Sky Blues Trust Guardian link (6 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

silly question, but if a MP used their parliamentary privilege to name the link would this mean all bets are off when it comes to legal action, much the same way it was with the footballer super injunction/gagging orders?

 

---

[skybluetony176]

And then go to jail for perjury???

if it's the truth it cant be perjury.

 

[James Smith]

i understand what your saying, but i don't understand WHY you would have to sue, surely that's a conscious decision that someone would make. surely they have the option off just not bothering should they wish to take it.

The reason you would have to sue as I understand it is because if you don't you weaken your chances of being successful in court the next time it is repeated. So for example if person A makes an allegation about you and it isn't challenged but person B makes the same allegation a year later and you decide to sue them not person A. Then person B can point to the fact that person A made the same allegation earlier and wasn't sued which helps their defence massively. I think that is what SISU/their lawyers would mean here but I'm obviously not 100% certain.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Fight the cancer of bent and twisted journalism with the simple sword of truth.

Such a strategy served a one Johnathon Aitken well as I recall? Albeit he also had the shield of justice to accompany his valour?:thinking about:

 

[Jack Griffin]

His flippancy and Bias shine through every week. Clive had to remind him there are fans Involved when was giving his views prior to kick off
Really Is time we all emailed CWR to express his lack of balance........ I mean If they can Silence someone with the contrasting viewpoint about what's best for the fans and the way we've been treated.

Time for the trust to organise a petition?

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

if it's the truth it cant be perjury.

That is true Tony, however I thought that Mr Wisdom was referring to the libel trial when Jonathan Aitkin sued the Guardian and made a rousing statement along similar lines:

"If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight begins today. Thank you and good afternoon."

And guess what happened next....

 

[James Smith]

If SISU do sue the Guardian and their action fails, are they liable for damages automatically or would the Guardian have to sue for damage to their reputation?

 

[wingy]

If SISU do sue the Guardian and their action fails, are they liable for damages?

They don't want to sue them James ,They just want to Bully the trust ,make them look inept ,Lions led by donkeys remember .

Pathetic ,what they and the Local media ,especially the two most referred to on here don't get Is that the whole expansion of opposition to them Is organic..It can't be managed because Its genuine .

 

[James Smith]

That is true Tony, however I thought that Mr Wisdom was referring to the libel trial when Jonathan Aitkin sued the Guardian and made a rousing statement along similar lines:

"If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight begins today. Thank you and good afternoon."

And guess what happened next....

Ah yes "Jonathan of Arabia".

 

[James Smith]

That is true Tony, however I thought that Mr Wisdom was referring to the libel trial when Jonathan Aitkin sued the Guardian and made a rousing statement along similar lines:

"If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight begins today. Thank you and good afternoon."

And guess what happened next....

Ah yes "Jonathan of Arabia".

 

[Astute]

If SISU do sue the Guardian and their action fails, are they liable for damages automatically or would the Guardian have to sue for damage to their reputation?

The odds are they would have to pay all legal costs for starters. This would be at least a 6 figure sum without any appeals And the Guardian would be within their rights to get the most expensive legal representatives.

 

[Houdi]

To be honest Wingy, I don't even know why we were paying rent. We only used it on matchdays, a hire agreement would have been better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

We may have only used the pitch on matchdays, although I think we occasionally trained there, but we had permanent use of the club shop and ticket office plus I presume club offices.

 

[James Smith]

The odds are they would have to pay all legal costs for starters. This would be at least a 6 figure sum without any appeals And the Guardian would be within their rights to get the most expensive legal representatives.

Michael Mansfield QC is fairly expensive I seem to recall and does this stuff (he has the same name as a TV producer which I always found mildly amusing).

 

[Astute]

Suggested David CONN. piece was one sided

It was one sided. He was on the side of the truth and putting it simply.

Whereas SUESUE twist what they can to make it sound totally different to the truth without coming out with 100% lies. For instance the free rent offer wasn't made to them they said. Now we all know this wasn't the truth, but it was really just twisted truth.

 

[stupot07]

We may have only used the pitch on matchdays, although I think we occasionally trained there, but we had permanent use of the club shop and ticket office plus I presume club offices.

True, but they should have been separate arrangements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

It was one sided. He was on the side of the truth and putting it simply.

Whereas SUESUE twist what they can to make it sound totally different to the truth without coming out with 100% lies. For instance the free rent offer wasn't made to them they said. Now we all know this wasn't the truth, but it was really just twisted truth.

See what you did there Astute...:claping hands:
£150K rent offer wasnt made through a 3rd party i.e the administrator... so was called "foul" on some legal protocol basis... "free" rent offer was made through a 3rd party(FA) but wasnt made directly to SUESUE... they just dont want to hear is my take.

 

[James Smith]

It was one sided. He was on the side of the truth and putting it simply.

Whereas SUESUE twist what they can to make it sound totally different to the truth without coming out with 100% lies. For instance the free rent offer wasn't made to them they said. Now we all know this wasn't the truth, but it was really just twisted truth.

Mr Eakin went up in my estimation yesterday when he asked Labovitch whether they had actually received an offer, not just directly received.

 

[James Smith]

See what you did there Astute...:claping hands:
£150K rent offer wasnt made through a 3rd party i.e the administrator... so was called "foul" on some legal protocol basis... "free" rent offer was made through a 3rd party(FA) but wasnt made directly to SUESUE... they just dont want to hear is my take.

I suspect the offer was made through a third party so that they had sight of it before passing it on to SISU. That way SISU can't claim that they never got the offer or dispute the terms etc.

 

[wingy]

I suspect the offer was made through a third party so that they had sight of it before passing it on to SISU. That way SISU can't claim that they never got the offer or dispute the terms etc.

Absolutely and Is On Record If any attempt is Made to block ACL moving on .

 

[James Smith]

Absolutely and Is On Record If any attempt is Made to block ACL moving on .

Your Honour! if it ever got to court.

 

[georgehudson]

without having read all of the thread, & having spoken to several Sky Blue fans,
the eventual question,
after due consideration of available facts, was, from the majority,
are Sisu /Otium therefore threatening to take legal action against Coventry City fans ?
if that is so, imho, that is the ultimate low any owner would take,
'bite the hand that feeds you' etc.,

 

[stupot07]

without having read all of the thread, & having spoken to several Sky Blue fans,
the eventual question,
after due consideration of available facts, was, from the majority,
are Sisu /Otium therefore threatening to take legal action against Coventry City fans ?
if that is so, imho, that is the ultimate low any owner would take,
'bite the hand that feeds you' etc.,

Not really no, they are considering taking legal action against the guardian for inaccuracies and have written to the SBT to suggest they take it down, as they (SBT the organisation) might also be liable if they were to take action against the guardian. Well that's well that's the gist I got from here and CWR.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Jack Griffin]

They should post the letter up so we can see the wording

Can you post any communication you have had about inappropriate comments on this website about SISU/CCFC etc. With any personal details suitably redacted of course.

 

[Sky Blues]

As I understand it (and I am not a lawyer) if the trust repeated the piece on their website and it was found to be defamatory then yes they would be liable for repeating the defamation. However as they only provided a link and as the piece, and as far as I can see is factual with nothing we didn't already know except the rent offer then they shouldn't be repeating anything defamatory. However the law may have changed since my last refresher and I don't know if this is still the case.

James, did you see my post here? [URL]http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/...-Guardian-link?p=599662&viewfull=1#post599662[/URL]

 

[LilleSkyBlue]

From lurking and reading countless threads on this forum over the last year or so, I have come automatically to blame both sides for our current predicament. As I began to understand more of what has been going on behind the scenes, my early days of knee-jerk SISU mistrust mellowed into an acceptance that, well you know what? They're all as bad as each other.

This is a simple red-line issue for me though. Don't misunderstand me, I'll continue supporting Coventry as long as they and I exist, but you don't threaten your own fans' groups with legal action over a link to an article.

This shows to me once again that our owners should be nowhere near a football club. I'll take the word of my beloved Guardian over that of a hedge fund any day.

SISU out, more keenly than ever

 

[ajsccfc]

Not that it'd ever happen anyway, but it's against all logic for legal action to be taken against people merely highlighting the fact that this editorial exists. I mean if you report on a lie, you're not also a liar by proxy.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Not really no, they are considering taking legal action against the guardian for inaccuracies and have written to the SBT to suggest they take it down, as they (SBT the organisation) might also be liable if they were to take action against the guardian. Well that's well that's the gist I got from here and CWR.

You seem to be suggesting that SISU are doing the Trust a favour by just giving them a gentle warning that they might be liable, do you think they have written to everyone else that has posted the link to let them know that they might be liable?

 

[Sky Blues]

Not that it'd ever happen anyway, but it's against all logic for legal action to be taken against people merely highlighting the fact that this editorial exists. I mean if you report on a lie, you're not also a liar by proxy.

In such a hypothetical situation, the law might consider you to be repeating a libel (if one exists). It may not make sense to you, it may not make sense to me, but the position of English law appears to still be unclear on this point* so lawyers can take it to court and argue over it.

*dare I speculate that this might be because very few people have actually thought it worthwhile testing this before the courts despite having had something like 20 years to do so.

 

[TurkeyTrot]

Not really no, they are considering taking legal action against the guardian for inaccuracies and have written to the SBT to suggest they take it down, as they (SBT the organisation) might also be liable if they were to take action against the guardian. Well that's well that's the gist I got from here and CWR.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Your gist is wrong stupot

 

[James Smith]

James, did you see my post here? [URL]http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/...-Guardian-link?p=599662&viewfull=1#post599662[/URL]

I did and looked at the case but that seemed to be a different set of circumstances, but I'm going to have another look in a few minutes.

 

[Sky Blues]

I did and looked at the case but that seemed to be a different set of circumstances, but I'm going to have another look in a few minutes.

Yes, the wider circumstances of the case were different, but it is the most relevant and most recent look at the issue of hyperlinking and how it relates to defamation that I have been able to find so far. I have a feeling there are not a wide ranging of precedents for libel lawyers to pick over.

How depressing is this, that I am having a discussion with you about tort law on a football forum?

 

[Astute]

Not really no, they are considering taking legal action against the guardian for inaccuracies and have written to the SBT to suggest they take it down, as they (SBT the organisation) might also be liable if they were to take action against the guardian.

They would have to find an inaccuracy first.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

That is true Tony, however I thought that Mr Wisdom was referring to the libel trial when Jonathan Aitkin sued the Guardian and made a rousing statement along similar lines

That was indeed kind of the point, following on from LS's stuff about the Guardian

 

[Deleted member 5849]

They would have to find an inaccuracy first.

Remembering of course, that this board has at times been chock full of people saying 'well if it's not true, why don't SISU sue them as that's what they do'.

Pushing towards the trust is too far, but in the general sense beyond that it's very much damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[skybluetony176]

That is true Tony, however I thought that Mr Wisdom was referring to the libel trial when Jonathan Aitkin sued the Guardian and made a rousing statement along similar lines:

"If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight begins today. Thank you and good afternoon."

And guess what happened next....

ah got ya. i was young at the time and not really paying much interest, he had fit daughters if i remember rightly.

i apologise to grendull in advance for the sexualisation of women.