Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Hooky Tells All About the Hacienda?

Oh Hooky is at it again. According to Prefix Magazine, New Order bassist Peter Hook is readying the release of his long-awaited story about the Hacienda, the club New Order co-owned with Factory Records head, the late Tony Wilson.

Apparently Simon and Schuster is set to release Hacienda: How Not to Run a Club come October 5, but it might not ever see the light of day should Hook's lawyers not get the go-ahead. After all, Hooky talks about how the Hacienda was a complete disaster and then some. There's A LOT of then some.

Late last month, Hooky took to his MySpace page to blog about the hoopla surrounding the release. It seems as if the post has been deleted, however Prefix Magazine got it all. Read on for a snippet.

21 May 2009

I got this back the other day and thought it read Almost as well as the book? never i hear you say ? well here it is for your delectation......... the first one to get all the names under the xxxx's right wins a copy of Bad Lieutenants first record, the second gets two copies ! Only joking i actually really liked the track bernard did on that Sky show, credit where its due. love hooky

L I B E L R E P O R T
HACIENDA: HOW NOT TO RUN A CLUB
By Peter Hook with Claude Flowers

Introduction

This is the account by Peter Hook of Joy Division and New Order of his involvement in and subsidising of the Hacienda Club in Manchester. As there is a considerable amount of drug-taking and involvement of gangs with resulting violence and a fair degree of professional incompetence in the running of the club, there are obviously potential defamation issues. What one has to consider with defamation is whether the tendency of the words would make third parties think the worse of a person written about as a result of reading them. One working test is whether the man in the street in the complainant's position would like that said about them? One should ask that question separately before going on to consider whether it can be justified or whether it is fair comment or whether there is no likelihood at all of the person in question complaining. If one blurs the two exercises, one may end up simply by making an assumption that a person will not complain only to find that the assumption is erroneous. If therefore it is said of X that they were taking illegal drugs, that is defamatory. The best way of approaching it is to ask oneself how would one deal with a complaint from X ie can one prove that what was said was true and also what are the probabilities of X complaining ie was he a notorious drug-taker? One should bear in mind that the burden of proving the truth a defamatory allegation by admissible evidence rests upon the author and publishers...

Labels: , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home