Didsbury Dave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 38,150
Legally you have to do that. You can't make redundancies then take on someone to do effectively the same job.
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.
Rags Writing City Reports For MEN
- Thread starter Uwe Rosler's Grandad
- Start date
"I don't make a habit of perusing fan forums"
so we can take your word can we?
from "Blues not the new Chelsea"
"Now the more impatient sections of Manchester City's support are grinding their teeth, kicking their heels and furiously assaulting their computer keyboards, wondering when the Blues will follow the Chelsea blueprint."
Whilst I am wary of following my bias down the paranoia path, I gave up on the Evening news a few years ago, when after getting it every day for years, I started comparing column inches (pfarr pfarrr) over a period of months for city & utd. It was quite clear regardless of the content that they considered Utd were more important for selling their paper, I was also irritated in the coverage of the M****h derby, when after our impeccable support did not receive an apology for the coverage they received prior to the game (their was a comment/leader following the game that praised both sets of fans but significantly failed to retract the accusations made).
I wonder why, if as you suggest there is an even city/utd split on the sports desk, this post could not be given to a blue? Whilst i share JMA's and DD's wish for reporting devoid of sycophancy I have yet to meet a Utd fan who claims to have a soft spot for City (when not playing Utd, and quite a few play the "team from M/cr" card) who are able to tread the "fine line" successfully.
I hope you succeed, your previous city pieces suggest to me that you will have an uphill task.
Good luck.
so we can take your word can we?
from "Blues not the new Chelsea"
"Now the more impatient sections of Manchester City's support are grinding their teeth, kicking their heels and furiously assaulting their computer keyboards, wondering when the Blues will follow the Chelsea blueprint."
Whilst I am wary of following my bias down the paranoia path, I gave up on the Evening news a few years ago, when after getting it every day for years, I started comparing column inches (pfarr pfarrr) over a period of months for city & utd. It was quite clear regardless of the content that they considered Utd were more important for selling their paper, I was also irritated in the coverage of the M****h derby, when after our impeccable support did not receive an apology for the coverage they received prior to the game (their was a comment/leader following the game that praised both sets of fans but significantly failed to retract the accusations made).
I wonder why, if as you suggest there is an even city/utd split on the sports desk, this post could not be given to a blue? Whilst i share JMA's and DD's wish for reporting devoid of sycophancy I have yet to meet a Utd fan who claims to have a soft spot for City (when not playing Utd, and quite a few play the "team from M/cr" card) who are able to tread the "fine line" successfully.
I hope you succeed, your previous city pieces suggest to me that you will have an uphill task.
Good luck.
Dubai Blue said:Really? Has Ric said as such? Are we now free to talk about what REALLY happened in Leeds with Robinho?Damocles said:All of the admins and the moderators here are liberal with their censorship, and libel law will not apply.
I suspect not. You may want to check with the boss man before you start declaring Bluemoon as a libel law-free zone.
You misunderstand DB. I am not saying that I have just decided that BM is a libel free zone, I am saying that Forums are not classed as libel. That's what I meant when I said that libel law does not apply, sorry if I was unclear on this :)
Rösler's Dad
Well-Known Member
Damocles said:Dubai Blue said:Really? Has Ric said as such? Are we now free to talk about what REALLY happened in Leeds with Robinho?Damocles said:All of the admins and the moderators here are liberal with their censorship, and libel law will not apply.
I suspect not. You may want to check with the boss man before you start declaring Bluemoon as a libel law-free zone.
You misunderstand DB. I am not saying that I have just decided that BM is a libel free zone, I am saying that Forums are not classed as libel. That's what I meant when I said that libel law does not apply, sorry if I was unclear on this :)
Not quite - they are generally thought of as slander, so the law of defamation does apply, albeit that slander is a harder cause of action to make out than libel.
But that decision was made on its facts, and it is clearly incorrect to say that statements made on internet fora can never be libel. They certainly could be, particularly if they were on a sensitive issue such as the Robinho incident.
Nixon_The_Bike_Thief
Well-Known Member
what is there to discuss ? an allegation was made, it was investigated and no charges were brought, therefore nothing must have happened ! innocent until proven guilty in the uk isnt it ? or am I being naive ;o)
stuart brennan said:waspish said:Now everybody knows your a rag everytime you write
a an article about city they'll be Reading between the
lines and I'm sorry I'll be one of them and I understand
now why a lot of posts about the rags don't get through
on the forum there's no city fans left at evening news
I can assure you that there are no hidden agendas with me. As I said, I have never had any problems with City, and since becoming a journo have developed plenty of respect for people in and around the club.
As for the forum, I don't moderate it, but the lad who does moderate it four or five days a week is very much a Blue, and a match-goer at that.
I suspect the messages which don't get through are due to bad language (you're not even allowed to say arse in the MEN!), potential for libel or something similar.
I can assure you there is no anti-Blue conspiracy, and the sports desk is still a fairly even split Utd-City wise.
so Stuart, are we getting Tevez or what? :-)
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
You are very, very wrong Damocles. An anonymous internet forum DOES NOT make you exempt from the laws of defamation. If the poster of the libellous comment can't be identified then the messageboard owner would be liable unless he could prove that he removed the offending statement as soon as reasonably possible. Here's a couple of examples:Damocles said:Dubai Blue said:Really? Has Ric said as such? Are we now free to talk about what REALLY happened in Leeds with Robinho?Damocles said:All of the admins and the moderators here are liberal with their censorship, and libel law will not apply.
I suspect not. You may want to check with the boss man before you start declaring Bluemoon as a libel law-free zone.
You misunderstand DB. I am not saying that I have just decided that BM is a libel free zone, I am saying that Forums are not classed as libel. That's what I meant when I said that libel law does not apply, sorry if I was unclear on this :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/mar/23/digitalmedia.law
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article3677002.ece
Or how about this from a story 18 months ago:
A case last month reopened the can of worms that is online libel. Deputy judge Richard Parkes QC ruled that Neil Hargreaves, owner of Sheffield Wednesday fansite owlstalk.co.uk, had to reveal the identities of four contributors to the site's forum who had been accused by the football club's senior management of writing defamatory comments about them.
Basic Libel for Idiots
Original text by By Adam Porter, Year Zero, Dec 2002.
(Updated and edits © urban75, June 2009)
Libel is the written word. Slander is spoken.
There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken.
In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!
For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke, that would be.
Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course, his lawyers would still be free to bring the case to court, but it is very unlikely they would succeed.
Greg Dyke, on the other hand, runs the BBC , so to say he wilfully doesn't pay his TV licence could have a seriously detrimental effect on his career. He could be fired or his reputation damaged (note:Dyke has now left the BBC).
It is not for the judge or jury (at the outset) to decide how damaged he is - they just have to confirm that such accusations are false and damaging. Then the judge and/or jury decide on monetary damages.
These damages are weighed up using a number of methods.
How widespread was the news released? If it was plastered all over the UK's biggest newspaper, then it would be more damaging than if the story ran on page 13 of the Grimthorpe Herald or on a rarely visited website.
However, if specific key people had seen the allegations then that can be different. Let us say you emailed the top 200 managers and governors at the BBC about Mr Dyke never paying his TV licence.
That could be seriously defamatory. It could easily affect Mr Dyke's earnings (one way of measuring damage is to see if earnings are lost as a result) and/or mean that future employment could be difficult.
And it's not just the person making the allegations who can fall foul of the libel laws.
If your offending article about Mr Dyke was published in Magazine X, you could be sued. Magazine X can be sued. The people who drove Magazine X from their depot to the newsstands can be sued (the distributors). The retailers can also be sued. (see note)
Anyone who repeats allegations can also be sued. This is important. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn't mean it is true. Repeating allegations without making sure they are true is a very good way to get yourself knee deep in litigation.
For example, say you wrote an email to the top 200 managers and governors of the BBC about Mr Dyke never paying his licence. That email is leaked to Magazine X who print it without making sure it is true.
Although the mail's already been sent and read by all, by repeating the allegation they too are committing the same libel. 'Repetition is no defence' say lawyers. Because it isn't.
There are of course many grey areas. A magazine lost a famous case against a TV company because, although specific allegations made by the magazine were true they implied that the people from the TV company were deliberately misleading the public.
The allegation that was defamatory was not that certain facts were omitted by the TV people, but that they had deliberately set out to mislead. That was the defamatory part that lost the magazine people the case and their magazine.
To protect oneself is fairly easy. Don't make anything up. Check sources. Check again.
If something has been in the public domain for some time and no action has been taken then that means it becomes much harder for anyone to claim defamation.
If Mr Smith turns round in court and says, 'but two years ago this was published in Magazine Y and you didn't protest then, only when I put it in Magazine X,' it is a strong line of defence.
You can't defame nicknames when people don't know who they are.
So, if you spread the same Dyke TV licence allegations but called him Big Beardo McFluffy, he can't sue, even if he knows you are referring to him - unless other people know him by the same nickname.
On the internet the rules are exactly the same. There are no special internet defences. The only advantage is that web sites tend to have a smaller number of users, (so less people see it hence it's less defamatory so it's rarely worth the bother of going to court) and allegations can be removed promptly on protest from a defamed party.
On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. A link could also be potentially defamatory if you are linking to defamatory material.
There is also a defence of 'fair comment' which is somewhat vague but is basically there to stop someone being sued for saying they don't like Marks & Spencer or McDonalds or Piers Morgan.
You are allowed to say that - even if you were a famous star or a very persuasive writer and it could damage them financially. That's the law.
However libel does not extend to the dead. Nor is being abusive libelous.
So I can say "Keith Moon was a smackhead lover of the highest order" and it's no problem. In fact I could say "every human who ever existed was a smack dealing, gun running, uncle fucker."
This is completely okay. That's UK libel!
Note: After John Major sued Scallywag and New Statesman in 1989 he also sued all their distributors at the time. Many stopped distributing 'political' magazines like Scallywag and NS for fear of future law suits after this. Most of those small distributors now work in pornography. There are around 100 of them, none who work in politics. The potential re-opening of the Major case in the light of Edwina Curie's revelations have come too late to bring them back to the fold though.
Update 2006: Expert warns of more chatroom libel awards
The Guardian, Wednesday March 22, 2006
A landmark legal ruling ordering a woman to pay £10,000 in damages for defamatory comments posted on an internet chatroom site could trigger a rush of similar lawsuits, a leading libel lawyer warned today....
...Although ISPs have paid out for hosting defamatory comments, this case is thought to be the first time an individual has been found to have committed libel on a internet chat site.
"The obvious and immediate potential ramification is that there will be more cases like this," said Richard Shillito, a partner at the law firm Farrer & Co. "One sees on these sites particularly unrestrained comments that people make in the heat of the moment without thinking of the legal consequences."
"A lot of people post anonymously but it is possible to find out people's identity. I think people should read this judgment as a warning to be more careful about their comments."
» Guardian story
Update 2009: High Court ruling on bulletin board cases
The High Court has ruled that defamation on internet bulletin boards is akin to slander rather than libel.
Mr Justice Eady hearing a case regarding posts on an investors bulletin board (or forum) has said that such comments are not to be taken in the same context as a formal newspaper (etc) article and are more like slander due to the casual or conversational nature of them.
Mr Justice Eady stated that posts on bulletin boards "are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out...Those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."
As such "When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions...People do not often take a 'thread' and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it."
Full article [Reading Room].
External links:
Sheffield Wednesday can't unmask 'saloon-bar moaners', says libel judge (Oct, 2007)
Kicking off the debate about free speech (BBC: Oct, 2007)
Now for e-libel (Guardian July 28, 2003)
Defamation Act 1996
UK defamation law
Defamation links
UKIP candidate wins £10,000 for internet libel (March 2006)
Original text by By Adam Porter, Year Zero, Dec 2002.
(Updated and edits © urban75, June 2009)
Libel is the written word. Slander is spoken.
There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken.
In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!
For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke, that would be.
Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course, his lawyers would still be free to bring the case to court, but it is very unlikely they would succeed.
Greg Dyke, on the other hand, runs the BBC , so to say he wilfully doesn't pay his TV licence could have a seriously detrimental effect on his career. He could be fired or his reputation damaged (note:Dyke has now left the BBC).
It is not for the judge or jury (at the outset) to decide how damaged he is - they just have to confirm that such accusations are false and damaging. Then the judge and/or jury decide on monetary damages.
These damages are weighed up using a number of methods.
How widespread was the news released? If it was plastered all over the UK's biggest newspaper, then it would be more damaging than if the story ran on page 13 of the Grimthorpe Herald or on a rarely visited website.
However, if specific key people had seen the allegations then that can be different. Let us say you emailed the top 200 managers and governors at the BBC about Mr Dyke never paying his TV licence.
That could be seriously defamatory. It could easily affect Mr Dyke's earnings (one way of measuring damage is to see if earnings are lost as a result) and/or mean that future employment could be difficult.
And it's not just the person making the allegations who can fall foul of the libel laws.
If your offending article about Mr Dyke was published in Magazine X, you could be sued. Magazine X can be sued. The people who drove Magazine X from their depot to the newsstands can be sued (the distributors). The retailers can also be sued. (see note)
Anyone who repeats allegations can also be sued. This is important. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn't mean it is true. Repeating allegations without making sure they are true is a very good way to get yourself knee deep in litigation.
For example, say you wrote an email to the top 200 managers and governors of the BBC about Mr Dyke never paying his licence. That email is leaked to Magazine X who print it without making sure it is true.
Although the mail's already been sent and read by all, by repeating the allegation they too are committing the same libel. 'Repetition is no defence' say lawyers. Because it isn't.
There are of course many grey areas. A magazine lost a famous case against a TV company because, although specific allegations made by the magazine were true they implied that the people from the TV company were deliberately misleading the public.
The allegation that was defamatory was not that certain facts were omitted by the TV people, but that they had deliberately set out to mislead. That was the defamatory part that lost the magazine people the case and their magazine.
To protect oneself is fairly easy. Don't make anything up. Check sources. Check again.
If something has been in the public domain for some time and no action has been taken then that means it becomes much harder for anyone to claim defamation.
If Mr Smith turns round in court and says, 'but two years ago this was published in Magazine Y and you didn't protest then, only when I put it in Magazine X,' it is a strong line of defence.
You can't defame nicknames when people don't know who they are.
So, if you spread the same Dyke TV licence allegations but called him Big Beardo McFluffy, he can't sue, even if he knows you are referring to him - unless other people know him by the same nickname.
On the internet the rules are exactly the same. There are no special internet defences. The only advantage is that web sites tend to have a smaller number of users, (so less people see it hence it's less defamatory so it's rarely worth the bother of going to court) and allegations can be removed promptly on protest from a defamed party.
On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. A link could also be potentially defamatory if you are linking to defamatory material.
There is also a defence of 'fair comment' which is somewhat vague but is basically there to stop someone being sued for saying they don't like Marks & Spencer or McDonalds or Piers Morgan.
You are allowed to say that - even if you were a famous star or a very persuasive writer and it could damage them financially. That's the law.
However libel does not extend to the dead. Nor is being abusive libelous.
So I can say "Keith Moon was a smackhead lover of the highest order" and it's no problem. In fact I could say "every human who ever existed was a smack dealing, gun running, uncle fucker."
This is completely okay. That's UK libel!
Note: After John Major sued Scallywag and New Statesman in 1989 he also sued all their distributors at the time. Many stopped distributing 'political' magazines like Scallywag and NS for fear of future law suits after this. Most of those small distributors now work in pornography. There are around 100 of them, none who work in politics. The potential re-opening of the Major case in the light of Edwina Curie's revelations have come too late to bring them back to the fold though.
Update 2006: Expert warns of more chatroom libel awards
The Guardian, Wednesday March 22, 2006
A landmark legal ruling ordering a woman to pay £10,000 in damages for defamatory comments posted on an internet chatroom site could trigger a rush of similar lawsuits, a leading libel lawyer warned today....
...Although ISPs have paid out for hosting defamatory comments, this case is thought to be the first time an individual has been found to have committed libel on a internet chat site.
"The obvious and immediate potential ramification is that there will be more cases like this," said Richard Shillito, a partner at the law firm Farrer & Co. "One sees on these sites particularly unrestrained comments that people make in the heat of the moment without thinking of the legal consequences."
"A lot of people post anonymously but it is possible to find out people's identity. I think people should read this judgment as a warning to be more careful about their comments."
» Guardian story
Update 2009: High Court ruling on bulletin board cases
The High Court has ruled that defamation on internet bulletin boards is akin to slander rather than libel.
Mr Justice Eady hearing a case regarding posts on an investors bulletin board (or forum) has said that such comments are not to be taken in the same context as a formal newspaper (etc) article and are more like slander due to the casual or conversational nature of them.
Mr Justice Eady stated that posts on bulletin boards "are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out...Those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."
As such "When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions...People do not often take a 'thread' and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it."
Full article [Reading Room].
External links:
Sheffield Wednesday can't unmask 'saloon-bar moaners', says libel judge (Oct, 2007)
Kicking off the debate about free speech (BBC: Oct, 2007)
Now for e-libel (Guardian July 28, 2003)
Defamation Act 1996
UK defamation law
Defamation links
UKIP candidate wins £10,000 for internet libel (March 2006)
stuart brennan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 223
lloydie said:It was quite clear regardless of the content that they considered Utd were more important for selling their paper, I was also irritated in the coverage of the M****h derby, when after our impeccable support did not receive an apology for the coverage they received prior to the game (their was a comment/leader following the game that praised both sets of fans but significantly failed to retract the accusations made).
I wonder why, if as you suggest there is an even city/utd split on the sports desk, this post could not be given to a blue? Whilst i share JMA's and DD's wish for reporting devoid of sycophancy I have yet to meet a Utd fan who claims to have a soft spot for City (when not playing Utd, and quite a few play the "team from M/cr" card) who are able to tread the "fine line" successfully.
I hope you succeed, your previous city pieces suggest to me that you will have an uphill task.
Good luck.
United are definitely not considered more important in selling the paper. The sports editor used to keep a log of how many column inches each club got, to ensure the evenness was kept up - and he would produce the figures whenever a City or United fan complained that the other club got more coverage.
I don't think he logs figures any more, due to time constraints with the sports desk staff half as big as it used to be, but it is still carefully monitored.
As for the derby last year, I am not sure what pre-match comments the MEN needed to apologise for.
As for giving the job to a Blue, two of the Blues on the desk are leaving voluntarily, one is management and didn't want the pay cut, and the other does not have the necessary experience (believe me it is not easy writing a 900-word match report, plus form guide, within ten minutes of the end of a game, and still get manager and player quotes as well!).
I believe a couple of Blues from our weekly papers also applied, but their lack of daily newspaper experience probably counted against them.
So you're stuck with me. Sorry, folks ...
I have no issues with City at all - I have never really understood the animosity in football, once it rises above the level of banter.
I have always had City mates who I would stand shoulder to shoulder with, and I have known many many Reds who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. The same goes for Scousers.
All this "Blues are this" and "Reds are that" and so on is nonsense, and something akin to racism, judging a person's character and personality by the colour of their football club, and I've never gone in for it, other than mickey-taking and wind-up stuff.
With the way I have been treated and warmly welcomed by the City staff I have met so far - and some of the City old boys - I hope I have no reason to dislike the club in future!
I don't go to Old Trafford any more, even though I could probably get in for free.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
JMA some interesting points well made but I can't agree with you that we haven't had a disproportionate amount of negative,mocking press and media coverage over the years.
Sure-some of it the club brought upon themselves but over the years we've been subjected to some appalling distortions and downright piss-taking.
To try and somehow "theologise" it away as some kind of "character deficiancy" amongst Blues is rather unfair.
DD-to suggest that City fans are somehow "paranoid" because united are next door is to deny the obvious.
I don't know how old you are or how long you've been a Blue.... but I'm old enough to know better, but still make no apology for detesting united and Yes-I do feel their power and influence in the media-intentional or not- has had a detrimental effect on us over the last 20 years.
When they were on the way to winning the treble in 99-we were in the third division.
There had never been a bigger gulf between two "major" clubs puporting to be from the same City in world football.And boy-didn't they let us know it.
The mirror took pictures of empty stands that were closed at Maine rd during the Auto windshields game against Mansfield-and used it to destroy us.We were mocked,derided and had the living pissed ripped out of us.
And for a generation of Blues(under 25's) they have had united rammed down their throats whenever they've so much as switched on the tv as long as they've been alive.
Do you not understand the effect this has had?Has any other set of fans had to live with it's mocking neighbours and media whore supporters for so long?
I can't believe that anyone that went through the last 20 years as a Blue can't understand why some Blues are "paranoid" and have a deep mistrust and dislike of the scum press.
I certainly do.And it's my right to do so.
Sure-some of it the club brought upon themselves but over the years we've been subjected to some appalling distortions and downright piss-taking.
To try and somehow "theologise" it away as some kind of "character deficiancy" amongst Blues is rather unfair.
DD-to suggest that City fans are somehow "paranoid" because united are next door is to deny the obvious.
I don't know how old you are or how long you've been a Blue.... but I'm old enough to know better, but still make no apology for detesting united and Yes-I do feel their power and influence in the media-intentional or not- has had a detrimental effect on us over the last 20 years.
When they were on the way to winning the treble in 99-we were in the third division.
There had never been a bigger gulf between two "major" clubs puporting to be from the same City in world football.And boy-didn't they let us know it.
The mirror took pictures of empty stands that were closed at Maine rd during the Auto windshields game against Mansfield-and used it to destroy us.We were mocked,derided and had the living pissed ripped out of us.
And for a generation of Blues(under 25's) they have had united rammed down their throats whenever they've so much as switched on the tv as long as they've been alive.
Do you not understand the effect this has had?Has any other set of fans had to live with it's mocking neighbours and media whore supporters for so long?
I can't believe that anyone that went through the last 20 years as a Blue can't understand why some Blues are "paranoid" and have a deep mistrust and dislike of the scum press.
I certainly do.And it's my right to do so.