(10-17-2006) Bono Says It Was His Idea to Wear Stetson Hat --Times Online*

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

dsmith2904

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
12,290
Location
Just keep me where the light is
Bono Says It Was His Idea to Wear Stetson Hat

By Times Online and PA

Bono, the frontman of U2, today gave evidence at an appeal in Dublin launched by his former stylist to keep the Stetson hat she claims the band gave her.

U2 successfully sued Lola Cashman last year and claimed back the hat, a pair of metal hooped earrings, a green sweatshirt and a pair of black trousers, which they argued she had taken without permission.

The stylist was ordered to return the items, estimated to be worth €5,000 (£3,500), to the band within seven days. Instead though, she has launched an appeal, which will leave her with a substantial legal bill if she loses.

Ms Cashman, who left the band in 1988, says that she was given the hat and other memorabilia as gifts during U2’s Joshua Tree tour in 1987. She was hired by Bono personally to replace their stylist, who was on maternity leave.

Dressed in a chocolate brown suit and wearing rose-coloured tinted glasses, Bono - real name Paul Hewson - said that Ms Cashman had been found by his management company through an agency.

"It was a very big moment in the bands career," he said. "Everything had come right for us. We had a lot of songs on radio around the world and particularly in the US we had a couple of number ones singles."

Bono said Ms Cashman joined the 150-strong entourage at a tense and exciting time, when the group was moving out from playing in arenas to outdoor stadiums. He admitted styling was not the band’s strength, and they were grateful to Ms Cashman for her input.

"I am trying to think of her exact moment of entry but I can’t," he continued. She had a very good eye. She had a lot more experience than us.

"But it was very clear on almost immediate arrival she wasn’t a good in dealing with personal relationships, and initially put a lot of people’s noses out of place."

Bono told the court his trademark Stetson hat had been his idea, which he had thought of since before Ms Cashman’s arrival. He said the image was used to represent American iconography. "It was always part of my idea of how I wanted to present myself to the world in an ironic sense."

The court was told that Ms Cashman was responsible for the transport of all wardrobe items. Bono stressed it was important to the band, and their manager Paul McGuinness, to keep record of their memorabilia to either archive or donate.

"We thought it would have some importance of the history of the band," he said. "We hoped we would be around long enough to be part of that."

The case continues.
 
I don't really get this jazz.

1. surely Bono could buy a thousand more hats and clothing items if he wanted.

and 2. Why is this woman not just handing them over anyway. I would - they belong to Bono and whether or not he said you could have them doesn't matter. (plus you'd get to meet the man and put a smile on his face, woot)

very very odd.
 
yeah - this kind of gives me the willies - I know they are tough on keeping their memorabelia, but I mean it is a handful of shit they could just let go instead of making this woman's life miserable.

Why not just buy it from her.
 
Yahoo! has pics of Bono outside court in Dublin today:

capt.6a2ae7a2d8fe48659209a0b89556d57c.ireland_u2_lon824.jpg


capt.813c6cb3546145d3af5b5205d7090591.ireland_u2_lon823.jpg
 
there are times in life to take a stand, and there are times to say who cares, its just a hat
 
A big star with red sunglasses talking to a judge about a hat bought 20 years ago.
It's surreal.
 
I don't think they did anything about getting them back until she wrote her book. I think it probably pissed them off that she wrote a supposed "tell all"
 
Chizip said:
there are times in life to take a stand, and there are times to say who cares, its just a hat

What about the hundreds of polaroid photos and the defamation suit?

There's a lot more to it, at least there was originally, than just the hat and pants. I'm guessing the hat is one of the more marginal items in question. The articles from the time of the original suit gave more details.
 
I think the main reason why U2 took this action is coz Ms Cashman tried to auction off these items i.e clothing and photos etc., to the highest bidder! Not only that, she stole those items, even though she of course claims that they were "given" to her. So selling stolen items is still a crime (especially so in this case coz they're very personal items!), at least where I come from, no matter how stinking rich the person of the stolen items might be!! :tsk:
 
Last edited:
Of course that isn't the whole story. I found this on eonline.com. Check out the bolded part. I find it interesting to say the least. :shrug:

Bono knows how it works: Stylists are hired to outfit the band , not themselves.

The U2 frontman applied his knowledge on the witness stand Tuesday, testifying in Dublin High Court that stylist Lola Cashman, who worked for the Irish rockers for nine months nearly two decades ago, pilfered a handful of items from their career-making Joshua Tree world tour in 1987.

U2 sued Cashman last year, accusing her of trying to sell gear that shouldn't have been in her possession in the first place. A lower Irish District Court ruled for the band last year, ordering Cashman to return a pair of black trousers, metal hoop earrings, a green sweatshirt and the black Stetson hat Bono rocked onstage and on the cover of Rattle and Hum .

But Cashman appealed the decision and Bono found himself back in court today, calling his ex-stylist "unusual," albeit good at what she did.

"She had a very good eye, but it was very clear that she wasn't good in dealing with personal relationships," the Nobel Peace Prize nominee said, adding that the Stetson was his long before Cashman joined U2's 150-person crew.

"It was eccentric behavior," he continued. "She wore my clothes all the time and the other band members' clothes. We went a very great distance to keep Lola Cashman because she was very good at her job."

Bono testified that he and his band mates--The Edge, Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen Jr.--first found out that Cashman had the goods in 1992, when an employee visited her to pick up other items, including video equipment, rosary beads and photographs.

Cashman, meanwhile, has maintained that she was given the clothing and accessories, including the iconic cowboy hat.

The author of the unauthorized 2003 memoir Inside the Zoo with U2 stated that she auctioned off some of the memorabilia through Sotheby's in 2000 and no one batted an eye, but when she placed the rest of the items up for sale at Christie's in 2002, she received two letters from U2's attorneys, requesting the stuff be returned.

Claiming the legal communiqués were defamatory, Cashman has set the ball rolling on legal proceedings in the High Court of London, according to Britain's Times newspaper.

"We have tried to avoid this bizarre situation for many years," Bono said in court. "She likes this. We don't. It's our stuff, she has it, and a lot more besides. We want our stuff back. We want her to stop selling it."

Don't worry, U2 doesn't want to profit from the apparel, either. Bono, whose real name is Paul Hewson, explained that the band merely wants to keep track of all of its artifacts for archiving purposes and charity donations.

"We thought it would have some importance of the history of the band," the All that You Can't Leave Behind artist said. "We hoped we would be around long enough to be part of that."
 
An organization such as U2 can never underestimate the power of greed. It's not only a part of their industry in general, but part of the world's population individually.
Cashman should have had some type of proof this stuff, if it was indeed given to her, were gift's.
She's shit out of luck and she's going to need a lot more money than these thing's would bring to pay off a judge to rule in her favor. :| - but stranger things have happened.
 
Harry Vest said:
It's just a fuckin hat.
There must be more to this than we've heard.

Yeah!?

So its his fucking hat!

yes he can go and buy a thousand others etc.

Its the principle.

Someone came in to the unit <the band, managment stage crew>

pissed people off & was asked to leave.

She then Practically stole items and then continues to exploit it for personal gain by selling them.

It was a very memorable time for the band and it is not unlikely they would like to hold on to costumes props that were around at that time. They are only human.

Plus they never sell these things off for profit.
They normally donate them or have them sold off at actuions for good causes.

This case also gives the stylist publicity.
 
Seems to me it's the principle of the thing ... let one person get away with something and then before you know it ... I'm sure it's more than just the value of the items. Let's face it, U2 is big business and I'm sure they have alot of lawyers on staff looking out for their interests. They're paid to protect the U2 name and image, and that's really what this is about.
 
BEVERLY56 said:
Seems to me it's the principle of the thing ... let one person get away with something and then before you know it ...

and before we know it all of U2's stylists will be stealing their stuff?

come on now.

I understand it's the "principle" of the thing, but like I said before, sometimes you can go overboard trying to prove a point.

so some lady scammed them out of a few thousand dollars, which is nothing to them. is it really worth going to all of this trouble, wasting tax dollars, clogging up the court system, giving her free publicity all over a few thousand dollars worth of memorabilia?

it just seems theyre going way over the top to prove their point than to just let things be and focus and more important issues.
 
a hat is much more important right now than the whole of africa, chizip. just like a guy with a cell phone at a concert can be.
 
Chizip said:


so some lady scammed them out of a few thousand dollars, which is nothing to them. is it really worth going to all of this trouble, wasting tax dollars, clogging up the court system, giving her free publicity all over a few thousand dollars worth of memorabilia?

it just seems theyre going way over the top to prove their point than to just let things be and focus and more important issues.

She took them to court this time, not the other way around. She lost the case when it was tried last year, and was ordered to pay court costs. Now she's appealed that decision to a higher court.

She may be getting publicity, but I don't think it will be free. Lawyers fees and court costs for this one, if she loses again, will be huge. A few sales of her crappy book won't cover it, that's for sure.

She's also got a case in the works against them in London, charging them with defamation. She needs to win this case in order to proceed with that other one. A victory there could be very much worth her while, financially.
 
Last edited:
Well they started this string of lawsuits by taking her to court first right?

It's like if someone stole 10 cents from me, yeah I'd want the 10 cents back as a matter of principle that people shouldn't steal from me, but I wouldn't take the person to court and start a string of hearing and appeals and a complete waste of resources and time.
 
Chizip said:
Well they started this string of lawsuits by taking her to court first right?

Technically, yes, but actually no.

Here's the sequence of events as well as I can recall it:

Lola tries to sell some items through Christie's. U2's lawyers send her a letter telling her to stop the sale of items that she has no right to sell. She responds by saying that the letter sent on behalf of U2 is defamatory (implying that she's a thief), and she initiates a defamation suit.
They respond by taking her to court to retrieve the items they say she took. The defamation suit is put on hold. If the band cannot prove that she took the items, then she might have a case that they defamed her by saying that she did. But she loses this case. The judge says he does not believe that she was given these items. In his judgement, she is required to pay all court costs. His judgement also means that she has no defamation case.
So now she has appealed that decision, and we once again get to hear about Bono running around in his undies. If she wins this current case, she might still be able to pursue the defamation case and possibly win a nice fat settlement. However, if for a second time a court decides that she was not given, but rather took, the items, then she will once again be on the hook for court costs and she will not be able to pursue the defamation suit.
 
All U2 did originally was send her a letter not to sell. She took it took to court a few years ago first, lost, and took it to court again now. I don't know if this was her defamation suit or U2 organisation's "give our stuff back" suit when they ruled in U2's favour though.

Don't believe the tabloid "Bono wants his hat back in court" or "big bully U2 vs the poor little ex-stylist" hype.
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
I don't know if this was her defamation suit or U2 organisation's "give our stuff back" suit when they ruled in U2's favour though.

It was the "give our stuff back" suit which they won. The defamation suit is still pending. Read my note above.
 
Back
Top Bottom