Well the comments you made in post 46 regarding a football club (I won't name them here so as not to be seen as repeating the defamatory statement) and their situation before they were offered the new long lease are what I'm referring to. You implied that a football club had refused to pay their rent and had "taken on" the management company of the stadium at which they were tenants. This could be seen as you suggesting that this club had deliberately decided not to pay their rent and to force their landlord to agree to their terms. This could be seen as defamatory because and I defer to the BBC for a good description of this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-law-defamation/
I'm sure that you will have something to back the statement up in post #46 because otherwise it could be seen as defamatory. If I was looking to do business with a firm and read that the firm was refusing or had in the past refused to pay their debts, I might get a negative image of that firm and decide not to trade with them. Do you see what I'm getting at? Oh and by the way that something you hope to use as evidence doesn't include someone's post on this website unless it contains a link to something written by the Stadium Management company, Doncaster Rovers, Doncaster Council or someone writing on their behalf. There is a real danger that if you quote someone else who hasn't referenced their statements and those turn out to be defamatory, that you will just be repeating the defamatory statement which isn't a good thing. Was your lawyer concerned that your post contained potentially defamatory statements and wanted me to back this legal eagle up? Or was she or he concerned that they couldn't see what was potentially defamatory in what you wrote?
I would hope that you have at least been advised of the definition of defamation by them, as it would be prudent for them to do so if they are supposed to be helping you understand the legal implications of your actions. I won't need to explain the potential ramifications for certain other people of your post, as your lawyer will be able to do that far better than me. Of course if you have evidence to back up your claims then this is all academic and you won't hesitate to post that or at the very least a link to it on here.
I'm not a lawyer and I've never claimed to be one, but as part of my degree I studied Media Law* and worked in the media for a few years. I may be a bit rusty on all this and if there is a solicitor or more likely a barrister who would like to correct me on any of this please feel free.
*combined studies degree which allowed you to choose the modules you wished to study.
Ah so I see you've looked at my references, would you care as the person who made the claim of a cheque like to back up the statement with some evidence of this please?
It's not unknown for football fans to be on the receiving end of a solicitors letter when they post something about directors or officials of their club that they can't substantiate. Didn't a former CCFC director and chairman in the guise of Mike McGinnity do just that for a comment that was only on a message board for a few hours.
http://coventrycity.rivals.net/default.asp?sid=885&p=2&stid=8366059
Sheffield Wednesday fans and their message board made it as far as the high court in an attempt to unmask the identities of those who had posted potentially defamatory statements. The owner of the website was the one who was hauled into court to be made to reveal the identities of the posters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/22/news.blogging
Ultimately the case was dropped but I don't know why.
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=67950
Reply