Quote from: MaddieMoo on 18 February 2014, 12:09:29 pm

This is a bit off topic perhaps, but this story being in the news does worry me that if my family had a suspicion of what I do for a living and didn't know where to look, now they know AW exists!

On the story itself, I'm inclined to think she may not get her money, not for a long time at least and without paying more legal costs of her own too perhaps. Also, it's disgusting that the police investigated her for thinking she was a prossie.

As far as I understood the Police did not investigate her just because they thought she was a prossie, it was because she was a mother, the Police and Social Work were only doing their jobs they had to ensure that if she was a prossie that she wasn't working around her children.

Quote from: ChrissieDavaar on 18 February 2014, 12:45:05 pm

As far as I understood the Police did not investigate her just because they thought she was a prossie, it was because she was a mother, the Police and Social Work were only doing their jobs they had to ensure that if she was a prossie that she wasn't working around her children.

But surely that would mean any mother could be investigated for no other reason than being a mother? Many mothers work as prostitutes, many others are swingers, should all these people be investigated? Unfortunately this is still how mainline society view those that work or indulge in frivolous sex.

The truth is, because she was thought to be a prostitute as well as being a mother she was investigated, which is really sad in this case as she had gone to the police complaining that somebody was putting up photos of her on a web site to make it look like she was a prostitute. This has to be wrong....

When reporting the matter to the police, we have to assume that she had an idea who was responsible, you generally have an know who has taken explicit photos of you and the police should have been investigating them. If that person was not responsible, then surely they would be the person that supplied others with the photos.

Sarah x x x

Quote from: Wife4rent on 16 February 2014, 11:33:19 pm

She sought damages against AW Systems Ltd for libel, harassment and misuse of private information.

Judgement was made in her favour after the defendant failed to enter an appearance.

It was the last bit that made me think her chances of getting the money aren't great.

Looking on Companies House, it's a company that a) isn't very big in terms of turnover, and b) claims to have ?1 in capital. Interestingly, someone wanted the company struck off the register of companies in 2010.

I would be surprised if the owners of AW didn't dissolve it for being insolvent and start another one to do whatever this one does in the mix of companies they use.

Quote from: ChrissieDavaar on 18 February 2014, 12:45:05 pm

As far as I understood the Police did not investigate her just because they thought she was a prossie, it was because she was a mother, the Police and Social Work were only doing their jobs they had to ensure that if she was a prossie that she wasn't working around her children.

But surely that would mean any mother could be investigated for no other reason than being a mother? Many mothers work as prostitutes, many others are swingers, should all these people be investigated? Unfortunately this is still how mainline society view those that work or indulge in frivolous sex.

The truth is, because she was thought to be a prostitute as well as being a mother she was investigated, which is really sad in this case as she had gone to the police complaining that somebody was putting up photos of her on a web site to make it look like she was a prostitute. This has to be wrong....

When reporting the matter to the police, we have to assume that she had an idea who was responsible, you generally have an know who has taken explicit photos of you and the police should have been investigating them. If that person was not responsible, then surely they would be the person that supplied others with the photos.

Sarah x x x