posted on April 27, 2006 11:05:59 AM new
LONDON (AP) -- Sharon Stone has accepted an undisclosed sum in libel damages from a British newspaper that alleged she had left her 4-year-old son in a car while dining at a London restaurant.
Kirsty Howarth, a lawyer for the owners of the Daily Mail, told a judge at London's High Court on Thursday the newspaper now accepted that the allegation was untrue, and apologized to Stone for the distress and embarrassment it had caused.
Stone's lawyer, Rupert Grey, said the 48-year-old actress had agreed to accept an undisclosed sum in damages from the newspaper and planned to donate the money to charity.
The "Basic Instinct 2" star wasn't present for the court hearing.
In an article last June, the Daily Mail alleged that Stone had left her 4-year-old son Roan asleep in a car with her driver for more than two hours outside The Ivy restaurant - a London celebrity hangout - while she dined with a "mystery male companion."
"The article conveyed the clear allegation that Sharon Stone had neglected her son in a shameful and selfish way," Grey said.
The Daily Mail repeated the allegations in an article the next month, and they were picked up by other media outlets.
Grey said Stone could produce witnesses to confirm that her son had dined with her at the restaurant.
posted on April 27, 2006 11:20:24 AM new
Well dbl that is the standard now-a-days. I don't think it is right. If the article was false she has a right to sue but for that amount, but when printing the news it has to be true or don't print it. Plain and simple.
posted on April 27, 2006 02:39:01 PM new
Hu ya Libra....good to see you too...
Yes, I agree. Before you print/publish slander against people you should "KNOW" what is true and what if your perception is mere as fiction or from bad sources.
Or at least have the journalistic license, background and integrity not to. There is way too much of this going on in the main stream media jumping to conclusions with unobjectionshional POV's. The media must accept its responsiblity in furthering fair and unbiased journalism. Unless of course you are talking strictly rags who go around bugging and spying on public figures to get their crap out for their $$'s.
posted on April 27, 2006 05:48:05 PM new
You're right Kraft, it's not a windfall.
windfall |?wind?fôl| noun an apple or other fruit blown down from a tree or bush by the wind. • a piece of unexpected good fortune, typically one that involves receiving a large amount of money : [as adj. ] windfall profits.
dbl called this a windfall, she's the one who ought to look it up. She may have only received a token amount. Whether big or small, hardly unexpected as she sued them, and so, not a windfall at all.
____________________________________________
posted on April 27, 2006 06:17:13 PM new
Sharon Stone is 48 years old?
How time flies when you are having fun?(or having lunch).
National Enquirer once showed picture of her topless in a pool with an older man,did she sue??
/ lets all stop whining !! /
posted on April 28, 2006 05:59:00 AM new
Haha,Classic,that guy in the pool is old,bald,has a big fat flabby tummy and rich,is that your profile??
Sharon Stone must have a lot of work done to her body,her ankles used to be thick.
/ lets all stop whining !! /
posted on April 28, 2006 04:57:15 PM new
YOU ARE BAD!
I am trying to find where Basic Instinct 2 is being shown,but not here ??
/ lets all stop whining !! /
