It must be true then

[William Darby 0]

if it is instantly removed

[Soldier on 290]

What''s that

[macdougalls perm 0]

I assume the post about gross misconduct. Of course it could just be considered to be potentially libellous.

[William Darby 0]

''Somebody'' expanded on McNally''s explanation as reported this morning... and piff paff poof it vanished.

[Ian 1,211]

Didn''t read the original, I assume referring to Gunn?

[Pete Raven 276]

True - no idea.

Libellous - extremely so.

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="macdougalls perm"]I assume the post about gross misconduct. Of course it could just be considered to be potentially libellous.[/quote]

You can delete the word potentially.

[William Darby 0]

How can it be libellous if you don''t know it it was true?[;)]

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="Mr McNallys Alter Ego"]How can it be libellous if you don''t know it it was true?[;)]
[/quote]

Because you can only publish if you know for certain that what you are alleging is true.  Otherwise the original poster and Archant leave themselves open to legal action.  Archant don''t know it is true and I doubt the original poster does either. 

A good rule just before writing something like that is: "Will I be able to prove it when standing before one of Her Majesty''s red robed Judges?"  A reliable rule, I''ve found. 

[nutty nigel 7,902]

Well there''s plenty of posts on here everyday where people make stuff up and make out it''s true. Why is this different?

It''s not that I believe it.. just the double standards involved.

 

[shortfatb 0]

Can it be any more libellous than Shack Attack''s revelation on the other Gunn being fired thread?!

[Attleborough_Canary 96]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well there''s plenty of posts on here everyday where people make stuff up and make out it''s true. Why is this different?

It''s not that I believe it.. just the double standards involved.

 

[/quote]

I guess it depends on if what is said is offensive or damaging in any way.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

[quote user="Mr McNallys Alter Ego"]How can it be libellous if you don''t know it it was true?[;)][/quote]

Because you can only publish if you know for certain that what you are alleging is true.  Otherwise the original poster and Archant leave themselves open to legal action.  Archant don''t know it is true and I doubt the original poster does either. 

A good rule just before writing something like that is: "Will I be able to prove it when standing before one of Her Majesty''s red robed Judges?"  A reliable rule, I''ve found. 

[/quote]Why aren''t you the head of Fleet Street Cam?  FFS everything in the papers must be true then.And BTW the original post that was removed didn''t actually say anything, it just said ''gross misconduct''  and named a person, not much  to cobble a case up with imo.

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well there''s plenty of posts on here everyday where people make stuff up and make out it''s true. Why is this different?

It''s not that I believe it.. just the double standards involved.

 

[/quote]

It depends on whether what they make up is libellous to someone else.  Smart lawyers in America now trawl MB''s over there and offer to work on a no win no fee basis.  If it ever comes here it should make life jolly interesting for lots of people.

 

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well there''s plenty of posts on here everyday where people make stuff up and make out it''s true. Why is this different?

It''s not that I believe it.. just the double standards involved.

 

[/quote]

It depends on whether what they make up is libellous to someone else.  Smart lawyers in America now trawl MB''s over there and offer to work on a no win no fee basis.  If it ever comes here it should make life jolly interesting for lots of people.

 

[/quote]

Well there''s been loads on here Cam...

Check out the one about "for those who don''t believe Delia has reclaimed her investment"! And then when Worthy was the devil there were loads about him.

Maybe it''s Delia''s new "tough guy" who has blown the wind of fear through here.

 

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="shortfatb"]Can it be any more libellous than Shack Attack''s revelation on the other Gunn being fired thread?!
[/quote]

The very fact that my revelation remains visible to all is a tacit admission that Archant believes it to be true [:D][;)]

[First Jedi 0]

"How can it be libellous if you don''t know it it was true?"

Surely that should be; How can it be libellous if you don''t know it was false?

Something can''t be libellous if it''s true!

[Camuldonum 0]

There''s libel on hundreds of message boards every day and eventually someone is going to get really hammered - a few have been already although not yet football related so far as I know but I am sure it will come.  It is only a matter of time.

Message boards are governed by exactly the same rules as if the words appeared in a "publication."  In the eyes of the law this board is such a "publication."

 

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]

[quote user="shortfatb"]Can it be any more libellous than Shack Attack''s revelation on the other Gunn being fired thread?!
[/quote]

The very fact that my revelation remains visible to all is a tacit admission that Archant believes it to be true [:D][;)]

[/quote]

That is a matter for Archant to decide but in fact it is libellous even if said in jest or ironically as yours appears.  Your only defence would be your subsequent post which, if any action were to be taken, would mitigate damages.

But, technically, that is libel.  You have to hope that Melissa isn''t feeling mean! [;)]

[First Jedi 0]

"It is only a matter of time."

Actually, no, it isn''t. At least I don''t believe there will come a time when every piece of libel on websites results in a prosecution... would be ridiculous...

If you are interested on this sort of thing, www.techdirt.com is a fantastic site.

[ZLF 335]

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="Shack Attack"]

[quote user="shortfatb"]Can it be any more libellous than Shack Attack''s revelation on the other Gunn being fired thread?!
[/quote]

The very fact that my revelation remains visible to all is a tacit admission that Archant believes it to be true [:D][;)]

[/quote]

That is a matter for Archant to decide but in fact it is libellous even if said in jest or ironically as yours appears.  Your only defence would be your subsequent post which, if any action were to be taken, would mitigate damages.

But, technically, that is libel.  You have to hope that Melissa isn''t feeling mean! [;)]

[/quote]

Bearing in mind many comedians sketches would clearly fall into this category is there a defence to the accusation of libel that states it was clearly deliberately humurous to the extent that it was so ridiculous that is was clearly not true and so unable to harm anyone view of the victims reputation/stature/standing in the community and so is unlikely to succeed in obtaining any libellous damages? 

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"][quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="Shack Attack"]

[quote user="shortfatb"]Can it be any more libellous than Shack Attack''s revelation on the other Gunn being fired thread?!
[/quote]

The very fact that my revelation remains visible to all is a tacit admission that Archant believes it to be true [:D][;)]

[/quote]

That is a matter for Archant to decide but in fact it is libellous even if said in jest or ironically as yours appears.  Your only defence would be your subsequent post which, if any action were to be taken, would mitigate damages.

But, technically, that is libel.  You have to hope that Melissa isn''t feeling mean! [;)]

[/quote]

Bearing in mind many comedians sketches would clearly fall into this category is there a defence to the accusation of libel that states it was clearly deliberately humurous to the extent that it was so ridiculous that is was clearly not true and so unable to harm anyone view of the victims reputation/stature/standing in the community and so is unlikely to succeed in obtaining any libellous damages? 

[/quote]

Yes that would be a partial defence but the counter argument would be that the "humour" or ironic nature was not made clear until a subsequent post .

If it went to an action it would be for the court to determine whether the "ironic" nature was immediately apparent to the so called man on the Clapham Omnibus.

[First Jedi 0]

" Smart lawyers in America now trawl MB''s over there and offer to work on a no win no fee basis"

*cough* bullshit *cough*

You think "smart" US lawyers spend all of their days on message boards? Riiiiight....

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="First Jedi"]"How can it be libellous if you don''t know if it was true?"

Surely that should be; How can it be libellous if you don''t know it was false?

Something can''t be libellous if it''s true![/quote]No shiite

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"][quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="Shack Attack"]

[quote user="shortfatb"]Can it be any more libellous than Shack Attack''s revelation on the other Gunn being fired thread?!
[/quote]

The very fact that my revelation remains visible to all is a tacit admission that Archant believes it to be true [:D][;)]

[/quote]

That is a matter for Archant to decide but in fact it is libellous even if said in jest or ironically as yours appears.  Your only defence would be your subsequent post which, if any action were to be taken, would mitigate damages.

But, technically, that is libel.  You have to hope that Melissa isn''t feeling mean! [;)]

[/quote]

Bearing in mind many comedians sketches would clearly fall into this category is there a defence to the accusation of libel that states it was clearly deliberately humurous to the extent that it was so ridiculous that is was clearly not true and so unable to harm anyone view of the victims reputation/stature/standing in the community and so is unlikely to succeed in obtaining any libellous damages? 

[/quote]

Can I hire you as my lawyer Zipper?

As far as I''m aware you would have to prove that the average Pink ''Un reader would be persuaded that my comment was serious and thus capable of causing damage to the reputation of Mr Gunn before I could be found guilty. So provided there is no history of the users of this website being taken in by baseless rumour mongering and illicit gossip we should be OK. Oh sh*t, I''m screwed.

[valiant 5]

what was actually said?!....or will i never know? lol

[Camuldonum 0]

You obviously don''t subscribe to the Law Society gazette.

[First Jedi 0]

"You obviously don''t subscribe to the Law Society gazette."

Nope... and even if I did, I can''t believe it''s too common a practice, even if there have been a couple of isolated cases. Be interested if you could provide me with links of course, never to proud to be proven wrong!

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

There''s libel on hundreds of message boards every day and eventually someone is going to get really hammered - a few have been already although not yet football related so far as I know but I am sure it will come.  It is only a matter of time.

Message boards are governed by exactly the same rules as if the words appeared in a "publication."  In the eyes of the law this board is such a "publication."

 

[/quote]

I recollect that there was a libel action by a chairman whose financial honesty was questioned.  Sheffield Wednesday springs to mind.

Some of the posts on here are libellous especially those that attack the honesty and financial probity of the majority shareholders.  That they take no action and even that Archant allow some to slip through does not stop the posts from being libellous.

Remember that a libel is a statement which is untrue, not reasonable or fair comment and which would lower the standing of  person in the minds of right thinking people.    So saying that the majority shareholders are welli ntentioned but inept would be fair comment.   Saying that they are secretly taking money from the Club (which is said at least once a month on this board and which is of course completely without foundation) is libellous.

It is as easy as compare the meerkat.com

[ref89 0]

America - made the internet, and their greed will turn it into a ghost-town shopping mall, just like their nation.[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well there''s plenty of posts on here everyday where people make stuff up and make out it''s true. Why is this different?

It''s not that I believe it.. just the double standards involved.

 

[/quote]

It depends on whether what they make up is libellous to someone else.  Smart lawyers in America now trawl MB''s over there and offer to work on a no win no fee basis.  If it ever comes here it should make life jolly interesting for lots of people.

 

[/quote]