Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ca

News of the World article about us tomorrow

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="hogesar"][quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

[quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="Metatron"]Canary Cherub It''s obvious where the journo got his story from - he mixed up his NCFCs. The facts of the story (admin on Thursday, £8m debt) all belong to Notts County FC. As someone pointed out on page 3 or 4 of this thread it sounds like the paper made a note in the diary to say "NCFC - court hearing this week" and the journo got the wrong end of the stick. The fact that no-one CHECKED the story before publication, however, is another matter.[/quote]A mistake.Will the NOTW appologise? YESWill we get compo?  Not a chance[/quote]

What is the basis and what are your authorities for this legal opinion?

 

[/quote]My opinion obviously, based on the probability it was a mistake due to a mix up with Notts County.  And it was not done with the intent to cause distress etc etc[/quote]Intent doesn''t really matter, would just have to prove that they have been ''reckless'' rather than have direct intention. It''s unprofessional and in my opinion quite reckless. I can''t see there being a big sum involved but i must say i''m very impressed with McNally....would the Norwich ''of old'' simply have been Doomcaster mumbling on radio norfolk "They got it wrong, they said sorry, they''ve got executive seats in the jarrold for the next game, lovely man that journo"...[/quote]

You need to get out more. 

[/quote]Coming from the guy with thousands of posts on our forum when you don''t even support us....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''m not sure our reaction to this is about money at all - like most on here I can''t see more than a few quid in compensation coming our way.

What it could be about is team spirit. Lambert has said on many occasions how important it is that we all stick together - boadroom, players, management and fans. A story coming out like this basically says that the board have been lying about our financial state and rather than the club being Ok for the next year or so we actually need to sell players etc etc. What sort of reaction do you think Lambert and the players had reading the article??

McNally has reacted so strongly as much to put their minds at rest as he has for financial reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Hairy Canary"]

I''m not sure our reaction to this is about money at all - like most on here I can''t see more than a few quid in compensation coming our way.

What it could be about is team spirit. Lambert has said on many occasions how important it is that we all stick together - boadroom, players, management and fans. A story coming out like this basically says that the board have been lying about our financial state and rather than the club being Ok for the next year or so we actually need to sell players etc etc. What sort of reaction do you think Lambert and the players had reading the article??

McNally has reacted so strongly as much to put their minds at rest as he has for financial reasons.

[/quote]I am not so sure about the amount of compensation. This is actually a pretty serious defamation. Imagine if you ran, say a small building Company in Norwich and the EDP published a big article about how you were about to go bust....all your suppliers would withdraw credit, people would cancel orders and your employees would be demanding you reassured them. Even if a retraction was published, you always have people who believe ''there''s no smoke without fire''.I reckon, if they have made a giant boo boo, the NOTW lawyers will be making contact PDQ to try to negotiate their way out of a court hearing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After the prompt and  justified  action of Norwich City managment and legal team the NOTW has  removed the article they published  yesterday concerning Norwich City fc http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/football/695976/CANARIES-ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="cityangel"]Just goes to show what damage tacky journo''s can do to people doesn''t it?[/quote]

Ouch! i think you have your claws out CA.Not aimed at anyone in particular i hope?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="First Wizard"]Yeah, AFTER thousands had read it worldwide![:@][/quote]

Exactly.... and also any retraction cannot happen at the earlist for at least a week when the defamatory rag is next published. All the while, more and more damage can be done to our club by heresay and innuendo if people believe these rumours, which I''m pretty sure they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="hogesar"][quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

[quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="Metatron"]Canary Cherub It''s obvious where the journo got his story from - he mixed up his NCFCs. The facts of the story (admin on Thursday, £8m debt) all belong to Notts County FC. As someone pointed out on page 3 or 4 of this thread it sounds like the paper made a note in the diary to say "NCFC - court hearing this week" and the journo got the wrong end of the stick. The fact that no-one CHECKED the story before publication, however, is another matter.[/quote]

A mistake.

Will the NOTW appologise? YES
Will we get compo?  Not a chance
[/quote]

What is the basis and what are your authorities for this legal opinion?

 

[/quote]

My opinion obviously, based on the probability it was a mistake due to a mix up with Notts County.  And it was not done with the intent to cause distress etc etc
[/quote]

Intent doesn''t really matter, would just have to prove that they have been ''reckless'' rather than have direct intention. It''s unprofessional and in my opinion quite reckless. I can''t see there being a big sum involved but i must say i''m very impressed with McNally....would the Norwich ''of old'' simply have been Doomcaster mumbling on radio norfolk "They got it wrong, they said sorry, they''ve got executive seats in the jarrold for the next game, lovely man that journo"...
[/quote]

You obviously don''t know much about the law of libel and slander (no reason why you should).  Intent does matter.  It leads to "aggravated damages". And terribly difficult to prove. 

You need to get out more. 

[/quote]

Sarcastic,patronising,the only thing missing is how much he has earned compared to us mere mortals and a reference to thick ex plods.

And some people on here hang on his every word.Now in my eyes they are the ones who should get out more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="hogesar"][quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

[quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="Metatron"]Canary Cherub It''s obvious where the journo got his story from - he mixed up his NCFCs. The facts of the story (admin on Thursday, £8m debt) all belong to Notts County FC. As someone pointed out on page 3 or 4 of this thread it sounds like the paper made a note in the diary to say "NCFC - court hearing this week" and the journo got the wrong end of the stick. The fact that no-one CHECKED the story before publication, however, is another matter.[/quote]
A mistake.
Will the NOTW appologise? YES
Will we get compo?  Not a chance
[/quote]

What is the basis and what are your authorities for this legal opinion?

[/quote]
My opinion obviously, based on the probability it was a mistake due to a mix up with Notts County.  And it was not done with the intent to cause distress etc etc
[/quote]
Intent doesn''t really matter, would just have to prove that they have been ''reckless'' rather than have direct intention. It''s unprofessional and in my opinion quite reckless. I can''t see there being a big sum involved but i must say i''m very impressed with McNally....would the Norwich ''of old'' simply have been Doomcaster mumbling on radio norfolk "They got it wrong, they said sorry, they''ve got executive seats in the jarrold for the next game, lovely man that journo"...
[/quote]

You obviously don''t know much about the law of libel and slander (no reason why you should).  Intent does matter.  It leads to "aggravated damages". And terribly difficult to prove. 

You need to get out more. 

[/quote]

Sarcastic,patronising,the only thing missing is how much he has earned compared to us mere mortals and a reference to thick ex plods.

And some people on here hang on his every word.Now in my eyes they are the ones who should get out more.

[/quote]

Totally agree Til...... I mean all this from someone that supports TWO teams LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

[quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="Metatron"]Canary Cherub It''s obvious where the journo got his story from - he mixed up his NCFCs. The facts of the story (admin on Thursday, £8m debt) all belong to Notts County FC. As someone pointed out on page 3 or 4 of this thread it sounds like the paper made a note in the diary to say "NCFC - court hearing this week" and the journo got the wrong end of the stick. The fact that no-one CHECKED the story before publication, however, is another matter.[/quote]

A mistake.

Will the NOTW appologise? YES
Will we get compo?  Not a chance
[/quote]

What is the basis and what are your authorities for this legal opinion?

 

[/quote]

My opinion obviously, based on the probability it was a mistake due to a mix up with Notts County.  And it was not done with the intent to cause distress etc etc
[/quote]

Maybe, but Delia''s name mentioned, as far as I know she''s not a majority shareholder in Notts County.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user=canaryco]After the prompt and  justified  action of Norwich City managment and legal team the NOTW has  removed the article they published  yesterday concerning Norwich City fc

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/football/695976/CANARIES-ON[/quote]

Yes they may have done but it was in the papers we all buy from shops or have delivered, the damage there was surely already done and can''t be retracted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Two points. Probably best not to get too excited at the possible damages, even if this goes to court and the club wins.

Secondly, defamation is a very tricky branch of the law. The club''s solicitors will almost certainly have to hand this over to a specialist firm. The NotW''s lawyers will be experts in the subject; NCFC will need to hire similar.
[/quote]

Agreed. To your second point Purple, newspapers are, of course, represented by experts who usually will base their defense on their client acted in a manner that was based upon good faith and reasonable belief. However, if it does go to court ( not likely ), the court will want to know that the newspaper used multiple sources to corroborate their story. From a distance this would appear to be a tricky one for the newspaper in this situation.  

[/quote]

Yankee, these are VERY arcane issues and who knows what the newspaper''s defence might be. It might not be good faith and/or reasonable belief. They might say the story had been true at the time but NCFC acted to make it untrue. They might even be dumb (or desperate) enough to try the Reynolds Defence.

Anyway, back to my other point, having looked at the website of the solicitors being used by NCFC to see how many defamation specialists they have the answer seems to be precisely none. Hey ho. If the NotW caves in, fine, but if this goes the course the company will have to get in experts. I can think of at least one who would probably love the case.

As to damages (if any) they will NOT pay off the debt. If we were a listed company, and our shares dived when the LSE opened tomorrow, then we might be on for squillions. But we are unlisted; hard to prove much financial damage. How actually have we suffered?

There is the argument of reputational damage to the directors, because the article effectively accuses them of lying,. They said officially, as directors of a PLC, that we were relatively safe, at least for this season. The article says we are going belly up very soon.

What would be fun would be if it could be proved HAD mixed us up with Notts County, because that would pretty much destroy any defence, and might add to the damages on the basis of sheer incompetence.[/quote]

I am not a libel practitioner being employment and corporate governance but there does seem a fairly clear claim to me.

We are known to be in financial difficulty and negotiaitng in good faith with our creditors and bankers.  A claim that the situation was much more serious than we had represented to them would damamge our credibiltity and our ability to negotiate further.   It could make it more difficult to do business and survive.

An accusation that you are having an affair is far more damamging if you have a close female friend than if you spend every waking hour with your wife.   Similarly, a claim that you are about to go bust is much more damaging if you are known to be struggling.

As for specialists at Leathes Prior, well I could have written that letter as it is pretty basic stuff.  However, specialist counsel was undoubtedly involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="hogesar"][quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

[quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="Metatron"]Canary Cherub It''s obvious where the journo got his story from - he mixed up his NCFCs. The facts of the story (admin on Thursday, £8m debt) all belong to Notts County FC. As someone pointed out on page 3 or 4 of this thread it sounds like the paper made a note in the diary to say "NCFC - court hearing this week" and the journo got the wrong end of the stick. The fact that no-one CHECKED the story before publication, however, is another matter.[/quote]

A mistake.

Will the NOTW appologise? YES
Will we get compo?  Not a chance
[/quote]

What is the basis and what are your authorities for this legal opinion?

 

[/quote]

My opinion obviously, based on the probability it was a mistake due to a mix up with Notts County.  And it was not done with the intent to cause distress etc etc
[/quote]

Intent doesn''t really matter, would just have to prove that they have been ''reckless'' rather than have direct intention. It''s unprofessional and in my opinion quite reckless. I can''t see there being a big sum involved but i must say i''m very impressed with McNally....would the Norwich ''of old'' simply have been Doomcaster mumbling on radio norfolk "They got it wrong, they said sorry, they''ve got executive seats in the jarrold for the next game, lovely man that journo"...
[/quote]

You obviously don''t know much about the law of libel and slander (no reason why you should).  Intent does matter.  It leads to "aggravated damages". And terribly difficult to prove. 

You need to get out more. 

[/quote]

And you, with respect don''t know much about the law of damages (no reason why you should).  Aggravated damages are awarded in addition to ordinary damages to reflect particular wrong doing.  They are rare but occur in areas such as police brutality and libel where in bad cases, ordinary damages may not be enough to reflect the abuse of power involved.  Not being eligible to claim aggravated damages does not mean on cannot claim ordinary damages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Two points. Probably best not to get too excited at the possible damages, even if this goes to court and the club wins.

Secondly, defamation is a very tricky branch of the law. The club''s solicitors will almost certainly have to hand this over to a specialist firm. The NotW''s lawyers will be experts in the subject; NCFC will need to hire similar.
[/quote]

Agreed. To your second point Purple, newspapers are, of course, represented by experts who usually will base their defense on their client acted in a manner that was based upon good faith and reasonable belief. However, if it does go to court ( not likely ), the court will want to know that the newspaper used multiple sources to corroborate their story. From a distance this would appear to be a tricky one for the newspaper in this situation.  

[/quote]

Yankee, these are VERY arcane issues and who knows what the newspaper''s defence might be. It might not be good faith and/or reasonable belief. They might say the story had been true at the time but NCFC acted to make it untrue. They might even be dumb (or desperate) enough to try the Reynolds Defence.

Anyway, back to my other point, having looked at the website of the solicitors being used by NCFC to see how many defamation specialists they have the answer seems to be precisely none. Hey ho. If the NotW caves in, fine, but if this goes the course the company will have to get in experts. I can think of at least one who would probably love the case.

As to damages (if any) they will NOT pay off the debt. If we were a listed company, and our shares dived when the LSE opened tomorrow, then we might be on for squillions. But we are unlisted; hard to prove much financial damage. How actually have we suffered?

There is the argument of reputational damage to the directors, because the article effectively accuses them of lying,. They said officially, as directors of a PLC, that we were relatively safe, at least for this season. The article says we are going belly up very soon.

What would be fun would be if it could be proved HAD mixed us up with Notts County, because that would pretty much destroy any defence, and might add to the damages on the basis of sheer incompetence.[/quote]

I am not a libel practitioner being employment and corporate governance but there does seem a fairly clear claim to me.

We are known to be in financial difficulty and negotiaitng in good faith with our creditors and bankers.  A claim that the situation was much more serious than we had represented to them would damamge our credibiltity and our ability to negotiate further.   It could make it more difficult to do business and survive.

An accusation that you are having an affair is far more damamging if you have a close female friend than if you spend every waking hour with your wife.   Similarly, a claim that you are about to go bust is much more damaging if you are known to be struggling.

As for specialists at Leathes Prior, well I could have written that letter as it is pretty basic stuff.  However, specialist counsel was undoubtedly involved.

[/quote]

Some good points there. As the club have already stated, they will be seeking substantial damages, and between you and myself we have  

put forward good, logical arguments why the News of the World could well be digging deeply into its bank balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wel Sunday may have been an expensive day for NOTW. Seems the stated Brad Pitt and sexy Jolie are getting divorced and it is being reported that they may be getting sued for that also.

What a truly immoral waste of trees it is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

 

 

Look on the bright side of this TFA.  Good news for a legal firm in the local economy.

 

"To various partners being disturbed on a SUNDAY morning and for sundry discussions and legal advice proffered to Messrs Bowkett and McNally ("Our Clients") the sum of....................

"To making SPECIAL arrangements to issue a letter to News Corporation (probably fax and recorded delivery will follow but never mind the detail........") the sum of...........

"To consulting various AUTHORITIES on the law of Defamation" the sum of........

"To various disbursements" the sum of..... (i.e. you have just paid for half the cost of the purchase of the fax machine as have 172 clients before you).

Plus VAT.

Terms: Settlement within 30 days nett of the date of this invoice.  Late settlement will incur a charge of 5 per cent over Bank of England base rate in force at the expiry of 30 days. (see terms and conditions).

 

[;)]

[/quote]

Is there no end to the talents of Camuldonum........first he is running Sky TV documentaries,then it is writing stories for the nationals involving suicide bombers and Kiddy fiddlers and bugger me he is now an expert in civil litigation.All this from a house in Essex.The BBC could save the licence payer a fortune by just giving him a bell instead of sending out packs of foreign correspondents.Next he will be advising Obama and travelling on Air Force One.

This sarcasm is catching......are well hey ho!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Nexus_Canary"]News of the World and Daily Mail are just toilet paper with words printed on them.Both are a digrace to journalism.[/quote]

You think I wipe my Bum om these papers think again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprising to see yet another post from The Tilster trying to pick a fight with Cam. I bet every other one of his posts is one like that. Then there''s his fixation with LQ. Just leaves enough time for a bit of hindsight at nutty and there he is in a nutshell[;)]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Not surprising to see yet another post from The Tilster trying to pick a fight with Cam. I bet every other one of his posts is one like that. Then there''s his fixation with LQ. Just leaves enough time for a bit of hindsight at nutty and there he is in a nutshell[;)]

 

[/quote]

Go away Nutty nobody has mentioned Worthy on this thread..................yet!!!!!!!!

Cam sets himself up time and again with tales from Fantasy Island and you know it Nutty.

Explain this fixation with LQ.Dramatic words from you yet again,she appeared the other day for the first time in months and someone asks a question about her involvement and i answered as she did not and suddenly it is a fixation.Maybe you should have used your favourite word"witch hunt" instead of fixation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Not surprising to see yet another post from The Tilster trying to pick a fight with Cam. I bet every other one of his posts is one like that. Then there''s his fixation with LQ. Just leaves enough time for a bit of hindsight at nutty and there he is in a nutshell[;)]

 

[/quote]

Go away Nutty nobody has mentioned Worthy on this thread..................yet!!!!!!!!.

 

[/quote]

Oh no... you''ve done it now Tilly [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Witch hunt is two words[;)]

 

[/quote]

and generally hyphenated [;)]
[/quote]

In which case is it two words or one?  Does it need to be hyphenated?  Witch Hunt?  Witchhunt?  Witch-hunt?  I''ve just asked a school teacher and she reckons that it could be any of these 

Personally I dont give a monkeys.  Having an argument over Worthington on a thread about potential libel action is about as relevant as one of Banana''s posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Barclay hero"][quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Witch hunt is two words[;)]

 

[/quote]and generally hyphenated [;)][/quote]

In which case is it two words or one?  Does it need to be hyphenated?  Witch Hunt?  Witchhunt?  Witch-hunt?  I''ve just asked a school teacher and she reckons that it could be any of these 

Personally I dont give a monkeys.  Having an argument over Worthington on a thread about potential libel action is about as relevant as one of Banana''s posts

[/quote]Why I said generally.  A number of hyphened words are being dropped these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="Barclay hero"][quote user="The Pig Will Eat You"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Witch hunt is two words[;)]

 

[/quote]

and generally hyphenated [;)]
[/quote]

In which case is it two words or one?  Does it need to be hyphenated?  Witch Hunt?  Witchhunt?  Witch-hunt?  I''ve just asked a school teacher and she reckons that it could be any of these 

Personally I dont give a monkeys.  Having an argument over Worthington on a thread about potential libel action is about as relevant as one of Banana''s posts

[/quote]

Why I said generally.  A number of hyphened words are being dropped these days.
[/quote]

Agreed, Pig....unfortunately its only hyphened words that are dropped on here - theres a fair few posters that are waiting for their sphericals to do the same, judging by the bickering going on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Not surprising to see yet another post from The Tilster trying to pick a fight with Cam. I bet every other one of his posts is one like that. Then there''s his fixation with LQ. Just leaves enough time for a bit of hindsight at nutty and there he is in a nutshell[;)]

 

[/quote]

Go away Nutty nobody has mentioned Worthy on this thread..................yet!!!!!!!!

Cam sets himself up time and again with tales from Fantasy Island and you know it Nutty.

Explain this fixation with LQ.Dramatic words from you yet again,she appeared the other day for the first time in months and someone asks a question about her involvement and i answered as she did not and suddenly it is a fixation.Maybe you should have used your favourite word"witch hunt" instead of fixation.

 

[/quote]

Here is one for you Mr T.  What is the name of Mr Murdoch''s company that pays contributors?

What is the email address of same?

Which national newspaper is the only one left that pays by cheque rather than BAC?  Which is the only group who pays fortnightly rather than monthly or a month in arrears?

Which people were in charge of the following News Desk''s last Saturday?  You just have to fill in the blanks.

People: D who?

News of the World: J Who?

Sunday Times: N Who?

Sunday Telegraph B Who?

Sunday Mirror N Who?

Mail on Sunday D Who?

Daily Star Sunday M Who?

Final initials will do.  If you can''t do those I''m afraid I have to write you (and Mel) off as complete and total Rodney you plonker (s)

Over to you dear.

[:|]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...