Ambitious Blackburn

bobo the clown · **Posted:** Fri May 18, 2012 11:15 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:

H. Pedersen wrote:

CrazyHorse wrote:

:mrgreen:
Sky Sources confirm Sam Allardyce is taking legal action against Steve Kean

Not totally familiar with British slander laws but in America, Kean would just have to prove that Allardyce is indeed a crook and he'd walk.

I wonder if he has Oscar Perez's number.

It was published on youtube so it would be libel I guess. The truth is an absolute defence against libel as in American (but not Canada). However, proving Sam is a crook might not be easy...

I stand to be corrected but I think, if he sues (you) for libel then it's HIS job to prove you are incorrect.

H. Pedersen · **Posted:** Sat May 19, 2012 12:18 am

According to Wikipedia, "A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth."

Kean should get on the phone to Panorama.

Prufrock · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 1:31 am

That's the case over here. I'd not fancy Kean. For all the Panorama stuff, if they had actually had stuff, they would have come out with more than they did.

For the record, Allardyce would have to prove what Kean said was defamatory (and as Monty says, it is libel not slander, so no loss needed) which is an embarrassingly low threshold. Kean would then have to prove the truth of what he said. Won't happen though. Sam would probably win, and probably get pennies.

Wandering Willy · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 8:24 am

Prufrock wrote:

That's the case over here. I'd not fancy Kean. For all the Panorama stuff, if they had actually had stuff, they would have come out with more than they did.

For the record, Allardyce would have to prove what Kean said was defamatory (and as Monty says, it is libel not slander, so no loss needed) which is an embarrassingly low threshold. Kean would then have to prove the truth of what he said. Won't happen though. Sam would probably win, and probably get pennies.

How does this work then?

I would have thought Kean's original offence was slander. The fact that it was recorded on video and published by a 3rd party surely does not turn it into libel?

bobo the clown · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 1:28 pm

mummy ! MUMMY !!!

H. Pedersen · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 4:24 pm

Prufrock wrote:

That's the case over here. I'd not fancy Kean. For all the Panorama stuff, if they had actually had stuff, they would have come out with more than they did.

And if they didn't have anything Allardyce would have followed through with his threat to sue.

This isn't going to go anywhere. There are skeletons that Allardyce would prefer stay in the closet.

Prufrock · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 7:01 pm

Wandering Willy wrote:

Prufrock wrote:

That's the case over here. I'd not fancy Kean. For all the Panorama stuff, if they had actually had stuff, they would have come out with more than they did.

For the record, Allardyce would have to prove what Kean said was defamatory (and as Monty says, it is libel not slander, so no loss needed) which is an embarrassingly low threshold. Kean would then have to prove the truth of what he said. Won't happen though. Sam would probably win, and probably get pennies.

How does this work then?

I would have thought Kean's original offence was slander. The fact that it was recorded on video and published by a 3rd party surely does not turn it into libel?

For slander you need to show a loss. I can't really think how Allardyce could claim that has caused him a loss. Not get the Chelsea job because Roman saw a pic of highly regarded Steve Kean when pissed.

With libel everyone who 'publishes' it is liable, which would mean theoretically, Kean, the person who took the video, youtube, and even the poster who linked here, and T-W itself would be liable. That is in theory though.

Kean it seems knows he is being filmed. I'm not sure how things would stand were he secretly being filmed.

All that is off the top of my head btw, did defamation in September, and don't need to know it for my exams, so could well be wrong.

bobo the clown · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 11:35 pm

Prufrock wrote:

All that is off the top of my head btw, did defamation in September, and don't need to know it for my exams, so could well be wrong.

Brill Pru.

Glad to know our taxes (& your loan) are being well spent !! :pray:

Verbal · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 11:45 pm

What kind of loss? I thought one of the bits with defamation was if you brought someone down in the esteem of right-thinking members of society.

I shall dig out my Mcnae book and see.

Prufrock · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 11:46 pm

Thought somebody would enjoy that. It's only examinable as an essay question, and we do 3/6 questions, max of which 2 will be essays (for Tort). Not doing essay questions.

When I say 'off the top of my head', I mean "I'm fairly sure, but the first thing they teach you in lawyer school is never give a straight answer".

Genuinely no idea if it makes a difference if he didn't know he was being filmed/consent to it being put on the internet. I could look it up, but it is late!

Prufrock · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 11:52 pm

You've got to show:

1. Defamatory statement - that is where you lower the other person in the minds of right-thinking people, cause them to be shunned, or expose them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule;

2. The statement referred to the claimant. Ie. 'Allardyce is a div' or whatever he said; and,

3. The statement was published. That just means communicated to a third party.

If you have that you have defamation (then up to the defendant to prove a defence).

The defining difference between Slander and Libel is that Libel is defamation in a permanent form, ie a youtube video, Slander is not, ie saying to your mate 'Allardyce is a div'. If you have libel, you can sue no matter what ('actionable per se' if you are being posh). For slander, in order to sue, you have to show the slander caused you a loss, ie "that slander stopped me getting the Chelsea job."

All that, off the top of my head Bobo!

a1 · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 1:05 am

allardyce employed him..

.. i dont know what that sez ...

:/

bobo the clown · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 7:51 am

I should bloody hope so Pru. The very least I would expect.

jaffka · **Posted:** Wed May 23, 2012 2:12 pm

Blackburn co-owner admits to state of 'confusion' at club

Quote:

Blackburn co-owner Venkatesh Rao has admitted to a state of "confusion" at the club, more than two weeks after relegation from the Premier League.

In a rare interview, he also failed to shed any light on the long-term futures of manager Steve Kean or his players.

Rao said: "Everything is in confusion. In the next month, we will have a proper situation to talk about. Let us see what happens."

On Kean's future, he added: "I really don't know on that issue."

Kean travelled to India last week to meet with club owners Venky's but the Scot's future remains clouded, with Rao admitting it could be next month before it becomes clearer.

Kean, 44, has already indicated he will not resign despite protests by supporters calling for his removal.

Rao told Sky Sports: "We are talking about various things, so many, about the manager, about the players, about staff, about the club.

"Nothing will be said right away today, so I would say kindly bear with us for some time and then the whole picture will be clear.

"Right now, we are totally in shock, so let us take it step by step."

On last week's talks with Kean, Rao said: "They were very honest.

"Getting relegated is not good news for anybody and the saddest thing is we did. We have to come back at any cost."

But he conceded: "I think there is confusion at this stage. We are still rectifying the whole thing as a club."

Blackburn finished one place off the foot of the table, winning just eight league games, although one of those victories came against eventual runners-up Manchester United at Old Trafford.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18175177

BWFC_Insane · **Posted:** Wed May 23, 2012 7:07 pm

jaffka wrote:

Blackburn co-owner admits to state of 'confusion' at club

Quote:

Blackburn co-owner Venkatesh Rao has admitted to a state of "confusion" at the club, more than two weeks after relegation from the Premier League.

In a rare interview, he also failed to shed any light on the long-term futures of manager Steve Kean or his players.

Rao said: "Everything is in confusion. In the next month, we will have a proper situation to talk about. Let us see what happens."

On Kean's future, he added: "I really don't know on that issue."

Kean travelled to India last week to meet with club owners Venky's but the Scot's future remains clouded, with Rao admitting it could be next month before it becomes clearer.

Kean, 44, has already indicated he will not resign despite protests by supporters calling for his removal.

Rao told Sky Sports: "We are talking about various things, so many, about the manager, about the players, about staff, about the club.

"Nothing will be said right away today, so I would say kindly bear with us for some time and then the whole picture will be clear.

"Right now, we are totally in shock, so let us take it step by step."

On last week's talks with Kean, Rao said: "They were very honest.

"Getting relegated is not good news for anybody and the saddest thing is we did. We have to come back at any cost."

But he conceded: "I think there is confusion at this stage. We are still rectifying the whole thing as a club."

Blackburn finished one place off the foot of the table, winning just eight league games, although one of those victories came against eventual runners-up Manchester United at Old Trafford.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18175177

You could say at least he's being honest..... :lol:

seanworth · **Posted:** Thu May 24, 2012 12:09 am

They are totally in shock? About what I wonder.

Prufrock · **Posted:** Thu May 24, 2012 12:28 am

'Kindly bear with us'.

Brilliant.

bwfcdan94 · **Posted:** Wed May 30, 2012 8:56 pm

the word blackburn is beginning to fit in the same catorgry as portsmouth and a few years ago leeds- the word "blackburn" is now funny

Wandering Willy · **Posted:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:44 pm

Kean to stay.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11688/7830223/Kean-to-stay-at-Rovers

They have appointed Shebby Singh as Director of Football. He was formally a second rate football pundit on Asian TV.

Singh said rather than wrote:

Steve has been in this sort of situation before in the Championship when he was at Fulham and he got them promoted

Kean was in fact the director of the academy when Fulham were promoted.

The gift that keeps on giving.

:lol:

bwfcdan94 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:49 pm

............

. they must be the worst run football club ever

Ambitious Blackburn

Who is online