boro-unger 3,811 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 Shame about Fisher. He was solid enough last season. Fingers crossed dijk stays fit most of the season! Link to post Share on other sites
Changing Times 12,210 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 Brunners, your post there is libellous, mate. You should remove it. Link to post Share on other sites
Brunners 7,952 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 5 minutes ago, Changing Times said: Brunners, your post there is libellous, mate. You should remove it. Actually I don't believe it is. Unless you can objectively believe Peter Ridsdale would accept a £20 bribe, I think it's pretty obvious I was being facetious. Think you would have a real hard time proving defamation on that one. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Denzel Zanzibar 6,931 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 7 minutes ago, Changing Times said: Brunners, your post there is libellous, mate. You should remove it. lmao because Peter Ridsdale doesn't have a history of being dodgier than a post-pub kebab 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Changing Times 12,210 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 7 minutes ago, Denzel Zanzibar said: lmao because Peter Ridsdale doesn't have a history of being dodgier than a post-pub kebab He doesn't. Which is why it's libellous. Link to post Share on other sites
Denzel Zanzibar 6,931 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 3 minutes ago, Changing Times said: He doesn't. Which is why it's libellous. Doesn't he? Link to post Share on other sites
Changing Times 12,210 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 10 minutes ago, Brunners said: Actually I don't believe it is. Unless you can objectively believe Peter Ridsdale would accept a £20 bribe, I think it's pretty obvious I was being facetious. Think you would have a real hard time proving defamation on that one. No, you wouldn't. You have named the person, you've suggested something that would injure his reputation (that he takes bribes), you printed it and you don't get to say you were just being facetious, as your intent is irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites
Changing Times 12,210 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 1 minute ago, Denzel Zanzibar said: Doesn't he? Which part is about him taking bribes? Link to post Share on other sites
Denzel Zanzibar 6,931 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 Just now, Changing Times said: Which part is about him taking bribes? I didn't say he did, I said he has a documented history of being dodgy. Link to post Share on other sites
Changing Times 12,210 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 Just now, Denzel Zanzibar said: I didn't say he did, I said he has a documented history of being dodgy. But Brunners did, which is what is libellous. You see? Link to post Share on other sites
Brunners 7,952 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 6 minutes ago, Changing Times said: No, you wouldn't. You have named the person, you've suggested something that would injure his reputation (that he takes bribes), you printed it and you don't get to say you were just being facetious, as your intent is irrelevant. "whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held" I don't think a reasonable person could hold the belief that Peter Ridsdale would accept a £20 bribe. There we go, moving on. Link to post Share on other sites
Denzel Zanzibar 6,931 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 6 minutes ago, Changing Times said: But Brunners did, which is what is libellous. You see? I do see, but the fact that he has a documented history of illegal behaviour coupled with the clear facetiousness of Brunners' statement (£20, really?) means a lawsuit is highly unlikely to either a) be launched b) actually succeed 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Changing Times 12,210 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 The amount is irrelevant. It's the action that is relevant. I won't post again though as you know guys know best 👍 Link to post Share on other sites
Denzel Zanzibar 6,931 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Changing Times said: The amount is irrelevant. It's the action that is relevant. I won't post again though as you know guys know best 👍 You're just looking for an argument. Also the amount *is* relevant, one could argue that such a small amount in the statement could be defended as satire. Link to post Share on other sites
Uwe 3,543 Posted July 15, 2021 Share Posted July 15, 2021 55 minutes ago, Changing Times said: The amount is irrelevant. It's the action that is relevant. I won't post again though as you know guys know best 👍 Please let this be true 😉 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now