A Helicopter for Bowkett

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

 

That article is a load of tosh.  The BBC use the word troll all the way through it and then at the end admit that the word will not appear in the regulations and only defamatory content will be subject to it.

 

[/quote]

That''s simply because "troll" is the commonly understood term, but in a legal document you have to define what you''re talking about much more precisely.

[/quote]

 

Not really.  "Troll" is an understood term but the BBC article states that the newly proposed law will only refer to "defamatory" content.  Trolling covers a multitude of sins, not just defamation, therefore what the BBC have done is picked only one aspect of a commonly used and generally understood term and applied that whole term to a new law.

 

You could equally be guilty of defamation on an internet forum or the like and not be a troll.

 

"The BBC understands that the term "troll" will not figure in the bill, and the new law will only refer to "defamatory" content."

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

It will also be interesting to see how this law is applied in terms of people going by usernames, which is usually the case on forums and messageboards etc, rather than their real name?

 

I assume you would have to be able to show that it was generally known who you were in the ''real world'' as you cannot surely be guilty of defamation of a username!

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

 

That article is a load of tosh.  The BBC use the word troll all the way through it and then at the end admit that the word will not appear in the regulations and only defamatory content will be subject to it.

 

[/quote]

That''s simply because "troll" is the commonly understood term, but in a legal document you have to define what you''re talking about much more precisely.

[/quote]

 

Not really.  "Troll" is an understood term but the BBC article states that the newly proposed law will only refer to "defamatory" content.  Trolling covers a multitude of sins, not just defamation, therefore what the BBC have done is picked only one aspect of a commonly used and generally understood term and applied that whole term to a new law.

 

You could equally be guilty of defamation on an internet forum or the like and not be a troll.

 

"The BBC understands that the term "troll" will not figure in the bill, and the new law will only refer to "defamatory" content."

[/quote]

 

That is strictly true, but for simplicity''s sake it seems to me OK to use "troll" in this context. I suspect any other description would be ludicrously lengthy and would have to be repeated all the way through the article. Unless you can come up with a word that covers every aspect of what is being talked about. I can''t offhand think of one.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

It will also be interesting to see how this law is applied in terms of people going by usernames, which is usually the case on forums and messageboards etc, rather than their real name?

 

I assume you would have to be able to show that it was generally known who you were in the ''real world'' as you cannot surely be guilty of defamation of a username!

[/quote]

 

NBS, at the risk of this turning into a seminar on defamation...[8-|]

Using an alias does not protect you from being sued for defamation. The point about defamation is the allegation and it being public. That it may be made anonymously doesn''t alter that. And there have been cases where someone using an alias has been sued, after the complainant got a court order forcing the website to reveal the identity behind the alias. What the new legislation does, if I have understood it, is to make it far easier and quicker for the complainant to get the website to reveal the identity.

 

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

 

That article is a load of tosh.  The BBC use the word troll all the way through it and then at the end admit that the word will not appear in the regulations and only defamatory content will be subject to it.

 

[/quote]

That''s simply because "troll" is the commonly understood term, but in a legal document you have to define what you''re talking about much more precisely.

[/quote]

 

Not really.  "Troll" is an understood term but the BBC article states that the newly proposed law will only refer to "defamatory" content.  Trolling covers a multitude of sins, not just defamation, therefore what the BBC have done is picked only one aspect of a commonly used and generally understood term and applied that whole term to a new law.

 

You could equally be guilty of defamation on an internet forum or the like and not be a troll.

 

"The BBC understands that the term "troll" will not figure in the bill, and the new law will only refer to "defamatory" content."

[/quote]

 

That is strictly true, but for simplicity''s sake it seems to me OK to use "troll" in this context. I suspect any other description would be ludicrously lengthy and would have to be repeated all the way through the article. Unless you can come up with a word that covers every aspect of what is being talked about. I can''t offhand think of one.

[/quote]

 

In a simplistic understanding of it then yes.

 

Not picking on anyone here, but Cluck for example could Troll away on here all day long, taking threads off topic, winding people up, trying to provoke reactions, but so long as he didn''t post anything defamatory (or actions which would be covered under different laws such as threats to a person''s life) then yes while he could be banned by the forum moderators, legally he would not be facing any other action.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

 

Not picking on anyone here, but Cluck for example could Troll away on here all day long, taking threads off topic, winding people up, trying to provoke reactions, but so long as he didn''t post anything defamatory (or actions which would be covered under different laws such as threats to a person''s life) then yes while he could be banned by the forum moderators, legally he would not be facing any other action.

[/quote]

 

That is quite right. There is no law that would cover the kind of impish trolling you are describing. Nor should there be. 

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

It will also be interesting to see how this law is applied in terms of people going by usernames, which is usually the case on forums and messageboards etc, rather than their real name?

 

I assume you would have to be able to show that it was generally known who you were in the ''real world'' as you cannot surely be guilty of defamation of a username!

[/quote]

 

NBS, at the risk of this turning into a seminar on defamation...[8-|]

Using an alias does not protect you from being sued for defamation. The point about defamation is the allegation and it being public. That it may be made anonymously doesn''t alter that. And there have been cases where someone using an alias has been sued, after the complainant got a court order forcing the website to reveal the identity behind the alias. What the new legislation does, if I have understood it, is to make it far easier and quicker for the complainant to get the website to reveal the identity.

 

[/quote]

 

That''s not what I am saying. I am not saying about it being made anonymously and then the perpetraitor hiding behind the username.  What I am saying in essence is can you be guilty of defamation of a person if it is not known who that person is? 

 

For example, If I am going by a username on a forum, as I am here, as ''norfolkbroadslim'' and nobody on the forum knows who I am, my name or my address or where I live etc etc and somebody post a message saying ''norfolkbroadslim is a t wot and he touches sheep.  Can I sue them, as ''norfolkbroadslim'' for defamation?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

It will also be interesting to see how this law is applied in terms of people going by usernames, which is usually the case on forums and messageboards etc, rather than their real name?

 

I assume you would have to be able to show that it was generally known who you were in the ''real world'' as you cannot surely be guilty of defamation of a username!

[/quote]

 

NBS, at the risk of this turning into a seminar on defamation...[8-|]

Using an alias does not protect you from being sued for defamation. The point about defamation is the allegation and it being public. That it may be made anonymously doesn''t alter that. And there have been cases where someone using an alias has been sued, after the complainant got a court order forcing the website to reveal the identity behind the alias. What the new legislation does, if I have understood it, is to make it far easier and quicker for the complainant to get the website to reveal the identity.

 

[/quote]

 

That''s not what I am saying. I am not saying about it being made anonymously and then the perpetraitor hiding behind the username.  What I am saying in essence is can you be guilty of defamation of a person if it is not known who that person is? 

 

For example, If I am going by a username on a forum, as I am here, as ''norfolkbroadslim'' and nobody on the forum knows who I am, my name or my address or where I live etc etc and somebody post a message saying ''norfolkbroadslim is a t wot and he touches sheep.  Can I sue them, as ''norfolkbroadslim'' for defamation?

[/quote]

 

Ah, a different kettle of fish! I don''t know for certain, but I suspect the answer is that you could not, if absolutely no-one knew who nbs was, because the reputation of the real you would not have been damaged.

[Shack Attack 0]

Getting back to the argument aboout foreign players for a minute the most obvious thing when looking at the likes of Muzinic, Van Wyk and Haraide is that the game in England was pretty unique back then. So when they arrived it would have been a lot more difficult to settle in although players from a similar footballing culture such as Scandinavians had some success. Nowadays the game is so homogenised that if a player fails to shine it is very rare that it is simply down to the fact that they are foreign. To suggest that the likes of Diop, De Waard and Derveld flopped because they were foreign is nonsense. They failed because they were cheap rubbish.Take a look at the European Championships and count how many different styles you see? Only the Spanish really play much of a different style to the rest with their extreme possesion game. Years ago all of the different club sides in the Soviet Union would have had a different style (if you have not read Behind The Curtain by the excellent Jonathan Wilson I suggest you do so immeaditly) but today the now independent countries play the same as everyone else. If we don''t dip our toes into the European market (and beyond) we will get left behind. No one is suggesting we should sign only foreign players but to suggest that board members should resign for wanting to sign any and then using examples of failed foreign players from thirty years ago shows you up as pretty clueless.

[Orford65 0]

[quote user="Big Vince"]Does anyone have a helicopter to airlift this fella out from Carrow Road? First of all he said he wanted to stick with Gunn before McNally saved him from himself. Then he said he wanted to finish five places lower next season compared to last. Now he says they want to recruit players from Europe. He clearly does not know his Canary history very well. Carrow Road is littered with failed signings from the continent. This abysmal Canary Board has gone down this route before and it is now about to repeat the same mistake. And posters tell me Delia has learned from her past mistakes? Well, here is ample proof that she, and they, haven''t. Does Bowkett remember Raymond de Waard, Fernando Derveld, Pape Diop, Cedric Anselin, Marc Libbra, Thomas Helveg, Matthias Johansen, Steen Nedergaard, Dennis Van Wyk, and, going back to the John Bond era, Drazen Muzinic. The latter was a full international for Yugoslavia and captain of his country, yet never got the hang of English football. It will be an extremely dangerous strategy to bring in players who are not used to the pace and intensity of the Premiership. Even more so if, as I suspect, the Board are going down this route in order to save pennies now so that they can lose millions when they get relegated as a result of it. The Board will do anything except pay the going rate for a proven Premiership player. They want to stay rooted to the bottom of the Premiership Wages Table because Norwich are somehow a special case, and should not be expected to pay even modestly higher wages. And Delia, as we know, will not put her baby up for auction to the highest bidder because we are forced, by her, to believe that billionaires do not exist. Lambert was right when he said that Norwich is not the right type of club for bringing in foreign players. History backs him up. The only foreign player who had a good spell was Matti Svensson, and that was because he already had several seasons with Charlton in the Premiership. Hoist that fella out........... [/quote]

Oh dear!Apart from Chelski, where the mad Russian decides which players to purchase, it''s usually down to the manager as to who he wants to bid for and their country of origin may or may not be a factor in that choice.Don''t think our chairman, CEO, Delia or any other board member will be making any decisions on which CB or striker we need to supplement our squad. If it comes down to the size of the transfer fee or the wages involved, then that might be a different matter altogether.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

It will also be interesting to see how this law is applied in terms of people going by usernames, which is usually the case on forums and messageboards etc, rather than their real name?

 

I assume you would have to be able to show that it was generally known who you were in the ''real world'' as you cannot surely be guilty of defamation of a username!

[/quote]

 

NBS, at the risk of this turning into a seminar on defamation...[8-|]

Using an alias does not protect you from being sued for defamation. The point about defamation is the allegation and it being public. That it may be made anonymously doesn''t alter that. And there have been cases where someone using an alias has been sued, after the complainant got a court order forcing the website to reveal the identity behind the alias. What the new legislation does, if I have understood it, is to make it far easier and quicker for the complainant to get the website to reveal the identity.

 

[/quote]

 

That''s not what I am saying. I am not saying about it being made anonymously and then the perpetraitor hiding behind the username.  What I am saying in essence is can you be guilty of defamation of a person if it is not known who that person is? 

 

For example, If I am going by a username on a forum, as I am here, as ''norfolkbroadslim'' and nobody on the forum knows who I am, my name or my address or where I live etc etc and somebody post a message saying ''norfolkbroadslim is a t wot and he touches sheep.  Can I sue them, as ''norfolkbroadslim'' for defamation?

[/quote]

 

Ah, a different kettle of fish! I don''t know for certain, but I suspect the answer is that you could not, if absolutely no-one knew who nbs was, because the reputation of the real you would not have been damaged.

[/quote]

 

That is my take on it also.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Iz7-8W9Ro

Sums this thread up I think!

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Big Vince"]Then got relegated the same season.....did Dennis.[/quote]

 

So did Woods, Watson, Bruce, Barham, Channon and Deehan to name some more...

 

 

[/quote]Ah, but Nigel, now you are making a different point. You are talking about the collective failure of the class of 1985. My original post was about the INDIVIDUAL failure of a number of foreign players over a 30 year period, c.1980-2010 ish.

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="ricardo"]Erik Fuglestad, quite useful IMO


[/quote] Please, give me a break. Erik was a complete lightweight who was part of a long era in Canary history when we were regarded as a soft touch ie. all of the Delia era prior to McNally. I remember a game at Molineaux where the blonde was like a scared rabbit caught in the headlights. Needless to say, the Wolves chewed him up and spat him out in a 5-0 rout.

[blahblahblah 2]

"Please, give me a break. Erik was a complete lightweight who was part of

a long era in Canary history when we were regarded as a soft touch ie.

all of the Delia era prior to McNally. I remember a game at Molineaux

where the blonde was like a scared rabbit caught in the headlights.

Needless to say, the Wolves chewed him up and spat him out in a 5-0

rout."So Big Vince, you remember one away game where the team played badly and lost 5-0, and it was all the farriners fault ?  And on that basis, said farriner was useless ?I think the giving of breaks should be reversed, meself...

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="priceyrice"]Cluck in disguise? Binner is disguise? or perhaps they are both the same thing! Anyway i can''t believe Nedergard (? spelling) is on that list, best RB i have seen at Norwich, loved him, some other good players mentioned too.

Just to amuse you for a little and reply sensibly, why should pass failings under different mangers prevent us recruiting from Europe, it''s the cheapest market and i don''t want to see us blow 1/3 or 1/2 our transfer budget on one player, we''re not a one man team.

It''s been known that in the past we haven''t had a scouting system, Ewan Chester was our first head scout to set up something abroad, now he is back, along with Hughton, who has worked with the best scout in the business- i am very excited to see some gems uncovered this summer, as should everyone else who supports the club- it''s a great time to be a supporter, if you can''t enjoy it now, i doubt you ever will, so i suggest you stop sitting at home and listening to the games on the radio on a saturday, instead go out, find a new hobby, i would advise somewhere where bullshit is tolerated!
[/quote] You''re just like the Canary Board - always looking for something on the cheap, never prepared to pay the going rate for the league you''re in. Even with the £3 billion TV deal from 2013, the Canary Board will still be looking for bargain basement, assuming they haven''t put us down before then. Peanuts for monkeys = Championship, where the Board belongs.

And as for Ewan Chester, I shouldn''t get too excited about him. According to this website he said some pretty unflattering things about Norwich City after joining Birmingham. Lambert didn''t rate him. The gems will dry up with Lambert gone.

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

Big Vince is spot on yet again and what does he get for his troubles?  You''s lot giving it the big I AM!

 

Henrik Mortensen, Drazan Muzinic, they set Norfolk on fire didn''t they!?

 

Jesus, FFS, give me strength![:@]

[/quote]Ah, Norfolkbroadslim is my friend.........

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Big Vince"]

And as for Ewan Chester, I shouldn''t get too excited about him. Lambert didn''t rate him.

[/quote]

I think you will find that it was Lambert who brought him to the Club in the first place unless of course you want to credit Delia and the rest of the board.[;)]

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]Getting back to the argument aboout foreign players for a minute the most obvious thing when looking at the likes of Muzinic, Van Wyk and Haraide is that the game in England was pretty unique back then. So when they arrived it would have been a lot more difficult to settle in although players from a similar footballing culture such as Scandinavians had some success. Nowadays the game is so homogenised that if a player fails to shine it is very rare that it is simply down to the fact that they are foreign. To suggest that the likes of Diop, De Waard and Derveld flopped because they were foreign is nonsense. They failed because they were cheap rubbish.

Take a look at the European Championships and count how many different styles you see? Only the Spanish really play much of a different style to the rest with their extreme possesion game. Years ago all of the different club sides in the Soviet Union would have had a different style (if you have not read Behind The Curtain by the excellent Jonathan Wilson I suggest you do so immeaditly) but today the now independent countries play the same as everyone else.

If we don''t dip our toes into the European market (and beyond) we will get left behind. No one is suggesting we should sign only foreign players but to suggest that board members should resign for wanting to sign any and then using examples of failed foreign players from thirty years ago shows you up as pretty clueless.

[/quote]The game in the Premiership is not as homogenised with the rest of the world as you think. The pace and intensity is greater than in other comparable leagues in other countries. Therefore, the risk of a foreigner failing is greater. Lambert also said Norwich City was not the type of club suited to foreign players. Was he therefore also clueless? However, I like the idea of "board" and "resign" in the same sentence.

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="ricardo"]Erik Fuglestad, quite useful IMO

[/quote] Please, give me a break. Erik was a complete lightweight who was part of a long era in Canary history when we were regarded as a soft touch ie. all of the Delia era prior to McNally. I remember a game at Molineaux where the blonde was like a scared rabbit caught in the headlights. Needless to say, the Wolves chewed him up and spat him out in a 5-0 rout.[/quote]I remember the game well Vince, (Jan ''98) because I happened to be there as a guest of a company that used to supply the company I worked for (private box, dinner and all the trimmings).  All in all a nice day out spoiled by the result but it certainly wasn''t the fault of one man. One of the guys I was with was so incensed that he confronted Matt Jackson in the Molyneux entrance lobby as we left an hour after the game. "Pathetic gutless and piss poor" were some of the words I heard used but others would probably not get past the censor. To his eternal credit Mr Jackson did not reply in kind although he looked a bit shellshocked.The rest of the team looked similarly shaken as the City bus endured a similar tirade as we passed. As you would expect Ricardo refused to enter into such ungentlemanly conduct.[;)]

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Big Vince"]Does anyone have a helicopter to airlift this fella out from Carrow Road? First of all he said he wanted to stick with Gunn before McNally saved him from himself. Then he said he wanted to finish five places lower next season compared to last. Now he says they want to recruit players from Europe. He clearly does not know his Canary history very well. Carrow Road is littered with failed signings from the continent. This abysmal Canary Board has gone down this route before and it is now about to repeat the same mistake. And posters tell me Delia has learned from her past mistakes? Well, here is ample proof that she, and they, haven''t. Does Bowkett remember Raymond de Waard, Fernando Derveld, Pape Diop, Cedric Anselin, Marc Libbra, Thomas Helveg, Matthias Johansen, Steen Nedergaard, Dennis Van Wyk, and, going back to the John Bond era, Drazen Muzinic. The latter was a full international for Yugoslavia and captain of his country, yet never got the hang of English football. It will be an extremely dangerous strategy to bring in players who are not used to the pace and intensity of the Premiership. Even more so if, as I suspect, the Board are going down this route in order to save pennies now so that they can lose millions when they get relegated as a result of it. The Board will do anything except pay the going rate for a proven Premiership player. They want to stay rooted to the bottom of the Premiership Wages Table because Norwich are somehow a special case, and should not be expected to pay even modestly higher wages. And Delia, as we know, will not put her baby up for auction to the highest bidder because we are forced, by her, to believe that billionaires do not exist. Lambert was right when he said that Norwich is not the right type of club for bringing in foreign players. History backs him up. The only foreign player who had a good spell was Matti Svensson, and that was because he already had several seasons with Charlton in the Premiership. Hoist that fella out........... [/quote][img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m19ndud4wm1r1p4p7.jpg[/img]