Ade a case for the defence - SUE EM'

wandarah said:
They're all quite well documented.

What is your opinion of him based on? A few games for your football club?
Click to expand...

Firstly, so I was correct in my original assumption that you are not a blue, "Your football club"

And my only argument is for legal action based on the publication of defamatory comments made by Van Persie on Arsenal's website.

Arsenal are currently appealing against UEFA re Eduardo's alleged dive.

TV evidence certainly supports the opinion that it was a dive. But Arsenal's appeal is based on him forever being labelled being a cheat.

You cannot accuse someone of being this/that/the other without backing it up. This is the case here.

The accusation was one of pre-meditated - that can never be proved or disproved. Thus, defamation of character.

The FA will dish out whatever populist verdict it sees fit/get away with.

But you are a very naive person if you think Arsenal do not have an agenda of their own with regards City losing their top scorer, their ringing endorsement of Van Persie's accusations.
 
Brucie Bonus said:
wandarah said:
They're all quite well documented.

What is your opinion of him based on? A few games for your football club?
Click to expand...
Prior bad acts (not specified) offered as evidence that he did "it" in this case?
Click to expand...

No, not at all - I think the video of him clearly stamping on Van Persie should probably cover the old 'evidence' base.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
wandarah said:
They're all quite well documented.

What is your opinion of him based on? A few games for your football club?
Click to expand...

Firstly, so I was correct in my original assumption that you are not a blue, "Your football club"

And my only argument is for legal action based on the publication of defamatory comments made by Van Persie on Arsenal's website.

Arsenal are currently appealing against UEFA re Eduardo's alleged dive.

TV evidence certainly supports the opinion that it was a dive. But Arsenal's appeal is based on him forever being labelled being a cheat.

You cannot accuse someone of being this/that/the other without backing it up. This is the case here.

The accusation was one of pre-meditated - that can never be proved or disproved. Thus, defamation of character.

The FA will dish out whatever populist verdict it sees fit/get away with.

But you are a very naive person if you think Arsenal do not have an agenda of their own with regards City losing their top scorer, their ringing endorsement of Van Persie's accusations.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm not a blue.

Arsenals appeal is based on the fact that the charge is for 'decieving the match official', which requires that they prove intent. The situation is significantly different here.

The accusation of pre-meditation can indeed be proven in this situation. I imagine the video of him stamping on Van Persie should probably cover that. Defamation of character requires that the statement significantly 'harms his reputation'. Your argument is that saying he did it deliberately, is enough.

My argument is that it is not. The FA's ruling in this situation, which, surely, must be a ban - would entirely nullify any 'case' Adebayor has.
 
wandarah said:
Brucie Bonus said:
Prior bad acts (not specified) offered as evidence that he did "it" in this case?
Click to expand...

No, not at all - I think the video of him clearly stamping on Van Persie should probably cover the old 'evidence' base.
Click to expand...


Stop digging...there are thousands of cases where previous offences are not allowed to be brought into the consideration of the current court.

Subjudicy is also in place for a reason, to stop guys like you and agenda pricks from having people hung drawn and quartered before they have even spoken to their legal reps.
 
wandarah said:
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Firstly, so I was correct in my original assumption that you are not a blue, "Your football club"

And my only argument is for legal action based on the publication of defamatory comments made by Van Persie on Arsenal's website.

Arsenal are currently appealing against UEFA re Eduardo's alleged dive.

TV evidence certainly supports the opinion that it was a dive. But Arsenal's appeal is based on him forever being labelled being a cheat.

You cannot accuse someone of being this/that/the other without backing it up. This is the case here.

The accusation was one of pre-meditated - that can never be proved or disproved. Thus, defamation of character.

The FA will dish out whatever populist verdict it sees fit/get away with.

But you are a very naive person if you think Arsenal do not have an agenda of their own with regards City losing their top scorer, their ringing endorsement of Van Persie's accusations.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm not a blue.

Arsenals appeal is based on the fact that the charge is for 'decieving the match official', which requires that they prove intent. The situation is significantly different here.

The accusation of pre-meditation can indeed be proven in this situation. I imagine the video of him stamping on Van Persie should probably cover that.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, split-second decisions can not been confused by pre-meditated.

Van Persie's comments are there for all to see, insisting that Adebayor had an agenda before he even set foot on the pitch.

Libel...
 
maybe he could use the excuse gerrard did to get off his assault charge

"i thought he was going to hurt me so i hit him first"

lol
 
Not going to run, guys. Defamation in the UK is effectively split into slander and (here, if applicable) libel. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). 1 and 2 are relevant, 2 more so. "Mindless and malicious stamp." "Intention of hurting an opponent." "Changed the angle of his body to allow contact to be made." Hard words? Yes. True? Probably not. Reasonable opinion? I'd say that was a hard hurdle for us to jump.

Sub judice (not subjudicy, just for info) won't help silence the press. Contempt law bans the media from publishing or broadcasting any comments or information that might SERIOUSLY PREJUDICE active legal proceedings, and it's usually used in criminal proceedings (although it can apply to libel cases). The concern addressed is commonly that a juror might hear or see something outside of the courtroom that would sway him/her when he/she is deciding whether an accused person is innocent or guilty. The applicable phrase (for a criminal offence to be committed) is "a substantial risk of serious prejudice" to the proceedings. Sub judice rules will not prevent free comment on the incident - they would only prevent the revealing of new information.
 
How can anything in a football game be pre-meditated ??? It has to be an idea that has been thought about prior to being actioned . Did Adebayor know he was going to be stood over Van Persie before the game and knew he would have the opportunity to "stamp" ( i use this phrase loosely) on him ? I don't think so , maybe the goal celebration was a little OTT however if you were at the game you would know that the Arsenal fans were giving him abuse whenever he was near them.So fair is fair in love and war . Adebayor was absolutely awesome all through the game and i believe it is with a touch of sour grapes that Van Persie has moaned about the incident in such a public way .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.