In the new censored TEF (thanks to the Board)

[reeves4england]

God knows. I have the same questions as I didn't desguise who I was either.  I know the club knows who I am and have my mobile number, so they wouldn't need to go legal to track me down. However

If I say, "Mr X is a very nice person", and he takes exception to it, can the go down the legal route as I portrayed it as a statement of fact even though every man and his dog knows internet forums are 99% BS?

If I say, "in my opinion Mr X is a very nice person, though I have no facts to back it up", and he takes exception to it, can the go down the legal route even though I have made it clear it is an opinion and as I have no standing in the community it is unreasonable to think I have cause defamation of Character?

If I say "the fat controller is a wanker" can someone who think that they are the fat controller sue for libel? Obviously the fat controller is a fictional character that runs the Sodor railway in Thomas the Tank Engine.

I suspect I may have to email Ian Hislop to find out.

Actually he's not the "Fat Controller" any more. Apparantly they decided it was politically incorrect  :roll:

[dell boy]

Fat Controller is now called the Big Controller (politically correct)

[genf_stfc]

it will be changed to the 'governmentally denounced as morbidly obese controller' soon

[Simon Pieman]

He's not fat, he's just big boned.

[RobertT]

To go back to a previous point, you can abuse anyone you want provided you don't name them or use a recognisable nickname.

So lets say you had a pet name for Bob Holt, which was Basil, you could happily post away that basil was a dodgy so and so.  You couldn't post that Mick the Greek was a dodgy so and so though because it's pretty clear other people would understand who it was.  You can refer to his past but it has to be specifically mentioned as thus, so "Diamandis was once banned from being a Director" is fine, however you are not able to write down an inference that he is currently dodgy just based on that past.

You cannot post stuff which insinuates more than the literall meaning either and you cannot get away with claiming it was just a joke unfortunately.

Likewise, Mr Andronikou was touching dodgy ground when having an article printed calling people busybodies.  Just the right side of ok.

I'm fairly sure you can use sweeping statements like that, so "people associated with STFC are a right dodgy lot" should be ok because it could refer to anyone.

[thepeoplesgame]

I'm fairly sure you can use sweeping statements like that, so "people associated with STFC are a right dodgy lot" should be ok because it could refer to anyone.

That could get dodgy, actually, especially if you referred to, say, 'people running STFC'. Legal precedent for how big a group of people has to be before an individual cannot claim that they are identifiable within it is somewhere between 12 (there has been a ruling in favour) and 25 (there has been a ruling against).

[RobertT]

Ah, but 40,000 ish could be claimed to Associated with STFC based on Wembley turnouts

[The_Plagiarist]

So can you call people cunts if you really really think it's justified. That's all I want to know.

[thepeoplesgame]

So can you call people cunts if you really really think it's justified. That's all I want to know.

I repeat, mere abuse is not deemed to be defamatory. You can call anyone you like a cunt. Although I guess you're more likely to direct that sort of language at someone you don't like...

[genf_stfc]

so basically we can only make comments if they are really, really offensive and the more bizarre and unlikely to be true the better ?!

[janaage]

You wonder how far this could all of this threat of being sued can go.

Maybe Alan Shearer should sue the tartan army for singing songs about him being a paedophile.

Hitler's ancestors should sue school children for alledging that the Fuhrer only had "one ball".

Ronaldinho could sue Gary Lineker for stating that the brasillian can eat an apple through a tennis racket.

[The_Plagiarist]

Red maca, you're a cunt
foggy you're an old cunt obviously
flammable ben you're just a useless cunt
toddy you're a cunt

[genf_stfc]

You wonder how far this could all of this threat of being sued can go.

Maybe Alan Shearer should sue the tartan army for singing songs about him being a paedophile.

Hitler's ancestors should sue school children for alledging that the Fuhrer only had "one ball".

Ronaldinho could sue Gary Lineker for stating that the brasillian can eat an apple through a tennis racket.

i never thought posh spice looked the type either - although thats not to say i find the idea impossible,  as presumably saying she doesn't could also be construed as libelous if she does.  I remain to be convinced either way.

[sonic youth]

Hitler's ancestors should sue school children for alledging that the Fuhrer only had "one ball".

i believe that this is actually true...

for the record, as i have mentioned in the past abuse is not acceptable either.

[redbullzeye]

[quote="sonic youth
for the record, as i have mentioned in the past abuse is not acceptable either.[/quote]

Bloody hell :shock: that's 90% of the posts about the board outlawed then.  This is getting more surreal than ever - what about asterisks as in " ***  are a load of cheating, con artists who are lining their pockets and  ***   is a loud mouthed cunt"  I bet most people here could fill in the blanks but there's no libel