[Archived] Stay safe and clubless / Glen's Blog Post (Merged)

[47er]

Aren't you one of the posters who campaigned for new owners - anything better than the Walker Trust?

Great agenda that turned out to be.

Well who put us up for sale------- to anyone with the cash? I wanted new owners alright but the alternative wasn't to stay with the Trust----how could it be? And how is this relevant to this thread-----I make a good point so must be discredited over something else?

[chris_h]

The Trust were only interested in Jack Walker's money, not his legacy. That's why we are where we are.

[glen9mullan]

Sorry folks, yes the blog had to be taken down whilst the site checks its legal standing, I fully support the sites decision to do so. Its the world we live in at present that everyone will use legal teams if they find any sort of angle which they can persue.

Defamation laws are a grey area, and I too have had to take legal advice and put into motion legal representation due to some things which have been written about me/the action group over the last couple of months.

However putting all that aside, once BRFCS has checked its legal position the Blog may come back on this server and if not then it will be re-posted by other means, and also in other formats.

Paul Agnew has my contact details but has chosen not to contact me, and I would be rather pleased to be honest if he wants to go down the court route and try and sue me. I certainly 100% would attend court and provide ALL the supporting evidence to support everything I have written. The Blog IMO was rather luke warm so I hope he enjoys the rest of the story as it evolves.

I can also state that the admin and owners of this site, did not know about the blog until they read it like everyone else, they have never interfered with people writing blogs and offer a free service as hosts as a service to all rovers supporters who wish to put their thoughts in words. They have kept me in the loup regarding its removal and acted impartially throughout.

[glen9mullan]

Just to update I have moved it to a different server now

it can be found under roversrevisited1 on google search, not posted link as was unsure if I could

[jw_]

Sorry folks, yes the blog had to be taken down whilst the site checks its legal standing, I fully support the sites decision to do so. Its the world we live in at present that everyone will use legal teams if they find any sort of angle which they can persue.

Defamation laws are a grey area, and I too have had to take legal advice and put into motion legal representation due to some things which have been written about me/the action group over the last couple of months.

However putting all that aside, once BRFCS has checked its legal position the Blog may come back on this server and if not then it will be re-posted by other means, and also in other formats.

Paul Agnew has my contact details but has chosen not to contact me, and I would be rather pleased to be honest if he wants to go down the court route and try and sue me. I certainly 100% would attend court and provide ALL the supporting evidence to support everything I have written. The Blog IMO was rather luke warm so I hope he enjoys the rest of the story as it evolves.

I can also state that the admin and owners of this site, did not know about the blog until they read it like everyone else, they have never interfered with people writing blogs and offer a free service as hosts as a service to all rovers supporters who wish to put their thoughts in words. They have kept me in the loup regarding its removal and acted impartially throughout.

Do we really have to wait for it to "evolve"?,once you are cleared to continue why not put ALL the details out so at least we can see them before that too is pulled.You have all the details so why make everyone wait for weeks/months or however long you decide. Every day is a new drama at Circus Ewood and you're just adding to it by drip feeding information.

[Stuart]

Do we really have to wait for it to "evolve"?,once you are cleared to continue why not put ALL the details out so at least we can see them before that too is pulled.You have all the details so why make everyone wait for weeks/months or however long you decide. Every day is a new drama at Circus Ewood and you're just adding to it by drip feeding information.

I thought this too but Savio (brfcrule1) made a good point a few pages ago...

[SouthAussieRover]

The taking it slowly when chatting up a woman point?

[Stuart]

The taking it slowly when chatting up a woman point?

The bit after that.

[Tom]

The bit after that.

I wouldn't know I got tired trying to read it

[Stuart]

I wouldn't know I got tired trying to read it

Read my reply after it then.

[SouthAussieRover]

The bit after that.

Sorry.

I didn't work out the point!

What was it??

[Amo]

When you and Topman ever have a good word for Glen, Kean will be a great manager!

It's clear you two have an agenda, or at least, a target.

I'm not the one engaging in petty boardroom politics whilst masquerading as Joe Public.

[Al]

Just to update I have moved it to a different server now

it can be found under roversrevisited1 on google search, not posted link as was unsure if I could

Seems to have been deleted. I can't find it anyway.

[Mr. E]

Is this Nazi Germany? What? How in the earth is kean like this possible? What the bloody hell was the point of stopping Hitler if kean like this is going on? The world is going to kean. In America, in England....

[Amo]

Is this Nazi Germany? What? How in the earth is kean like this possible? What the bloody hell was the point of stopping Hitler if kean like this is going on? The world is going to kean. In America, in England....

lol.

[Eddie]

I don't really understand the fuss here. Glen's latest post shows that he has sought legal council in response to remarks made about himself, so why would anyone expect that others will not behave in the same way?

No point putting the site or those that run it at risk. If you really have something to say then the internet is a big enough place to allow you to post it somewhere else. Easy enough to create an independent blog and type away.

[Al]

Seems to have been deleted. I can't find it anyway.

Thanks Glen.

[perthblue02]

To imply that someone was instrumental in engineering job dismissals is clearly potentially defamatory if it cannot be proved beyond any reasonable doubt

People may well intimate to someone in a private conversation that this happened or that happened but unless you can persuade them to repeat such claims in a court room you are on extremely dodgy ground

To also make extraordinary claims to be able to routinely monitor someone's emails be they private/personal/business or whatever is among the most foolish proclamations I've ever seen

Before you step in with "I ain't in the wrong" or "I would of thought of that" please bear in mind that I am a journalist of 20 years experience, I deliver lectures & written material on journalism law as-applied to libel/defamation to college students and in the event of any cases of doubt, I wisely took the precaution of marrying a lawyer!

Whilst you are far better placed than me regarding the law etc and I fully understand BRFCS stance on the matter , where in the blog does it imply that "to be able to routinely monitor someone's emails be they private/personal/business or whatever" ? As far as I can see the implication is that any information will leak out.

Apologies if the blog as changed but as far as I can see the only change to the blog currently online is the following which I assume there is no problem posting This blog post has been moved to this temporary blog site, due to the person in question making contact with the original host complaining about its existence. The person in question has made no direct contact with me, whilst this content can be supported by witnesses and electronic devices should this individual pursue this matter any further.

Currently no contact has been made with the writer of blog by the person in question or any legal representation on his behalf, surely this would have been done before contact with the service provider of the original blog to remove it , its not as if the person has not got the contact info of the blog author.

Perhaps after statements the person in question made about improving communication and transparency etc in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph the person would be prepared to make himself available for an q and a session on record, perhaps via this site, or via the Action Group or Fans Forum or the Lancashire Evening Telegraph to dismiss/discuss the claims regarding the blog and any other questions that may arise. Surely this would be a better course of action, after confronting the author of the blog than threatening the biggest Blackburn Rovers community on the internet. If the threat was merely to avoid a large number of people seeing its contents then feel this action may have backfired and raised awareness of it to people outside the BRFCS community.

Unfortunately a side effect of the takeover is that Blackburn Rovers supporters are seen to be a nuisance to be declared war on and threatened by legal action, what next another banner ban or people being thrown out of the ground if the sing "Person in question OUT", this whole fiasco would not be out of place in a scooby do episode, let's hope there's a similar ending with people being led away whilst muttering "We would have got away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky supporters"

[Gav]

Agnews a keaning kean, we all agree on that, and the sooner the rat is ousted from the club the better.

[47er]

I'm not the one engaging in petty boardroom politics whilst masquerading as Joe Public.

Well that's your opinion but in my opinion you are engaging in petty politics on here.

[philipl]

Excellent post by perthblue.

[Glenn]

I hadn't read the note on Glen's new blog until it was posted here, but I should probably clarify one tiny detail that probably wasn't clear when I explained to Glen why his blog post had been removed (but solicitors make a living for tiny details, so clarification is good).

Technically, PA didn't ask for the content to be removed.He merely confirmed he believed it to be libellous and left the decision on removal to us. However for us to claim any kind of defence under Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (aka "the hosting defence") it's required that "upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness" [ The service provider ] "acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information;". Which we did. Without the benefit of that directive, we'd have to be confident we have enough evidence to back up Glen's claims in court and currently we only really have Glen's word to go off ..I don't know if PA knew any or all of this, but his response, whilst seemingly offering us a choice, legally left us with with only one viable option.

There has been no direct threat of legal action against us or (as far a I know) Glen at this stage, but one of the nice things about having access to decent legal advice is we can do our best to keep it that way.

[perthblue02]

Thanks for clearing that up Glenn, and as previously said appreciate BRFCS stance on the matter. Any chance of a Q and A being arranged with Agnew on record ? would be a great step in following through on his transparency and improved communication statements that were in the Lancs Telegraph and the owners spokesman seems keen on engaging supporters so perhaps a Director of the club doing the same seems a logical step.

Appreciate he may be busy at the moment trying to plug the leaks coming out of the club regarding Singh and Berg, but every confidence in him, as he previously did a great job with anything concerning the previous manager.

[cwspellowe]

If noone is aware, a cached version is still available through mainstream search engines but I won't be pointing anyone to the blog. It's still floating about if you look hard enough though.

From what I read, I struggle to see how Glen could prove these conversations, a "he said, she said" argument wouldn't be a strong enough argument in court. Recording conversations opens up a whole can of covert surveillance worms too and, whilst morally it would out any wrong doings by the accused party, it wouldn't be hard evidence that could be used in Glen's defence.

IF there were recordings, they could only be used if the accused party were aware recordings may be taking place, think of call centres when you phone to pay a bill, a recorded message will say that calls may be recorded for xyz. If the party isn't aware of a potential recording, the recording is classed as covert surveillance and can't be used as evidence.

If the accused party were aware the conversations were recorded, he wouldn't be looking to pursue a libel case as presentation of the conversations would quickly rule in Glen's favour.

Therefore I don't know how this will pan out. But many people have had ill feeling towards PA and his alliance with SK was there for all to see.

It's also curious as to how PA could supposedly put a halt to so many leaks within the club when his pal was the manager, yet now someone else is in charge the club's communication structure is somewhat sieve-like. You'd think someone appointed as director of communications would have a tighter grip on things. He's seemingly become quite careless in his new found role.

[DE.]

Can't blame BRFCS for removing it. Legally they'd be up the proverbial creek without a paddle if they'd kept it there after receiving Agger's lovely communication.

Have to admit when it was posted I was a bit shocked, considering how careful the site has been over legal action. Let's remember a humorous thread about Steve Kean and his rampant lying was removed, so what chance would Glen's blog post have of surviving?