Blackpool Fc attempt to sue fan for £150,000 in relation to comments made ....

[El Presidente]

I see him more as a croissant man, perhaps with a side bowl of muesli.

Licker!

 

[Giraffe]

Licker!

Quite possibly, but then I think he gives the croissant a good chew.

 

[ROSM]

It depends whose puppies he's eating and whether they have brown or pink noses surely?

 

[Gwylan]

Amazing how many months of my life (and every other journalism student in the 80s and 90s) was spent getting to grips with defamation law.

Then a few decades later, the whole population are effectively journalists, publishing opinion, half-truths and hearsay to the entire world without a second thought.

It's always looked like a legal minefield to me but I'm still surprised at how rarely anything actually gets to court, at least in relation to the amount of defamatory stuff that goes online all the time.

I agree. I'm really surprised there's not a libel case every other day. Like you, I got a thorough grounding in media law (with regular updates). Despite this, I've been sued for libel twice (although neither ended up in court). The articles concerned were near the knuckle but I can honestly say that I see more blatant infractions on a daily basis. There's little understanding of what constitutes defamation out there

Looking through this board there are numerous comments about players ability and attitude, some of which could be argued to be libelous. However, these are still seen to be the norm and part of the football fans basic rights to critique their club; this is why people get so confused I feel. It currently seems OK to criticise players, managers, coaches, heads of recruitment but when it comes to a CEO or chairman then it gets all American.

As if it prove my point

 

[halbpro]

Quite possibly, but then I think he gives the croissant a good chew.

This response is a thing of beauty.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Blackpool FC appear to be pursuing the people they think are responsible for the decline in season ticket sales. Surely the players need to take their share of the blame? I hope Andrea Orlandi is going to be safe.

 

[BBassic]

If they do win this case maybe they can put the money towards hiring a PI to track down Nile Ranger.

 

[Horses Arse]

There could be a certain amount of sabre-rattling here. Maybe the club just wants to frighten off people who are posting the extreme stuff.

We're allowed to say that Agustein is lazy, or that CMS has a rubbish first touch, if those are honestly held opinions. But if you start accusing players of taking bungs, or not turning up for training when they actually did, that's the kind of stuff that would be actionable.

Maybe it would be useful for message boards like NSC to have a small section that gives an at-a-glance guide to libel. I know there's already general advice on what is and isn't acceptable, so perhaps that covers all we need to know.

Some of the stuff regarding a couple of our previous managers was libelous and defamatory based on the interpretation that the club takes for its suits. Ditto a certain player and the possible reasons for his departure. I'm not aware of any threats taken there and this is where the confusion arises. Post something against a well known suit that could be interpreted by them as defamatory or libelous and you'll be threatened/pursued. Do the same against a player/manager and this doesn't appear to happen. Seems like dual standards to me but hey, it's just my opinion.

As it happens, why do you think it is OK to say that Agustein is lazy? Why is this not libelous? How can you prove that he is lazy? I'm not saying that I disagree with this as a view but in terms of this clubs view of libel/defamation it would seem to apply - you would be stating it as fact without being able to prove it and it portrays a negative view of the individual.

The at a glance guide to libel, such as the simpleton interpretation posted by elpresidente isn't very helpful at all as it fails to recognise that those with money can and will pursue people for libel if they fancy it and that certainly applies to football club staff. It also completely ignores the current environment where it seems OK to slag of players/managers but not the clubs suits.

 

[Horses Arse]

Feel free to criticise TB and PB, you are perfectly entitled to say they are useless, that counts as opinion. If you however said that Tony Bloom has made his fortune from supplying arms to ISIS, and that Paul Barber eats puppies for breakfast before dancing on the graves of small children, then that post would probably be moved, and could result in a minor infraction (3 points) or more.

Not sure how this responds to the issue raised in the post,, i.e. that players/managers seem to be OK targets for harsh criticism and suggestions of fact without evidence but non playing staff don't. e.g. TK and what he may/may not have got up to. Poyet and what he may/may not have got up to.

It also fails to recognise that those with money can pursue you and probably win regardless of what you may consider to be the rules of defamation/libel; that is a scary prospect regarding football clubs and libel. If you are going to set out guidelines then perhaps they should be not to say anything about anyone.

 

[El Presidente]

Not sure how this responds to the issue raised in the post,, i.e. that players/managers seem to be OK targets for harsh criticism and suggestions of fact without evidence but non playing staff don't. e.g. TK and what he may/may not have got up to. Poyet and what he may/may not have got up to.

It also fails to recognise that those with money can pursue you and probably win regardless of what you may consider to be the rules of defamation/libel; that is a scary prospect regarding football clubs and libel. If you are going to set out guidelines then perhaps they should be not to say anything about anyone.

Everyone is subject to criticism on NSC though as far as I'm aware, we certainly don't moderate on the basis that some people are more likely to sue than others.

The one comment that was removed in relation to Paul Barber went too far IMO, as it was beyond calling him useless, being out of touch with the fans, only interested in money, not understanding the culture, history and heritage of the club, ticket prices, pie prices, car parking, trains being full, stewards being jobsworths, being overpaid and so on. All of those comments have been made and we've taken no action........................unless you have evidence to the contrary.

 

[El Presidente]

Not sure how this responds to the issue raised in the post,, i.e. that players/managers seem to be OK targets for harsh criticism and suggestions of fact without evidence but non playing staff don't. e.g. TK and what he may/may not have got up to. Poyet and what he may/may not have got up to.

It also fails to recognise that those with money can pursue you and probably win regardless of what you may consider to be the rules of defamation/libel; that is a scary prospect regarding football clubs and libel. If you are going to set out guidelines then perhaps they should be not to say anything about anyone.

I think you will also find we have removed a few of the more salacious comments involving TK and OG, and we were on red alert during the Gus dismissal case, with a lot of material pre-dismissal removed, as it was made clear to us that both parties to the case were monitoring NSC.

 

[Brighton Mod]

Amazing how many months of my life (and every other journalism student in the 80s and 90s) was spent getting to grips with defamation law.

Then a few decades later, the whole population are effectively journalists, publishing opinion, half-truths and hearsay to the entire world without a second thought.

It's always looked like a legal minefield to me but I'm still surprised at how rarely anything actually gets to court, at least in relation to the amount of defamatory stuff that goes online all the time.

NHS Third World, what idiot at acomputer passing himself/herself of as a journalist printed that! Suing somene because of a notice board is close to being the thought police.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Paul Barber eats puppies for breakfast

I've always thought he was more of a pussy type of fella.

 

[Beach Hut]

Feel free to criticise TB and PB, you are perfectly entitled to say they are useless, that counts as opinion. If you however said that Tony Bloom has made his fortune from supplying arms to ISIS, and that Paul Barber eats puppies for breakfast before dancing on the graves of small children, then that post would probably be moved, and could result in a minor infraction (3 points) or more.

Infraction please mods, oh hang on

 

[glasfryn]

Not sure how this responds to the issue raised in the post,, i.e. that players/managers seem to be OK targets for harsh criticism and suggestions of fact without evidence but non playing staff don't. e.g. TK and what he may/may not have got up to. Poyet and what he may/may not have got up to.

It also fails to recognise that those with money can pursue you and probably win regardless of what you may consider to be the rules of defamation/libel; that is a scary prospect regarding football clubs and libel. If you are going to set out guidelines then perhaps they should be not to say anything about anyone.

very much this
they can't do anything about what you think....................................YET

 

[Horses Arse]

Everyone is subject to criticism on NSC though as far as I'm aware, we certainly don't moderate on the basis that some people are more likely to sue than others.

The one comment that was removed in relation to Paul Barber went too far IMO, as it was beyond calling him useless, being out of touch with the fans, only interested in money, not understanding the culture, history and heritage of the club, ticket prices, pie prices, car parking, trains being full, stewards being jobsworths, being overpaid and so on. All of those comments have been made and we've taken no action........................unless you have evidence to the contrary.

You misunderstand where I'm coming from I think. I wasn't criticising moderation of the board, more what I take to be dual standards regarding 'types' at the club and the protection offered. Also my belief that football clubs should not treat their supporters in such a way nor should they worry so much about limited visibility football forums. To my mind it displays paranoia and feeds a belief that something must be wrong for them to behave in such a way. Blackpools situation being an example

 

[rippleman]

Too many sensitive diddums at our club now.

Pay me half a million a year and anybody can call me what the F they like, as often as they like, wherever they like. I would not care; I'd certainly be finding something better to do with my time (and dosh) than sit monitoring NSC in case anybody is saying nasty things about me!

 

[Goldstone1976]

Too many sensitive diddums at our club now.

Pay me half a million a year and anybody can call me what the F they like, as often as they like, wherever they like. I would not care; I'd certainly be finding something better to do with my time (and dosh) than sit monitoring NSC in case anybody is saying nasty things about me!

Really? You'd be perfectly happy with a front page splash across the Sun saying "Rippleman's a lying b*stard who's a proven kiddy fiddler and procured kids for Jimmy Savile. Here's his home address and phone number."?

I suspect not. If I'm right, then we're not talking about absolutes here, just what is and is not acceptable to you versus what is and is not acceptable to PB.

AFAIK, PB has objected to being called a liar (using that word) in the past, and has made it clear that he's more concerned with libellous statements made against club employees than he is about statements against him, though he doesn't like libel against him either. That's it. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me, tbh.

 

[Triggaaar]

Mods, are you going to let him get away with this false accusation?

Tony Bloom has made his fortune from supplying arms to ISIS

To those who can't read the whole thread, I have quote El P out of context, he wasn't making the accusation as it appears. Oh the fun of life with lawyers round every corner

 

[El Presidente]

You misunderstand where I'm coming from I think. I wasn't criticising moderation of the board, more what I take to be dual standards regarding 'types' at the club and the protection offered. Also my belief that football clubs should not treat their supporters in such a way nor should they worry so much about limited visibility football forums. To my mind it displays paranoia and feeds a belief that something must be wrong for them to behave in such a way. Blackpools situation being an example

I don't think Blackpool, owned by an unusual dynasty who paid themselves a fortune (£11 million) for their one season in the PL, are anything like the Albion though.