Talk:Lee Hurst (comedian)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This redirect is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Controversy - Guildford, Sept 2008

If I had not been able to substantiate this story, I would have chosen to delete it as potentially libellous; however...

Guildford Borough Council website ad for the gig
UK Comedy Guide - coverage of incident - he is appearing in a new show on Five tonight...coincidence, or free publicity?

Someone may care to use the latter as a reference. (Sorry, no more time to do it myself.)

EdJogg (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous contribution moved from article space:

I happen to think whoever put that above information on here is not totally telling the truth.

I happened to have been there on Wednesday infact I am there every month.

Firstly the compere did say at the start to turn all mobile phones off.

Lee was the last act on, all was going well and when Lee did come off the stage and headed towards the back of the room I turned round to see the guy with a mobile phone held up in front of him with the flash of the camera was on, making it very obvious that he was recording. (Who texts with their phone out in front of them anyway?!), especially when everybody was told to turn off their phones to start with. So I think the idiot with the phone deserved everything he got to be honest, and I would back Lee all the way with what he did.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.68.109 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 September 2008

Obviously this is not appropriate for the article space, but it does pose a question concerning the accuracy of the referenced article. Suggest that additional references are found to support or refute the story.

EdJogg (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Surely the original article was based on fact, fair enough without reference, but now those have been posted. To comment on this page that the individual deserved it is neither here nor there. My orignal entry purely stated what happened, i didnt dwell on who was right and if the person was actually filming or not. All that anyone can be sure of is what was seen on the evening, and not whethere Hursts actions were justified.

Whilst on the subject, even if it it was well advertised and signs were there to warn people about video/phone use. That would never allow someone to destroy property. Ejection from the permises is one thing, but to smash up someones possessions is still not a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.250.241 (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]