Most liked posts in thread: Josh Wright speaks up...

I'm no josh Wright fan by any means but david Hopkin is a disgrace. Clear evidence of bullying on his part by an absolute dinosaur of a manager. Thank god we got shot of that cretin.

 

Josh Wright the blameless victim. Awful footballer, worse attitude. Good riddance. He was useless long before Hopkin took charge.

 

Hopkin was an utter disgrace of a manager.

As much as I slag of Bowyer for being negative in his football approach at times in terms of people skills in seems top draw. How he treated Reeves and Wright prime examples of that.

The players under Collins and Hopkin suffered.

I just hope Hopkin wasn't acting like he did because the club were desperate for money. The club does act desperate at times hence the Doyle situation but either way Hopkin was bad for us at a time we needed man management at the highest level.

 

Sounds like he was treated appallingly really. Wright is 100% correct about being scapegoated, by the club for isolating him and after that goal at Barnsley the subsequent abuse was unjust. In my humble opinion.

 

It's breach of copyright. You could be sued for compensation. You stop readers being exposed to the advertising that pays for the article's overheads if they don't have to go there to read it. Also, sometimes, intentional or accidental omissions from a cut and paste can lead to distortion or defamation so it's best to copy as little as possible, as the law indicates

Also, misleading articles about people or organisations in the internet age can be treated as both slander or libel. Penalties for libel tend to be more severe. Whether it is slander or libel used to just be speech or print. These days, case law has decided it is determined by the court on the grounds of the degree of forethought and editorial control by the posting individual or organisation.

All text posted online is actually copyright protected, even posts here by individuals. A post, joke or sarcastic comment posted here might lead to death threats if reposted only in part or out of context in the wrong place. Reposting could lead to a court appearance if there is a bad outcome.

Prosecutions are rare but they do happen so people should be aware of the law. It is basically illegal to copy and paste anything wholesale unless permission is expressly given to do so

I hope these bits of information turn out to be of little relevance to all here.

 

I'm amazed you went to this length, fascinating.

 

The ones that provide a link to the article on the website?

Isn't that the point?

 

The whole article is here so no need to use the link to visit the page. Their whole online revenue is based on clicks and visits so people see the adverts.

Do I really need to explain this?

 

Ha!
So you are confirming you are a prize dick after all as all you do regarding the club is criticise and complain.

 

HopkinS was a joke for us as a player as well as a manager. We used to play football with Isherwoods girlfriend, she used to tell us what Tom was telling her, it got to a point where he felt he could do right for doing wrong. Picking individuals out in training like he did with Wright was a regular occurrence. I remember him having at us fans at Accrington after what was one of the worst performances i've ever seen. I'll be surprised if we ever see at this level of football management again.

 

Pushed..

 

Poor form to c&p an entire article. You should include the link, the general gist and perhaps a small, relevant section of the article.

We've been here before.

 

Josh Wright was complete dog shit anyway. Good job he was kept from the team imho. Though the methods reportedly used are very questionable indeed and relect badly on DH.

 

Appalling attitude confirmed by his Twitter antics last night. Noticed he liked in a smarmy arrogant way anyone's tweet that questioned his integrity. Could've showed some class and been the bigger man and ignored them. None that I saw was offensive either. He can play the poor me card all he wants. No sympathy. Think he knows he's in for a tough afternoon from the stands and is going for the sympathy vote to soften up on him. Clearly he is made of paper and is a wet lettuce and can't take the heat. Trying to blame anyone but himself. Takes two to tango.

 

The internet has blurred the line and, in case law, judges had to reassess the traditional boundaries. They decided that some posts were like off-the-cuff speech and should be treated as such, while some publication was still like newspapers or TV, where great consideration went into the drawing it up, and an editor would have reviewed it and checked sourcing and accuracy. They would probably take into consideration how seriously the viewer then might take the item. So, a defaming article in a T&A article would probably be treated as libel, while a defaming article in the readers' comments would probably be treated as slander. Even though they appear in the same place, it's how well researched and truthful it would be expected to be by the reader, and also damages would be assessed in reference to how many readers might be exposed to it.

As far as I am aware the old legislation still stands even though it wants updating. They should really just have the one offence of "defamation" with a broader range of potential damages for judges to choose from. The old rules of a smaller range of penalties for slander and bigger range for libel are out of date.

I won't start on photography, where you used to have to ask permission to take a picture of a private individual, which seems to have gone out of the window but there are still restrictions and alot of grey areas:

http://fotographicimages.co.uk/about-us/privacy-policy/

I think we've gone off-topic enough now?

(Edit - on a bit more research, I see there is a 2013 Defamation Act that came in to effect on 2014 and deals with some problems of online publishing but I've been unable to find anything that overrides the grey areas between libel and slander for minor online text articles that I referred to above. It might have changed to make it a bit clearer under the one offence of Defamation - but I have not found any evidence of it. They articles on the new Act all just seem to talk about when a publisher is responsible for an individual's content and when not, which is a separate issue.)

 

If the op had contained a swear word Bigrod would have edited it out within a blink of an eye. Potentially illegal and unethical posting is fine by him though.

Perhaps he should familiarise himself with UK copyright law.

https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law @Bigrod

Hope that helps.

 

Then again when you're a Rahic insider I wouldn't think that would go down well with Hopkin.

 

So Reeves is out for 2 years and it's been hinting by someone on here that certain managers before Bowyer didn't care about him and that could of set him back but that's acceptable is it?

Point is Hopkin treated people badly and you wouldn't like it if your manager treated you badly and it would effect your life and its no different for footballers.