Bono in Court Today

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
biff said:
Here are two more reports from The Irish Independent:


Ex-U2 stylist admits approaching Max Clifford PR agency

13:02 Thursday October 19th 2006

U2's former stylist has admitted approaching the Max Clifford agency to protect herself against statements coming from the band.
However, Lola Cashman says she is not aware that the PR firm is known for dishing the dirt on celebrities and says she does not intend to publish any further material about her experiences with the band.

Ms Cashman is taking a High Court case to try and reverse an order for her to return certain items to U2 which she claims were gifts.

She is denying claims that she wants to sell her story of working with U2 during the 1987 Joshua Tree tour to a tabloid for a five-figure sum.

She also says she is not involved in preparing a film about U2 despite a radio interview she gave in 2003 in which she says she is writing is a film script with a bit of rock n' roll in it.

Counsel for U2 is accusing her of betraying her employers by revealing personal details about U2 members in her book and stealing items from them for her own personal gain.

However, Ms Cashman says she has chosen not to publish her collection of 200 photographs, which she says could be compromising to the band.




Evidence points to only one winner: the lawyers
Friday October 20th 2006


THIS is a childish little spat.

"I was trying to dress him and he was running about in his underwear," Lola Cashman told the High Court yesterday. The "him" in question was Bono. He was 27 at the time but, bless him, he wouldn't settle.

Plonking a silly hat on her head kept the young lad giggling for a while, she said, but Bono doesn't remember it like that. He didn't give her his favourite hat. He thinks the bad lady took his favourite hat - the only hat that kept the bogey man away.

Now (sob, sob) he wants it back. And while she's at it, any other toys that he threw out of the pram. So there.

It is cases like this that keep lawyers in the life they're accustomed to, and make the rest of us admit that our parents were right when advising us to "take the silk" or whatever it is lawyers do.

No doubting what senior counsel Paul Sreenan does. Nothing childish about him either. You get the feeling that Mr Sreenan always did his homework impeccably in the run-up to the big examinations. He certainly did yesterday.

Cross-examining Ms Cashman for more than three hours, U2's big wig painted pretty little evidence patterns while simultaneously painting the stylist into any number of corners.

She must have been delighted to start working for the biggest rock band in the world, he suggested. "I actually didn't even know who they were back then," she replied.

Mr Sreenan immediately reached for her own book on life with the band and quoted her as being "elated to join the biggest rock band in the world".

Why, he asked, had she 10 bags of the band's by-now-infamous "stuff" with her on a flight back in December 1987 at the end of the Joshua Tree tour? She was finishing off a style project for the band, she maintained, and would be working for the band for another four months.

Mr Sreenan reached for the book. He read out a piece where she claimed she walked away from the band in December 1987, despite Paul McGuinness offering her a retainer and Bono begging her to stay with them.

Mr Sreenan kept reaching for the book. To say it was well-thumbed would be to do a disservice to the work of Mr Sreenan's thumb. From where we were sitting, every third page seemed to be tagged, ready for reference.

Most likely, nobody has read 'Inside the Zoo with U2' more times than Paul Sreenan. Certainly, nobody has ever got as much out of it.

He referred to her anger with the band before even meeting them as she had had to wait seven days in various hotels to do it - "the rude f**kers were going to get it and I was going to give it to them".

He spoke of her role as a confidante to the band members and then referred to sections where she spoke about the band members' worries, including The Edge's thinning hair.

He also used her earlier solicitors' letters and evidence from the case in the Circuit Court. Each and every time, he got a lot of use from Ms Cashman's own words.

Following John Rogers SC's bombast, bite and bluster, it was a quiet and studied approach. But it was equally effective, and it was relentless.

To have these two brilliant minds square up to each other to sort out who owns a pair of pants and brown hat seems utterly ridiculous. Maybe this is why we keep hearing that the law's an ass.

"I don't think the book's the issue in this case. I thought it was about four small pieces of memorabilia," Ms Cashman said at one stage.

Those pieces, of course, include the toy hat that keeps the bogey man away. Something else kept Bono away from court yesterday to the disappointment of a number of transition year students in for a look around.

After the razzamatazz of days one and two there wasn't much to entertain to be honest, although Ms Cashman interrupted our dozing with her tales of Bono and his smalls backstage.

Thankfully, it was before lunch.

"I could have mentioned a lot of things I didn't think it was necessary to put in the book who was sleeping with who, it wasn't that kind of book," she said, before informing us that she had been in contact with the publicist Max Clifford.

So we shouldn't be too surprised if we soon find out who was sleeping with whom.

Ms Cashman put up a better fight after a bite to eat - "I clearly know what belongs to me and what doesn't belong to me" - but following on from Bono v Mr Rogers and Paul McGuinness v Mr Rogers it was all a bit of an anti-climax.

The fact that Mr Justice Michael Peart reserved judgment didn't help to enliven matters.

Who was sleeping with who, :huh:? Really, well considering by their own admissions that Edge, Bono, and Larry have all been faithful to their wives/partners, I would love to find out that fascinating piece of information. Aislinn, Ali, and Ann:ohmy: Horrors! We already know that Adam wasn't exactly Mr. Monogamous, so does she honestly expect us to believe her load of crap?:tsk:
 
U2isthebest said:


Who was sleeping with who, :huh:? Really, well considering by their own admissions that Edge, Bono, and Larry have all been faithful to their wives/partners, I would love to find out that fascinating piece of information. Aislinn, Ali, and Ann:ohmy: Horrors! We already know that Adam wasn't exactly Mr. Monogamous, so does she honestly expect us to believe her load of crap?:tsk:

:lol: Your post reminded me of a tabloid article where Bruce Springsteen was photographed getting it on with his back-up singer *gasp*!! Yeah, his WIFE is the back-up singer!!
 
Liesje said:


:lol: Your post reminded me of a tabloid article where Bruce Springsteen was photographed getting it on with his back-up singer *gasp*!! Yeah, his WIFE is the back-up singer!!

:eek: :shocked: That man whore! :giggle: Darn it. His wife? Why isn't he out sleeping with groupies like a good rockstar...:shame:
 
As a stylist she probably has alot of pictures of them in underwear and getting dressed to see how the clothes would look. And knowing how they all goof off I'm sure some of the shots are pretty funny and if they look back humiliating too.

Point being she got into their private space.

BACK OFF LOLA :madwife:
 
Liesje said:


:lol: Your post reminded me of a tabloid article where Bruce Springsteen was photographed getting it on with his back-up singer *gasp*!! Yeah, his WIFE is the back-up singer!!

Er, at the time Bruce was "getting it on" with Patti Scialfa, she was indeed his back up singer and he was still married to Julianne Phillips.

Get your facts right.
 
blueeyedgirl said:


Er, at the time Bruce was "getting it on" with Patti Scialfa, she was indeed his back up singer and he was still married to Julianne Phillips.

Get your facts right.

This was recent, some rag that can't tell the difference; it wasn't related to that scandal. Sheesh.
 
Last edited:
Here's the latest, from The Independent:


Why Lola just won't take her Stetson off to U2

STYLIST Lola Cashman has admitted she faces financial ruin if she loses her High Court case against U2.

The 45-year-old Londoner, who battled the mighty U2 machine all last week, told the Sunday Independent that if her appeal fails, her legal bills will cost "a hell of a lot of money".

Despite the personal costs, she says she was driven to fight on, to clear her name and win back the trinkets of memorabilia that have led to probably the most bizarre high-profile - and increasingly vicious - case ever seen in the Four Courts.

She must now wait for weeks in financial limbo, as sitting judge Justice Michael Peart chose to reserve judgment on the complex case involving a Stetson hat, several pairs of trousers, and mugs used by members of U2 on tour. But behind Lola's steely reserve, the pressure appeared to be getting to her this time.

The Lola Cashman who took to the stand last week was very different to the woman who stood in front of the Circuit Civil Court last year. While last year's Lola came across as a tough, kick-ass rock chick, not to be messed with, a year on - with the failed Civil Court action behind her and the possibility of losing her High Court bid in front of her - she was a far less formidable character.

She seemed noticeably older, somewhat worn down, sick to death of going over the same old ground, tired of answering detailed questions about comments she made back in 1987, or trying to remember particulars of 20-year-old expenses claims.

At one point on Thursday, during three hours of what could be described as mental torture, carried out by U2's counsel Paul Sreenan SC in the stuffy setting of the Hugh Kennedy Court, she looked ready to walk out.

She must have, at least, considered the satisfaction of throwing the debated Stetson hat (a stand-in for the one Bono wore on the Rattle and Hum album cover), hoop earrings, sweatshirt, leather trousers and trainers at Sreenan and marching out the door.

The battle for the right to auction off a few pieces of memorabilia, worth around €5,000 must have seemed a bit pointless.

Lola says she was gifted them, U2 say she wasn't.

Could it really be worth accusations of being "reprehensible", "demanding" and "volatile". U2 manager Paul McGuinness was the most vicious, at one point, apropos of nothing, he described the stylist as "the most difficult person I ever had to deal with", "disloyal" and "a traitor". It was his last comment that gave the clearest insight into the psyche of U2 - nobody messes with the Dublin rock "family".

But even under the heat of relentless grilling, she refused to crack. She may not be the force she was last year, but she was indomitable nonetheless.

Lola Cashman is, by her own admission, a determined character. It was her defining trait when I interviewed her in London, after Judge Matthew Deering ruled against her at the Circuit Civil Court in Dublin last July.

I met Lola at the Albert Pub, near where she lives in the city's fashionable Primrose Hill district, home to the likes of Sadie Frost, Jude Law and Kate Moss.

Initially cautious, she gradually loosened up and ended up being fun company, talking for hours about her life growing up in London's East End, where she joked she was an unlikely "Jewish princess", with a father who mingled with the Kray twins. She told of her eventful life that has taken her around the world with U2, and of leaving the rat race to live on a cattle ranch in one of the most remote parts of Australia.

She said her battle was not about the right to sell a Stetson hat, but the principle of retaining her good name.

She didn't care whether people thought she was stubborn or naive, or stupidly cutting off her nose to spite her face.

She believes she is standing firm in the face of a bully, in this case the mighty U2 machine. Lola Cashman is single-minded, principled and certainly, as she was described by Bono on Wednesday, eccentric.

She wasn't interested in making money, she said, she had only decided to auction off the items, worth an estimated €5,000, as she was strapped for cash.

And she pointed out that she could make a lot more than €5,000, had she taken up on any of the dozens of offers to sell her story to newspapers.

"Money is not my master, it was never what this was about," she said. "I am fighting to protect my reputation, to fight off accusations that I was a thief and a liar. I have always known and will always know, in my heart, that I was given those items. I have no idea why they are saying otherwise now," she said.

It wasn't just Lola Cashman who got a thorough going over throughout the hearings, which went on all day Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

He may be the biggest rock-star on the planet, but Bono was as fair game as anyone in the witness box, where he was torn to shreds by the fearsome John Rogers, the senior counsel regarded as one of the best in the business by those who frequent the Four Courts.

While Sreenan methodically picked away at Cashman, Rogers went straight for the jugular and treated us to pure theatre, frequently turning to face those in the packed gallery with a look of incredulity, while continuing to fire questions at the singer.

Repeatedly referring to Bono, in a drippingly sarcastic tone, as "Mr Hewson", he made the U2 frontman - who seemed a lot less rock-starish without his trademark glasses - look like a spoilt child who wanted his ball back. At one point, he even drove Bono to admit that he "felt like a fool" for being there.

If it is not about money for Lola Cashman, it certainly is about money for U2 - money, power and control, an admission made by Bono. For him, the whole point of the case was Lola's book on her time with U2 - entitled, Inside the Zoo with U2, a book that contained unofficial band photos and details of how Bono was conscious of his height and weight.

"The book was reprehensible - that is why I am here," he said. "She took advantage of the band for remuneration. I am very annoyed about the book."

He said he wanted back what he claims is the rightful belongings of the band.

"It's our stuff, she has it and a lot more besides. We want our stuff back," he told the court.

Larissa Nolan
 
biff said:
Here's the latest, from The Independent:


Why Lola just won't take her Stetson off to U2

STYLIST Lola Cashman has admitted she faces financial ruin if she loses her High Court case against U2.

The 45-year-old Londoner, who battled the mighty U2 machine all last week, told the Sunday Independent that if her appeal fails, her legal bills will cost "a hell of a lot of money".

Despite the personal costs, she says she was driven to fight on, to clear her name and win back the trinkets of memorabilia that have led to probably the most bizarre high-profile - and increasingly vicious - case ever seen in the Four Courts.

She must now wait for weeks in financial limbo, as sitting judge Justice Michael Peart chose to reserve judgment on the complex case involving a Stetson hat, several pairs of trousers, and mugs used by members of U2 on tour. But behind Lola's steely reserve, the pressure appeared to be getting to her this time.

The Lola Cashman who took to the stand last week was very different to the woman who stood in front of the Circuit Civil Court last year. While last year's Lola came across as a tough, kick-ass rock chick, not to be messed with, a year on - with the failed Civil Court action behind her and the possibility of losing her High Court bid in front of her - she was a far less formidable character.

She seemed noticeably older, somewhat worn down, sick to death of going over the same old ground, tired of answering detailed questions about comments she made back in 1987, or trying to remember particulars of 20-year-old expenses claims.

At one point on Thursday, during three hours of what could be described as mental torture, carried out by U2's counsel Paul Sreenan SC in the stuffy setting of the Hugh Kennedy Court, she looked ready to walk out.

She must have, at least, considered the satisfaction of throwing the debated Stetson hat (a stand-in for the one Bono wore on the Rattle and Hum album cover), hoop earrings, sweatshirt, leather trousers and trainers at Sreenan and marching out the door.

The battle for the right to auction off a few pieces of memorabilia, worth around €5,000 must have seemed a bit pointless.

Lola says she was gifted them, U2 say she wasn't.

Could it really be worth accusations of being "reprehensible", "demanding" and "volatile". U2 manager Paul McGuinness was the most vicious, at one point, apropos of nothing, he described the stylist as "the most difficult person I ever had to deal with", "disloyal" and "a traitor". It was his last comment that gave the clearest insight into the psyche of U2 - nobody messes with the Dublin rock "family".

But even under the heat of relentless grilling, she refused to crack. She may not be the force she was last year, but she was indomitable nonetheless.

Lola Cashman is, by her own admission, a determined character. It was her defining trait when I interviewed her in London, after Judge Matthew Deering ruled against her at the Circuit Civil Court in Dublin last July.

I met Lola at the Albert Pub, near where she lives in the city's fashionable Primrose Hill district, home to the likes of Sadie Frost, Jude Law and Kate Moss.

Initially cautious, she gradually loosened up and ended up being fun company, talking for hours about her life growing up in London's East End, where she joked she was an unlikely "Jewish princess", with a father who mingled with the Kray twins. She told of her eventful life that has taken her around the world with U2, and of leaving the rat race to live on a cattle ranch in one of the most remote parts of Australia.

She said her battle was not about the right to sell a Stetson hat, but the principle of retaining her good name.

She didn't care whether people thought she was stubborn or naive, or stupidly cutting off her nose to spite her face.

She believes she is standing firm in the face of a bully, in this case the mighty U2 machine. Lola Cashman is single-minded, principled and certainly, as she was described by Bono on Wednesday, eccentric.

She wasn't interested in making money, she said, she had only decided to auction off the items, worth an estimated €5,000, as she was strapped for cash.

And she pointed out that she could make a lot more than €5,000, had she taken up on any of the dozens of offers to sell her story to newspapers.

"Money is not my master, it was never what this was about," she said. "I am fighting to protect my reputation, to fight off accusations that I was a thief and a liar. I have always known and will always know, in my heart, that I was given those items. I have no idea why they are saying otherwise now," she said.

It wasn't just Lola Cashman who got a thorough going over throughout the hearings, which went on all day Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

He may be the biggest rock-star on the planet, but Bono was as fair game as anyone in the witness box, where he was torn to shreds by the fearsome John Rogers, the senior counsel regarded as one of the best in the business by those who frequent the Four Courts.

While Sreenan methodically picked away at Cashman, Rogers went straight for the jugular and treated us to pure theatre, frequently turning to face those in the packed gallery with a look of incredulity, while continuing to fire questions at the singer.

Repeatedly referring to Bono, in a drippingly sarcastic tone, as "Mr Hewson", he made the U2 frontman - who seemed a lot less rock-starish without his trademark glasses - look like a spoilt child who wanted his ball back. At one point, he even drove Bono to admit that he "felt like a fool" for being there.

If it is not about money for Lola Cashman, it certainly is about money for U2 - money, power and control, an admission made by Bono. For him, the whole point of the case was Lola's book on her time with U2 - entitled, Inside the Zoo with U2, a book that contained unofficial band photos and details of how Bono was conscious of his height and weight.

"The book was reprehensible - that is why I am here," he said. "She took advantage of the band for remuneration. I am very annoyed about the book."

He said he wanted back what he claims is the rightful belongings of the band.

"It's our stuff, she has it and a lot more besides. We want our stuff back," he told the court.

Larissa Nolan

To clear her "good name?":eyebrow: This just makes her look even worse. That woman has some serious issues. And maybe her little lawyer friend should learn how to cross-examine a witness like an attorney not with sarcasm like a frickin' 4th grade brat. Yeah, he must be the most brilliant legal mind in all of Europe..:rolleyes:
 
Here's more. U2 are obviously very unpopular in their homeland at the moment, and Bono is clearly despised:


Tell Lola we love her in Bono's stuff
DANIEL McCONNELL
and LARISSA NOLAN

IRISH people have thrown their support behind U2's former stylist Lola Cashman, who faces financial ruin if she has to hand back Bono's Stetson and other memorabilia collected during her time with the band.

Two months after it emerged that U2 were turning their backs on Ireland by moving some of their financial operations to Holland, it now appears that Ireland is turning its back on U2.

A nationwide poll conducted this weekend reveals that only one in four believe Bono was right to go to court to recover "an Aladdin's cave" of personal items. Most of those contacted thought the U2 legal action was "farcical".

In a nationwide poll, 74 per cent of people surveyed by the Sunday Independent said Bono was wrong to take the cash-strapped stylist to court. Ms Cashman, who is based in London, is already paying off her legal bills from last year's Circuit Court action which she lost.

Ms Cashman revealed last week that she is currently paying stg£1,000 a month to the band, after costs were awarded against her in a defamation action taken by her in

ANALYSIS


London. She said if she lost this case she would be facing bankruptcy.

She has already told the Sunday Independent: "If I lose the High Court case, it will cost me a hell of a lot of money. I am fighting to protect my reputation, to fight off accusations that I was a thief and a liar."

In court last week, Bono admitted the case is about money, power and control. He referred to a book Ms Cashman had written about her time with the band and said: "The book is reprehensible - that is why I am here. She took advantage of the band for remuneration. I am very annoyed about the book."

Many said the continued pursuit of the Stetson was bordering on ridiculous. Few said they could understand how a man, who won respect worldwide for his efforts in fighting Aids, hunger and Third World debt, would become obsessed with something so trivial and worth so little money.

His actions were "small minded and foolish", said one of those surveyed.

"It would be like the office hunting you down and dragging you through the courts over a staple or Biro. It's not even entertaining bad behaviour from a rock star," said one female respondent.

Last August, the Sunday Independent revealed that U2 were moving part of their commercial empire to Holland to avail of tax breaks.



This report ignores the fact that it was Cashman who launched this latest suit, not U2. It also makes the usual assumption that Bono = U2.
 
U2isthebest said:


To clear her "good name?":eyebrow: This just makes her look even worse. That woman has some serious issues. And maybe her little lawyer friend should learn how to cross-examine a witness like an attorney not with sarcasm like a frickin' 4th grade brat. Yeah, he must be the most brilliant legal mind in all of Europe..:rolleyes:

Actually, her lawyer has a brilliant reputation and is greatly respected.

I'm lazy, so I'll copy what I wrote from another thread. This whole case really is, ostensibly, about her trying to clear her "good name". That's what started it all:



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.
 
biff said:


Actually, her lawyer has a brilliant reputation and is greatly respected.

I'm lazy, so I'll copy what I wrote from another thread. This whole case really is, ostensibly, about her trying to clear her "good name". That's what started it all:



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.

Maybe, but some of the world's most genuinely stupid people are hiding behind a pseudo-intellecutal mask. If he was such a great lawyer, he wouldn't have to bully the people he was questioning. I know a lot of "great" lawyers do that, but if that's considered "greatness" no wonder so many cases are a complete joke. Hurling insults and sarcasm like an intellecutal bitch slap is extremely ignorant. Her case is crap and apparently so is lawyer.

By the way, thank you Biff for always providing so much info. on this and everything else U2!:hug:
 
psychicsarah said:
written the last time; but it's still relevant!



After listening to the Live-Line programme on this subject, I feel duty bound to point out the real reason behind the Four Court drama involving U2 and Lola Cashman. It really is NOT so much about a Steston, Christmas Bauble and some out-of-focus Polaroids. No, this showdown is taking place on a matter of Principle (Management). Lola never did anything to ingratiate herself in the U2 camp, and her unauthorized biography does nothing to redeem her. She was (allegedly) a good stylist who believes she saved U2 from the scourge of mullets and tight pants. One might say: good for her for holding onto her truth when challenged by a bunch of ‘yes’ men. But one would be wrong! The inside reality of the U2 corporation is really NOT at all sycophantic. U2 have high standards and respect their employees, so as such do not deserve this kind of nonsensical twaddle, which passes as a revelation. In her book Cashman can’t even put herself across in an endearing light. She reads as an unlikeable, manipulative character; who thinks it is interesting to read about Bono’s (alleged) insecurities. Amidst financial difficulties, items acquired by Lola went unceremoniously up for auction. Billed as collectable U2 memorabilia, little did she know that no one was going to be interested in a load of old PANTS, except Bono. Bono is a stickler for justice and this court case to retrieve certain items was the only legal approach possible in response to Lola’s antics. When Ms Cashman published her book, she was no longer bound by a confidentiality clause. So it must have stung not to have had control of such intimate accounts. But, Lola’s revelations are not only boring; they are totally unnecessary and private. It is NOT Bono who is petty in trying to retrieve his beloved Stetson; but Lola who thought it appropriate to sell her soul.

I find it a little ironic that you feel "duty bound" to comment on this case at all when you have proudly boasted in the past of your hostess gig at The Clarence -- in other words, employment by Bono & The Edge. Whether your comments are positive or negative regarding the band, I personally find your choice to speak publicly about the matter equally inappropriate. Yeah, yeah, give me all the "freedom of speech" rhetoric you like. But then, I was only blessed with common sense, not sixth sense.
 
I like how she wants to clear her "good name" yet has no problem taking items, badmouthing her ex-employers and getting together with a publicist (I wonder what the next book is about?). And the "oh I wasn't into money but I had no problem selling at the right time" story too.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in that situation, that is some seriously biased journalism! I mean, seriously. Lola "refuses to crack" while Bono is "torn to shreds", etc. I hope that was at least an editorial column or something. And yes, I think it's equally wrong for the bias to be in Bono or Lola's favor. If a newspaper is reporting on a case, they need to present both sides and stick to the facts.
 
Well, it's not the first time Bono/U2 have been "despised " and/or "unpopular" in Ireland, and it probably won't be the last time either...

Despite that, it absolutely *amazing* how fast tickets to their Irish concerts sell out...:wink:
 
What do you expect? In a case like this, the rich and famous party is always the "wrong" one, according to the media. Especially with Bono involved, most of them are all too happy to cry hypocrite and bash him at every occasion.
They all seem to forget that it was HER, who brought the case again. I think it's a stupid and ridiculous waste of time and money.
 
Lola's world

Just because she believes the items were given to her and refuses to back down does not necessarily mean that is the truth. Some people can be severely delusional about their own position. That report about her thinking she had a "special relatioship" with Bono is very disturbing. She is beginning to sound like a stalker. While none of us will ever know what really happened I find her very difficult to believe considering that fact that so many people from all over the industry repeatedly comment on the integrity of U2's people. I find it hard to believe that if they were the kind of petty bullies that the press is trying to portray them as, they could go this long without having more dirt dug up on them than this. And does no one else take her "I could have told who was sleeping with who" statement as a threat? Right there she is implying that she has information that she will use to defame them. Bono took it as a threat, and said as much before the first court battle. Although they made no public statement about the book I remember seeing reports that Bono was extremely upset by the book. I would be too. Despite the fact that the book actually makes her look stupid if Bono trusted her at the time she worked for him then the book is definitely a betrayal. As with Carter Allen's book which U2 felt was a betrayal because he travelled with them as a representative of a radio station not as a prospective author. They fell out with him for a time over that but they never took him to court or bad mouthed him. They simply didn't speak to him for a while, but later requested him to do an interview and put the whole thing behind them. I think this has more to do with the violation of trust issue for Bono than it has to do with the things. Also in the first case the band did not list the photos as something they wanted back but the judge added the photos to the items to be returned because he felt she had no right to them.

Dana
 
What I'm wondering about is why do the newspapers make it sound like all Bono cares about is the stetson?
I think it's not that stupid hat, it's the whole idea around it, and the fact that miss Cashman was trying to make money off them!
Anyone remember Bono's comment on bootlegs? he doesn't mind them, as long as people don't try to make money on them... and the book signing stuff with ebay?
Point is, Bono doesn't like his stuff to be sold to innocent people while it's not worth a penny... and he's trying to fight that.. sadly most newspapers see this event as a new shot at bashing Bono...
 
bono WAS torn to shreds, Do you not think that Bono / U2 are the fool in all this over a stupid stetson, a few photos, earings or whatever else she has. Nothing of significant worth. She could have told tales on them but she didn't. Ok she wrote a book, but what the hell was in it?? I'm as big a u2 fan as all of you but come on guys, this has come down bad on U2. Paul McGuinness called her a traitor, she's paying £1,000 a month to U2 who are bloody nearly billionaires...they should have dropped this a long time ago, put it down to a bad experience and got on with their lives. The bono bashing is deserved this time...and every single Irish person agrees with me
 
Last edited:
Did you read ANYthing of what I wrote?

it is NOT about that stupid hat! it's about the whole idea of her stealing something AND TRYING TO SELL IT!

U2 do not like people making profit on them when it's not legal. Lola Cashman tries to sell the stuff on ebay, and THAT is why u2 are going to court

AND, that Miss Cashman is paying them is NOT their fault, yes, they won the first case THEY started, but THIS case is started by Miss Cashman.

Start thinking and reading before bashing Bono straight away plz.
 
galeongirl
i did read what you said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yes this case was started by Lola Cashman but they should have just let it go. She had £5k worth of stuff not $50k. I have been reading about this crap in the papers here, and for once i agree with the irish press about u2, and bono in particular. He said himself he felt like a fool being in Court.
 
eimear25 said:
galeongirl
i did read what you said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yes this case was started by Lola Cashman but they should have just let it go. She had £5k worth of stuff not $50k. I have been reading about this crap in the papers here, and for once i agree with the irish press about u2, and bono in particular. He said himself he felt like a fool being in Court.

She sued them for defamation. They should have just let that go?

I think biff summarized it best. As long as the judge agrees with U2 that Ms. Cashman took the items without permission, she has no basis for pursuing her original suit (which was the first lawsuit in this case and brought the whole matter to court in the first place). All that U2 did in the beginning was to send her a letter telling her she did not have the right to sell items that did not belong to her.

She said she didn't steal the items and sues them for defamation. How do they prove that they didn't defame her? They prove that the items were taken without permission. How do they prove that? By taken legal action to get the items back and getting a court of law to agree with them.
 
Last edited:
eimear25 said:
galeongirl
i did read what you said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yes this case was started by Lola Cashman but they should have just let it go. She had £5k worth of stuff not $50k. I have been reading about this crap in the papers here, and for once i agree with the irish press about u2, and bono in particular. He said himself he felt like a fool being in Court.


So, they should just let do whatever she wants with hundreds of photos?

I'm sure Bono does feel like a fool. The whole thing is quite foolish.

She's the one that started it, and keeps dragging it out.....

The only reason why the items even matter in this case is simply because the defamation suit depends on it. Like people have said over and over, if the judge rules that the items do not belong to her, the defamation suit is void. It's not really about U2 wanting the items back. She's accusing them of defaming her, she was the one that brought suit.
 
eimear25 said:
Yes this case was started by Lola Cashman but they should have just let it go. She had £5k worth of stuff not $50k. I have been reading about this crap in the papers here, and for once i agree with the irish press about u2, and bono in particular.

Hi Eimear,

My question (and I mean this in a genuinely curious way) is how they could have dropped it? I'm not sure this was even an option...my impression was that Lola was the one who took them to court. In that case, wouldn't Lola have been the one who had to drop it? The only way I can see for them to drop the case would be to say "Yes, we did in fact give her those things as gifts". Assuming that U2 honestly believes that they did not give her those items as gifts, then wouldn't this be like asking them to lie simply because they are wealthy and this woman is not?

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting the facts here. I mean no disrespect to anyone and I'm open to the fact that there are two sides to every story.
 
Ralphie said:

The only way I can see for them to drop the case would be to say "Yes, we did in fact give her those things as gifts".

Actually, to "drop it" they'd be saying "Yes we are liars and defamed this woman." There's more at stake than a hat and some pants. Other than that, you're right on.
 
Ralphie said:


Hi Eimear,

My question (and I mean this in a genuinely curious way) is how they could have dropped it? I'm not sure this was even an option...my impression was that Lola was the one who took them to court. In that case, wouldn't Lola have been the one who had to drop it? The only way I can see for them to drop the case would be to say "Yes, we did in fact give her those things as gifts". Assuming that U2 honestly believes that they did not give her those items as gifts, then wouldn't this be like asking them to lie simply because they are wealthy and this woman is not?

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting the facts here. I mean no disrespect to anyone and I'm open to the fact that there are two sides to every story.


Thanks Ralphie for speaking in a respectful tone to Eimear.


This continued negativity can do no one any good in the long run and U2's credibility outside of U2 fansites is taking quite a hit with their recent decisions on their tax status in Ireland, their decision to be associated with certain outside business partners and now this court case.


I'M NOT AGREEING WITH THESE ATTACKS ON U2, ESPECIALLY BONO. I'm simply saying that they exist. :(


At this point, I think U2 could win back some of their critics if they stepped back from a fight.


Sometimes the best way to win a battle is not to engage in it.


I don't support Cashman and I'm not attacking U2.


I'm simply stating some of the same things which is stated in the New Testament (the one that U2 believes in).


Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.

(The Lord's Prayer)



This is how I feel about the whole sad episode.

You can agree or disagree with me.


That's OK.


"We're ONE, but we're not the same.


We get to carry each other."




Let's just wish for as peaceful and respectful a resolution to this issue as possible. :hug:
 
Back
Top Bottom