So Laurence Fox has been to court today and denied sharing an intimate image of social media personality Narinder Kaur without her consent on social media.
The fact that she herself shared the picture a few years earlier should give the court reason to doubt her claim that she was humiliated and upset by its subsequent reposting.
It's clearly a case brought with malevolent intent. It's difficult to call a lady a liar, but then again ladies don't go around without underwear.
Why are people being so naive about this? Of course Kaur knew the paps would be there and deliberately went out without her knickers to get the shot and publicity - she was and is a publicity seeker. She even posted the picture herself at some point! Ridiculous that it has got to court.
Is the photographer in the dock? No. Why not? He must have published this first. Lawrence is just someone who “published” a photo of an indecent woman who goes around without her knickers on. Bad boy but also bad girl. What kind of woman does that? Especially one getting in and out of taxis and who knows the photographers will be around.
If it were me, I would never go without my knickers on in the first place, but if I was caught by ANY photographer in that undress, I would be so mortified that the very last thing in the world I would do would be to take the issue to court to ensure the WHOLE WORLD knows about it! This woman is a complete exhibitionist who gets a dirty kick out of this kind of misbehaviour. Lawrence has shown her up as being a perv but at his own expense. I love him but he’s a bit of a hothead when angry. He will be found guilty of course. 🥲
Sorry, not sorry - it's a decision not to wear underwear. If Kaur hadn't made that stupid call, we would not be needing to discuss this and Laurence Fox would not be up in court. How about arresting her for public indecency? Being a celebrity and courting attention is a sword that cuts both ways.
I fear they'll find him guilty, get 18 months, and have to go into segregation in a cat B prison, to protect him from the religion of peace. Tommy Robinson situation all over again.
Are you aware of your own "two-tiered" ethics??? You end your post with a defense of Laurence as "a decent man" ... yet by your own article you state,
"Laurence has claimed that he shared the image in retaliation for Kaur mocking commentator Leilani Dowding online, asserting it highlighted her "hypocrisy."
Take a good look in your own mirror, David. Hypocrisy is something very easy to slide into ... not claiming to be a plaster saint ... but get real: just because he's your friend, you aren't entitled to award Laurence ANY moral high ground after doing this enduring "visual rape". Shame on Laurence - he deserves to be punished by the law
- he can't rationalize his way into any level of innocence
No. You take a look in the mirror. 1. I know, Laurence and can attest to his good character. Do you know him? Or do you swallow what you read? 2. I won’t comment on the case for obvious reasons
The fact that she herself shared the picture a few years earlier should give the court reason to doubt her claim that she was humiliated and upset by its subsequent reposting.
It's clearly a case brought with malevolent intent. It's difficult to call a lady a liar, but then again ladies don't go around without underwear.
Agreed
As if the court would consider any mitigation. What she did a few years earlier will be glossed over. We all know it.
Why are people being so naive about this? Of course Kaur knew the paps would be there and deliberately went out without her knickers to get the shot and publicity - she was and is a publicity seeker. She even posted the picture herself at some point! Ridiculous that it has got to court.
Agreed
Is the photographer in the dock? No. Why not? He must have published this first. Lawrence is just someone who “published” a photo of an indecent woman who goes around without her knickers on. Bad boy but also bad girl. What kind of woman does that? Especially one getting in and out of taxis and who knows the photographers will be around.
If it were me, I would never go without my knickers on in the first place, but if I was caught by ANY photographer in that undress, I would be so mortified that the very last thing in the world I would do would be to take the issue to court to ensure the WHOLE WORLD knows about it! This woman is a complete exhibitionist who gets a dirty kick out of this kind of misbehaviour. Lawrence has shown her up as being a perv but at his own expense. I love him but he’s a bit of a hothead when angry. He will be found guilty of course. 🥲
You’re on the money Kat. I agree with every word!
Sorry, not sorry - it's a decision not to wear underwear. If Kaur hadn't made that stupid call, we would not be needing to discuss this and Laurence Fox would not be up in court. How about arresting her for public indecency? Being a celebrity and courting attention is a sword that cuts both ways.
Very good point
I fear they'll find him guilty, get 18 months, and have to go into segregation in a cat B prison, to protect him from the religion of peace. Tommy Robinson situation all over again.
This is awful.
Are you aware of your own "two-tiered" ethics??? You end your post with a defense of Laurence as "a decent man" ... yet by your own article you state,
"Laurence has claimed that he shared the image in retaliation for Kaur mocking commentator Leilani Dowding online, asserting it highlighted her "hypocrisy."
Take a good look in your own mirror, David. Hypocrisy is something very easy to slide into ... not claiming to be a plaster saint ... but get real: just because he's your friend, you aren't entitled to award Laurence ANY moral high ground after doing this enduring "visual rape". Shame on Laurence - he deserves to be punished by the law
- he can't rationalize his way into any level of innocence
- what he did is flat out rotten
No. You take a look in the mirror. 1. I know, Laurence and can attest to his good character. Do you know him? Or do you swallow what you read? 2. I won’t comment on the case for obvious reasons