The Mark Labowitch Thread (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter idm1975
- Start date
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
My understanding is only post something if you know it to be the truth
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Stop demanding that everybody posts hearsay from meetings then!
Nick
Administrator
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Surely if you're quoting him you don't have to prove truth in what you are quoting just that he said it?
If there was only two people in the meeting it would be one persons word against another and that would go nowhere. If there were more people in the meeting every single other person would have to cover up for ML which seems unlikely.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
From memory if you're stating something as fact, as opposed to quoting something someone else said, its something vague like you have to have reason to believe it is true.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Maybe people don't want to do others dirty work for them?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Lord
You posted that you found it a bit of a waste of time.
You never really said what you asked and what answers you got?
Did ask questions or was it just all one way traffic?
Also you did wait a few days till it came out on here, before you mentioned that you had been to the meeting.
Why did you not mention it on here straight away. You must know that people would definitely have been interested in your meeting?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
It not hearsay if you are posting what ML said to you and that is all you are posting.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
And can prove it to be true in a court of law
As said before if no one else was present or others are not prepared to support you. Then it comes down to a simple one word against the other. Which would never get proved either way.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
The only bit you state as fact would be if you were the cousin himself saying I can say for a fact ML said this to me.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Was little point really, nothing concrete to say from it, and thought if mentioned it would just be accusations of "usual suspects" etc, which there were a few of.
Relieved that it was LAST who broke cover first, as only the most paranoid mentalist could accuse him of being pro-Sisu!
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
As before, if you are so interested then go and speak to him yourself. You can ask whatever you like.
It is fucking boring now you keep going on, you clearly have some sort of motive to keep digging
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
What it is doing is putting out information that people may take as fact or not, but regardless would have some influence, either directly or subliminally upon their thinking.
Not doing others work for them as i've said.
covmark
Well-Known Member
Jesus Christ, this obsession is becoming unhealthy.
duffer
Well-Known Member
In fairness, the OP of the deleted thread was nervous enough to take it down. Appreciate there might not be a conspiracy, but I don't much care for SISU's approach to free speech in general (see action against SBT for example). I'd be as critical of anyone from either side doing this, fwiw.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
To be fair it was Grendel who could no longer hold on and broke ranks, then it was like an AA meeting one by one
They did well to keep silent for a few days though
Nick
Administrator
You are showing an unhealthy interest in it while being very keen not to actually meet him yourself
Keep dragging it up, asking stuff over an over again. As if you after something in particular, yet you so there is no agenda
L
limoncello
Guest
You'd like to think that our libel laws were common sense. Sadly they are weighted in favour of the party with the most money. It is for the alledged libeller to prove the truth of their libel. We have some of the worst libel laws in the world, hence 'libel tourism' and the scandal of Simon Singh vs the British Chiropractic Association. At least in the States they've got the 'Sullivan defence', in which the claimant must prove malice or serious recklessness before the case proceeds to the courts.
In short, if you can't prove it, don't say/write it.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No it was Letsall.
ccfcmustang
New Member
Something I have just been informed of has disappointed me greatly. Nick, LS Grendel and another member of this site had a meeting with ML. This is fine but from such vocal people on this forum they didnt even give us supporters any chance to offer any questions which could of been asked. As soon as I find out any infomation i have let my fellow supporters know through this channel of communication. Its disappointing that none of the above didnt ask for questions but also tried to hide this.
It was Nasty Nick's fault! I'm seriously considering boycotting this website! Let's see how far his pro-Sisu ways get him when he's not getting my click-per-view advertising income!!!
Nick
Administrator
You haven't been informed very well as there were quite a few, there are also a few threads about it
Send me your details in a PM and I will see if you can get a meeting with him.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
What?!?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I don't see how in practice that would have worked. It wasn't arranged until the day before attending.
It was supposed to have been a discussion on the structure if a forum. It didn't quite turn out that way and there was a lot of information presented.
The information presented was random and potentially in some cases libellous. One reference in particular was very outlandish. It was in confidence but I suspect was intended to be leaked. Its not appropriate for discussion.
As it has now already been mentioned Michael Byng attended the meeting I was in.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Out of interest, what were your credentials for being a chosen one?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Intelligence and impartiality?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I can only conclude it was all a dream then....
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
MMM, there is a thread titled Fans Forum which will tell you everything
People are making out that it is only people from here who met him, the fact there were 20 - 30 meetings and people from here made up probably 2.
I'll have a shufty, and put it down to happenchance that such a narrow demographic of opinion was afforded such an interaction.....
Nick
Administrator
Yes, you can put it down to what you like but as you obviously don't know the demographic it will just make you look like you are making silly assumptions
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Yes, you can put it down to what you like but as you obviously don't know the demographic it will just make you look like you are making silly assumptions
You have to make assumptions when Grendy is side-stepping Brighton's questions like John Salako in his prime. Brighton was asking how any potential invites or selections were made. So that nobody else makes 'silly assumptions' maybe you'd be so good as to answer the question others avoided?
Nick
Administrator
I am not at liberty to say who went and who didn't after being invited to be fair, some people may not want to be named because of the hassle they might get, others might.
I don't want to start naming and shaming people, if they want to post that they went or if I asked them and they couldn't make it then that is up to them.
I don't want to start naming and shaming people, if they want to post that they went or if I asked them and they couldn't make it then that is up to them.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Yes, you can put it down to what you like but as you obviously don't know the demographic it will just make you look like you are making silly assumptions
Won't he learn the demographic by reading the other thread?