And then go to jail for perjury???
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.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.
Fight the cancer of bent and twisted journalism with the simple sword of truth.
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.
if it's the truth it cant be perjury.
If SISU do sue the Guardian and their action fails, are they liable for damages?
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....
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....
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?
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.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
The odds are they would have to pay all legal costs for starters. This would be at least a 6 figure sum without any appealsAnd the Guardian would be within their rights to get the most expensive legal representatives.
Suggested David CONN. piece was one sided
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.
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.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.
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 .
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.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.,
They should post the letter up so we can see the wording
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
They would have to find an inaccuracy first.
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....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?