A stark reminder to everyone

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34771007

obviously 99.9999999999% of whats get said on here and message boards in general is fine, just reminds us all that sometimes its best to turn the internet off and get a beer!

 

These sort of cases puzzle me. Don't get me wrong, if you're posting 'lurid allegations of a sexual nature' then you're asking for bloody trouble. But what is the motivation of the claimant when pursuing the case? Are they protecting their reputation after believing they have been defamed, or are they attempting to punish those who made the comments and trying to get some brass? If it's the former, I'm pretty sure it doesn't work.

In this example, I'm not sure I would have ever heard of Owen and Karl Oyston if it wasn't for this court case. Their reputation, as far as I was concerned, was perfectly in tact. Because of the court case I've read up about them a bit, seen messages posted on here about them, and to be honest, I'm not that impressed. I also wonder what else they may have done that I don't know about to prompt the kind of comments that forced the trial. Maybe nothing, they won the case after all, so I'm looking at it from the wrong angle, but I'm a stupid human being and I know phrases like no smoke without fire. If you're trying to protect your reputation you've got factor in that your reputation is an abstract concept held by human beings.

I also question how many people actually read the post in question before, I assume, it was taken down when the Oyston's objected to it. I bet it wasn't that many, where as now, a great deal of football fans across the country know all about it and many appear to have come to similar conclusions to my own about this pair: not impressed. It seems to me that their reputation has been damaged much more by pursuing the case rather than not.

I don't know what the answer is if you believe you have been defamed, but it doesn't seem like this is it. Trying to be a nice chap in the first place probably doesn't hurt.

 

Knowing a little about the Oystons it would seem to me to be about punishment.

They would seem to have very little reputation to protect.

 

I think you're missing the key point that the article claims the bloke in that photo is only 32.

 

I assumed the bloke in the photo was one of the Oyston's not Mr Raggozzino, but looking again I think I'm wrong. Not sure they'd want to pose in front of those banners and they'd probably get lynched.

 

I thought this was supposed to be taken in to account in libel trials. For instance, Jeffrey Archer would get little joy in a court of law if he sued Ian Hislop, for any number of attacks Hislop has made on Have I Got News For You, because Archer has no reputation to protect. He did it, he went to prison, he's a crook. Archer might win the case but as his reputation is only worth tuppence, that's all he would receive in compensation.

 

Agree with that, but I don't think the process works in the way it is intended.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

 

I like how the picture of the house is published with the article. Informative and antagonistic. I would imagine Ms Streisand reads that page every day.

 

One can only assume the Judge felt differently and that is a possible failing, it is down, in many cases to perception and we all have our own personal views.