YouTube rant missus hauled into court The British former actress who wowed cyberspace with her no-holds-barred YouTube assault on her estranged hubby has been hauled before a New York court to answer for her ranting. Tricia Walsh-Smith, 49, achieved in a few minutes a level of international fame which she could only have dreamt about during her thespian career, …
"Is YouTube a legally acceptable place to spout potential libellous abuse at one's spouse?"
Is a video slander or libel? hmmm.... it's verbal like slander but recorded like libel
Regardless, accusations that affect someones reputation or defames character without proof usually can result in financial loss, say bye bye to the £44k also, as Americans are so fond of "unlimited damages" (could this affect his career, social life, sexual function?) possibly everything else could be lost to him and his lawyers too, looks like Central Park may be calling........
I highly enjoyed that peek into the mind of a crazy gold-digging harlot who thinks she's owed the world for doing fuck-all.
The tarot cards were a nice touch too.
Though as the other half is 74 years of age, isn't this more a case of pensioner abuse, than "spousal abuse"?!
The guy ain't no Jack Nicholson.
>Watch the video. Apparently there is no sexual function to affect.
So, from this, the video indicates (and now you believe?) that he has no sexual function? unless it's actually true, her saying this (and you repeating/paraphrasing, as you didn't use the word "allege", in fact you indicate it's "apparent") could severly affect his quality of life now (as a subject of ridicule) and ability to find a partner in the future, sounds like she could be taken to the cleaners.
I'd get my coat, but that's probably at the cleaners too.
Is she on your planet? 'cos she sure as fsck isn't on this one. The guy can't be the sharpest knife in the draw for marrying that contraption, but at least he's smart enough to get rid of her and look after the daughters future before he pop's his clogs. Christ, I feel a whole lot better about life knowing I can just close the browser to not hear her any more.
But were those reputedly horrible things true? Just because they are horrible doesn't make them untrue, and if they are true they aren't slanderous or libelous.
And why does the target of the vitriol think that anyone out here would recognize him next week even if we could recognize his puss now? Seems he is guilty of a bit of puffery and wishfulness that anyone would recognize him next week, never mind today.
You might have the right and ability to say anything you want, but you will have to face the consequences. People are saying that if the statements are true then they aren't libel or slander. That might be true, but there still can be consequences - especially if you are going through a divorce with children. Just say something bad about your "soon to be insignificant" other in front of the children and see what a judge can say about it. The consequences very well could effect your visitation/custody rights - even if what you said is true.
In english law if the sex act hasnt been completed between a married couple, the marriage isnt consummated, and can be declared null and void by a judge.
Personally, i believe in that old concept of not washing your dirty laundry in public, a practice that seems to have become unfortunately common these days. Keep it to your self, I dont want to know all the gory details of your matrimonial failures...........
Paris, the archetypical public washer of dirty laundry.
This is the one where she claimed they never had sex isn't it? (I couldn't bare to watch it again).
If that's the case then the marriage can't have been consummated and if that's the case then he can apply for an annulment surely?
Then they were never married and she can't divorce him and so can't get a thing. It's that or admit she told a bare-faced lie to the entire world in order to damage his reputation or cause deliberate hurt.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Hmmm.. on the close-up to the poster of the play what she wrote, "Bonkers", I see heading the cast one Sally Farmiloe. Someone not unknown in the marital controversy stakes herself...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/archer/1437286.stm
(then click on her link)
Could they by any chance be related?
A very rich seam of irony to be mined here, methinks...
(p.s. in case you're wondering I only watched the vid once, Farmiloe's name sprang out as I know someone who knows her - if you catch my drift..)
Her husband is 25 years older than her, and she didn't marry him for his money? Yeah, yeah.
And what does she get out of making a video of her ranting on about her husband...absolutely nothing..other than a bit of revenge, trying to attack him and make him look bad....totally pointless exercise.....has no benefit to her at all. Well, if you ask me, the hubby is far better off without her! Wise move with the pre-nup, he wasn't stupid was he!
That's the problem with women when it comes to divorce..they want your money and they want to destroy you.
The more I think about it, the more I think we should have legalised pre-nups in the UK: it would stop the rediculous divorce cases where the wife can claim half the guys assets and then claim some of his future income ( which even he doesn't know how much that will be) and she claims she helped him develop his business by providing emotional support..that old trusty line, which seems to work every time.
Our laws (UK) need changing fast.
She is expecting a $500,000 pa pension AND she never even slept with him ? Puts some of my dates in perspective.
Non-consummation is normally only grounds for divorce on grounds of impotence, not for refusal to have sex. I doubt many rich men would testify to that in court simply to divorce their wife. She seems to undermine that possible reason for divorce with her phonecall.
The publication that carries a defamation is slander or libel determines the nature of the offence - slander on the more ephemeral media, libel on the more permanent records. So it is libel, but only if it is libelous, and since she is in the States then if she is telling the truth then it isn't libel.
It isn't pleasant to condemn other peoples looks, it only reflects badly on yourself. If I had the chance, I'd consummate a marriage with her. But only once then I'd file for divorce for half that pension.
The man marries an attractive, personable actress who's twenty-five years his junior, tries to screw her over financially, then claims that he's "petrified of publicity"? If he's telling the truth, then he's unbelievably stupid.
I'm also unimpressed by all the comments casting the woman as a gold digger. Do you imagine the guy thinks he'd be just as successful with women if he were making $35K a year?
-tnh
Whatever peoples opinion of the personal character of either the husband or wife may be (and whether correct or not), this woman is a fool for letting out her dirty laundry so publicly before the decision has been made. All it has done is give HIS lawyers fuel for their case.
As for someone being unimpressed by comments casting her as a gold digger, well sure, this guy has money and otherwise wouldn't be with such a young woman. But then isn't that exactly what a gold digger is? A woman who aims for a man like this, who she thinks will pop his clogs while she is still young enough to enjoy his money?
Seriously, it looks to me like she is a more or less talentless "actress" who was just well known enough to bag herself a rich, older husband. I have no sympathy.
"I'm also unimpressed by all the comments casting the woman as a gold digger. Do you imagine the guy thinks he'd be just as successful with women if he were making $35K a year?"
I don't see your point. Eh?
Yes, a gold digger. The fact that the guy can't get a woman without paying does not change that, does it?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
