|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 19, 2005 15:35:33 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by faginy on Apr 19, 2005 15:37:44 GMT 1
shocking
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2005 15:40:21 GMT 1
Crikey, that bloke is very bitter.
He's not much of a writer either!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2005 15:40:33 GMT 1
Just incase it is removed before anyone gets chance to see it... Here is the paragraph in question:
"Shrewsbury had the better start to the game thanks to the diving little firework throwing chav that is Luke Rodgers! He beat Greg Heald for pace inside the box and though he probably could have scored had he continued, he decided to dive over the outstretched leg of Heald who incidentally got the ball in the process. The referee Mr Kaye pointed to the spot despite the Sandy Lane's disgust. Mike Sheron stepped up and dispatched the penalty in the bottom right hand corner though Gilks did manage to get a hand on it. It's a shame really that Luke Rodgers' career never off in the way it promised to, he could have been playing for Sunderland a couple of years ago I remember reading, but having scored 6 league goals for a team in 21st in League Two, his chances could still be there! Think of all the Burberry caps he could buy with the wages!"
barstewards.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Apr 19, 2005 17:04:48 GMT 1
Did Luke not throw the firework then?
|
|
|
Post by morpheus on Apr 19, 2005 17:08:59 GMT 1
HUH he better amend that me thinks..............................................25 chances indeed
|
|
|
Post by PorkyShrew on Apr 19, 2005 18:10:55 GMT 1
lol this makes me laugh, im happy we make home fans feel like this barstewards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2005 18:15:40 GMT 1
By David Chavery it should read To be honest though, I'd be a little frustrated after 30 years in the same league.
|
|
|
Post by aleix on Apr 19, 2005 18:35:00 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 19, 2005 18:55:19 GMT 1
guess nerves are still raw after a wimpy looking unkown 18 yearold instigated their momentus 7-1 thrashing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2005 20:39:34 GMT 1
been changed now.....
|
|
|
Post by tom_leather on Apr 19, 2005 20:43:16 GMT 1
Bleedin heck you wouldn't get anyone on B&A even contemplating making allegations like that against the other team
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on Apr 19, 2005 21:14:33 GMT 1
I thought Libel had to be a false claim or allegation? Rodgers was convicted of throwing the firework and served community service and paid a fine. that isn't exactly correct
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 19, 2005 21:14:36 GMT 1
No he wasn't convicted of throwing a firework, get your bloody facts right before you try to be clever.
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Apr 19, 2005 21:15:03 GMT 1
and it has to be said - he hasn't been the same player since.
|
|
|
Post by john on Apr 19, 2005 21:40:45 GMT 1
Thats true. He's lost his "wizz, bang and explosion" Ok ok I'll get me coat
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 19, 2005 23:37:18 GMT 1
and it has to be said - he hasn't been the same player since. too true
|
|
|
Post by DaleyLama on Apr 20, 2005 14:35:20 GMT 1
You might not have liked the reporters choice of words, but he would certainly have no problem defending himself in a libel case were it ever to be brought.
1) Burden of Proof of defamation. This is not prooving that what was written was incorrect, more that hurt has been suffered by the plaintiff through other people reading the material. The fact that this was on a relatively small un-official website would indicate that the number of people reading is small, and the importance and relevance of these people in Luke's life and position even smaller.
2) The Truth Defence. Was what the author wrote completely false or completely true? neither of course. But there is nothing stopping the author mentioning the firework incident, even if Rodgers didn't throw it. The fact that he didn't throw it would be defended with...
3) Lack of harm. The fact that the author claimed that rodgers threw the firework when in fact he didn't would be debatable on the basis of whether this is harming to LR. The defence would be that the hurt in the description of him was caused by the mentioning of the firework incident per se (something which is true) and not by the mention of whether the firework was thrown or not.
If, somehow the plaitiff did manage to win the libel case that so many of you believe in then he would probably wish he hadn't, because the payments would be a)tailored to the economic situation of both parties and b) based on the level of defamation which, as above, is easily arguable as being minimal. The judge may choose to punish the plaintiff for bringing such a trifling case to court and award a peppercorn fine with costs of both parties being paid by the plaintiff. Wouldn't be the first time this has happened.
If the writ is in the post he will probably spend more on the stamp than he would potentially win, if indeed he would win at all.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 20, 2005 14:41:31 GMT 1
i think you will find it was more a figure of speech and they have changed it anyway
|
|