Print Topic - Archive
Fishy Forum / Archive /
Posted by: headingly_mariner, December 26, 2020, 12:42pm
đđđđ Getyourfactsright or the Fishy will be shut down again.
A crack legal team of male masturbators and sycophants are monitoring your posts.
Posted by: forza ivano, December 26, 2020, 12:44pm; Reply: 1
John's obviously been on the blower to Rob again!
Posted by: GrimRob, December 26, 2020, 12:48pm; Reply: 2
John's obviously been on the blower to Rob again!
Absolutely but we all have our responsibilities and I think there is widespread ignorance of how the defamation laws work.
Posted by: aldi_01, December 26, 2020, 12:49pm; Reply: 3
Absolutely but we all have our responsibilities and I think there is widespread ignorance of how the defamation laws work.
Ironic really isnât it...whatâs the phrase? People in glass houses?
Posted by: MidnightMariner, December 26, 2020, 12:57pm; Reply: 4
J S F is a girl private!
Is this defamation of character đ¤
Posted by: Theimperialcoroner, December 26, 2020, 1:05pm; Reply: 5
I think it would be ok to say âI think JSF is a girl privateâ but probably not ok to say âI think JSF is a girl private because Iâve seen him drowning kittens in the Freshneyâ when you have not really seen him with a wriggling bag of kitties near the Barge.
I hope this clears things up.
Posted by: lew chaterleys lover, December 26, 2020, 1:05pm; Reply: 6
He has gone full-on Alan Partridge.
Is self-awareness still a thing?
Posted by: aldi_01, December 26, 2020, 1:07pm; Reply: 7
I think it would be ok to say âI think JSF is a girl privateâ but probably not ok to say âI think JSF is a girl private because Iâve seen him drowning kittens in the Freshneyâ when you have not really seen him with a wriggling bag of kitties near the Barge.
I hope this clears things up.
Is that like if a tree falls in the first but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
Posted by: TAGG, December 26, 2020, 1:08pm; Reply: 8
Absolutely but we all have our responsibilities and I think there is widespread ignorance of how the defamation laws work.
At least it shows he's reading how much he is now hated.
Posted by: Theimperialcoroner, December 26, 2020, 1:10pm; Reply: 9
Is that like if a tree falls in the first but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
Exactly like that. If a convicted criminal is invited to a game but no one knows about it........ Oh wait
Posted by: Northbank Mariner, December 26, 2020, 1:55pm; Reply: 10
For god's sake, really, sorry but this is getting silly. Maybe a certain someone should spend more time looking at striking a reasonable deal rather looking through a fans forum to see what people are saying in the hope said someone can pin Deformation of Character on somebody...
Posted by: aldi_01, December 26, 2020, 1:57pm; Reply: 11
As I said, ironic...
Does questioning someoneâs morals count as defamation of character?
Posted by: MuddyWaters, December 26, 2020, 2:03pm; Reply: 12
Opinion. I think John Fenty has wrecked our football club.
Posted by: thefish, December 26, 2020, 2:06pm; Reply: 13
Fenty out...
See you in court!
Posted by: headingly_mariner, December 26, 2020, 2:07pm; Reply: 14
Maybe you should send this to Lloyd Griffith, heâs just hammered him on Humbo
Posted by: Hagrid, December 26, 2020, 2:09pm; Reply: 15
Posted by: moosey_club, December 26, 2020, 2:12pm; Reply: 16
Well if Philip Day is acting for JF then given his support of May and the "only stole from financial institutions" defence i reckon anyone could win the case. ;D
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 2:20pm; Reply: 17
Has is not been proved in court on at least one occasion that Mr F is a person of questionable morals and character?
Posted by: earwigo, December 26, 2020, 2:28pm; Reply: 18
I think Iâm allowed to think what I like about any tosser. Itâs up to anyone else if they think someoneâs a tosser
Posted by: HertsGTFC, December 26, 2020, 2:34pm; Reply: 19
Iâm amazed that JF and the Board think they can behave like they do and expect people not to express their own âpersonal opinionâ and beliefs.
All I can say is that theyâre lucky that supporters arenât allowed in, I think despite their whinging COVID has probably saved them from a great deal of face to face personal âopinion and feedbackâ.
Posted by: aldi_01, December 26, 2020, 2:36pm; Reply: 20
If we were living in times without these restrictions I fear the home games recently and for a while yet would have plenty of needle.
Aside from us being flipping awful, those morons that still see the need to stick up for Fenty would have their two penneth and then the rest would. Could get ugly.
Although I suspect a protest would be happening whether home or away...
Posted by: friskneymariner, December 26, 2020, 2:43pm; Reply: 21
As long as it is not abusive, does not incite violence,has some semblance of truth comes under the concept of 'fair comment'
Posted by: MuddyWaters, December 26, 2020, 3:02pm; Reply: 22
Rather than this latest threat, perhaps John Fenty ought to explain why Holloway did a runner saying John was selling up yet we are where we are today.
Posted by: TownSNAFU5, December 26, 2020, 3:18pm; Reply: 23
Libel or slander only applies if the comments are shown to be untrue.
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 3:30pm; Reply: 24
I think Iâm allowed to think what I like about any tosser. Itâs up to anyone else if they think someoneâs a tosser
Letâs just say itâs Shrove Tuesday every day in the Fenty household. Pancake plonker
Posted by: Gaffer58, December 26, 2020, 3:38pm; Reply: 25
Libel or slander only applies if the comments are shown to be untrue.
So can I be done for slander if I say âMr J Fenty is the best non chairmen a club could wish forâ or even, â I will always believe that Mr J Fenty as always done the best for Grimsby Town Football Club even at the expense of his own personal wealthâ I suppose itâs up to each individual to decide if the above comments are true or not.
Posted by: MuddyWaters, December 26, 2020, 3:47pm; Reply: 26
Anyone else find it weird supporting the team but not the club?
#IMHOfentykilledmyclub
Posted by: realist, December 26, 2020, 3:54pm; Reply: 27
So the anus Fenty is unhappy with what is being posted about him? Is this the same man that is happy to do business with convicted fraudsters, had to leave office due to possibly questionable actions whilst head of regeneration,failed to pay HMRC income tax which was deducted from employees, and is under investigation for accountancy matters? Now he turns against the fans. intercourse off John and donât return
Posted by: MuddyWaters, December 26, 2020, 3:57pm; Reply: 28
So the anus Fenty is unhappy with what is being posted about him? Is this the same man that is happy to do business with convicted fraudsters, had to leave office due to possibly questionable actions whilst head of regeneration,failed to pay HMRC income tax which was deducted from employees, and is under investigation for accountancy matters? Now he turns against the fans. intercourse off John and donât return
Just adds insult to injury doesnât it?
Season ticket holders not allowed in but he invites his fraudster business associate to three games while we canât go.âŚ
Posted by: Manchester Mariner, December 26, 2020, 3:58pm; Reply: 29
I've got visions of Fenty spending Christmas doomscrolling through the Fishy and getting a proper benny on.
Posted by: ginnywings, December 26, 2020, 4:07pm; Reply: 30
Being reminded of our conduct is hilarious from a man who goes into business with a many times convicted fraudster.
Posted by: moosey_club, December 26, 2020, 4:08pm; Reply: 31
Considering it's only a "small minority" of people then i am surprised he is even bothered.
Open your e mails and text messages instead John if you dont like what the public outside of your inner circle think.
Or maybe put your fingers in your ears and go LaLaLaLa..
Posted by: MuddyWaters, December 26, 2020, 4:11pm; Reply: 32
Considering it's only a "small minority" of people then i am surprised he is even bothered.
Open your e mails and text messages instead John if you dont like what the public outside of your inner circle think.
Or maybe put your fingers in your ears and go LaLaLaLa..
Must be a strange world when one minute youâre getting great support, according to Philip Day, and the same week youâre picking fights with a fans forum.
Posted by: HertsGTFC, December 26, 2020, 4:12pm; Reply: 33
So the anus Fenty is unhappy with what is being posted about him? Is this the same man that is happy to do business with convicted fraudsters, had to leave office due to possibly questionable actions whilst head of regeneration,failed to pay HMRC income tax which was deducted from employees, and is under investigation for accountancy matters? Now he turns against the fans. intercourse off John and donât return
So Johnâs upset by peopleâs personal opinion. Like the opinions he had when someone sat in the back of his Mercedes recording him slagging the off all and sundry.
Posted by: grimsby pete, December 26, 2020, 4:14pm; Reply: 34
He can only complain if the posts are untrue.
As far as I am concerned all the post on here are true.
A man with a big ego goes into business with a convicted fraudster threatens us well balderdash to you Fenty if you don't like it intercourse off and take Day with you.
Not 1p more from me while you cling onto power.
Fenty Out !!!!!!!!
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 4:14pm; Reply: 35
Mr Fenty,
Whatâs it like being best friends with a convicted fraudster? What did you get each other for Christmas?
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 4:15pm; Reply: 36
Mr Fenty,
Why do you always act so recklessly?
Posted by: MuddyWaters, December 26, 2020, 4:20pm; Reply: 37
Looks like Rob In Grimsby is in charge of the Red Cross button this afternoon đĽłđĽłđĽłđđ´ââ ď¸đ´ââ ď¸đ´ââ ď¸
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 4:26pm; Reply: 38
J S F is a girl private!
Is this defamation of character đ¤
For it to be defamation it would have to lower his reputation Z
As far as I can see his reputation is in tatters anyway so youâd have to go some to lower it.
Posted by: gtfc98, December 26, 2020, 4:27pm; Reply: 39
Christ alive, what a girl private. Sell up and intercourse off John.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 4:32pm; Reply: 40
So you can start a business with a convicted fraudster, invite him to a public venue when such limits are closed due to Coronavirus regulations*, and introduce said fraudster to the council that n conflict of your duty as a senior councillor, but itâs not IK to point out what a C Unit you are! Marvellous.
Well as Monday is not a business day I guess Iâve got 72 hours đđđ
* I wonder if Humberside police are aware of this
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 4:33pm; Reply: 41
Oh you can also take your brother into an away game too. I wasnât aware he was a club official.
Cheltenham in case youâre wondering. I screenshotted the confession. đđđđ
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 4:35pm; Reply: 42
Mr Fenty,
Why are you trying to profit on shares that were âgiftedâ to you by the Trust?
How did you acquire the shares from the Trust? Was it under duress?
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 4:39pm; Reply: 43
Mr Fenty,
Why are you trying to profit on shares that were âgiftedâ to you by the Trust?
How did you acquire the shares from the Trust? Was it under duress?
Which âkeyboard warriorâ red crossed this? Whatâs up Fenty - scared of a question?
Posted by: MuddyWaters, December 26, 2020, 4:40pm; Reply: 44
Which âkeyboard warriorâ red crossed this? Whatâs up Fenty - scared of a question?
See above!
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 4:40pm; Reply: 45
So you can start a business with a convicted fraudster, invite him to a public venue when such limits are closed due to Coronavirus regulations*, and introduce said fraudster to the council that n conflict of your duty as a senior councillor, but itâs not IK to point out what a C Unit you are! Marvellous.
Well as Monday is not a business day I guess Iâve got 72 hours đđđ
* I wonder if Humberside police are aware of this
Come on. Havenât you got the balls to say why you red crossed this? Scared of the truth?
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 4:45pm; Reply: 46
See above!
Why doesnât he admit it?
Wonder if it was Rob from Grimsbyâs post I screenshotted? Canât remember now. đđđ
Posted by: Eastendmariner, December 26, 2020, 5:02pm; Reply: 47
When you have 5 minutes John have a look at the Div 2 table that's reality it's not made up stop taking us Town fans for granted
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 5:04pm; Reply: 48
GrimRob, can you share any correspondence that you have received to date on the subject of defamation? I might want to take advice on it. Genuine question.
Posted by: rancido, December 26, 2020, 5:11pm; Reply: 49
I've got visions of Fenty spending Christmas doomscrolling through the Fishy and getting a proper benny on.
Yeah, spanking the monkey while making a monkey of the club and its fans.
Posted by: malkamalka, December 26, 2020, 5:12pm; Reply: 50
You know the Boris Johnson song that's at Number 5 in the current charts?
Can you think of any other person's name who would fit in well?
(Asking for a friend)
Posted by: rancido, December 26, 2020, 5:15pm; Reply: 51
Mr Fenty,
Whatâs it like being best friends with a convicted fraudster? What did you get each other for Christmas?
His and His matching ball and chains! (allegedly)
Posted by: Stadium, December 26, 2020, 5:22pm; Reply: 52
GrimRob, can you share any correspondence that you have received to date on the subject of defamation? I might want to take advice on it. Genuine question.
Interesting article especially re. Blackpool
When the UK Defamation Act 2013 came into force in January 2014, Shailesh Vara, the justice minister, publicly expressed the hope that the revised laws would discourage claimants from filing âtrivialâ claims that waste courtsâ time and harm freedom of speech.
âThe introduction of these measures will make it harder for wealthy people or companies to bully or silence those who may have fairly criticised them or their products,â said Mr Vara.
âAs a result of these new laws, anyone expressing views and engaging in public debate can do so in the knowledge that the law offers them stronger protection against unjust and unfair threats of legal action.â
The act also tightens the test for claims with little connection to England and Wales being brought before courts there, in an attempt to end the trend of so-called âlibel tourismâ that has made London the worldâs capital for such cases.
But, despite lawmakersâ good intentions, cases of libel or slander seem to be on the increase. Research published by Thomson Reuters in October 2014 showed a 23 per cent rise in the number of reported defamation cases in the UK over the past year, up from 70 to 86.
At the heart of this growth, it seems, is a sharp rise in claims brought in response to online postings on social media, review sites and blogs. These more than quadrupled, rising from six to 26, the research says.
âThe instant nature of social media is certainly changing the face of defamation law,â says Ian Birdsey, a senior associate at Pinsent Masons, the law firm. âMore and more people use social media to communicate, and often with people beyond their immediate social sphere. Sometimes, they do that without really thinking through the possible consequences of their words.
âAll this brings with it a number of challenges â and one of those would appear to be a rise in the number of defamation claims relating to derogatory online posts.â
A number of recent cases bear this out. Jason Page of Telford in the UK, for example, faces a legal bill of ÂŁ100,000 after he groundlessly called US-based lawyer Timothy Bussey a âscumbagâ who âloses 80 per cent of his casesâ on Google Maps. The anonymous review was defamatory of Mr Bussey and his firm, ruled High Court judge Mr Justice Eady.
Several fans of Blackpool Football Club, meanwhile, face libel actions after criticising the clubâs owners, Karl and Owen Oyston, on Facebook and on an internet forum, backhenrystreet.co.uk. Other Blackpool fans have rallied round to help one defendant, pensioner Frank Knight, to meet the ÂŁ20,000 in damages he had already agreed to pay the club.
And US-based stock shortseller Gotham City Research was sued for libel last year by Quindell, the Aim-quoted insurance claims processor, after tweeting a link to a highly critical report it produced about the company, claiming its stock was âuninvestableâ. Quindell obtained a default judgment after Gotham did not defend the claim in London.
So what do these cases mean for other individuals who use the internet to express opinions about a company or its services, particularly if the target of their criticism might find those views unpalatable?
âIn defamation law, honest opinion is a defence to any claim. So, you are able to express any opinions you want, as long as they are honestly held and based on some sort of fact or experienceâ
Harry Kinmonth, a solicitor at RPC, a media law firm, insists that customers still have the right to air their views, but they have to adopt a reasoned approach. âIn defamation law, honest opinion is a defence to any claim. So, you are able to express any opinions you want, as long as they are honestly held and based on some sort of fact or experience,â he says.
âPeople shouldnât be too worried, on that basis, about reviewing a restaurant for example, unless that review contains, for reasons of malicious intent, opinions that are exaggerated or that cannot be justified.â
Companies that publish customer reviews, meanwhile, are careful to guide their contributors in the right direction and often moderate reviews carefully before publishing them.
BazaarVoice, for example, a user-generated content engine that helps companies capture, manage and respond to customer input, collects, moderates and publishes online customer reviews on behalf of retailers and consumer brands, including Halfords, Philips and EstĂŠe Lauder.
Dylan Hoeffler, BazaarVoiceâs manager of authenticity and fraud, says: âLaws that define âdefamationâ vary. However, we believe the critical elements are false or misleading statements that are made with the intent to harm reputation.
âIn that sense, a review that states: âThis television didnât display as good a picture as I would have expected for the priceâ may be perceived as negative, but it wouldnât be considered [libellous],â he says. âConversely, one that states: âThis television spontaneously caught fire and burnt my wallâ could be [libellous if] that circumstance proves to be demonstrably false.â
Similarly, TripAdvisor, the travel review site, cautions users not only against âprofanity, threats, prejudiced comments, hate speech and sexually explicit languageâ, but also against âsecond-hand informationâ and âhearsayâ, which it defines as âunverified information, rumours, or quotations from other sources or the reported opinions/experiences of othersâ.
Mr Birdsey of Pinsent Masons, meanwhile, offers this advice to online commentators: âIf youâre going to criticise, be explicitly clear about the core facts and be as balanced as possible. Donât exaggerate and donât speculate beyond the immediate details of your experience. And donât be deliberately provocative in order to elicit a response.â
He adds: âMost companies today are actively monitoring their online reputation and, while many welcome honest customer feedback, they will also take steps to protect and defend that reputation if they feel itâs been unfairly maligned.â
Posted by: davmariner, December 26, 2020, 5:23pm; Reply: 53
Oh John just get a grip you absolute loser. Leave the club.
Posted by: thefish, December 26, 2020, 5:24pm; Reply: 54
John, stop reading this with an aim to take people to court and get back to Shutes with cap in hand as this club will go to the wall with you in charge... meaning you wonât see a penny!
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 5:24pm; Reply: 55
Hi John,
We have done a quick poll in our family and we have concluded that you look sh1t in a turtle neck.
Due to your neck being shorter than that of a normal male, the top of the cashmere rides up over your tanned double chin like a pre-pubescent teen with a dangerously tight foreskin.
Please donât wear one again.
Cheers
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 5:28pm; Reply: 56
Interesting article especially re. Blackpool
When the UK Defamation Act 2013 came into force in January 2014, Shailesh Vara, the justice minister, publicly expressed the hope that the revised laws would discourage claimants from filing âtrivialâ claims that waste courtsâ time and harm freedom of speech.
âThe introduction of these measures will make it harder for wealthy people or companies to bully or silence those who may have fairly criticised them or their products,â said Mr Vara.
âAs a result of these new laws, anyone expressing views and engaging in public debate can do so in the knowledge that the law offers them stronger protection against unjust and unfair threats of legal action.â
The act also tightens the test for claims with little connection to England and Wales being brought before courts there, in an attempt to end the trend of so-called âlibel tourismâ that has made London the worldâs capital for such cases.
But, despite lawmakersâ good intentions, cases of libel or slander seem to be on the increase. Research published by Thomson Reuters in October 2014 showed a 23 per cent rise in the number of reported defamation cases in the UK over the past year, up from 70 to 86.
At the heart of this growth, it seems, is a sharp rise in claims brought in response to online postings on social media, review sites and blogs. These more than quadrupled, rising from six to 26, the research says.
âThe instant nature of social media is certainly changing the face of defamation law,â says Ian Birdsey, a senior associate at Pinsent Masons, the law firm. âMore and more people use social media to communicate, and often with people beyond their immediate social sphere. Sometimes, they do that without really thinking through the possible consequences of their words.
âAll this brings with it a number of challenges â and one of those would appear to be a rise in the number of defamation claims relating to derogatory online posts.â
A number of recent cases bear this out. Jason Page of Telford in the UK, for example, faces a legal bill of ÂŁ100,000 after he groundlessly called US-based lawyer Timothy Bussey a âscumbagâ who âloses 80 per cent of his casesâ on Google Maps. The anonymous review was defamatory of Mr Bussey and his firm, ruled High Court judge Mr Justice Eady.
Several fans of Blackpool Football Club, meanwhile, face libel actions after criticising the clubâs owners, Karl and Owen Oyston, on Facebook and on an internet forum, backhenrystreet.co.uk. Other Blackpool fans have rallied round to help one defendant, pensioner Frank Knight, to meet the ÂŁ20,000 in damages he had already agreed to pay the club.
And US-based stock shortseller Gotham City Research was sued for libel last year by Quindell, the Aim-quoted insurance claims processor, after tweeting a link to a highly critical report it produced about the company, claiming its stock was âuninvestableâ. Quindell obtained a default judgment after Gotham did not defend the claim in London.
So what do these cases mean for other individuals who use the internet to express opinions about a company or its services, particularly if the target of their criticism might find those views unpalatable?
âIn defamation law, honest opinion is a defence to any claim. So, you are able to express any opinions you want, as long as they are honestly held and based on some sort of fact or experienceâ
Harry Kinmonth, a solicitor at RPC, a media law firm, insists that customers still have the right to air their views, but they have to adopt a reasoned approach. âIn defamation law, honest opinion is a defence to any claim. So, you are able to express any opinions you want, as long as they are honestly held and based on some sort of fact or experience,â he says.
âPeople shouldnât be too worried, on that basis, about reviewing a restaurant for example, unless that review contains, for reasons of malicious intent, opinions that are exaggerated or that cannot be justified.â
Companies that publish customer reviews, meanwhile, are careful to guide their contributors in the right direction and often moderate reviews carefully before publishing them.
BazaarVoice, for example, a user-generated content engine that helps companies capture, manage and respond to customer input, collects, moderates and publishes online customer reviews on behalf of retailers and consumer brands, including Halfords, Philips and EstĂŠe Lauder.
Dylan Hoeffler, BazaarVoiceâs manager of authenticity and fraud, says: âLaws that define âdefamationâ vary. However, we believe the critical elements are false or misleading statements that are made with the intent to harm reputation.
âIn that sense, a review that states: âThis television didnât display as good a picture as I would have expected for the priceâ may be perceived as negative, but it wouldnât be considered [libellous],â he says. âConversely, one that states: âThis television spontaneously caught fire and burnt my wallâ could be [libellous if] that circumstance proves to be demonstrably false.â
Similarly, TripAdvisor, the travel review site, cautions users not only against âprofanity, threats, prejudiced comments, hate speech and sexually explicit languageâ, but also against âsecond-hand informationâ and âhearsayâ, which it defines as âunverified information, rumours, or quotations from other sources or the reported opinions/experiences of othersâ.
Mr Birdsey of Pinsent Masons, meanwhile, offers this advice to online commentators: âIf youâre going to criticise, be explicitly clear about the core facts and be as balanced as possible. Donât exaggerate and donât speculate beyond the immediate details of your experience. And donât be deliberately provocative in order to elicit a response.â
He adds: âMost companies today are actively monitoring their online reputation and, while many welcome honest customer feedback, they will also take steps to protect and defend that reputation if they feel itâs been unfairly maligned.â
Thanks Stadium. Interesting article. It suggests that itâs a high standard to prove defamation. Honestly expressed opinions, and based on truth arenât defamation.
I would suggest that raising questions is not defamatory either, subject to the wording.
Quite frankly Iâm not going to be bullied into silence.
Posted by: aldi_01, December 26, 2020, 5:44pm; Reply: 57
Can I call him a girl private? I appreciate it is a lie as girl privates are, on the whole, useful but can I still call him one?
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 6:30pm; Reply: 58
Can I call him a girl private? I appreciate it is a lie as girl privates are, on the whole, useful but can I still call him one?
Quite frankly as a lover of girl privates (Iâm self-censoring there to give the profanity checker a break) I find that quite insulting to women.
Posted by: Boris Johnson, December 26, 2020, 6:38pm; Reply: 59
Absolutely but we all have our responsibilities and I think there is widespread ignorance of how the defamation laws work.
some people might be about to find out
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 6:51pm; Reply: 60
some people might be about to find out
Tell us more BJ? Sounds like you are in the know.
Posted by: Boris Johnson, December 26, 2020, 7:01pm; Reply: 61
Tell us more BJ? Sounds like you are in the know.
Not at all, obviously John has spent today perusing the site, cant see any other reason why the OP has appeared.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 7:03pm; Reply: 62
Iâd love him to try claiming defamation. It will cost him quite a lot in legal bills.
Posted by: friskneymariner, December 26, 2020, 7:17pm; Reply: 63
Au contraire Rob I am reasonably conversant with the implications of the Defamation Act 2013 and there 3 conditions that have to be met to successfully argue a fair comment defence. Without boring you with a lot of legalise perhaps the most pertinent is the authority set by the ruling in Joseph v Spiller.In brief the 2013 Act made it much easier for the respondent to have a common law defence of ''Fair Comment'.Your call.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 7:39pm; Reply: 64
Au contraire Rob I am reasonably conversant with the implications of the Defamation Act 2013 and there 3 conditions that have to be met to successfully argue a fair comment defence. Without boring you with a lot of legalise perhaps the most pertinent is the authority set by the ruling in Joseph v Spiller.In brief the 2013 Act made it much easier for the respondent to have a common law defence of ''Fair Comment'.Your call.
To be fair to Rob he did show the responsibilities of both respondent and claimant.
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 7:48pm; Reply: 65
If Fenty took any of us to court he would have no chance:
In the Blue corner, weighing in at ÂŁ2m pounds, John âRecklessâ Fenty...
A man who caused the club to pay compensation as a result of âaccidentallyâ tapping up employees of another company via an untrustworthy agent
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 7:50pm; Reply: 66
Thatâd be the icing in the cake. Further humiliation for him. All self-inflicted.
Posted by: marinerdazza, December 26, 2020, 7:58pm; Reply: 67
Iâd love him to try claiming defamation. It will cost him quite a lot in legal bills.
Yes, not something one of his mates could do. And even if he wins he would realistically only claim back 60% of his costs.
Posted by: grimsby pete, December 26, 2020, 8:04pm; Reply: 68
If Fenty took any of us to court it would cost him more than its worth.
We could go in our hundreds and testify the things Fent y has done over the years to warrant all this name calling .I
Bring it on sucker !!!!!!
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 8:35pm; Reply: 69
Yes, not something one of his mates could do. And even if he wins he would realistically only claim back 60% of his costs.
Itâs a tall order proving defamation if youâve already traduced your own character by forming a redevelopment business partnership with a known fraudster, then introducing him to the council where you were a senior member of cabinet responsible for redevelopment, then considered accepting the same fraudsterâs money at a company that you controlled. Youâd think that you wouldnât want to highlight cases where you might have broken conflict of interest principles. Much less give someone the opportunity in a public forum like a court to answer accusations that you had breached public safety regulations by inviting a member of the public to an event from which members of the public were banned.
Only an idiot would want to draw that to the attention of the courts and have your actions scrutinised again.
Of course it might not be âHonestâ John bringing a case of defamation. Imagine if you were a person whoâd spent his whole career in the legal profession, and were now the director of a high profile local public company, trying to prove defamation when youâd defended doing business with a convicted fraudster on the basis that âno individuals were victims only banks or building societiesâ. Imagine what a laughing stock youâd make of yourself in court.
Imagine what an idiot either of those people would be to try this.
Posted by: lew chaterleys lover, December 26, 2020, 8:38pm; Reply: 70
Itâs a tall order proving defamation if youâve already traduced your own character by forming a redevelopment business partnership with a known fraudster, then introducing him to the council where you were a senior member of cabinet responsible for redevelopment, then considered accepting the same fraudsterâs money at a company that you controlled. Youâd think that you wouldnât want to highlight cases where you might have broken conflict of interest principles. Much less give someone the opportunity in a public forum like a court to answer accusations that you had breached public safety regulations by inviting a member of the public to an event from which members of the public were banned.
Only an idiot would want to draw that to the attention of the courts and have your actions scrutinised again.
Of course it might not be âHonestâ John bringing a case of defamation. Imagine if you were a person whoâd spent his whole career in the legal profession, and were now the director of a high profile local public company, trying to prove defamation when youâd defended doing business with a convicted fraudster on the basis that âno individuals were victims only banks or building societiesâ. Imagine what a laughing stock youâd make of yourself in court.
Imagine what an idiot either of those people would be to try this.
Very good. They never, ever think things through, do they?
Posted by: Kris2, December 28, 2020, 12:57pm; Reply: 71
Again certain people show their true colours by attacking the voice of the fans over and over. Tell us which parts were not facts John, what has anybody said here that isn't true, and if so show us why you go out your way to bully the fans into keeping quiet? No amount of shutting down websites and dragging fans into your office for a "chat" will save you. Not this time.
These are not the actions of somebody dealing with false rumours about them, this is somebody with skeletons in the closet that have been exposed and now they are getting desperate. Let us remember that John Lydon was once censored for defamation when exposing Jimmy Saville on the BBC decades before his career was tarnished. Demonising the whistle blowers is not a good look when the truth comes out and some people are left with egg on their face.
Posted by: lukeo, December 29, 2020, 5:48pm; Reply: 72
A few people have written personal insults which is uncalled for, less just move forward now.
I personally wouldn't be against anyone getting banned who's deemed to be sending personal insults on here. The fishy is a well known, active forum in England let alone Grimsby. Let's not ruin that please.
Utm
Posted by: Civvy at last, December 29, 2020, 6:40pm; Reply: 73
This thread needs to be removed.
IT IS NO LONGER RELEVANT đđđđâ˝ď¸â˝ď¸â˝ď¸â˝ď¸đđđ UTM
Print page generated: April 26, 2024, 1:55pm