calscot 0 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 What hasn't been discussed is that for the Easdales to sue for £200k they will have to show £200k of loss - in this case loss of business. They will have to prove that their potential clients read these posts and because they believed the content, chose not to do business with the Easdales. Reading those posts, I think it would be a very difficult case to convince anyone of the loss they feel they have incurred. Just because something may be found to be defamatory does not mean you will be due £200k - the main thing is to prove that loss. It seems to me that they may just be bluffing as I think their chances of winning look very slim in my eyes with the evidence provided, but the cost of calling their bluff could be huge in solicitors fees. Some wealthy businessmen use the threat of suing for huge amounts as a tactic to intimidate those without the resources to defend against spurious legal action. However, there is a chance they could be bitten by the Streisand Effect. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,061 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Am I right in thinking Craig has a tainted past. I have no idea but I'm sure you'll be illuminating us all? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Am I right in thinking Craig has a tainted past. Am I right in thinking you have never posted on any subject apart from the board? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 One of the main characters in HBO's excellent Boardwalk Empire (you'll remember, that's the show set in 1920s America, about the gangster who poses as a businessman, with an irredeemably stupid younger brother who served time in prison, as his side-kick) is a young Al Capone. Al Capone was also a sociopath who often acted in an impulsive, self-destructive way and often sought revenge with no regard as to how this would impact on himself or his gang. I would highly recommend the show, even if parts of it may seem depressingly familiar. Nucky had more brains than our combined Board. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 What hasn't been discussed is that for the Easdales to sue for £200k they will have to show £200k of loss - in this case loss of business. They will have to prove that their potential clients read these posts and because they believed the content, chose not to do business with the Easdales. Reading those posts, I think it would be a very difficult case to convince anyone of the loss they feel they have incurred. Just because something may be found to be defamatory does not mean you will be due £200k - the main thing is to prove that loss. It seems to me that they may just be bluffing as I think their chances of winning look very slim in my eyes with the evidence provided, but the cost of calling their bluff could be huge in solicitors fees. Some wealthy businessmen use the threat of suing for huge amounts as a tactic to intimidate those without the resources to defend against spurious legal action. However, there is a chance they could be bitten by the Streisand Effect. if it does go to court and SOS are cleared, would the court make SE pay all costs? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 i suspect trueblue64 is talking about sandy not craig. not that it matters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Let's not forget that immediately before SoS held their first pre-protest meeting at the Louden back in September is when the legal threats from imposters in our Club's boardroom and intimidation against our fans actually started. I'm referring to the 'Club statement' immediately before that SoS meeting which was released on the Rangers site about so-called "deeply offensive and threatening comments" made on FF. That statement ended with the following comment regarding the SoS meeting which was being held that evening (27 September) IIRC: "The board is also aware that certain individuals are holding meetings and inciting fans to unruly behaviour. This has also been reported to the police." That statement was the first real evidence of a new culture of intimidation towards our fans from certain people within the Club. Here it is in full: Friday, 27 September 2013 22:00Club Statement Written by Rangers Football Club RANGERS FC have tonight informed Police Scotland of deeply offensive and threatening comments that have been made on the Follow Follow website. These remarks have placed a director and his family in a state of fear and alarm. This Club is shocked by the kind of physical violence being mentioned and is sure the vast majority of Rangers' support will share our alarm and disgust. This type of rhetoric can never be deemed acceptable. Rangers FC cannot tolerate this behaviour and intend to take an extremely robust approach to this sort of conduct. The board finds it inexplicable that some so called supporters of the club are bringing Rangers into disrepute and these people are not welcome at Ibrox. The board is also aware that certain individuals are holding meetings and inciting fans to unruly behaviour. This has also been reported to the police. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5177-club-statement 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Nucky had more brains than our combined Board. you sure? I don't recall an episode where he managed to get 30% interest on a guaranteed loan to himself. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Nucky had more brains than our combined Board. He probably had more honesty and integrity too in all fairness. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 [h=5] [/h] Sons of Struth @SonsofStruth 5m I have now received a second email from Prof Peter Watson of Levy McRae today stating that by repeating the posts... http://fb.me/3qtmGEy65 I have now received a second email from Prof Peter Watson of Levy McRae today stating that by repeating the posts as a warning others not to post like this, I am now liable for the comments. I now cant warn posters by actually telling them what their client feels is defamatory. Prof Watson also states that by asking the original posters to contact him with the personal details he requested,I have committed a criminal offense, therefore whoever posted original comments, please now do NOT contact Prof Watson at Levy McRae 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.