[Archived] Protest Round Up

[Billy Castell]

I also wish that whatever scandal is being kept under wraps is blown out into the open, but I guess it may cost innocent people their jobs as the Raos will work out who to blame and possibly take legal action. That is what I guess is stopping it from getting out, as the real ITK brigade don't want to drop others in it. Shame really.

[philipl]

As I said on the podcast, some of the stuff circulating is not true, some must be exagerated but some is bound to be true. To be honest, I cannot say which on most of it and having suspicions about which are which are not grounds for exposing this site or its owners to legal action

It is now a long time since I last wrote that there is worse to come out.

A particular scandal has been circulating for a long time. For those saying let the media know, it is pretty hopeless because at least four news papers have it and none have published. That can only mean that the "facts" have not stacked up on investigation or that there is nothing with sufficient substantive evidential support to be able to survive in Court against an English defamation lawyer litigating in anger.

[Billy Castell]

If a Murdoch paper has the scandal, could they publish it abroad first in one of the other papers? Or on a foreign based internet site? I'm thinking of the whole 'Giggs the love rat' thing with the super injunction, or something similar.

[yoda]

As I said on the podcast, some of the stuff circulating is not true, some must be exagerated but some is bound to be true. To be honest, I cannot say which on most of it and having suspicions about which are which are not grounds for exposing this site or its owners to legal action

It is now a long time since I last wrote that there is worse to come out.

A particular scandal has been circulating for a long time. For those saying let the media know, it is pretty hopeless because at least four news papers have it and none have published. That can only mean that the "facts" have not stacked up on investigation or that there is nothing with sufficient substantive evidential support to be able to survive in Court against an English defamation lawyer litigating in anger.

If something is true, you cannot be sued for it

[philipl]

If something is true, you cannot be sued for it

Yes you can be sued for telling the truth.

Doesn't mean the litigant would win but with enough top lawyers and celebrity character witnesses on their side I wouldn't bet against them winning.

[2k.]

If something is true, you cannot be sued for it

I think the problem is that there are so many rumours, half truths, exaggerations going round nobody knows what the truth is.

I'm as in the dark and as frustrated as anyone else, but understand that this site could end up in a lot of trouble if something untrue gets posted

[yoda]

Yes you can be sued for telling the truth.

Doesn't mean the litigant would win but with enough top lawyers and celebrity character witnesses on their side I wouldn't bet against them winning.

Well you just have to make sure you are right and can prove it, that way you cannot be successfully sued for telling the truth.

So why is the alleged info not being put forward?

[Speedie Dived]

Well you just have to make sure you are right and can prove it, that way you cannot be successfully sued for telling the truth.

So why is the alleged info not being put forward?

You can be sued for telling the truth. You only have to have a look at the whole Giggs' affair carry on.

[Steve Moss]

A particular scandal has been circulating for a long time. For those saying let the media know, it is pretty hopeless because at least four news papers have it and none have published. That can only mean that the "facts" have not stacked up on investigation or that there is nothing with sufficient substantive evidential support to be able to survive in Court against an English defamation lawyer litigating in anger.

Or the papers simply don't think it is interesting enough to publish. There are many possibilities.

If something is true, you cannot be sued for it

First semester, first class in law school (torts) my professor stated "You can sue the Pope for rape. It doesn't mean that you'll win."

That graphic statement is simply illustrates that anyone can sue anybody else for anything. The Courts will accept the filing. Which means, as a practical matter, that one should be careful about what one says unless you have the cash to hire a lawyer.

On the flip side, speech cases are easy to defend in the USA. Even a normally inept attorney would know the basic rules and be able to mount a half way decent defense. If he weren't able to, the judge (and likely the jury) would have a pretty good handle on it also and would give him a bit of a boost. One of may reasons plaintiffs' counsel (normally) refers to defamation cases as being losers.

Conversely, they are, by what I read on this board and in your papers, tough to defend in the UK. It's almost as if your speech rules are designed to shut people up (mistresses, fans, i.e.- the little people), which has the corresponding benefit of insulating those in power from the consequences of their actions. Frankly, I'm shocked that the English tolerate such repressive speech rules.

So end of the day, I can imagine an English paper would want some hard facts before it published. Unlike in the USA where they would publish based on "unnamed" sources.

[BuckyRover]

Or the papers simply don't think it is interesting enough to publish. There are many possibilities.

First semester, first class in law school (torts) my professor stated "You can sue the Pope for rape. It doesn't mean that you'll win."

That graphic statement is simply illustrates that anyone can sue anybody else for anything. The Courts will accept the filing. Which means, as a practical matter, that one should be careful about what one says unless you have the cash to hire a lawyer.

On the flip side, speech cases are easy to defend in the USA. Even a normally inept attorney would know the basic rules and be able to mount a half way decent defense. If he weren't able to, the judge (and likely the jury) would have a pretty good handle on it also and would give him a bit of a boost. One of may reasons plaintiffs' counsel (normally) refers to defamation cases as being losers.

Conversely, they are, by what I read on this board and in your papers, tough to defend in the UK. It's almost as if your speech rules are designed to shut people up (mistresses, fans, i.e.- the little people), which has the corresponding benefit of insulating those in power from the consequences of their actions. Frankly, I'm shocked that the English tolerate such repressive speech rules.

So end of the day, I can imagine an English paper would want some hard facts before it published. Unlike in the USA where they would publish based on "unnamed" sources.

Daily Mail this is Steve Moss, Steve this is the Daily Mail. Consider this an introduction

[yoda]

You can be sued for telling the truth. You only have to have a look at the whole Giggs' affair carry on.

If you had read the modified second repy you would not have posted that, here it is

"Well you just have to make sure you are right and can prove it, that way you cannot be successfully sued for telling the truth.

So why is the alleged info not being put forward?"

Or the papers simply don't think it is interesting enough to publish. There are many possibilities.

First semester, first class in law school (torts) my professor stated "You can sue the Pope for rape. It doesn't mean that you'll win."

That graphic statement is simply illustrates that anyone can sue anybody else for anything. The Courts will accept the filing. Which means, as a practical matter, that one should be careful about what one says unless you have the cash to hire a lawyer.

On the flip side, speech cases are easy to defend in the USA. Even a normally inept attorney would know the basic rules and be able to mount a half way decent defense. If he weren't able to, the judge (and likely the jury) would have a pretty good handle on it also and would give him a bit of a boost. One of may reasons plaintiffs' counsel (normally) refers to defamation cases as being losers.

Conversely, they are, by what I read on this board and in your papers, tough to defend in the UK. It's almost as if your speech rules are designed to shut people up (mistresses, fans, i.e.- the little people), which has the corresponding benefit of insulating those in power from the consequences of their actions. Frankly, I'm shocked that the English tolerate such repressive speech rules.

So end of the day, I can imagine an English paper would want some hard facts before it published. Unlike in the USA where they would publish based on "unnamed" sources.

I changed it to the following in the second reply

"Well you just have to make sure you are right and can prove it, that way you cannot be successfully sued for telling the truth.

So why is the alleged info not being put forward?"

[BuckyRover]

If you had read the modified second repy you would not have posted that, here it is

"Well you just have to make sure you are right and can prove it, that way you cannot be successfully sued for telling the truth.

So why is the alleged info not being put forward?"

It should also be known that you cannot gag something in the public interest.

Jack Straw should say it in parliament if it's that important. Parliamentary privilege and all that

[Glenn]

Guys, let it drop, nothing to see, move on.

We have enough of a problem trying to keep us away from law suits, without people baying for info even the tabloids won't touch.

If even 10% of the rumors we get to hear are true, then I'd be amazed. But even then, sifting the 10% skeletons from the 90% fabricated gossip is a near impossible job (and one that we leave to Kamy )

[Doug]

Listen to podcast 14. Make your own minds up.

[Jock]

Anychance of getting the message across by posting a leaflet to season ticket holders outlining our fears for the club.

Is it possible to get the season ticket holders database? and would it be exspenive to do a mail shot?

[walk down bolton road]

Listen to podcast 14. Make your own minds up.

Then ask yourself the question, Where is the money going ?.

[47er]

Any chance of getting Jack Straw to reveal whats going on at Ewood under parliamentary privilege? Somebody in an earlier post referred to the possibility and I think its a great way through. Glen?

[Shabani]

Just seen the STEVE KEAN OUT plane on Chinese TV in Guangdong, fair play to whoever organized the plane, you got round the ban on banners spectacularly well

GDTV Sports is shown across China so hopefully the message is spreading...

[only2garners]

Anychance of getting the message across by posting a leaflet to season ticket holders outlining our fears for the club.

Is it possible to get the season ticket holders database? and would it be exspenive to do a mail shot?

Only if the club were to give you access and how likely do you think that would be? And yes it would be expensive.

[onlyonejackwalker]

Yes with the country in recession, Europe broke, lads getting shot and blown up in Afghanistan, it's really important and top priority that our leading politicians' time is taken up to hear that a few conspiracy theorists on a middling football club's fan message board are upset about a couple of nutters running the show, the manager is fat and bald and not very good, and an agent might be copping for a few quid.

It's surely a national concern that a provincial Northern team might get relegated - it's probably never, ever happened before and can't be allowed to come to pass!

Surely we can also get the UN, Nato and the International Monetary Fund to sort us out too.

The Venky's and Kean have a lot to answer for....

[Mattyblue]

To be fair medows MP's raise points of order on things affecting their constituency daily.

Now I'm sure nobody would pay a blind bit of notice of the Strawman but he can do it.

[47er]

Yes with the country in recession, Europe broke, lads getting shot and blown up in Afghanistan, it's really important and top priority that our leading politicians' time is taken up to hear that a few conspiracy theorists on a middling football club's fan message board are upset about a couple of nutters running the show, the manager is fat and bald and not very good, and an agent might be copping for a few quid.

It's surely a national concern that a provincial Northern team might get relegated - it's probably never, ever happened before and can't be allowed to come to pass!

Surely we can also get the UN, Nato and the International Monetary Fund to sort us out too.

What a sneery little person. So let's do nothing then? What are your ideas? Time for a lecture........

Parliament certainly focuses on the bigger picture issues such as you've listed but time is set aside for back-benchers to bring up matters of peculiar interest to their constituents. Its quite common for an MP to raise a problem relating to one individual

never mind a multi-million pound concern like Rovers. Let's not forget either that Rovers are a major employee in the area and brings loads of money into the town.

Furthermore our local football teams are at the heart of our communities, they give us hope and heart and bring us together, especially when economic times are tough. At least they used to. They are also part of our heritage--------136 years of it. What would Blackburn be without its football club?

We're not talking here about Kean's position or the fact that we haven't got enough points as you childishly put it--------what I'd like to see raised are the issues people have been referring to obliquely-------is there corruption, what exactly is Anderson's role, are there illegalities, is the club being run into the ground? etc etc.

Furthermore this isn't just about our club--------ours is an example of bigger issues. Its about the running of the Premier League--------will it let anything stand in the way of money? Why doesn't it check properly on whether a prospective owner is really a fit and proper person to own one of our cherished clubs? Should a new owner be able to buy a club on borrowed money and saddle it with huge debt, the role and conduct of agents, bungs and so on? Parliament has already involved itself in these sorts of matters before and expressed some dismay about the way things are going.

If people really have good information on these sorts of issues then this is a way for it to get out in the open without them losing their house.

Its just an idea, if everyone thinks like you its obviously a rotten idea. Or are Rovers not worth the attention in your view?

[Mattyblue]

Ahhh but they do meadows, they go something like 'I would like the whole House to join me in celebbrating my local football team Banbury Town in reaching the Istiman League First Division'.

[Jock]

Only if the club were to give you access and how likely do you think that would be? And yes it would be expensive.

Thanks for the reply, it was a long shot.I bet someone would leak the ST holders details but as you say the exspense of postage kills the idea.

[booth]

Redundancies, student fees, racial disharmony, house re-possessions - they are things which "affect a constituency." You might have to accept, as I do at age 52, that there are times in a lifetime when the local footy team - which not everyone who lives here gives a toss about and which many people from outside the constituency follow - aren't doing very well.

If anyone has any evidence that any illegal activity is going on then by all means contact the relevant authorities but otherwise, like many other football clubs, we're now owned by people we neither like nor have any faith in, and the stewardship of our beloved local team is currently poor.

Hardly a case for questions in the House.

On an unrelated topic I am sickened that a poster has named himself "Big Jock Knew" and would ask mods to investigate where this phrase comes from and to, if not ban the cro-magnon who has chosen to so christen himself, ask for a less offensive moniker.

I shudder to think what ex-Rovers with Celtic connections, such as King Kenny, would think of a Rovers supporter who considers it amusing to choose such a soubriquet, or indeed why any other right-thinking human being should share a messageboard with the person

Although I think you're wrong about saying it's not a question for the house, when much lesser issues are raised than one which affects over 20,000 people (many of which have paid good money to support the club for decades) the Big Jock Knew reference isn't very pleasant.