Bob's Board - Chesterfield FC: Defamation Act 2013 - Bob's Board - Chesterfield FC

Jump to content

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Defamation Act 2013 Warning to Members

#1 User is offline   moondog 

  • Legend
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 26,810
  • Joined: 09-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chesterfield

Posted 27 April 2018 - 09:47 AM

Following a recent complaint I'd just like to make the point to all members of this message board to consider the Defamation Act 2013 when posting about individuals and companies. A link to the act is below. I'll set this as a pinned topic in due course. http://www.legislati...ction/1/enacted
0

#2 User is offline   60s 70s Spireite 

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13,360
  • Joined: 03-November 09

Posted 27 April 2018 - 09:53 AM

View Postmoondog, on 27 April 2018 - 09:47 AM, said:

Following a recent complaint I'd just to like to make the point to all members of this message board to consider the Defamation Act 2013 when posting about individuals and companies.

A link to the act is below.

I'll set this as a pinned topic in due course.


http://www.legislati...ction/1/enacted

Nice to see I’m not the only dyslexic typist on here. We rule, k.o.
0

#3 User is offline   moondog 

  • Legend
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 26,810
  • Joined: 09-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chesterfield

Posted 27 April 2018 - 10:07 AM

View Post60s 70s Spireite, on 27 April 2018 - 09:53 AM, said:

Nice to see I'm not the only dyslexic typist on here. We rule, k.o.



Thanks :rolleyes: now foxed
0

#4 User is offline   isleaiw1 

  • Key Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,974
  • Joined: 04-March 15

Posted 27 April 2018 - 10:37 AM

View Postmoondog, on 27 April 2018 - 09:47 AM, said:

Following a recent complaint I'd just like to make the point to all members of this message board to consider the Defamation Act 2013 when posting about individuals and companies. A link to the act is below. I'll set this as a pinned topic in due course. http://www.legislati...ction/1/enacted


And just to provide some balance - as I guess you have posted it because someone who (thinks they are) important has suggested it is required - the act contains the following section...

3Honest opinion

(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the following conditions are met.
(2)The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion.
(3)The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.
(4)The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of—
(a)any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published;
(b)anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.

So for example, if I say "based on what I have read and been told person x is an idiot in my opinion" that is not defamation if I hold that opinion, have said it's an opinion and why I hold it and a reasonable person could have held that opinion.

Just saying - opinions are really good as you aren't claiming it's fact. Of course the second defence to defamation is that it is factually true - could be an interesting court case if you call someone an idiot and they have to prove that they aren't whilst you give examples of things they did indicate they are.

You know, when you have to suggest legal issues then you really have lost the plot. Go and have a think about it. Think about why they might be a little emotional. Think about the people behind the decisions that lead to that emotion. And then think about maybe not threatening lawyers. It would be like threatening defamation against your wife for insults she throws out in an argument.

My parents used to say to me "if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen". Well this kitchen is pretty hot. It might be down to the Sheffield based chef. If they are too hot well....

This post has been edited by isleaiw1: 27 April 2018 - 11:11 AM

Stay Home. Stay Safe.
11

#5 User is offline   Somerset Spireite 

  • Reserve Team Player
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 29-May 11

Posted 27 April 2018 - 10:56 AM

View Postmoondog, on 27 April 2018 - 09:47 AM, said:

Following a recent complaint I'd just like to make the point to all members of this message board to consider the Defamation Act 2013 when posting about individuals and companies. A link to the act is below. I'll set this as a pinned topic in due course. http://www.legislati...ction/1/enacted

Just to be clear - the person complained about will know that they are deemed to have overstepped the line?
Riding the blue & white roller-coaster since 1989
0

#6 User is offline   azul 

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 33,884
  • Joined: 15-June 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 April 2018 - 11:21 AM

View Postisleaiw1, on 27 April 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

And just to provide some balance - as I guess you have posted it because someone who (thinks they are) important has suggested it is required - the act contains the following section...

3Honest opinion

(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the following conditions are met.
(2)The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion.
(3)The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.
(4)The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of—
(a)any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published;
(b)anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.

So for example, if I say "based on what I have read and been told person x is an idiot in my opinion" that is not defamation if I hold that opinion, have said it's an opinion and why I hold it and a reasonable person could have held that opinion.

Just saying - opinions are really good as you aren't claiming it's fact. Of course the second defence to defamation is that it is factually true - could be an interesting court case if you call someone an idiot and they have to prove that they aren't whilst you give examples of things they did indicate they are.

You know, when you have to suggest legal issues then you really have lost the plot. Go and have a think about it. Think about why they might be a little emotional. Think about the people behind the decisions that lead to that emotion. And then think about maybe not threatening lawyers. It would be like threatening defamation against your wife for insults she throws out in an argument.

My parents used to say to me "if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen". Well this kitchen is pretty hot. It might be down to the Sheffield based chef. If they are too hot well....


I suspect the post that caused this was not one calling the owner/management idiots but one that made rather serious allegations

This post has been edited by azul: 27 April 2018 - 11:22 AM

Accentuate th Positive, eliminate the negative
0

#7 User is online   hilly81 

  • Key Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9,290
  • Joined: 08-June 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 April 2018 - 11:23 AM

View Postazul, on 27 April 2018 - 11:21 AM, said:

I suspect the post that caused this was not one calling the owner/management idiots but one that made rather serious allegations

http://www.thecfss.c...dpost&p=1386068
0

#8 User is offline   azul 

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 33,884
  • Joined: 15-June 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 April 2018 - 11:49 AM

View Posthilly81, on 27 April 2018 - 11:23 AM, said:


Must admit - I was thinking of another one :)
Accentuate th Positive, eliminate the negative
0

#9 User is offline   moondog 

  • Legend
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 26,810
  • Joined: 09-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chesterfield

Posted 27 April 2018 - 12:16 PM

View Postisleaiw1, on 27 April 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

And just to provide some balance - as I guess you have posted it because someone who (thinks they are) important has suggested it is required - the act contains the following section...

3Honest opinion

(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the following conditions are met.
(2)The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion.
(3)The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.
(4)The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of—
(a)any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published;
(b)anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.

So for example, if I say "based on what I have read and been told person x is an idiot in my opinion" that is not defamation if I hold that opinion, have said it's an opinion and why I hold it and a reasonable person could have held that opinion.

Just saying - opinions are really good as you aren't claiming it's fact. Of course the second defence to defamation is that it is factually true - could be an interesting court case if you call someone an idiot and they have to prove that they aren't whilst you give examples of things they did indicate they are.

You know, when you have to suggest legal issues then you really have lost the plot. Go and have a think about it. Think about why they might be a little emotional. Think about the people behind the decisions that lead to that emotion. And then think about maybe not threatening lawyers. It would be like threatening defamation against your wife for insults she throws out in an argument.

My parents used to say to me "if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen". Well this kitchen is pretty hot. It might be down to the Sheffield based chef. If they are too hot well....


Whilst a complaint has been made citing the act, the reason for posting it up on here was my decision, aimed at assisting members where the line legally should be drawn when being critical of others actions.

If they read the act it will show the points you make have some validity
0

#10 User is offline   raskol 

  • Academy Player
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 18-April 18

Posted 27 April 2018 - 12:19 PM

View Postisleaiw1, on 27 April 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

And just to provide some balance - as I guess you have posted it because someone who (thinks they are) important has suggested it is required - the act contains the following section...

3Honest opinion

(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the following conditions are met.
(2)The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion.
(3)The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.
(4)The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of—
(a)any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published;
(b)anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.

So for example, if I say "based on what I have read and been told person x is an idiot in my opinion" that is not defamation if I hold that opinion, have said it's an opinion and why I hold it and a reasonable person could have held that opinion.

Just saying - opinions are really good as you aren't claiming it's fact. Of course the second defence to defamation is that it is factually true - could be an interesting court case if you call someone an idiot and they have to prove that they aren't whilst you give examples of things they did indicate they are.

You know, when you have to suggest legal issues then you really have lost the plot. Go and have a think about it. Think about why they might be a little emotional. Think about the people behind the decisions that lead to that emotion. And then think about maybe not threatening lawyers. It would be like threatening defamation against your wife for insults she throws out in an argument.

My parents used to say to me "if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen". Well this kitchen is pretty hot. It might be down to the Sheffield based chef. If they are too hot well....


Spot on (in my opinion)
0

#11 User is offline   Ernie Ernie Ernie 

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30,421
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 April 2018 - 12:36 PM

View Postmoondog, on 27 April 2018 - 12:16 PM, said:

Whilst a complaint has been made citing the act, the reason for posting it up on here was my decision, aimed at assisting members where the line legally should be drawn when being critical of others actions.

If they read the act it will show the points you make have some validity


Perhaps where some posters have gone what could be considered over the line, they may believe they have evidence to support their opinions should anything go to court? There has been some stuff posted which you could quite easily be challenged but equally there is also a lot of stuff posted, which if true, it wouldn’t be is some people’s interest for it to be in court, and indeed not possibly the club’s.
0

#12 User is offline   Westbars Spireite 

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 63,283
  • Joined: 18-September 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chesterfield, Derbyshire
  • Interests:Chesterfield FC, cricket, beer

Posted 27 April 2018 - 12:42 PM

He's ever so touchy.
1

#13 User is offline   BeastMode 

  • Reserve Team Player
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,407
  • Joined: 06-July 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In the Megazord
  • Interests:CFC, WWE, Tunes n Beer

Posted 27 April 2018 - 12:45 PM

Is there a way of proving you ain’t a C U next tuesday in court?
"There is but a plank between a Sailor and eternity"
1

#14 User is offline   moondog 

  • Legend
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 26,810
  • Joined: 09-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chesterfield

Posted 27 April 2018 - 12:50 PM

View PostErnie Ernie Ernie, on 27 April 2018 - 12:36 PM, said:

Perhaps where some posters have gone what could be considered over the line, they may believe they have evidence to support their opinions should anything go to court? There has been some stuff posted which you could quite easily be challenged but equally there is also a lot of stuff posted, which if true, it wouldn't be is some people's interest for it to be in court, and indeed not possibly the club's.



That's why postings are rarely removed, the author is perfectly free to stand by what they've posted
0

#15 User is offline   isleaiw1 

  • Key Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,974
  • Joined: 04-March 15

Posted 27 April 2018 - 01:13 PM

View Postmoondog, on 27 April 2018 - 12:16 PM, said:

Whilst a complaint has been made citing the act, the reason for posting it up on here was my decision, aimed at assisting members where the line legally should be drawn when being critical of others actions.

If they read the act it will show the points you make have some validity

Always good to ensure people understand the consequences of opening their gob, equally important that some billy big ****s doesn't think he can frighten people from free speech by using the law inappropriately - so people can now make a balanced consideration....
Stay Home. Stay Safe.
3

#16 User is offline   isleaiw1 

  • Key Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,974
  • Joined: 04-March 15

Posted 27 April 2018 - 01:18 PM

View Postazul, on 27 April 2018 - 11:21 AM, said:

I suspect the post that caused this was not one calling the owner/management idiots but one that made rather serious allegations


Oh I know - that was just an easier way to explain it. Plus I once called my boss an idiot and he threatened to sack me, told him I would see him at a tribunal as if it was true he couldn't sack me for calling him it. He went away - well I did with a big cheque!

Same principle - although in that case in my opinion there was nothing defamatory. It was only the complaint that, in my opinion, started to make it look suspicious. Obviously just my opinion based on what I read on here ;)
Stay Home. Stay Safe.
0

#17 User is offline   taptonblue 

  • Youth Team Player
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 161
  • Joined: 26-June 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 April 2018 - 02:27 PM

You don’t think it could be sol Campbell that has complained about defamation. I mean who’d want to be linked with anything remotely dodgy.
I CAN SEE THE LIGHTS FROM HERE.
0

#18 User is offline   cthoel 

  • Youth Team Player
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 150
  • Joined: 07-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:old whittington
  • Interests:cfc and fishing can it be any better oh yes and baby jordi

Posted 27 April 2018 - 04:13 PM

post all the warning you want but everyone connected to english football knows what really caused our relegation !
everyone knows we have been royally shafted and run like a private gentlemans club ( in my honest opinion )
Please win a game!
0

#19 User is offline   Misnomer 

  • Key Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,886
  • Joined: 30-August 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brampton

Posted 27 April 2018 - 04:52 PM

Ere, Ashley; if he doesn't like what is written, tell David to send a couple of heavies to my place of work.......I wonder what law that comes under? Hmmmm intimidation, coward, intimidation, coward; along those lines.
3

#20 User is offline   starsky72 

  • First Team Player
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,241
  • Joined: 30-April 11

Posted 27 April 2018 - 04:55 PM

View PostMisnomer, on 27 April 2018 - 04:52 PM, said:

Ere, Ashley; if he doesn't like what is written, tell David to send a couple of heavies to my place of work.......I wonder what law that comes under? Hmmmm intimidation, coward, intimidation, coward; along those lines.


Exactly... I really don't know how they have the front to complain about whats written on a messageboard after their behavior..
0

Share this topic:


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users