I feel a bit sad pointing out that their story "Gary Glitter is turning to pervert music mogul Jonathan King" is slightly inaccurate as Gary Glitter is NOT turning to me for anything as he has had no contact with me and is, I'm sure, not intending to do so.

I feel sad having to do this as we all know the once grand old lady is sick, on her knees and within inches of death and this may hasten the demise of the tired old organ.

But we could all do without the tabloids printing untrue shit.

Not that it will ever happen.

Threaten to SUE their sorry ARSES JK. They will need to prove that GLITTER has turned to you. If they cant then they will need to settle out of court.

This could be fun !!!

It gives you a bigger platform to speak - and advertise your musical as well.

With the many THOUSANDS of regulars on here who doubt the convictions against you and many others in UK society - and who want a decent and just UK back - I am sure that you should be able to get the money out of them.

You could take out an ADVERT is some of the bigger newspapers about this site and your musical ( Telegraph - Guardian - Indepenent Spring to mind ) and this forum - where YOUR VIEWS actually has gathered together some of the best minds in music and politics for debate on TV - Radio - Entertainment - and UK JUSTICE.

I have to be honest I thought The People was bankrupt - have not seen it on news stands for a few years now - but you could help to nail its coffin.

Confirmation received from the Press Complaints Commission (toothless watchdogs) that my complaint has been accepted and is being investigated.

Not a bad idea about suing them. I'd quite like to take on the Mirror Group again; last time (when they used one of my copyrights illegally on a bloody CD giveaway) they ended up having to pay me many thousands.

Good luck if you do.

Sometimes I cant believe that these papers have lawyers who are meant to advise them that making claims that are untrue is a sueable offence. Especially when the intention is to undermine the reputation of someone - a clear case of libel.

oh for chrissakes

are there no depths they will not stoop to.

I suppoose lying is a way of life for them.

Yes but those of us who love the media would like to improve rather than squash the offenders.

I reckon the advice from lawyers would be-even if a person sued-how much money they would need to pay if an individual won the suit versus the promotional aspect of a false story ie: does one balance out the other so it's a "let's take a chance and see what we get away with". Extra sales will make up the difference in costs

Afterall-only the well heeled can afford to sue-the vast general public have little recourse.

It would be fascinationg if someone took on a newspaper's lawyers over the advice they gave re: a false story. Every story gets run past the lawyers.

If the lawyers gave inaccurate or mis-leading advice deliberately, there must be a case for making a formal complaint to whatever legal body handles lawyer's complaints.

Imagine if one were able to get a newspaper lawyer reprimanded or even struck off over their advice on a completely false story ( as in this Glitter/JK matter).
All lawyers are obligated to only give accurate legal advice that follows the law-they cannot give a client advice to circumvent the law-that's why if a client tells them he is guilty the lawyer must then accept that and enter a guilty plea. Likewise if the client says he isn't guilty-the lawyer is ogligated to defend him as "not guilty" no matter what he personally believes.

Now-I know the publishing world pretty well and the usual response with a newspaper lawyer is to simply ask the journalist if he can back up his story-and if they yes-then that's about as far as they go. But this could still be seen as a lawyer failing to do his duty.

(I've sued numerous publications over various matters-mainly breach of copyright..and won each time because I was right. But even then my lawyer-a copyright expert- still demands I provide him with proof-he will not accept just my word-and he's a family friend !)

This could set an amazing precedent in the publishing world !

Lawyers often make mistakes with their advice-but deliberate advice to circumvent the law is forbidden.

In fact-if newspaper proprietors continued the practice and heavied their lawyers to pass false stories-it could mean they were engaging in an illegal conspiracy !!

Think about it !
*****
Obviously JK must do something about this story- not only because it's false but because of this rediculous "sex offendor' status. The police would be aware half these stories are false but who needs newspapers to be able to build upon this. I notice The Sun has been very careful not to mention the name of Glitter's host-must be a little frightened to do so but no doubt they are delving into the person's background.

Let's see what the PCC say about it.

Very interesting post about the legality of all of this.

If the PCC uphold JK's complaint which I am sure that they will unless The People can provide the evidence to back up its claim ( impossible ) then perhaps complaining about the lawyers would be a good route to go down.

It is time our Press were held to account. Time for them to only print "stories" which have some basis in fact. As we know they seem to make up most stories and a dumbed down public believes them ( e.g all the crazy stories about Maddie )

They create so much misery when they could be genuinely entertaining.

It never rains...

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/27/the...e.pressandpublishing