kevtherev
Well-known member
If you throw in the word "allegedly" I thought you were pretty much on safe ground, against any recriminations
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
A new season warning about your postings
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Pinkie Brown
Wir Sind das Volk
It was three directors. John Campbell, Greg Stanley, plus If I remember correctly, Ray Bloom being the other.
If you throw in the word "allegedly" I thought you were pretty much on safe ground, against any recriminations
Nope; afraid not... Otherwise the tabloids would be full of stories like "Celebrity Y is a paedophile, allegedly"...
Pinkie Brown
Wir Sind das Volk
If you throw in the word "allegedly" I thought you were pretty much on safe ground, against any recriminations
Urban myth.
StonehamPark
#Brighton-Nil
Is it just me or is everyone getting this weird new homepage?
Добро пожаловать в северо чате стенда
Добро пожаловать в северо чате стенда
Pinkie Brown
Wir Sind das Volk
The link below may be of use to both moderators and posters alike. Happy reading. 
http://www.seqlegal.com/blog/10-things-you-should-know-about-libel
http://www.seqlegal.com/blog/10-things-you-should-know-about-libel
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
No, absolutely not. I assumed it's about chief execs of football clubs that lean on local media outlets and message boards in order to get more favourable coverage. Completely different.
Last edited:
In a case brought by someone claiming that they have been libelled, the burden of proof lies with the person who has written the allegedly libellous thing. So, if you accuse an employee of the club of being a liar, for example, you have to prove either that calling someone a liar doesn't diminish their reputation, or that they are indeed a liar.
Remember too that innuendo is sufficient to libel someone. If in doubt read the stuff about Sally Bercow and Lord McAlpine. He sued - and won.
It is however true that you cannot libel the dead. Though, you can still be extremely tasteless of course.
Remember too that innuendo is sufficient to libel someone. If in doubt read the stuff about Sally Bercow and Lord McAlpine. He sued - and won.
It is however true that you cannot libel the dead. Though, you can still be extremely tasteless of course.
No, it's not some magic get out of jail free card. Lord McAlpine was able to sue people for simply saying "Why is Lord McAlpine trending :innocent face:" Saying, "Lord McAlpine is allegedly a paedophile" wouldn't have saved them, nor Mustapha, would saying "In my opinion Lord McAlpine is a paedophile".If you throw in the word "allegedly" I thought you were pretty much on safe ground, against any recriminations
Pinkie Brown
Wir Sind das Volk
No forgetting of course, Bellotti's botched up pigs ear of an attempt to sue Roy Chuter and others back in 1996. Were the club to use lawyers who were as sloppy with detail as back then, any plaintiffs would have little to worry about........
What do you think the club would do if Naylot wrote that in an article in the Argus? You writing it on NSC is no different. That's what people seem to forget.
Lifelong Supporter
Well-known member
I rather do think though the club's lawyers would be more up to the mark these days. Perhaps we should ask Gus how he found them !
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
Of course, one of the main defences of being accused of libel is the truth. If you could demonstrate that someone had at times lied in a corporate context, there'd be no case for libel.
bristolseagull
Well-known member
unless he was a liar, in which case the defence of justification is available.
symyjym
Banned
Another day of Barber failing to sign players, it is clear that he lied on his CV and makes him a crook on many levels.
Disclaimer:- "This may only be an exagerated flippant off the cuff opinion from myself, it may not be fact, and may not represent the views of any other poster or organisation".
Is this ok
Disclaimer:- "This may only be an exagerated flippant off the cuff opinion from myself, it may not be fact, and may not represent the views of any other poster or organisation".
Is this ok
Shropshire Seagull
Well-known member
For those in the know, question: is the onus on the writer to prove the fact or the target to disprove?
eg If I say Mr X is a w anker do I have to find the evidence that he is, or must he prove he isn't?
I think its the former, based on the innocent until proven guilty philosophy. Am I correct?
eg If I say Mr X is a w anker do I have to find the evidence that he is, or must he prove he isn't?
I think its the former, based on the innocent until proven guilty philosophy. Am I correct?
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
Hence the word "untruth".
It's more of a legal issue. As an employer, the club have a duty of care to their employees. If they are seen to ignore a defamatory comment (and that's not preventing someone from saying that Kemy is Uncle Sam's most regular customer) then they could be sued by the employee.
A sense of proportionality is required, some of the more extreme stuff posted is in breach of the law, and therefore carries a risk. If you are not sure of the difference, don't post it.
But it was potentially libelous as it potentially could impact upon that individual's future job prospects.
Would you be prepared to go to court over the issue?