Sky Blues Trust Guardian link (1 Viewer)

[Sky Blues]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed already, but SISU's issue with the piece in the Guardian appears to be that it is "unbalanced".

Now, putting to one side the debate about whether that is true or not, I was not aware that it was possible to take action on these grounds.

I had thought that a libel had to be untrue.

If action can be taken because a given article is unbalanced, could Ed Milliband not have the Daily Mail in court every day?

From memory, the test of whether something is libellous in English law essentially boils down to whether it would lower someone's (person or company) standing in the eyes of others. Truth is a defence and would need to be proved by the defendant if a case came to court.

 

---

[Sky Blues]

Interesting. However, didn't ISOHunt get shut down despite only allowing users to search for links to content rather than hosting the content themselves? A very grey and dangerous area to dally in.

I'm not familiar with that and will have to look at it before commenting.

 

[TurkeyTrot]

From memory, the test of whether something is libellous in English law essentially boils down to whether it would lower someone's (person or company) standing in the eyes of others. Truth is a defence and would need to be proved by the defendant if a case came to court.

Can you go lower than shark shit?

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

Hey TurkeyTrot I sincerely hope you put that Guardian link back up, soon. This sort of crap is just the thin end of the wedge...

 

[TurkeyTrot]

Hey TurkeyTrot I sincerely hope you put that Guardian link back up, soon. This sort of crap is just the thin end of the wedge...

Not my decision unfortunately, I resigned from the board some months back.
But you're right, it is the thin end of the wedge as pretty much all of the level headed posters on here have pointed out. The ones with an axe to grind with the trust or CCC/ ACL have totally missed the point in all this. When is what to be expected.

 

[James Smith]

Interesting. However, didn't ISOHunt get shut down despite only allowing users to search for links to content rather than hosting the content themselves? A very grey and dangerous area to dally in.

Just looked that one up and ISOHunt was done for copyright violations I think. They were targeted by the MPAA amongst others and they make most litigants look like amateurs.

The court found that IsoHunt had not presented any satisfactory evidence to counter these claims, and at its core it was merely an "evolutionary modification" of Napster and Grokster, two P2P systems that had previously been held liable for inducing copyright infringement.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IsoHunt

 

[duffer]

From memory, the test of whether something is libellous in English law essentially boils down to whether it would lower someone's (person or company) standing in the eyes of others. Truth is a defence and would need to be proved by the defendant if a case came to court.

Good memory.

The problem is that there's no legal aid for defamation. Court costs can run into tens of thousands.

If you're telling the truth, or it's fair comment (even if exaggerated, obstinate, or prejudiced), then there's a defence.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...mation/defences-to-a-claim-of-defamation.html

(On that basis I don't think you can actually sue someone for being 'unbalanced', as long as they've got their facts right.)

The only problem is can you risk, say, £20,000 to put it in front of the court?

SISU may not like the Trust, but the SBT contains an awful lot of fans. Many will probably see this as I do, at best an attempt to stifle debate, at worst a way of suppressing an inconvenient truth.

How many more fans can our owners afford to piss off?

The best solution here is surely for the club's owners to come out and say explicitly what's wrong with Conn's article and point out the untruths. They could then reasonably demand a right-of-reply (and/or withdrawal of the article) via both the SBT and the Guardian. I'd be right behind them on that approach.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Exactly, in the past the Trust has burnt it's bridges with the club with some of their actions but hopefully now things have changed they can be built again. The trust were effectively in with ACL / Haskell when he was here.

People also keep saying "it was just a link", it wasn't just a link the article was totally republished.

Yes, I think the lawyers letter was a bit OTT but it isn't as bad or threatening as some make out, especially compared to the threats some fans have given Fisher. (This is not me sticking up for anybody)

Hopefully now it is a new set of people at the trust (or changed) things will be sorted.

Who threatened Mr Fisher?

 

[Monners]

Nick - Sisu threatened a supporters group with legal action. They were singled out by the owners of their club. It is indefensible, and a clear tactic to create discord as well as flex their muscles. Any rational person with a modicum of common sense can see what is going on.

 

[shmmeee]

Interesting. However, didn't ISOHunt get shut down despite only allowing users to search for links to content rather than hosting the content themselves? A very grey and dangerous area to dally in.

That's copyright law, entirely different.

Surely, this is a defence: The Reynolds Defence

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd was a House of Lords case in English defamation law concerning qualified privilege for publication of defamatorystatements in the public interest.
The case provided the Reynolds defence, which can be raised where it is clear that the journalist had a duty to publish an allegation even if it turns out to be wrong. In adjudicating on an attempted Reynolds defence a court will investigate the conduct of the journalist and the content of the publication. The subsequent case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe[SUP][1][/SUP] affirmed the defence, which has been successfully raised in several defamation proceedings

Apparently the law is changing with the Defamation Act in January, but that offers a Public Interest defence, and surely any judge would accept that the SBT published it in good faith for the benefit of their audience? After all, it's fair for a layman to assume The Guardian has checked it's sources.

 

[Sky Blues]

That's copyright law, entirely different.

Surely, this is a defence: The Reynolds Defence



Apparently the law is changing with the Defamation Act in January, but that offers a Public Interest defence, and surely any judge would accept that the SBT published it in good faith for the benefit of their audience? After all, it's fair for a layman to assume The Guardian has checked it's sources.

I believe the Reynold's Defence is primarily aimed at protecting investigative journalism. The issue with libel defences is that the person accused of publishing the libellous words would have to prove the defence in court - and that carries the risk of incurring a large legal bill that many would be defendants probably can't afford - so they tactically retreat when challenged.

On the flip side, I think one reason why people generally don't threaten to sue more often is that it can backfire and bring more publicity to the publication that is the subject of the complaint.

In my opinion, the beautiful irony of the Sisu/Sky Blue Trust incident is that it has drawn far more attention to the Guardian article than a small link on the trust website would have done.

 

[Spionkop]

David Conn should be made a Freeman of the city of Coventry. A knighthood even. Tells the truth. We all know it.

 

[shmmeee]

I believe the Reynold's Defence is primarily aimed at protecting investigative journalism. The issue with libel defences is that the person accused of publishing the libellous words would have to prove the defence in court - and that carries the risk of incurring a large legal bill that many would be defendants probably can't afford - so they tactically retreat when challenged.

On the flip side, I think one reason why people generally don't threaten to sue more often is that it can backfire and bring more publicity to the publication that is the subject of the complaint.

In my opinion, the beautiful irony of the Sisu/Sky Blue Trust incident is that it has drawn far more attention to the Guardian article than a small link on the trust website would have done.

Surely the SBT were acting as journalist though.

Like you say it's about the cost of a defence rather than the validity of it. Good old justice system.

 

[Spionkop]

I've cut and pasted this from the BBC football site and their current page on the Hull City name change controversy. The FA are going to preside over this. Below is a quote from the Hull fans spokesperson. It strikes me that if the FA are prepared to intervene over a name change, why aren't they intervening over our situation? We maybe ought to be bombarding Greg Dyke with stuff and forget the FL, (useless bastards).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Supporters Direct said: "The very identity of football clubs, and their fans and communities, is simply too important to be entrusted to temporary owners, who are generally more interested in what they can take out of a club rather than what they can put back in, and whose decision-making does not take account of the wider interests of those who count their loyalty in tens of years and generations.

"The most frustrating aspect is that these issues can be so easily avoided by the adoption of some simple principles, and there is no reason why they can't be acted upon right now."

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

Some common sense from Alan Poole in The Telegraph.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/sky-blue-thinking-blogs-links-6400024

 

[Hobo]

David Conn has won an award for his investigative journalism in sport/football. Known for getting behind the glamour.

Let's face it thousands of Coventry fans would back him in court saying that was their take on the situation, based on SISU management of the club and the information they had released. Perhaps if one years worth of accounts hadn't gone missing we may have formed a different opinion? SISU are responsible for their own publicity good or bad.

 

[Florence1898]

Yes and Alan Poole of the CT is inline for top Midlands Sports Journalist after his article today

 

[skybluefred]

From memory, the test of whether something is libellous in English law essentially boils down to whether it would lower someone's (person or company) standing in the eyes of others. Truth is a defence and would need to be proved by the defendant if a case came to court.

It couldn't possibly lower sisu's standing in the eyes of the majority of CCFC fans. You cannot get lower than the
bottom of the barrel.

 

[simple_simon]

It couldn't possibly lower sisu's standing in the eyes of the majority of CCFC fans. You cannot get lower than the
bottom of the barrel.

Very true, they do need some decent PR.

 

[Spionkop]

They need booting out of Coventry.

 

[elephanttears]

Sisu do not have a leg to stand on, every bit of evidence points to a colossal demise in the club on and off the pitch. Not one thing has been improved since they came here. Their a disgrace. The problem is they will fight this to the death because they cannot be seen to loose this battle, if they do it will effect their whole business and reputation and i think this is critical to them. This will take years and years i think.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Think it's gone a bit to far for that.
As they say s..t sticks.

Very true, they do need some decent PR.

 

[Astute]

Think it's gone a bit to far for that.
As they say s..t sticks.

So true. SISUE have well stuck to our club .

 

[letsallsingtogether]

The problem is they cannot see what they have done wrong.
They blame everyone else for there woes but 90% of it is down to them.Forget the Rent that they agreed too and it is 100% there fault.

Oh and the millions they lost in Tea and biscuit sales.:facepalm:

So true. SISUE have well stuck to our club .