[Archived] Hmrc

[Glenn]

As an quick test, it took me less than 30 seconds to find his email address without using anything more than normal level access to the forum. He'd left it exactly where I suspected he had.

Ads .... in return, if you want me to help track where the email actually came from, feel free to email me via [email protected] and I'll talk you through getting me info needed start the search.

[J*B]

Bloody hell Glenn is the BRFC version of Anonymous.

[ABBEY]

How do we hide?

[blueboy3333]

They could have filed a request for us to help them get in contact with him/her under Section 5 of the 2014 Defamation Act, which we'd have been very happy to oblige with (almost all legal threats based on user generated content are now directed this way), the government have written some clear, concise and ultimately fair guidance on the whole procedure, but to the best of my knowledge (i.e. unless Ste dealt with it and didn't mention it, which is rather unlikely) then no such request has been made.

My guess is they did some good old OSINT and found it some other way

useful to know.

[MickBet]

How do we hide?

Your a bit like me too big to hide but i dont wear illuminous orange

[tomphil]

Mr Anonymous you can run but you can't .............

[Glenn]

useful to know.

It's actually pretty fair, it allows the site to stay impartial and allows the poster to decide if we turn over the contact details and/or remove any content. It's not a case of us just rolling over because it's easiest, it's more a case of us facilitating both sides (or their legal representation) talking to each other, if the poster doesn't want that, then .......

In this situation, if the complainant wishes to take further action it may be open to the complainant to seek a court order requiring the operator to release the poster’s contact details to the complainant. An operator which is served with notice of such an application may wish to inform the poster of this, though this is not a requirement of the Regulations.

As Andy points out, one thing the legislation doesn't deal with is as the site has been running since 1996, a lot of the details we hold are very very out of date.

The guidelines can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269138/defamation-guidance.pdfif anyone bar me cares enough.

[Glenn]

Bloody hell Glenn is the BRFC version of Anonymous.

Back in the days of Project Chanology, I'd take that as a complement, nowadays .... not so much

[47er]

If it were me I would definitely track the senders identity and hand all the info to the police.

I'd also be telling everyone who it was and give us their email address.

[blueboy3333]

It's actually pretty fair, it allows the site to stay impartial and allows the poster to decide if we turn over the contact details and/or remove any content. It's not a case of us just rolling over because it's easiest, it's more a case of us facilitating both sides (or their legal representation) talking to each other, if the poster doesn't want that, then .......

In this situation, if the complainant wishes to take further action it may be open to the complainant to seek a court order requiring the operator to release the poster’s contact details to the complainant. An operator which is served with notice of such an application may wish to inform the poster of this, though this is not a requirement of the Regulations.

As Andy points out, one thing the legislation doesn't deal with is as the site has been running since 1996, a lot of the details we hold are very very out of date.

The guidelines can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269138/defamation-guidance.pdfif anyone bar me cares enough.

It wasn't a criricism, I'd actually asked Mike E t'other day if we were protected on the forum as regards our details. I'll read the guidelines.

[MCMC1875]

It's actually pretty fair, it allows the site to stay impartial and allows the poster to decide if we turn over the contact details and/or remove any content. It's not a case of us just rolling over because it's easiest, it's more a case of us facilitating both sides (or their legal representation) talking to each other, if the poster doesn't want that, then .......

In this situation, if the complainant wishes to take further action it may be open to the complainant to seek a court order requiring the operator to release the poster’s contact details to the complainant. An operator which is served with notice of such an application may wish to inform the poster of this, though this is not a requirement of the Regulations.

As Andy points out, one thing the legislation doesn't deal with is as the site has been running since 1996, a lot of the details we hold are very very out of date.

The guidelines can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269138/defamation-guidance.pdfif anyone bar me cares enough.

BRFCS is 20 years old! Is there going to be a celebration? Is Grooby coming?

[dave birch]

BRFCS is 20 years old! Is there going to be a celebration? Is Grooby coming?

It's twenty years plus now, I joined in April 1996 as the handover from Rob Ivison happened, How long Rob had had a handle on it, heaven knows.

How ya going Groobs? long time no speak.... Sharks are doing well this year

[Boz]

It's actually pretty fair, it allows the site to stay impartial and allows the poster to decide if we turn over the contact details and/or remove any content. It's not a case of us just rolling over because it's easiest, it's more a case of us facilitating both sides (or their legal representation) talking to each other, if the poster doesn't want that, then .......

In this situation, if the complainant wishes to take further action it may be open to the complainant to seek a court order requiring the operator to release the poster’s contact details to the complainant. An operator which is served with notice of such an application may wish to inform the poster of this, though this is not a requirement of the Regulations.

As Andy points out, one thing the legislation doesn't deal with is as the site has been running since 1996, a lot of the details we hold are very very out of date.

The guidelines can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269138/defamation-guidance.pdfif anyone bar me cares enough.

All quite interesting Glenn, on a similar vein, copyright, who might own this? The poster or BRFCS Ltd and as such who is permitted to replicate postings from here elsewhere?

[DE.]

As far as posting about people/individuals goes, you basically want to avoid stating anything as a fact. By and large you can get away with stating an opinion 'this guy seems a bit dodgy to me', but stating it as a fact 'this guy is a criminal' is viewed differently. If you add to that with anything to back it up - 'he did this, and also this' - then legally a decent case can be made for defamation if you aren't able to back up your claims.

Somebody could try to sue based on an opinion but it wouldn't be successful unless the post was pretty explosive and followed a pattern of sustained abuse.

I believe the Blackpool fans Oyston sued fell into the category of having outright called him a criminal and possibly provided evidence as to why they believed that. Hence why he went after certain fans as opposed to the many who were giving extremely negative opinions of him.

[J*B]

ALLEGEDLY

[Jock]

As far as posting about people/individuals goes, you basically want to avoid stating anything as a fact. By and large you can get away with stating an opinion 'this guy seems a bit dodgy to me', but stating it as a fact 'this guy is a criminal' is viewed differently. If you add to that with anything to back it up - 'he did this, and also this' - then legally a decent case can be made for defamation if you aren't able to back up your claims.

Somebody could try to sue based on an opinion but it wouldn't be successful unless the post was pretty explosive and followed a pattern of sustained abuse.

I believe the Blackpool fans Oyston sued fell into the category of having outright called him a criminal and possibly provided evidence as to why they believed that. Hence why he went after certain fans as opposed to the many who were giving extremely negative opinions of him.

Owen Oyston obviously has a criminal record and Karl was prosecuted for waste tipping. I think the main Blackpool case was around a fan saying you could catch something if you stayed at the Hotel at Bloomfield. Nothing wrong with calling Owen a rapist.

[DE.]

Owen Oyston obviously has a criminal record and Karl was prosecuted for waste tipping. I think the main Blackpool case was around a fan saying you could catch something if you stayed at the Hotel at Bloomfield. Nothing wrong with calling Owen a rapist.

From what I remember, and I may be remembering incorrectly, the fans he targeted had suggested specifically that the Oystons had made criminal use of the club itself. It was the specification of criminal intent that was the problem in that instance.

Most owners would not target their own fans, for obvious reasons. The Oystons, unfortunately for Blackpool, bucked that trend and a few fans paid for it. A harsh lesson learned about how free our speech really is.

[Jock]

From what I remember, and I may be remembering incorrectly, the fans he targeted had suggested specifically that the Oystons had made criminal use of the club itself. It was the specification of criminal intent that was the problem in that instance.

Most owners would not target their own fans, for obvious reasons. The Oystons, unfortunately for Blackpool, bucked that trend and a few fans paid for it. A harsh lesson learned about how free our speech really is.

Apologies DE. Your right. It was the first prosecution. They seem to target fans for 30 grand. Awful people.

[DE.]

Apologies DE. Your right. It was the first prosecution. They seem to target fans for 30 grand. Awful people.

For most owners it wouldn't be worthwhile to go through an entire court case for something like £30k, but the Oystons were proving a point and trying to silence anybody from speaking without having hard evidence to back up their words and a lot of money to endure a court case. Nasty behaviour, for sure, but the fans unfortunately left themselves open to litigation by the nature of their posts. You have to be careful.

In regards to Ads, I'm pretty sure that legally he is in the clear. He's posted something he heard from somebody else and has never stated it was anything other than a rumour based off a usually reliable source. I think even the Oystons would struggle to prosecute over that. Anonymous threats against his livelihood are a different thing entirely, harkening back to the "bad old days" and suggesting certain insidious elements of the club are still very much in tact.

[onlyonejackwalker]

We keep getting our hopes up only for it to get us no-where.

Off topic how do we get to 40 million incoming on sales the last 18 months?

Rhodes 9 million

Gestede 6.5 million

Cairney 3.5 million

Duffy 4 million

Hanley 5.5 million

Rochina 1.5 million sell on.

Where is the other 10 million or so from? Not than I'm counting.

[1arC]

We keep getting our hopes up only for it to get us no-where.

Off topic how do we get to 40 million incoming on sales the last 18 months?

Rhodes 9 million

Gestede 6.5 million

Cairney 3.5 million

Duffy 4 million

Hanley 5.5 million

Rochina 1.5 million sell on.

Where is the other 10 million or so from? Not than I'm counting.

I think the Rhodes fee was £11 in the end due to the Boro promotion and add to that Josh King and Marcus Olsson and you are almost there. I think we got another sell on for someone too, but I could be wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3426439/Jordan-Rhodes-Blackburn-Rovers-Middlesbrough-expected-pushed-deadline-day.html

[1arC]

Owen Oyston obviously has a criminal record and Karl was prosecuted for waste tipping. I think the main Blackpool case was around a fan saying you could catch something if you stayed at the Hotel at Bloomfield. Nothing wrong with calling Owen a rapist.

I went there once and caught a train quite near by at Blackpol North. I guess I could say I caught something shortly after stopping there and mean no harm whatsoever.

[onlyonejackwalker]

I think the Rhodes fee was £11 in the end due to the Boro promotion and add to that Josh King and Marcus Olsson and you are almost there. I think we got another sell on for someone too, but I could be wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3426439/Jordan-Rhodes-Blackburn-Rovers-Middlesbrough-expected-pushed-deadline-day.html

Cheers. How much did we get for King? I thought Olsson was only just over a million.

[AJW]

I think the Rhodes fee was £11 in the end due to the Boro promotion and add to that Josh King and Marcus Olsson and you are almost there. I think we got another sell on for someone too, but I could be wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3426439/Jordan-Rhodes-Blackburn-Rovers-Middlesbrough-expected-pushed-deadline-day.html

N'Zonzi

[Iceman]

How do we hide?

We dont hide Abbey, if the feckers wants to attack and threaten, then fight back.