cleavers
Moderator
Are you sure it was dribbling not diving ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Investigation in Liverpool's 'hacking' of our computer systems
- Thread starter Franny's toilet roll
- Start date
If Simon Mullock got legalled out of reporting this story in 2013, how come the times didn't?
Why was this story allowed legally to be reported now but not in 2013?
If LiVARpool lawyers stopped it in 2013 , what stopped them from allowing the times to report it now?
Makes you think something has changed legally.
Why was this story allowed legally to be reported now but not in 2013?
If LiVARpool lawyers stopped it in 2013 , what stopped them from allowing the times to report it now?
Makes you think something has changed legally.
Think Mullock was asked this on Twitter, and said that he presumed that someone was willing to go on the record for The Times, so Liverpool’s legal threats carried less/no weight.If Simon Mullock got legalled out of reporting this story in 2013, how come the times didn't?
Why was this story allowed legally to be reported now but not in 2013?
If LiVARpool lawyers stopped it in 2013 , what stopped them from allowing the times to report it now?
Makes you think something has changed legally.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
Mullock didn’t get backed by his editor maybe he have insufficient info which scared the editorIf Simon Mullock got legalled out of reporting this story in 2013, how come the times didn't?
Why was this story allowed legally to be reported now but not in 2013?
If LiVARpool lawyers stopped it in 2013 , what stopped them from allowing the times to report it now?
Makes you think something has changed legally.
Maybe The Times had more evidence and were confident that the facts were water tight therefore LFC had no grounds for legal action They could try an injunction but that would have placed the evidence before the law something I would expect LFCwould want to avoid at all costs
Someone who knew what happened but had not signed NDA's?Think Mullock was asked this on Twitter, and said that he presumed that someone was willing to go on the record for The Times, so Liverpool’s legal threats carried less/no weight.
Presumably.Someone who knew what happened but had not signed NDA's?
Can the times pass the more evidence on to the FA!Mullock didn’t get backed by his editor maybe he have insufficient info which scared the editor
Maybe The Times had more evidence and were confident that the facts were water tight therefore LFC had no grounds for legal action They could try an injunction but that would have placed the evidence before the law something I would expect LFCwould want to avoid at all costs
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Mullock didn’t get backed by his editor maybe he have insufficient info which scared the editor
Maybe The Times had more evidence and were confident that the facts were water tight therefore LFC had no grounds for legal action They could try an injunction but that would have placed the evidence before the law something I would expect LFCwould want to avoid at all costs
The Times story got nominated in the Sports Journalist Awards as well, with Ziegler noting that at least one club were desperate for it to go away (can't remember the exact words).
Ha, it’s over. The sooner we accept that the better. They’re evidently cheating bastards, but City played this pretty badly and ended up tying our own hands.Get them down to Lancaster gate then!