Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
laserblue said:
From way back to my 6th form days it was explained to us that the difference between libel and slander technically is not that libel is written and slander is spoken although it most often is. The difference is that libel is a permanent record and slander is a non-permanent record. So, for example, a recorded TV interview is a permanent record so an unsubstantiated slur is libel whereas if someone wrote in the snow an unsubstantiated slur such as "X is a thief and a murderer" the snow would eventually melt, the slur would disappear and it would be slander.

I'm sure our learned friend @gordondaviesmoustache will be able to either confirm this or call me out as a know nowt buffoon.
Click to expand...

Even if the former is correct I am certain he will confirm the latter.
 
laserblue said:
From way back to my 6th form days it was explained to us that the difference between libel and slander technically is not that libel is written and slander is spoken although it most often is. The difference is that libel is a permanent record and slander is a non-permanent record. So, for example, a recorded TV interview is a permanent record so an unsubstantiated slur is libel whereas if someone wrote in the snow an unsubstantiated slur such as "X is a thief and a murderer" the snow would eventually melt, the slur would disappear and it would be slander.

I'm sure our learned friend @gordondaviesmoustache will be able to either confirm this or call me out as a know nowt buffoon.
Click to expand...
It depends whether you write the libel in the snow with a stick or by pissing on it.
SSN may have expunged the record, but Bluemoon has not.
 
asahartford1 said:
Even if the former is correct I am certain he will confirm the latter.
Click to expand...
The Defamation Act 2013 codified and clarified much of the former common law. There has since been some extensive case law and debate about the ramifications of the new legislation
For the purposes of this incident the main thrust is that commercial organisations (such as City) would have to show that the statement(s) create a risk of causing serious financial damage. That would certainly be arguable from City’s point of view although far from guaranteed to be successful
That said, senior figures like Khaldoon, Sorriano etc, not to mention the individual accountants, auditors, lawyers etc who work on and sign off our accounts could definitely have grounds to bring personal claims as she essentially accused them of criminal activity such as fraud and false accounting
A good analysis of the current state of play in this blog:

Defamation Act 2013: A summary and overview six years on - Brett Wilson

The Defamation Act 2013 (‘the Act’) came into force on 1 January 2014. At the time, we published an article considering the individual provisions of the
www.brettwilson.co.uk www.brettwilson.co.uk
 
I emailed the press officer last night and looks like they have took action. They should have forced Sky Sports to announce live a full apology of the bullshit spouted by them in that Juventus interview.

The English woman's comment at the end of the interview - "its not a level playing field is it" was out of order as well!

This was my response from MCFC press office.

Dear Michael,



Thank you for your email.



We have already been in touch with Sky Sports News regarding this broadcast. Sky have now removed this clip from their whole estate, and have sent written reminders to all presenters of the need to challenge unsubstantiated claims, such as the ones made here, in the future.



Best,

MCFC Press Office
 
BlueMonkey79 said:
I emailed the press officer last night and looks like they have took action. They should have forced Sky Sports to announce live a full apology of the bullshit spouted by them in that Juventus interview.

The English woman's comment at the end of the interview - "its not a level playing field is it" was out of order as well!

This was my response from MCFC press office.

Dear Michael,



Thank you for your email.



We have already been in touch with Sky Sports News regarding this broadcast. Sky have now removed this clip from their whole estate, and have sent written reminders to all presenters of the need to challenge unsubstantiated claims, such as the ones made here, in the future.



Best,

MCFC Press Office
Click to expand...
So no on air apology, no retraction, not even a referral to Ofcom
Weak as cat piss. Cuckold FC
 
moomba said:
Don't think an apology would make a difference. It wouldn't change anyone's mind, and would just remind everyone of what was said in the first place.
Click to expand...
Having to eat crow live on air would make the fuckers squirm and think twice about doing it again
A generic internal email from Sky is what won’t make any difference imo
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve always felt that it should be mandated that any apology/retraction in the press should have the same prominence and column inches as the article that gave rise to it.
Click to expand...

It usually is if the Judge decides the case, but most apologies in libel cases follow an out of court settlement. Then everything depends on the terms of the settlement. The Sun published a front page banner headline apology to Elton John (‘Sorry Elton’) because that’s what the settlement of his claim stipulated.

If a newspaper offers to pay you £1m damages and an apology, but the apology will be on page 27, it’s up to you whether you accept it or not.
 
Chris in London said:
It usually is if the Judge decides the case, but most apologies in libel cases follow an out of court settlement. Then everything depends on the terms of the settlement. The Sun published a front page banner headline apology to Elton John (‘Sorry Elton’) because that’s what the settlement of his claim stipulated.

If a newspaper offers to pay you £1m damages and an apology, but the apology will be on page 27, it’s up to you whether you accept it or not.
Click to expand...
Fair play to Elton John, I’m not a fan of him or his music, nor of needlessly litigious bullies that a lot of celebrities are, but he has been absolutely on point about nailing the fuckers several times when they thought they could get away with blatant lies and inventions.
He usually donates the surplus to charity as well
City could take a leaf out of his book
 
The best written apology ever was from Viz. They did an article/cartoon strip entitled Gypsy Thieving Scum.
Someone complained and they were forced to print an apology. It went something like this....
GYPSY THIEVING SCUM. in our last edition we did an article called Gypsy Thieving Scum. We should not have used the term Gypsy Thieving Scum and won't repeat the phrase Gypsy Thieving Scum. It went on for a full page continually using those 3 words but continually apologising.
 
Blue Mist said:
The best written apology ever was from Viz. They did an article/cartoon strip entitled Gypsy Thieving Scum.
Someone complained and they were forced to print an apology. It went something like this....
GYPSY THIEVING SCUM. in our last edition we did an article called Gypsy Thieving Scum. We should not have used the term Gypsy Thieving Scum and won't repeat the phrase Gypsy Thieving Scum. It went on for a full page continually using those 3 words but continually apologising.
Click to expand...
The strip was called ‘The Thieving Gypsy Bastards’
 
petrusha said:
I'm not a specialist in defamation, mate, but I think your lawyers may have let you down. First, it's true. But second, even if you can't prove it to be true, in order to be libellous, a statement has to harm the reputation of the person involved. How can that possibly damage Sven's reputation? They should have told him to fuck off and they'd see him in court, though it's hard to criticise an outcome that involves money going to charity.
Click to expand...
He did win a a big settlement against the Star who did an article about him ‘dancing close and seductively with a mystery young blonde’ at an event and ‘soon after they left hand in hand and got in a waiting limo to who knows where?’
It was his teenage daughter
 
KS55 said:
She is a journalist who lives in London and has never lived elsewhere. She is a Juve supporter basically trying to say that so many clubs are “at it” that the accusations against Juve are about actions which are common in football, so let us off, please.
Click to expand...
I’m just catching up on the last couple of days of this thread.

What’s the name of this journalist you’re talking about pal, and who was the Sky presenter who chimed in afterwards?
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Very difficult to dictate editorial policy, but tend to agree.

Sven once tried to sue me because I described him a "legendary pork swordsman" in a showbiz piece I wrote for the Bizarre column.
Click to expand...
Rumour has that whilst Svenis & his penice was the manager at gods own, he had a policy of: If his shoes are outside his office door, do not enter as Sven is……erm ‘busy’ ;)

No knockin’ whilst the car is rockin’ springs to mind
 
Maly said:
Rumour has that whilst Svenis & his penice was the manager at gods own, he had a policy of: If his shoes are outside his office door, do not enter as Sven is……erm ‘busy’ ;)

No knockin’ whilst the car is rockin’ springs to mind
Click to expand...
No that was a story from Ulrika’s cleaner when he was banging her
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top