A Little Question

[Memphis]

Primarily to the pro-board posters, but anybody may feel free to answer.

 

Something that has been bugging me for a while, and more pertinent today given BB's statement about the internet this morning.

 

If what is been posted on here, or elswhere, about PVFC are lies, then why haven't legal proceedings been bought against those spreading these 'lies'?

 

I think I know the answer, but just wondered if people could elaborate further.

[Rampant Zebra]

Is there any point? Run up thousands of pounds worth of legal bills when most of the defendants probably couldn't afford to pay the damages and costs if found guilty.

[AVIM]

What RZ said. The club dont have the money to sue, and even if they won, posters dont have the money to pay.

[timvalefan]

Wouldn't the site owner be held accountable, afterall that is why we have moderators, to stop anything untoward being typed.

[Goodlads_Gloves]

Is there any point? Run up thousands of pounds worth of legal bills when most of the defendants probably couldn't afford to pay the damages and costs if found guilty.

 

What RZ has said

[MarkB2]

Of course, there may be the possibility that they aren't actually lies!

[cheeky]

Is there any point? Run up thousands of pounds worth of legal bills when most of the defendants probably couldn't afford to pay the damages and costs if found guilty.

 

If untruths had been posted on here, couldn't individual directors launch civil claims for damages as a result of the comments against posters? If that's the case, couldn't they then enter into a CFA (no win/no fee) rather than a private retainer. The costs at the end of the case(s) would then be payable by the Defendant(s), and the director(s) would not run up thousands of pounds worth of legal fee's that they would have to pay. If the Defendant(s) then had judgement against them, and didn't pay, enforcement proceedings could commence and the bailiffs sent round. Either way, the directors would not be out of pocket and it would cause significant inconvenience to the Defendant(s) and may make others think twice before posting untruths.

 

Or, it could be that the things said on here are true, and solicitors wouldn't take the cases on as there was no chance of success........

[Pete T]

If untruths had been posted on here, couldn't individual directors launch civil claims for damages as a result of the comments against posters? If that's the case, couldn't they then enter into a CFA (no win/no fee) rather than a private retainer. The costs at the end of the case(s) would then be payable by the Defendant(s), and the director(s) would not run up thousands of pounds worth of legal fee's that they would have to pay. If the Defendant(s) then had judgement against them, and didn't pay, enforcement proceedings could commence and the bailiffs sent round. Either way, the directors would not be out of pocket and it would cause significant inconvenience to the Defendant(s) and may make others think twice before posting untruths.

 

Or, it could be that the things said on here are true, and solicitors wouldn't take the cases on as there was no chance of success........

 

nice one youth. end of thread.

[robf]

Wouldn't the site owner be held accountable, afterall that is why we have moderators, to stop anything untoward being typed.

 

This is not a dig, I know you are probably playing Devil's advocate with that quote, but I do think I should answer it.

 

No, we are not liable because we are POST-MODERATED which means we do not check everything on here before it is posted. We take action after posts are posted up and people need to report posts if they have a problem with them.

 

Our policy is that we respond to complaints as soon as possible but we cannot check every single post on here so it is REASONABLE for anyone who is upset by our content to be expected to contact us (hence why the contact us page and the email address are readily available).

 

Of course if something doesn't fit the criteria of being defamatory then I would be happy to let it remain up. I certainly haven't seen anything that I would consider to be defamatory on here.

 

The above is my personal opinion by the way.

[robf]

LIES alone are not enough for legal action. Any legal action for damages would be for defamatory comments - i.e comments deliberately intended to damage someone's reputation. In many respects, lawyers would have to prove that the comments were deliberately intended to do that and not "honest" mistakes as many "lies" can be.

[robf]

By the way, from the above comments, you can tell I've been operating a fans forum and website for 15 years can't you!

[Fosse69]

Primarily to the pro-board posters, but anybody may feel free to answer.

 

Something that has been bugging me for a while, and more pertinent today given BB's statement about the internet this morning.

 

If what is been posted on here, or elswhere, about PVFC are lies, then why haven't legal proceedings been bought against those spreading these 'lies'?

 

I think I know the answer, but just wondered if people could elaborate further.

 

Just a throwaway line to discredit protesters, for his mates to hear. How would he know a lie from the truth?

[Pete T]

By the way, from the above comments, you can tell I've been operating a fans forum and website for 15 years can't you!

 

I did a bit of law years ago and REASONABLE comes up a lot. You are well within that IMHO. I say miles more in the pub and don't get writs....etc etc

[Burslem Academicals]

If untruths had been posted on here, couldn't individual directors launch civil claims for damages as a result of the comments against posters? If that's the case, couldn't they then enter into a CFA (no win/no fee) rather than a private retainer. The costs at the end of the case(s) would then be payable by the Defendant(s), and the director(s) would not run up thousands of pounds worth of legal fee's that they would have to pay. If the Defendant(s) then had judgement against them, and didn't pay, enforcement proceedings could commence and the bailiffs sent round. Either way, the directors would not be out of pocket and it would cause significant inconvenience to the Defendant(s) and may make others think twice before posting untruths.

 

Or, it could be that the things said on here are true, and solicitors wouldn't take the cases on as there was no chance of success........

 

End of thread.....but hang on the lies mostly posted about on OVF and

the majority of the content on OVF that concerns the economy of truth usually follow a statement by the Chairman....

[Princey]

Theres a big difference between saying something to rile someone or belittle an arguement on this scale and spreading mailicious lies on a global scale..

No sol worth his salt would take a case to court from a poxy little website (apologies and allegedly if this offends anyone, please dont prosecute) where most comments are wind up chat and guess work.