Hollman to Scum!

[ForeverYellow 0]

http://www.itfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10272~1340515,00.html

Hmmm....

[Lurd 0]

Shocking. Ex Town player and self confessed Town fan joins as coach.Makes you wonder why he never got any sh!t whilst coaching us!

[Dan 0]

They seem to nick everyone of us. Must be jealousy because we are the biggest and ( soon to be ) richest team in East Anglia.

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="Dan"]They seem to nick everyone of us. Must be jealousy because we are the biggest and ( soon to be ) richest team in East Anglia.[/quote]

They haven''t exactly nicked him from us.  Roeder sacked him, he was unemployed and a job oportunity came up 40 miles away.

[hogesar 10,766]

Never really paid attention to his background. But to be fair you can only class him as a success here with Green, Lewis, Rudd?

[can u sit down please 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]Never really paid attention to his background. But to be fair you can only class him as a success here with Green, Lewis, Rudd?
[/quote]

Or is natural talent born?

[canary cherub 1]

Have I had a post deleted??

Thought I posted something like "At first sight I thought this thread said ''Hoolahan to Scum'' - not very funny I quite agree, but where has it gone?

Don''t tell me I''ve stumbled on something we''re not supposed to know . . .[;)]

 

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="Larry David"]Shocking. Ex Town player and self confessed Town fan joins as coach.[/quote]Almost as shocking as Kiwomya joining as reserve coach! He was a thorn in our side in the early nineties i recall. Grrrrr [:@]

[dhickl 0]

This is a quote from Hollman, “I think my record whilst I was at Norwich – getting Robert Green in the England squad and getting him the move – with regard to the Academy as well there were three England internationals to come out of that at the time [Lewis, Rudd and Steer].

I thought that his comment was interesting, what role do you think that a coach at this club had in "getting him the move" away from the club?

 

[Evil Monkey 52]

I''ve just realised that I''ve also had a thread deleted, I think, for

suggesting that Holman wasn''t the most lovely chap in the world... only

my opinion, don''t see why that one got pulled (except that, maybe, I

referred to him as a male genital... ahem).  Seems there''s a lot

of posts about him being pulled recently, I reckon Archant are on a

mission to ensure that some truths don''t come out into the public

domain...

[canary cherub 1]

There''s a slightly wider issue here re. deleting posts.

Were the Hollman posts deleted because they are true or because they are libellous? 

The dilemma for the Webteam is that deleting them makes people think they''re true even if they''re not, thus compounding the libel.

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"]

There''s a slightly wider issue here re. deleting posts.

Were the Hollman posts deleted because they are true or because they are libellous? 

The dilemma for the Webteam is that deleting them makes people think they''re true even if they''re not, thus compounding the libel.

[/quote]

PS.  And conversely, if they ARE true no one''s going to sue for libel (even though in legal terms a true statement can also be libellous if it damages a person''s reputation), so what''s the problem?

Things were so much simpler when this was a moderated site . . .

 

 

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

There''s a slightly wider issue here re. deleting posts.

Were the Hollman posts deleted because they are true or because they are libellous? 

The dilemma for the Webteam is that deleting them makes people think they''re true even if they''re not, thus compounding the libel.

[/quote]

PS.  And conversely, if they ARE true no one''s going to sue for libel (even though in legal terms a true statement can also be libellous if it damages a person''s reputation), so what''s the problem?

Things were so much simpler when this was a moderated site . . .

[/quote]

...except that whenever I posted it took 2 days to be approved!

[can u sit down please 0]

and if by magic......the posts disappear!

[Pete Raven 276]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

There''s a slightly wider issue here re. deleting posts.

Were the Hollman posts deleted because they are true or because they are libellous? 

The dilemma for the Webteam is that deleting them makes people think they''re true even if they''re not, thus compounding the libel.

[/quote]

PS.  And conversely, if they ARE true no one''s going to sue for libel (even though in legal terms a true statement can also be libellous if it damages a person''s reputation), so what''s the problem?

Things were so much simpler when this was a moderated site . . .

[/quote]

Nothing sinister I''m afraid. From the code of conduct:

Make libellous comments about individuals or companies. The law against defamation protects individuals or organisations from attacks on their reputation.

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="Web Team - Pete"]

Nothing sinister I''m afraid. From the code of conduct:

Make libellous comments about individuals or companies. The law

against defamation protects individuals or organisations from attacks

on their reputation.

[/quote]

But surely libel and defamation would cover stories that are untrue...?

My post stating, quite simply, that I thought he had behaved like a

moron when I met him, wasn''t libel because it happened and it was

mainly my opinion... and besides, I would have thought that Holman

defamed himself and sullied his own reputation by getting sacked...

[Rasputin was a C... 0]

[quote user="Web Team - Pete"][quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

There''s a slightly wider issue here re. deleting posts.

Were the Hollman posts deleted because they are true or because they are libellous? 

The dilemma for the Webteam is that deleting them makes people think they''re true even if they''re not, thus compounding the libel.

[/quote]

PS.  And conversely, if they ARE true no one''s going to sue for libel (even though in legal terms a true statement can also be libellous if it damages a person''s reputation), so what''s the problem?

Things were so much simpler when this was a moderated site . . .

[/quote]

Nothing sinister I''m afraid. From the code of conduct:

Make libellous comments about individuals or companies. The law against defamation protects individuals or organisations from attacks on their reputation.

[/quote]If that''s the case Pete then much of the posts made on this forum must break those rules. Unless the posts about Hollman are not beyond the realms of possibility where as Delia is Mugabe''s inspiration is perhaps a little too far fetched. Its still something that will effect peoples opinions of her and is not based on reality but is surely as damaging.

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="Web Team - Pete"][quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

There''s a slightly wider issue here re. deleting posts.

Were the Hollman posts deleted because they are true or because they are libellous? 

The dilemma for the Webteam is that deleting them makes people think they''re true even if they''re not, thus compounding the libel.

[/quote]

PS.  And conversely, if they ARE true no one''s going to sue for libel (even though in legal terms a true statement can also be libellous if it damages a person''s reputation), so what''s the problem?

Things were so much simpler when this was a moderated site . . .

[/quote]

Nothing sinister I''m afraid. From the code of conduct:

Make libellous comments about individuals or companies. The law against defamation protects individuals or organisations from attacks on their reputation.

[/quote]

Hi Pete,

Can you tell me why my Hollman post was deleted.  I was just quoting something that he said, or are we not allowed to quote people either?

[canary cherub 1]

Looks like the other thread''s vanished altogether . . .

 

[Pete Raven 276]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"][quote user="Web Team - Pete"]

Nothing sinister I''m afraid. From the code of conduct:

Make libellous comments about individuals or companies. The law against defamation protects individuals or organisations from attacks on their reputation.

[/quote]
But surely libel and defamation would cover stories that are untrue...? My post stating, quite simply, that I thought he had behaved like a moron when I met him, wasn''t libel because it happened and it was mainly my opinion... and besides, I would have thought that Holman defamed himself and sullied his own reputation by getting sacked...
[/quote]

Your post would have been connected to one that was pulled for the reasons above. Sadly when a post is pulled all those directly replying to it, even if completely innocent, get pulled too.

[Pete Raven 276]

[quote user="dhickl"]

Hi Pete,

Can you tell me why my Hollman post was deleted.  I was just quoting something that he said, or are we not allowed to quote people either?

[/quote]

It'' wasn''t. It has been merged into this thread.

[Evil Monkey 52]

But the rest of the responses have again been removed...