Tevez to sue Souness

[sinnerman]

Defences to claims of defamation include:

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[28]

Two pretty good defences there for Souness if it ever got to court (which I very much doubt)

I should think that a court would put a TV pundit in a similar position to a newspaper. He wasn't in his front room swearing at the telly.

-- Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:50 pm --

Defences to claims of defamation include:

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[28]

Two pretty good defences there for Souness if it ever got to court (which I very much doubt)

What about libel or slander? I can't believe that, in this country, we can call anyone anything we like without consequences.

-- Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:56 pm --

I've had a good look round the web and can't find any evidence of the charge being downgraded.

If Tevez were to sue Souness he would first have to prove in court that the club came to the wrong conclusions because everything Souness said was consistent with what has been found in the investigation.

In other words, Tevez sueing Souness is not going to happen.

Ref. BBC Sport David Ornstein 21 Oct.
At the time, it was all over the media, very unlikely for just a Kia J fable.

Defamation is slander.

In this country we can call anyone anything we like, so long as we believe it to be true or we are stating an opinion. Why is that hard for you to understand? It's all about intent. Do some research.

 

[remoh]

As remoh said, "The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The legal threats by Tevez will either be carried out or not. It is hard to imagine that he,or his agent, would make such threats without a leg to stand on, but time will tell."

So we will only know that remoh is right after Tevez successfully sues Souness for slander for saying that he refused to play in a match after seeing Tevez refuse to get up, strip off and warm up to go on in a match.

If that happens, well I don't know what, it's inconceivable to me. To me, it's a hell of a lot easier to imagine that he and his agent would make such threats without a leg to stand on, to make himself look a little bit better.

I think they just hope that City won't want the bad publicity and will let him go on the cheap in January and they think that the more shit they stir now will make it more likely for them to get their way. I'd be amazed if any legal action actually happens and if it does it will be because his legal team are hoping to cash in by giving him bad advice.

I do hope you're not suggesting that lawyers can be less than scrupulous! ;/

 

[west didsblue]

As remoh said, "The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The legal threats by Tevez will either be carried out or not. It is hard to imagine that he,or his agent, would make such threats without a leg to stand on, but time will tell."

So we will only know that remoh is right after Tevez successfully sues Souness for slander for saying that he refused to play in a match after seeing Tevez refuse to get up, strip off and warm up to go on in a match.

If that happens, well I don't know what, it's inconceivable to me. To me, it's a hell of a lot easier to imagine that he and his agent would make such threats without a leg to stand on, to make himself look a little bit better.

I think they just hope that City won't want the bad publicity and will let him go on the cheap in January and they think that the more shit they stir now will make it more likely for them to get their way. I'd be amazed if any legal action actually happens and if it does it will be because his legal team are hoping to cash in by giving him bad advice.

I do hope you're not suggesting that lawyers can be less than scrupulous! ;/

OK I'll put it another way. I don't think a "No win no fee" lawyer would take the case

 

[moomba]

Had any of the staff supported the allegation of refusal to play, then surely we would have heard about that, in support of our manager.

Why would we have heard about that. The club haven't released details of the hearing other than he was charged for breaches of his contract (they didn't specify which breaches which makes me wonder why you persist in saying they've been dropped or downgraded, and the final outcome of the hearing.

Yes, I fact I think it was on this forum.

As far as I can tell, everything he levelled about Tevez could have been levelled at him for refusing to warm up.

See info re. BBC

Were the BBC in the hearing?

Surely if you deny the press have a right to question Kia J., then you are arguing against yourself.

I've never said the press shouldn't question Kia, but as I said previously you need to do more than simply reprint the thoughts of one side without critical analysis to be considered a journalist.

 

[remoh]

Defences to claims of defamation include:

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[28]

Two pretty good defences there for Souness if it ever got to court (which I very much doubt)

I should think that a court would put a TV pundit in a similar position to a newspaper. He wasn't in his front room swearing at the telly.

-- Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:50 pm --

Defences to claims of defamation include:

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[28]

Two pretty good defences there for Souness if it ever got to court (which I very much doubt)

What about libel or slander? I can't believe that, in this country, we can call anyone anything we like without consequences.

-- Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:56 pm --

I've had a good look round the web and can't find any evidence of the charge being downgraded.

If Tevez were to sue Souness he would first have to prove in court that the club came to the wrong conclusions because everything Souness said was consistent with what has been found in the investigation.

In other words, Tevez sueing Souness is not going to happen.

Ref. BBC Sport David Ornstein 21 Oct.
At the time, it was all over the media, very unlikely for just a Kia J fable.

Defamation is slander.

In this country we can call anyone anything we like, so long as we believe it to be true or we are stating an opinion. Why is that hard for you to understand? It's all about intent. Do some research.

No: we can't. Please check your facts on English law.

 

[stonerblue]

I see the national press are all over this 'story' this morning.......

 

[remoh]

[quote[="moomba"]

Had any of the staff supported the allegation of refusal to play, then surely we would have heard about that, in support of our manager.

Why would we have heard about that. The club haven't released details of the hearing other than he was charged for breaches of his contract (they didn't specify which breaches which makes me wonder why you persist in saying they've been dropped or downgraded, and the final outcome of the hearing.

There may be a very good reason for the Club's failure to release details of the Hearing. Such as that that the evidence didn't support the Manager, for example. It's interesting, since details have not, to my knowledge, been released, that one supporter of your argument has posted a detail supposedly from the charge-sheet! :o

The info. re. the downgrading is in the public domain; it's general knowledge because it was all over the news at the time. The Club have never denied the truth of it and the press have printed no retractions. If you don't believe it by now, then it's because you don't want to.

-- Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:40 pm --

[As far as I can tell, everything he levelled about Tevez could have been levelled at him for refusing to warm up.

His outrage was clearly triggered by the claim made by Mancini, that Tevez had refused to play. Had Mancini accepted that no warm up was needed (and I'm not saying he should have) then Tevez would have played.
Would Souness have gone into a rant then? No.

-- Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:43 pm --

Were the BBC in the hearing?

Not to my knowledge, but they don't invent stories for the sports news.

-- Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:46 pm --

Surely if you deny the press have a right to question Kia J., then you are arguing against yourself.

Not true, in an earlier post you seemed ouraged that a newspaper had dared to go to him for a statement. Re-read your stuff.

 

[mcfcphil]

Strange one this and doesn't add up. For one thing if tevez was to take legal action then it would be against sky as it was sky that broadcast the comments. In the same way a newspaper would get done for publishing libelous comments in print and not the person quoted.
But either way he has a snowball in hell's chance of winning a case against either sky or souness.
Mancini gave an interview stating he refused to play and a statement said by someone of mancini's position during a press conference would carry qualified privilege. Therefore souness and sky would have qualified privilege and "fair comment" on their side. Absolutely zero possibility tevez could win.
If there is anyone he'd have a case against from a legal perspective I would say it's mancini. But again no way he would win.

 

[Benarbia's Fat Dad]

This whole thing is getting right on my tits now. There is no evidence whatsoever that the charges against Teves were watered down in any way shape or form. There was nothing but speculation about what the charges were until the official statements from the club, which give no indication that charges were ever changed.

The first statement said that there would be an investigation. The second statement said that he had been found guilty of breach of contract with the first of 5 contractual obligations breached being,
"An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

This business about a 'lesser charge' is complete bollocks bourne out of idle speculation, and no doubt influenced by Kia.

There are two sides to this disagreement. I wonder which side has been leaking information to the press? Let me give you a clue - it isn't the club.

 

[west didsblue]

This whole thing is getting right on my tits now. There is no evidence whatsoever that the charges against Teves were watered down in any way shape or form. There was nothing but speculation about what the charges were until the official statements from the club, which give no indication that charges were ever changed.

The first statement said that there would be an investigation. The second statement said that he had been found guilty of breach of contract with the first of 5 contractual obligations breached being,
"An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

This business about a 'lesser charge' is complete bollocks bourne out of idle speculation, and no doubt influenced by Kia.

There are two sides to this disagreement. I wonder which side has been leaking information to the press? Let me give you a clue - it isn't the club.

Dead right.

All the speculation on TV, radio and in the papers started before the club released their statement which proved that all the speculation was bollocks. Strangely there are still people that believe all the downgrading nonsense that has been proven to be incorrect.