Question...

[NO SUNSHINE]

Mrs Ash would only have qualified for child benefit of £78.43 a month. She said: 'It was the straw that broke the camel's back.'What does this mean?

I read that as "I barely wanted to be married/living with him as it was, but when I found out I wasn't gonna make much from benefits from it I couldn't stand it any more"+You should probably ask bladerunner or someone else who knows law about thisBut if you submit your photo to NOTW I would imagine it becomes their property and they can effectively do what they want with it

[Mr. Martinez]

LMFAO.

[Superstition]

The resident VIP2 legal eagles can probably clarify better, but to my understanding if there's nothing factually incorrect, then it doesn't qualify as defamation. The article is journalistically fine, if it's a true reporting of information which isn't protected in any wayYou probably don't have much of a claim for privacy, since you agreed to put your family's business in a national newspaper to begin with

[Captain Planet]

Where's that car topic I feel some snitching is in order.

[Angelo]

Superstition is right.It would be highly unlikely to qualify as Libel unless anything written about you A) You hadn't agreed to it's publication, or Was grossly misleading and damaging to your reputation.

[Rothschild]

Superstition is right.It would be highly unlikely to qualify as Libel unless anything written about you A) You hadn't agreed to it's publication, or Was grossly misleading and damaging to your reputation.

Look, this was a year and a half ago, I am trying to get on with my life and all this bringing it back up sh*t is not helping. I did not agree for this to happen and the NOTW told a load of bull.

[Rothschild]

Where's that car topic I feel some snitching is in order.

You will look like an idiot tbh because you don't know all the facts.Here people, Snitch on the loose.

[Steven]

Superstition is right.It would be highly unlikely to qualify as Libel unless anything written about you A) You hadn't agreed to it's publication, or Was grossly misleading and damaging to your reputation.

Look, this was a year and a half ago, I am trying to get on with my life and all this bringing it back up sh*t is not helping. I did not agree for this to happen and the NOTW told a load of bull.

Karma's a bitch

[serpent]

you should be ashamed of yourselves tbh

[Rothschild]

Do you know what, pure idiots on here try big themselves up. Especially Steven and this snake breh.Got something to say, Jamaica road, come see me.If not? then f*ck off twats.

[djbmc]

I guess you didn't read the small details.You probably unwittingly signed away your right for them to ask your permission, in other words u probably signed something that allows them to use you & yours time & time wihtout ur say so.

^this^ it'll be like when u watch the news and they talk about street violence/hoodies, and always play the same video of some kid putting a brick thru a car window. Now every time anything to do with benefits or benefit cheats appears on the news or in a newspapers Ashman's face will be the pic they always use.

[neeko]

lol got parred nationally. f*cked.

[bladerunner]

if there's nothing factually incorrect, then it doesn't qualify as defamation. The article is journalistically fine, if it's a true reporting of information which isn't protected in any wayYou probably don't have much of a claim for privacy, since you agreed to put your family's business in a national newspaper to begin with

Bingo.

[Omar Little]

LOL YOU SCROUNGING PIKEY c*nt

[Guillermo Rigondeaux]

ashman i was also watching channel 5 news and they had a small piece on immigrationthere was one immigrant who was saying that native british people are worse than immigrants as they dont even contribute, whereas (he was arguing) the immigrant population (on the whole) work hardanyways, long story short, he cited your story which was in the paper as evidence and a picture of your boat with someone who i assume is your wife was on the box. they didn't name you though. it just popped up for a couple secs.basically this one guy was touting you as the downfall of white english people

[bladerunner]

basically this one guy was touting you as the downfall of white english people

Which has a lot of truth in it. Those uneducated (largely), poor white people that blame everyone else for their sh*t lives.

[carpedeum]

someone should email them the pics of your wife "laughing at how she benefits from our benefits".

[Omar Little]

someone should email them the pics of your wife "laughing at how she benefits from our benefits".

LOLBring the whole Ashman empire down.Get the parents locked up and have the kids raised by foster parents (which honestly is the best thing for them)

[bladerunner]

someone should email them the pics of your wife "laughing at how she benefits from our benefits".

Get the parents locked up and have the kids raised by foster parents (which honestly is the best thing for them)

Ash is annoying, yes.But I honestly think him and his wife are better parents than they get credit for...Ceazy at least...she says some fairly rational things on here.

[carpedeum]

u dont deserve credit for being a parent imo. (unless from your kids)

[bladerunner]

u dont deserve credit for being a parent imo. (unless from your kids)

I know what you're saying and largely agree...but you CAN be a bad parent...and I was just pointing out that imo they're not, judging from what I hear them say (9 times out of 10) about parenting...

[Kaiser]

Straw that broke the camels backLMFAOProleptic Irony if I ever saw it

[bladerunner]

edit

[Superstition]

if there's nothing factually incorrect, then it doesn't qualify as defamation. The article is journalistically fine, if it's a true reporting of information which isn't protected in any wayYou probably don't have much of a claim for privacy, since you agreed to put your family's business in a national newspaper to begin with

Bingo.

See, law qualifications ain't sh*t it's all just common sense *applies to magic circle firms*

[bladerunner]

if there's nothing factually incorrect, then it doesn't qualify as defamation. The article is journalistically fine, if it's a true reporting of information which isn't protected in any wayYou probably don't have much of a claim for privacy, since you agreed to put your family's business in a national newspaper to begin with

Bingo.

See, law qualifications ain't sh*t it's all just common sense *applies to magic circle firms*

Not true actually...seriously.Defamation is actually much hazier than that, and there are cases that would suggest Ashman DOES have an argument regarding the photo. I just cannot a) remember them, or b ) be arsed to look for them.*Takes Superstition's application and tears it up*