I hope this means her claims will be properly investigated and somebody looks at her birth certificate!




www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2510243...ation-cost-work.html

This Is More Like It - Freddie Starr Ate Her Story!

Don't Mess With Scousers.

World Views wrote:
This Is More Like It - Freddie Starr Ate Her Story!

Don't Mess With Scousers.


Indeed!

www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=co...catid=2&id=88671

One-time fraudster, admits to memory being flaky and having to reconstruct it with help from the other Duncroftians. Am I correct in thinking that the civil court can consider "previous", whereas it is inadmissable evidence in a criminal court for sex cases?

With luck and a good brief, Freddy should do more than blow the bloody doors off this bandwagon.

I notice in the Daily Mail article, she has suddenly gone from being 14 to 15...'Allo, 'Allo, 'Allo! One more article & she really will of been 16, as she was indeed, when the programme went out. Come on, come on Gazza, do join in.

no-one is seeing the big picture.

If Freddie wins much of the media can be sued.

I've never been a fan of Freddie Starr BUT he was first arrested on 1st November 2012.

Today he has been re-bailed until February 2014.

Being on bail is not life affirming. It is truly horrid and life destroying, especially when no crime occurred. If a crime did occur here - then charge him.

BarntheBarn wrote:
I've never been a fan of Freddie Starr BUT he was first arrested on 1st November 2012.

Today he has been re-bailed until February 2014.

Being on bail is not life affirming. It is truly horrid and life destroying, especially when no crime occurred. If a crime did occur here - then charge him.

They haven't got a case matey - they are trying to cobble one together.

Now if you want some real abuse (and I can prove it !) - Harry Corbett always had his hand up Sooty (and Sweep !)

In order for Freddie Starr to sue Karin Ward, he would have to prove maliciousness, which would be very difficult. You can't just sue someone because they have accused you of doing something and they can't prove it. This would be a dangerous precedent. If you were to get mugged tonight and you recognise the person that did it, but you couldn't prove it, would this mean they would be able to sue you for making the accusation.

She may well have genuinely believed that she was 14 at the time, after all can you all remember what age you were when certain events happened to you years ago. After all Freddie Starr couldn't even remember appearing on the show at all.

Well done Freddie, hope this helps bring down Yewtree.

robbiex wrote:
In order for Freddie Starr to sue Karin Ward, he would have to prove maliciousness, which would be very difficult. You can't just sue someone because they have accused you of doing something and they can't prove it. This would be a dangerous precedent. If you were to get mugged tonight and you recognise the person that did it, but you couldn't prove it, would this mean they would be able to sue you for making the accusation.

She may well have genuinely believed that she was 14 at the time, after all can you all remember what age you were when certain events happened to you years ago. After all Freddie Starr couldn't even remember appearing on the show at all.

Only time will tell if the case is proven but there appears to be plenty of evidence that these claims were malicious, and I cant imagine a lawyer taking on the case otherwise.

In The Know wrote:
BarntheBarn wrote:
I've never been a fan of Freddie Starr BUT he was first arrested on 1st November 2012.

Today he has been re-bailed until February 2014.

Being on bail is not life affirming. It is truly horrid and life destroying, especially when no crime occurred. If a crime did occur here - then charge him.

They haven't got a case matey - they are trying to cobble one together.

Now if you want some real abuse (and I can prove it !) - Harry Corbett always had his hand up Sooty (and Sweep !)

Could this look any more contrived if it tried? What 'evidence' of this trivial and inaccurate little complaint do they expect to find? Why is it worth prosecuting now?

And I don't believe it happened, apparently quite a few of her contemporaries from Duncroft have said that little book of hers she is trying to flog is riddled with un truths and inaccuracies, the incidents with Jimmy Savile and Freddie Starr were not mentioned in the very detailed synopsis in 2009, these only came after she had reconnected with people from Duncroft in 2010 and heard about the contrived police investigation into Jimmy Savile in about 2008 - 2009 that had been instigated by the Sun newspaper.

If they have nothing to charge him with, they have nothing to charge him with, the fact they are leaving him hanging like this hoping to 'find' something or solicit another 'complaint'from somewhere just reeks of corruption...

robbiex wrote:
In order for Freddie Starr to sue Karin Ward, he would have to prove maliciousness, which would be very difficult. You can't just sue someone because they have accused you of doing something and they can't prove it. This would be a dangerous precedent. If you were to get mugged tonight and you recognise the person that did it, but you couldn't prove it, would this mean they would be able to sue you for making the accusation.

She may well have genuinely believed that she was 14 at the time, after all can you all remember what age you were when certain events happened to you years ago. After all Freddie Starr couldn't even remember appearing on the show at all.

Fair enough point for those who have made a *genuine* mistake, but this is no genuine mistake, she's done this for money and attention rather than malice though. SHE was in a better position than anyone to check what age she was when she was on that show and has never come forward to publicly correct herself ever since (nor has any of the media funnily enough). It was an easy fact to check, check when the show was filmed and your own date of birth before printing it in a book, running your mouth to the papers or on national tv or going to the police. Simples. But of course she'd have already been aware what age she was, her and the medias aim was to mislead the public and to create drama and hysteria.

I hope this helps bring the truth out.

robbiex wrote:
In order for Freddie Starr to sue Karin Ward, he would have to prove maliciousness, which would be very difficult. You can't just sue someone because they have accused you of doing something and they can't prove it. This would be a dangerous precedent. If you were to get mugged tonight and you recognise the person that did it, but you couldn't prove it, would this mean they would be able to sue you for making the accusation.

She may well have genuinely believed that she was 14 at the time, after all can you all remember what age you were when certain events happened to you years ago. After all Freddie Starr couldn't even remember appearing on the show at all.

an odd conclusion and wrong in the law of libel. Maliciousness can be making a false statement and Freddie most certainly can prove that the harm has been intense and financially damaging.

I speak from experience as having successfully sued the News of The World for something far less damaging (their defense was they mistook me for someone else- true but they were still liable- paid damages , huge legal fees and a front page apology)

Freddie doesn't have to prove anything- she must prove she is right if she defends it.

But note , the nasty cow has already given an interview saying she doesn't care as she is pot less. The coward's defense.

It's a shame the law of Criminal Libel isn't still on the books especially in these days of the internet with creeps like Spivey and Rotten Potato Films and so on. And that tool of the devil : Twatter

Strange woman.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2510876...nds-says-sue-me.html

hedda wrote:
robbiex wrote:
In order for Freddie Starr to sue Karin Ward, he would have to prove maliciousness, which would be very difficult. You can't just sue someone because they have accused you of doing something and they can't prove it. This would be a dangerous precedent. If you were to get mugged tonight and you recognise the person that did it, but you couldn't prove it, would this mean they would be able to sue you for making the accusation.

She may well have genuinely believed that she was 14 at the time, after all can you all remember what age you were when certain events happened to you years ago. After all Freddie Starr couldn't even remember appearing on the show at all.

an odd conclusion and wrong in the law of libel. Maliciousness can be making a false statement and Freddie most certainly can prove that the harm has been intense and financially damaging.

I speak from experience as having successfully sued the News of The World for something far less damaging (their defense was they mistook me for someone else- true but they were still liable- paid damages , huge legal fees and a front page apology)

Freddie doesn't have to prove anything- she must prove she is right if she defends it.

But note , the nasty cow has already given an interview saying she doesn't care as she is pot less. The coward's defense.

It's a shame the law of Criminal Libel isn't still on the books especially in these days of the internet with creeps like Spivey and Rotten Potato Films and so on. And that tool of the devil : Twatter


How can he prove that he has been financially damaged. Maybe people aren't going to see his shows because he is an old washed-up comedian who hasn't been on tv for over 20 years (other than reality shows). The last time I saw his house on tv, he didn't seem to be too poverty stricken. Remember Freddie Starr's immediate response to the accusation was that he hadn't appeared on the show. A claim that was easily disproved. It is not Karin Ward's fault that promoter's aren't booking Freddie Starr anymore.

you seem to miss the point about libel : Karin Ward must prove that it is true. She can't just say she made a mistake. (or she could have early on and apologised and that would have been the end)

There is a clear case of vindictiveness and maliciousness : her claim in the media that she doesn't give a toss about being sued for libel as she is potless : in other words she doesn't give a stuff about ruining Starr's life..she's basically mocking him and says she cannot be held to account.

example : A case I assisted in ( as a witness) 5 years ago : an 87 year old woman was falsely accused of theft. Her accuser refused to apologise and withdraw the claim.

The accuser's barrister claimed the case should be struck out in court as at 87 years of age the woman was no longer working , had little time left so reputation didn't matter.

The judge disagreed and said the opposite was true : she had a lifetime of dedication to honest work and at her great age she deserved to retain her impeccable reputation even though she had become a pensioner.

she settled for an apology in court and costs.

I think you are confusing a dislike for Starr ( I'm was never a fan)for reality. Freddie may wish to go on tour again after a lifetime of stardom. He has thousands of fans and a reputation.

## the bigger picture : Starr will win and can pursue numerous media outlets that perpetuated Ward's fantasies. They will all settle. As they did with the McCanns, Robert Murat, Louis Waklsh etc etc..

### legal advice given on all matters..questions with a fiver to hedda's inbox. ( one question-one fiver)

In full agreement with Hedda QC - and the point is... if successful this sends off a HUGE warning shot to all those morons who simply do not understand the laws of libel, media and online. We are ALL now publishers. We are ALL responsible for what we publish (why do you think I made these boards "approve first" on comments in the 1990s, when it started, and likewise have immediate blocks on all You Tube etc posts?).

It was precisely because of this that PR Person Max Clifford's organisation gave advice to my original false accuser (whose claims were thrown out by the Judge)... no media outlet would publish; go to police so media can cover that instead and provoke other claims. But times have changed. Max would now change his advice... were he in any position to give it to false accusers. Lord McAlpine - two words to bear in mind Karin.

As for her silly, stupid, brain dead wail ("I've got no money")(... the alternative may not be attractive love, although health care in the prison estate is very good.

This thread has had over 25,000 views so far.

of course as in all matter that go to court- the outcome cannot be guaranteed.

It's often forgotten though that when someone sues, say a tabloid for libel, they can also sue the printers, reporters, newspaper sellers, the truck drivers who deliver the publication, WH Smiths etc etc and so on.

They just don't usually do it

The new battle is the internet and I am assisting a good pal who was libeled on a ghastly US website that claims to be a 'consumer advocate' site yet is full of horrible claims. They also run a 'reputation repair' entity that charges thousands$$ to remove the claims.

She's in Adelaide and suing this California company plus Google there...Google for not removing links Using a lawyer that has had 3 successful actions against Google with huge payouts.

Google are throwing a fortune at defending these cases (they pay so little tax they can) probably on the hope litigant's costs will blow -out.

It does become a game of tactics.

Still think Freddie should have her car and hamster.

I see him live if he came down at the local venue's.