|
Post by scottjones on Jan 24, 2010 11:56:02 GMT
Heard that someone had sent a legal letter to WATRBs about a post being libellous and demanding its removal. Does anyone know if this is true?
Must admit, considering the amount of anti GP and anti Flavio stuff being banded about on here, there, indys, LFWs which could certainly be considered libellous..I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often!
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Jan 24, 2010 11:58:56 GMT
|
|
nico
Ian Holloway
banned
Posts: 256
|
Post by nico on Jan 24, 2010 12:04:33 GMT
I have heard the same thing, relating to a post about Mark Devlin. I never saw the original post I hear there is now an apology for, nor the legal letter, and would not want to comment on the specifics anyway.
But more generally, perhaps we can all reflect that whilst it is unfortunate for freedom of expression to be curbed by legal threats of libel, everybody, whatever your view of them, has a right to a reputation and to defend themselves against unfounded attacks. I hope some of those who keep banging the drum about 'threats to sue fans/message-boards' etc will either equally condemn the latest letter you have referred to (which would be consistent) or, perhaps more sensibly, stop banging drums abut that, accept than when people are pushed they sometimes write such letters, and try and moderate websites so that debate doesn't become libelous slanging match. I don't like censorship at all, but a bit of sensible self-censorship/moderation is far better than others doing it.
|
|
|
Post by klr on Jan 24, 2010 12:28:46 GMT
Looking forward to seeing the statement apologising to Paulo Sousa on the official messageboard.............
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Jan 24, 2010 12:31:34 GMT
But I think it's a good reminder to everyone to be "restrained" in what they post: On this site. On any site. About QPR. About anything
|
|
|
Post by Captain Clunge on Jan 24, 2010 12:31:35 GMT
I have heard the same thing, relating to a post about Mark Devlin. I never saw the original post I hear there is now an apology for, nor the legal letter, and would not want to comment on the specifics anyway. But more generally, perhaps we can all reflect that whilst it is unfortunate for freedom of expression to be curbed by legal threats of libel, everybody, whatever your view of them, has a right to a reputation and to defend themselves against unfounded attacks. I hope some of those who keep banging the drum about 'threats to sue fans/message-boards' etc will either equally condemn the latest letter you have referred to (which would be consistent) or, perhaps more sensibly, stop banging drums abut that, accept than when people are pushed they sometimes write such letters, and try and moderate websites so that debate doesn't become libelous slanging match. I don't like censorship at all, but a bit of sensible self-censorship/moderation is far better than others doing it. No disrespect Nico, but thats incredibly rich, coming from you!
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Jan 24, 2010 12:33:31 GMT
Looking forward to seeing the statement apologising to Paulo Sousa on the official messageboard............. Well, Swansea seem pretty happy with him in charge.
|
|
|
Post by scottjones on Jan 24, 2010 12:39:38 GMT
Heard that someone had sent a legal letter to WATRBs about a post being libellous and demanding its removal. Does anyone know if this is true? So does mean that you would have to go & get your skinny ass a job to pay legal fees ? It's not my site! And I am gainfully employed in new media marketing for a FTSE 100 company sir.
|
|
nico
Ian Holloway
banned
Posts: 256
|
Post by nico on Jan 24, 2010 12:42:45 GMT
Captain, can I respectfully and politely request you read or highlight the whole paragraph you have selectively quoted from, as it should make more sense then and rather than being rich from me (incredibly or not) I think is a balanced approach to these matters.
The alternative approach is to condemn, without limitation, all legal threats to all websites from whomsoever they come. If that is your position I respect it, although as I think it is an absolutist position I cannot share it.
The 'incredibly rich' position is to condemn legal threats when they come from a source you don't like, but welcome them when they come from one you like against a website you don't. That is called hypocrisy and is not a position deserved of respect. I am sure it is not yours.
|
|
|
Post by FloridaR on Jan 24, 2010 12:45:16 GMT
I have heard the same thing, relating to a post about Mark Devlin. I never saw the original post I hear there is now an apology for, nor the legal letter, and would not want to comment on the specifics anyway. But more generally, perhaps we can all reflect that whilst it is unfortunate for freedom of expression to be curbed by legal threats of libel, everybody, whatever your view of them, has a right to a reputation and to defend themselves against unfounded attacks. Nico. maybe you were looking for your glasses at the time or thought your eyes didn't focus on anything.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jan 24, 2010 12:46:13 GMT
So does mean that you would have to go & get your skinny ass a job to pay legal fees ? It's not my site! And I am gainfully employed in new media marketing for a FTSE 100 company sir. I shall be going over all my companies recent employments with a very fine tooth comb in that case! There's only a 3 in 100 chance though, but you could never know and in this case I rather would. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Captain Clunge on Jan 24, 2010 12:48:19 GMT
Captain, can I respectfully and politely request you read or highlight the whole paragraph you have selectively quoted from, as it should make more sense then and rather than being rich from me (incredibly or not) I think is a balanced approach to these matters. The alternative approach is to condemn, without limitation, all legal threats to all websites from whomsoever they come. If that is your position I respect it, although as I think it is an absolutist position I cannot share it. The 'incredibly rich' position is to condemn legal threats when they come from a source you don't like, but welcome them when they come from one you like against a website you don't. That is called hypocrisy and is not a position deserved of respect. I am sure it is not yours. The third way is to actually make a personal judgement based on the relative merits of any given litigation, rather than applaud/dismiss all. On that basis, I stand by my comments.
|
|
nico
Ian Holloway
banned
Posts: 256
|
Post by nico on Jan 24, 2010 12:54:06 GMT
That third way is precisely what I was saying Captain, and I agree with. That is why I think those who loudly condemn legal threats to messageboards/fans because they are legal threats, ignoring whether or not they cross the line in attacking someone's reputation, are mistaken, even more so when they are silent of one of their own happens to feel forced to make similar threats. And at the same time, whilst recognizing this, and thus agreeing with you, I am concerned that it does affect freedom of expression. As a result I suggest the best thing to do, as Report has suggested also, is attempt to self-moderate as much as possible.
I also stand by these comments, and fear you may be searching for an argument when it is not there.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Clunge on Jan 24, 2010 12:58:49 GMT
That third way is precisely what I was saying Captain, and I agree with. That is why I think those who loudly condemn legal threats to messageboards/fans because they are legal threats, ignoring whether or not they cross the line in attacking someone's reputation, are mistaken, even more so when they are silent of one of their own happens to feel forced to make similar threats. And at the same time, whilst recognizing this, and thus agreeing with you, I am concerned that it does affect freedom of expression. As a result I suggest the best thing to do, as Report has suggested also, is attempt to self-moderate as much as possible. I also stand by these comments, and fear you may be searching for an argument when it is not there. Just out of interest, are you still a practicing lawyer? I'm not searching for an argument at all. I know what happened in/around the GP court case, and I know what happened recently regarding Mr Devlin. I think I'm sensible enough and adult enough to be able to draw my own conclusions without being drawn into a petty argument with you.
|
|
nico
Ian Holloway
banned
Posts: 256
|
Post by nico on Jan 24, 2010 13:29:28 GMT
That third way is precisely what I was saying Captain, and I agree with. That is why I think those who loudly condemn legal threats to messageboards/fans because they are legal threats, ignoring whether or not they cross the line in attacking someone's reputation, are mistaken, even more so when they are silent of one of their own happens to feel forced to make similar threats. And at the same time, whilst recognizing this, and thus agreeing with you, I am concerned that it does affect freedom of expression. As a result I suggest the best thing to do, as Report has suggested also, is attempt to self-moderate as much as possible. I also stand by these comments, and fear you may be searching for an argument when it is not there. Just out of interest, are you still a practicing lawyer? I'm not searching for an argument at all. I know what happened in/around the GP court case, and I know what happened recently regarding Mr Devlin. I think I'm sensible enough and adult enough to be able to draw my own conclusions without being drawn into a petty argument with you. Yes I am, very much so Captain. Still a busy barrister and thankful for that given the economic climate we have been through. I am glad that you too don't want to have a petty argument about this, since my first post was not argumentative, and I think we agree on the principle in question.
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Jan 24, 2010 13:34:57 GMT
Not only is Nico a practicising Lawyer, but he's been involved in various major football legal cases
|
|
|
Post by scottjones on Jan 24, 2010 13:44:10 GMT
Presuming the rumour is true..sad state of affairs really
|
|
devo
Gerry Francis
Posts: 37
|
Post by devo on Jan 24, 2010 13:57:02 GMT
No need to be cryptic Scott. As I fan, I read the messageboards, and for a number of years I noticed several damaging allegations about my time at the club. I decided, for the most part, not to bother with a response. However, the post made on WATRB, following my attendance at the match on Boxing Day, was a step too far. Even though I recieved an apology on the site, the posting remained, and after seeking the opinion of my solicitors, a legal letter was sent to both the website and the poster. Messageboards are all about points of view, and although I believe the club made progress during my time as CEO, others are perfectly entitled to a different view, and to post that view on a public forum, as you have done previously. However, if someone decides to post unfounded allegations, then the poster has to take responsibility for their actions. I certainly don't think this is an issue of censorship.
|
|
|
Post by scottjones on Jan 24, 2010 14:00:59 GMT
No need to be cryptic Scott. As I fan, I read the messageboards, and for a number of years I noticed several damaging allegations about my time at the club. I decided, for the most part, not to bother with a response. However, the post made on WATRB, following my attendance at the match on Boxing Day, was a step too far. Even though I recieved an apology on the site, the posting remained, and after seeking the opinion of my solicitors, a legal letter was sent to both the website and the poster. Messageboards are all about points of view, and although I believe the club made progress during my time as CEO, others are perfectly entitled to a different view, and to post that view on a public forum, as you have done previously. However, if someone decides to post unfounded allegations, then the poster has to take responsibility for their actions. I certainly don't think this is an issue of censorship. Fair enough. Did you ask for it to be removed? (i dont know the answer)
|
|
devo
Gerry Francis
Posts: 37
|
Post by devo on Jan 24, 2010 14:04:39 GMT
Yes
|
|
|
Post by w12ranger on Jan 24, 2010 14:05:53 GMT
No need to be cryptic Scott. As I fan, I read the messageboards, and for a number of years I noticed several damaging allegations about my time at the club. I decided, for the most part, not to bother with a response. However, the post made on WATRB, following my attendance at the match on Boxing Day, was a step too far. Even though I recieved an apology on the site, the posting remained, and after seeking the opinion of my solicitors, a legal letter was sent to both the website and the poster. Messageboards are all about points of view, and although I believe the club made progress during my time as CEO, others are perfectly entitled to a different view, and to post that view on a public forum, as you have done previously. However, if someone decides to post unfounded allegations, then the poster has to take responsibility for their actions. I certainly don't think this is an issue of censorship. Fair enough. Did you ask for it to be removed? (i dont know the answer) I do remember Devo making a point that it had not been removed during his last bout of postings on WATRB. I guess The Moderators didn't take any notice of his comments which comes as no surprise.
|
|
|
Post by scottjones on Jan 24, 2010 14:07:12 GMT
Well, o.k. thats fair enough. Albeit, from a personal perspective, it's not nice when fans groups/messageboards/fanzines are threatened with legal action...must be a trait of QPR to do so. But, if you asked and it wasnt well, i can understand how that would have peeved you off.
|
|
devo
Gerry Francis
Posts: 37
|
Post by devo on Jan 24, 2010 14:08:51 GMT
I had hoped that my concerns might have got through that way. Sadly, the subtle approach was of no use.
|
|
|
Post by scottjones on Jan 24, 2010 14:09:46 GMT
I had hoped that my concerns might have got through that way. Sadly, the subtle approach was of no use. Well, the pen is mightier than the sword.
|
|
devo
Gerry Francis
Posts: 37
|
Post by devo on Jan 24, 2010 14:13:52 GMT
Is that right?
|
|
|
Post by scottjones on Jan 24, 2010 14:15:13 GMT
Er, yeah. You were pished off..you wrote a letter..you got it sorted...not ideal from their point of view nor yours i would have thought but, at least it's all sorted.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Jan 24, 2010 15:33:05 GMT
The thread so far not on boil yet, good work. Sheffield Wednesday fan blogsite was named in the press I believe as trouble for their club. Sure there must be others, but no data here.
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on Jan 24, 2010 16:08:45 GMT
Announcement.
This thread has been answered and the concern answered. As a result the thread has been locked forthwith. Should the administrators of the site concerned or devo wish for the thread to be removed please inform a moderator.
Thank you for your assistance with this but as it is of a legal nature, the status of which we do not know we feel that any further discussion is not necessary.
Blockhead.
|
|