sue over in the UK: defamation and invasion of privacy.

You have to be able to prove some sort of financial damage to get the newspapers for defamation, which is nearly impossible on personal stories.

As for invasion of privacy, also a fine line as many in the UK have accepted that the private lives of famous people, whether they intentionally publicize themselves or not, is somehow part of the public domain.

the difference with loos and becks tho, is that it was true and everyone knew it!!

 

[Buckley]

Trust me when I say that your assertion is very very wrong.

There're two things you can sue over in the UK: defamation and invasion of privacy.

You have to be able to prove some sort of financial damage to get the newspapers for defamation, which is nearly impossible on personal stories.

As for invasion of privacy, also a fine line as many in the UK have accepted that the private lives of famous people, whether they intentionally publicize themselves or not, is somehow part of the public domain.

But people have forced them to print retractions and apologies about alleged affairs etc before. Which laws did they use then?

 

[Dan x]

But people have forced them to print retractions and apologies about alleged affairs etc before. Which laws did they use then?

It is hard work to do though TBH, and I think it's understandable that they didn't, even if the allegations were false.

You need to think about the relationship hey have with the papers in any case. Sueing them could be opeing up a hornets nest for having the taboids 'on their side'.

It's odd, I really couldn;t give a sh1t about Beckham in most cases, though I really wanted to believe he didn't do it. Either way, I think the resulting perfomances and media play of the Loos woman to be infinitely more embarassing.

 

[Morbyd]

But people have forced them to print retractions and apologies about alleged affairs etc before. Which laws did they use then?

Could be either set of rules depending on the person and the fallout, but in any case it's a total gamble... you might win if you can refute even the tiniest detail in the article. Unfortunately, usually these pieces are written in such a way (with phrases like so-and-so "is said to have" done something, or citing unnamed sources for any of the juicier bits, leaving it out of the prose) and so well combed over by lawyers that it makes it very hard. If they've got one little thing right amidst an ocean of inaccurate b.s. and inuendo, you're screwed.

Plus, as Dan noted, if you win you make an enemy of that publication and they'll always be on the lookout for the airtight scandal with which they can hang you. Alternatively, they'll be on the warpath against related people or businesses.

 

[Buckley]

Still think that their refusal to issue a denial speaks volumes.

 

[Dan x]

They did deny it. Just not in court IIRC?

 

[Buckley]

Plus, as Dan noted, if you win you make an enemy of that publication and they'll always be on the lookout for the airtight scandal with which they can hang you. Alternatively, they'll be on the warpath against related people or businesses.

If he didn't do it, publishing detailed accounts of made up affairs is fairly long way down the warpath already.

 

[Buckley]

They did deny it. Just not in court IIRC?

I though they refused to expressly deny it? Did one paper claim they couldn't deny it for fear of being sued themselves?

 

[Morbyd]

If he didn't do it, publishing detailed accounts of made up affairs is fairly long way down the warpath already.

I'm not really speaking about Beckham's case in particular... just your general assumption.

I actually think that Beckham did it (though I should probably have consumed a bit more salt with the story given what I know about how the tabloids work!)