[claycross spireite]

Im still confused? if only 3 people have seen these messages what damage has been done? and why would DA need to seek money for "damages" ?

[Oldtimer]

Mr_Pleasant, on 12 January 2019 - 12:14 PM, said:

Has to be serious harm. Would suggest there may be a difference in that respect between a public post and a private conversation with one person.

True. That's why I said, if the other person then repeats the untruths to others

[spireitetoo]

What an absolute waste

[Oldtimer]

claycross spireite, on 12 January 2019 - 12:22 PM, said:

Im still confused? if only 3 people have seen these messages what damage has been done? and why would DA need to seek money for "damages" ?

I'd guess the number of people reading message would have some bearing. However if I was to write a book and get it published it wouldn't matter if 2 or 200 people read it, I could still say I had been published

[Blue5]

SpireiteFitzy, on 12 January 2019 - 12:11 PM, said:

Interesting difference in his response to legal stuff. The club he owns commits fraud with the raffle and no-one is brought to justice over it, indeed the rumored mastermind got a payoff and not so much as a slap on the wrist. A certain club employee makes threats to fans over twitter, in this day and age that is now a crime and again not so much as a slap on the wrist and we get some made up fantasy about hackers and it's allowed to slide. I'd go on but I'd be here all day.

However a fan makes private comments expressing his opinions about club issues which are not out in the open and remain known to but a few people and the lawyers are out sniffing around like bloodhounds.

I find his hypocrisy unbelievable. He's upset about things people say that aren't true or may cause distress but just a couple of weeks ago his number two was disclosing to fans that staff might not get paid at christmas, a situation that apparently the staff had no idea was on the table, no doubt causing plenty of anxiety and stress amongst them. It's not libelous but the principle remains the same, saying things that are not necessarily true but cause distress to those concerned in it.

I think that is a very good post.

When you consider Ashley was brought here to look after David's interests and looking at the position which the club finds itself in, both on and off the field, it is hard to decipher exactly why David holds Ashley in such high esteem.

David's support of Ashley confirms a lot.

[Benno Spire]

FWIW, if i see GB in the lounge today I will express my concerns over DA's latest outburst and also tell him the potential legal action against Mr Ashmore will further alienate him from the fan base

[Westbars Spireite]

Sammy Spireite, on 12 January 2019 - 12:02 PM, said:

It seems to me, PMB has gone from being a mouse to mole.

He was threatened with legal action in the past by AC, and then recently had a sudden change of heart after trying to arrange another protest after Pauls, then suddenly came out in defence of AC and DA seemingly overnight.

I wonder if he had his collar felt again and then used this as a bargaining tool to save himself?!

I just hope he used a reliable lubricant.

[firedodger]

Les Ashmore, on 12 January 2019 - 10:13 AM, said:

Gentlemen I have just posted this on Facebook

Ladies and Gentlemen It saddens me very much to inform you of the actions of a member of our group.
This morning I received a letter from a Solicitors in Sheffield {The reference made by Mr Dave Allen) .
A while ago I helped a member of our group after he posted libellous comments on our group and I deleted them and contacted him privately in reference to those comments, He then explained that he was owed money by the Club, I approached the club on his behalf and in essence all his problems got sorted.
The admin of this board can confirm that I have fully supported him throughout and suffice to say that at times if it hadn't been for me he would not be a member of this board.
Last week he made a post in reference to the Ex Directors of CFC and I contacted him and asked him to remove it as there were untruths and some accusations in it, he started telling me that I was wrong and that I couldn't remove it, I said I could and would, He then started threatening me with disclosure in the end I ended the conversation as it was getting out of hand.
He posted the exact same message on Bob's board and they also got on to him but in a different manner, there was name calling etc, In the end he apologised on there and said it was his illness.
I have been in contact with him over a couple of years since our first meeting and a number of Private Conversations have taken place, In it were private opinions and hearsay from both him and myself.
He has supplied all these private conversations to either Mr Dave Allen or Mr Ashley Carson or Both.
At the moment I won't name him But I will ask him to come clean and explain WHY?

Sorry if I’m being a bit slow here but on first reading I didn’t get it, now I think I do.........Les has received a solicitors letter on behalf of dave Allen?, presumably accusing him of libel, in relation to comments made shared in private conversations with one specific individual, these comments can only have come to light because said individual has shared them elsewhere?
Yes?

[Mr Mercury]

firedodger, on 12 January 2019 - 12:59 PM, said:

Sorry if I’m being a bit slow here but on first reading I didn’t get it, now I think I do.........Les has received a solicitors letter on behalf of dave Allen?, presumably accusing him of libel, in relation to comments made shared in private conversations with one specific individual, these comments can only have come to light because said individual has shared them elsewhere?
Yes?

That seems to be the exact way I'm reading it as well. Also it seems the specific individual knew that Les was going to receive the letter before Les actually received it.

[azul]

firedodger, on 12 January 2019 - 12:59 PM, said:

Sorry if I’m being a bit slow here but on first reading I didn’t get it, now I think I do.........Les has received a solicitors letter on behalf of dave Allen?, presumably accusing him of libel, in relation to comments made shared in private conversations with one specific individual, these comments can only have come to light because said individual has shared them elsewhere?
Yes?

He made a (at the time) coded reference gloatng about it prior to it becoming public knowledge

This post has been edited by azul: 12 January 2019 - 01:09 PM

[Stoptalkingbol]

Mr Mercury, on 12 January 2019 - 11:58 AM, said:

If you also read post #120 on the press conference thread it would appear he is well aware of who is going to get DAs solicitors missive before the recipient received it!

Scum bag, gloating about it all before he even received it. He’s playing a dangerous game, I’d be a bit twitchy if I were him right now and ask myself was it all worth it!

[Rudeboy spireite]

Considering the visit that Freelander2 ( I think) Got and now this against Les, I have decided not to attend any home games whilst DA is in charge of the club. I shall follow our clubs results on social media and attend the odd away game but i can't support DA any more. I also think that we should get some sort of fighting fund up to help Les fight this, I know he is not short of a few bob but i am pretty sure he has got better things to spend his money on than this.

[Jack Lester's Cast]

Benno Spire, on 12 January 2019 - 12:36 PM, said:

FWIW, if i see GB in the lounge today I will express my concerns over DA's latest outburst and also tell him the potential legal action against Mr Ashmore will further alienate him from the fan base

Will DA be in the lounges today?

[trickymicky7]

If this were not real life ? .You could not make this up .Come the people's revolution victory will be ours .

[Rudeboy spireite]

trickymicky7, on 12 January 2019 - 02:20 PM, said:

If this were not real life ? .You could not make this up .Come the people's revolution victory will be ours .

Absolutely

[born in 1866]

Westbars Spireite, on 12 January 2019 - 10:41 AM, said:

How is that proved if 'told'?

No proof, if only told, unless it was overheard.
This was just an example of private conversation/correspondence coming under the libel law.

[Johnnyspireite7]

born in 1866, on 12 January 2019 - 03:09 PM, said:

No proof, if only told, unless it was overheard.
This was just an example of private conversation/correspondence coming under the libel law.

Wouldn't an overheard conversation be slander rather than libel?

[Cactoise]

It would be a good PR exercise for Allen to drop this before it comes a full on revolution

[martatcross]

Cactoise, on 12 January 2019 - 03:24 PM, said:

It would be a good PR exercise for Allen to drop this before it comes a full on revolution

The more things change the more they stay the same

[Andrews]

I think more solicitors letters may be sent out next week after just reading a comment to Les Ashmores message....very informative of certain people and their "goings on"....

I gave taken a screen shot as I think it will be removed....