Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

A(nother) reminder about defamation



Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,575
Back in Sussex
If you state that someone undertook a particular act and they take action against you, it will be up to you to prove that they did. If you can't do that, you are in trouble.

If you state that someone is incompetent and they take action against you, it will be up to you to prove that they are. If you can't do that, you are in trouble.

For your own wellbeing, please think long and hard about whatever you post onto NSC - and elsewhere for that matter. If you couldn't provide irrefutable proof of something in a court, it's probably not worth you typing it. Defamation is a very expensive business to be involved in.

Be aware that should action ever be taken, I will do absolutely everything in my power to ensure that the person who made a post without thinking is the person who takes the hit, not me. I don't provide NSC as a medium for people to act recklessly, endangering themselves and me.
 


dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Mar 27, 2013
52,006
Burgess Hill
Might want to re-read the first line [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] - in the spirit of the thread, you are completely useless at proofreading your own work and have submitted a post with a glaring error :lol:
 


Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
61,673
Location Location
Might want to re-read the first line [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] - in the spirit of the thread, you are completely useless at proofreading your own work and have submitted a post with a glaring error :lol:

Should've quoted it. Then we could prove Bozza is INCONTINENT
 


DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jan 3, 2012
16,536
Be aware that should action ever be taken, I will do absolutely everything in my power to ensure that the person who made a post without thinking is the person who takes the hit, not me. I don't provide NSC as a medium for people to act recklessly, endangering themselves and me.

Quite right, too, and the vast majority of people on here would support it as well, I'm sure.
 


vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
27,867
In that case we can probably say that 40% of NSC is walking a tightrope with their posts along the lines of "XXXXXX couldn't score in Mombasa " and "XXXXX has not got a clue what he is doing." Then there are the internecine binfests on cycling/Harvey's that break out as well, there would be nothing left of NSC other than bland platitudes.
 




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,091
Chandlers Ford
In that case we can probably say that 40% of NSC is walking a tightrope with their posts along the lines of "XXXXXX couldn't score in Mombasa " and "XXXXX has not got a clue what he is doing." Then there are the internecine binfests on cycling/Harvey's that break out as well, there would be nothing left of NSC other than bland platitudes.

You see no distinction between, "XXXXX is a shit striker and should be sold immediately" and "XXXXX is not capable of carrying out his professional responsibilities, and is lying to cover himself"?
 


vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
27,867
You see no distinction between, "XXXXX is a shit striker and should be sold immediately" and "XXXXX is not capable of carrying out his professional responsibilities, and is lying to cover himself"?

Maybe a solicitor would. Most of the peons on here wouldn't.
 


glasfryn

cleaning up cat sick
Nov 29, 2005
20,261
somewhere in Eastbourne
I see where you are coming from
but my recent thread I think was bringing into daylight the defamation of the disabled, if you think its that bad then take the thread off.
 




Luke93

STAND OR FALL
Jun 23, 2013
5,028
Shoreham
In that case we can probably say that 40% of NSC is walking a tightrope with their posts along the lines of "XXXXXX couldn't score in Mombasa " and "XXXXX has not got a clue what he is doing." Then there are the internecine binfests on cycling/Harvey's that break out as well, there would be nothing left of NSC other than bland platitudes.

An opinion isn't the same as (mis)quoting something else as a fact.
 


Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,323
Uffern
In that case we can probably say that 40% of NSC is walking a tightrope with their posts along the lines of "XXXXXX couldn't score in Mombasa " and "XXXXX has not got a clue what he is doing." Then there are the internecine binfests on cycling/Harvey's that break out as well, there would be nothing left of NSC other than bland platitudes.

Pretty much of all that would be covered by fair comment - which is a defence - the danger is when you don't express opinion but say something that isn't true.
 


vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
27,867
I wonder if somewhere there is a NSC type forum for barristers and solicitors ? Now that would be anodyne.
 




Titanic

Super Moderator
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,025
West Sussex
An opinion isn't the same as (mis)quoting something else as a fact.

Pretty much of all that would be covered by fair comment - which is a defence - the danger is when you don't express opinion but say something that isn't true.

So is it OK to say "In my opinion, XXXXX is not capable of carrying out his professional responsibilities, and is lying to cover himself" ?
 


Luke93

STAND OR FALL
Jun 23, 2013
5,028
Shoreham
So is it OK to say "In my opinion, XXXXX is not capable of carrying out his professional responsibilities, and is lying to cover himself" ?

That's not for me to judge! If that was in context of offering an inaccurate view of someone else, like what Ernest did yesterday, I would assume that comment would get removed. Regardless, why bother putting yourself or the forum at risk?
 


hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,091
Chandlers Ford
Maybe a solicitor would. Most of the peons on here wouldn't.

Yes. That's the whole point - people need to actually consider the consequences of what they write, on a public forum.

Let's take another example, away from football and emotional ties with a football club. Because the context of the thread which has raised this again, was financial reporting, let's take a local firm of accoutants, for example.

Let's say that Bloggs & Co. acted on behalf of a poster on here, and he was disatisfied with their work.

If he started a thread saying "Don't use Bloggs & Co. Accountancy - I found their service poor" they'd be annoyed if they read it. If he started a thread saying "Don't use Bloggs & Co. Accountancy - they are negligent, incapable of performing to correct industry standards, and they lie to the public to cover their backs" he (via NSC) would no doubt be hearing from their legal representatives very quickly.
 




Titanic

Super Moderator
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,025
West Sussex
That's not for me to judge! If that was in context of offering an inaccurate view of someone else, like what Ernest did yesterday, I would assume that comment would get removed. Regardless, why bother putting yourself or the forum at risk?

Yeah, you're probably probably right*... let's just stick to fishy puns and really crap player songs**.

* that is an opinion, I think

** that's the songs, not the players.. and again, it's only an opinion
 


fat old seagull

New member
Sep 8, 2005
5,239
Rural Ringmer
Well for some years now I've thought that Bill Archer, Bellotti and Stanley were, along with a few thousand followers of a certain south London footy club a bunch of *not very pleasant people* Perhaps I should point out this isn't necessarily true they could all be lovely people.

* code for ..... Pancake Elevators
 


glasfryn

cleaning up cat sick
Nov 29, 2005
20,261
somewhere in Eastbourne
Well for some years now I've thought that Bill Archer, Bellotti and Stanley were, along with a few thousand followers of a certain south London footy club a bunch of *not very pleasant people* Perhaps I should point out this isn't necessarily true they could all be lovely people.

* code for ..... Pancake Elevators

:laugh:
 








edna krabappel

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 7, 2003
47,228
What, exactly, are we allowed to say about Messrs Bellotti, Archer and Stanley?

Edit: beaten to it.

I suppose, in their particular cases, it was demonstrated that they had carried out various activities in a sly and underhand manner (removing the articles of association clause, selling the stadium etc), therefore much of what was said about them could be argued to be true.

To suggest, on the other hand, that a-hypothetical, you understand- existing employee of an existing organisation might be doing things that break or bend the law or the rules, would be, legally, on extremely precarious ground, if there was no actual evidence of such activity.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here