Josh Wright speaks up...

It's not keeping anoraks happy, it's actually saving you from potentially being in bother. Maybe you and your mods should educate yourselves better. This is at least the second time I've pointed it out.

 

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 The old rules of a smaller range of penalties for slander and bigger range for libel are out of date.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.

 

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

 

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

Isn't that the point?

 

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.

 

Any proof of that or you lying again?

 

Like I was lying about Rahic get a life mate.

 

As much as he is utter dog eggs, you all know he's going to have a blinder on Saturday don't you?

 

A decent point but also not taking into consideration the benefits that the link provides the website.

 

What proof do you have?

Tell us where you got that BS from? It's bollocks mate. Utter sh&te.

 

Only if his favourite supporter is there blowing him kisses and shouting his name every 2 minutes.

 

Point is it’s a thread on Josh Wright not David Hopkin. Josh Wright was garbage long before Hopkin took over, he’s now playing for a low end League 2 club, which sort of proves my point.

 

I've no time for Josh as a player I thought his displays for us were poor before Hopkin got the job. He just wasn't up to it in terms of his football ability.

I do have to say though that the treatment he describes is poor management. If someone isn't up to it there is a way of dealing with it which doesn't involve isolating and belittling them. I would be interested to know if he was offered a way out before it got to that stage ie a loan or perm move, which would seem to be the sensible thing to do and whether he stayed to ensure he got the likely inflated wages we were paying him.

 

Point of the thread is what he is saying.

Hopkins effected him before Hopkin we had Collins.

It's like deciding between Danny Devine and Anderson.

 

You certainly seemed to enjoy telling the Cows Arse lads they were lying when they first hinted at the rumours.

 

Crap managers, crap player. Except he talked a massive game and absolutely flat lined.