>I am at this very moment waiting to speak to a journalist from an un-named tabloid newspaper about a legal matter concerning myself. I've just recieved a phone call from a trusted person who assures me the article will be sympathetic and WON'T bankrupt me. But it's a scummy, scummy paper. What the shit should I do?
>
They always say that the article will be sympathetic if they're going to monster you - at least, this seems to be the case from accounts I've read by people who've been in similar situations (although they were often people like the Kilshaws who are quite gullible). I would refuse to comment unless you're VERY sure that they will be sympathetic. Remember they will spin the story in whatever way will pander to the prurience of their readers and sell the most papers. In other words, it depends who is on the other side of the legal battle. If you've been indicted for fucking cod, I would advise caution.
But what the fuck do I know? I'm just an internet monkey. Why not stall and get competent legal and PR advice?
Conversely any story in the next few days will be larged ignored...
>I am at this very moment waiting to speak to a journalist from an un-named tabloid newspaper about a legal matter concerning myself. I've just recieved a phone call from a trusted person who assures me the article will be sympathetic and WON'T bankrupt me. But it's a scummy, scummy paper. What the shit should I do?
>
It all depends on how much you've got to hide. I'd say take the risk and see what they've got to say. If they trash you you can always blub to another newspaper about your unfair treatment.
News of the World eh? Well, whatever you do be very careful. Evaluate what you've got to lose and what they've got to gain. Get legal advice!
I'm going ahead with it. It turns out they could kill two birds with one stone - the persuer's LAYWER is actually their initial target - but they now want to expose the dirt on my persuer to link th etwo together. They have photographed him without his knowledge, and it is not to be a flattering image. They have requested pictures of me and another from us personally. Reading the article about the lawyer last week, I'm 90% sure they're on my side, but because they want to stuff the lawyer mainly. By the way I have nothing to hide - no fish fucking btw - but it's stuff that happened when I was a minor and I don't want it in the papers if I can avoid it. But - this could help throw it out of court. Anyway, I was shitting myself when I posted earlier - I feel a bit better now but fear more exposure. I know the article will run despite the terroist attacks in the USA - its big enough to make page 20-something. And it's not News Of The World. And I am not "Robert Venables" blah blah blah.
>And I am not "Robert Venables" blah blah blah.
Who are you then? This is all very vague.
>Who are you then? This is all very vague.
It's not a terribly interesting story compared to your day to day stuff, trust me. But it affects ME - I'm not giving any deatails away, obviously. Close the thread, Rob. I know how people's personal shit shouldn't be confused & displayed on a forum like this. I was just shitting myself for a bit there, and i happened to be online.
anonymous - don't do it. just don't do it.