New candidate to blame

He said in his opinion though, not categorically that they weren't capable. Where's @BarTyke when you need him!?

 

I'm not a legal expert, I'm someone who has experienced this.

I can also say that it doesn't matter if you're legally in the right. The person who threatened to sue me was a bully and a liar but he was very rich so could cause me a lot of problems by hiring a legal firm to go after me. I don't want that to happen to anyone else.

 

Fair enough, no harm in being cautious .

 

To add to the discussion between IK311 and Jay. IMO!! I do not believe anyone preceding a comment about someone's competence or questions their professional integrity with 'In my opinion' is at any risk whatsoever under English law of being proven guilty if sued for libel under civil and certainly not criminal law. nor any injunction would be granted in favour of the plaintiff. The day that happens then we can honestly say the principle of 'freedom of speech' is well and truly over. Opinions are just that - opinions. Of course racist, sexist comments are excluded from immunity e.g. "IMO all non-whites or women are ...(insert insulting comment here). " based on anti discriminatory laws.

Let's face it far worse things have been posted on here about politicians, and no-one has even raised an eyebrow.

It is fair to say though, an indisputable fact that does not need an 'IMO disclaimer' is that current owners have certainly acquired the club after making a number of unfulfilled promises that misled the sellers which may have materially impacted their decision to sell. (misrepresentation?). They also have sold season tickets based on misleading information...i.e. bonus vouchers which thus far have not been honoured. Unless there is something in the small print this is also illegal misrepresentation.
Overall, since past actions and current status trumps 'promises and intentions' there is clear evidence that those currently running the club (I won't say owning as there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not they have paid for it) are either incompetent/ have undisclosed ulterior motives for their actions and are/have been dishonest with the fans and previous owners in their handling of the business under their stewardship. That is not an opinion since it is a statement that can clearly be backed up with examples... state of the ground maintenance, fanzones, turning a surplus under previous owners into deficit etc. (and no they cannot entirely place blame on Force Majeur i.e. Covid.)

An opinion, is that they do not have the best interest of the paying customers in their plans as a sports entertainment business which, whilst it is bad for the fans and football in general, is not illegal.

 

I'm glad you believe that, but I had to hire a lawyer and I had what the person denied he ever said on tape. It's not about what you believe the law says, it's the fact that defending yourself is beyond the means of most people.

 

I blame McGeehan.

 

Sorry you had to go through that. It is about time the mechanism for awarding costs to a defendant when a case is not proven when corporations, businesses or wealthy individuals make spurious and/or vindictive civil claims against someone in court especially when they know they are unlikely to win but are simply using the courts to attempt to silence or financially ruin someone. Even if legal aid was more widely available AND covered the total amount which I believe it does not, without having to put up your house etc as security, it would still not provide a deterrent to wealthy people bringing these vindictive potentially ruinous actions against someone. I am not a legal expert by any means buit when I see plaintiffs winning cases and being awarded costs I cannot see why defendents winning theuir argument should not also be awarded costs in full. It seems a little unbalanced. You did not say if you were awarded costs.

 

Based on my understanding of the law relating to defamation this is not correct.

 

Successful defendants in civil matters will be generally be awarded costs where the claim value is over £10k.

 

It didn't get as far as court. It was all threats, including threats to close down this BBS. His solicitors simply stopped responding to the correspondence from my solicitor. I was in the very fortunate position of knowing a solicitor who was willing to represent me without payment, other than the beers I bought him when it was over, not that it ever officially was.

It was an appalling use of threatening behaviour from a very unpleasant individual who believed because he was rich he could simply bully someone to do and say what he wanted. He couldn't, I stuck to the truth.

I haven't seen anything from the current board that would suggest they would act the same way. The reason I said something earlier is that I'm now sensitive to situations when what is written could be used against the contributor. I don't know if what was written was libellous or not, and even if it was, whether the other party would wish to do anything about it even if he was aware of it. Paul Conway will be well aware that he has received criticism from the fan base but I haven’t heard him retaliate. Whatever I think of him I'm also aware that he deserves credit at times. We're all shades of grey.

It's just that when it comes to allegations of defamation of character the law has little to do with it, it's the size of your bank account that dictates whether you can claim someone has made defamatory comments or even defend yourself from that claim. If you're rich enough and without morals you can claim and threaten anything you like.

 

I did know of someone in a similar position who, fortunately did have sufficient funds to defend themselves. What actually transpired was that his friend, who was a barrister, threatened a counter claim as he was very confident that there was clear cut evidence to support his alleged libellous statement) I have no idea the basis of the counter claim but it clearly worked as the original threat evaporated.
Again, very sorry that you had to go through that experience. It also highlights the direction the legal profession has taken over the past few decades since the law changed to fit the U.S. model i.e. allowing advertising and 'ambulance chasing'.
IMO, many 'appeals' in criminal convictions (e.g. the Maxwell verdict) are a 'given' even without 'new evidence', simply to prolong the proceedings to the financial benefit of the legal profession.
It seems increasing rare for a solicitor or barrister these days to advise a client at the outset, that something is a 'lost cause' which would be the ethical and logical path to follow. I wonder how clogged the system is becoming, having to deal with spurious claims like the one you endured.

I wonder if in certain situations crowdfunding could be a way forward for defendants where actions are obviously brought to 'silence criticism' using the disparity in wealth of the two opposing parties, although not sure how that would impact legal aid.

Anyway here is to happier days, HNY!

 

I have put up decent debate about why I think the Val appointment has had a big affect on this season, If no one agrees with it that's fine, I'll still post my opinion as hopefully its as valid as anyone else's. The board has made mistakes that's a fact, I just don't think protests, stopping going or a toxic atmosphere will improve the situation, driving the board out a few thousand supporters bleating won't bother them in any way. They are investors so as soon as they can get some success and return on their investment then hopefully they will go, an empty stadium won't speed that up as buyers for a failing ground and club are not queuing up.

 

I’m here Helen but not much use on such matters.

I rashly rejected dirtying my hands with civil stuff as a young and aspiring criminal barrister in the mid 90’s.

It was a decision much to my financial detriment but all I longed for was the cut and thrust of criminal trials.

30 odd years later I have no regrets and can emphatically reject the assertion that corrupt criminal barristers are robbing the system by encouraging hopeless causes and appeals.

Some punters simply won’t listen to good advice and will pursue lost causes to the point of appearing unrepresented in the COA as no counsel will positively advise.

The libel lot live in a different world I know little about but I would say that I do not see anything I would consider actionable in the posts I have read within this thread.