Tony's Tweets

[ciggiesnbeer]

Did he say he obtained it by fraud? I read it as if he was claiming CIA didnt have one.

Anyhow, as a matter of interest what is the legal position and responsibility of  h&v when posters break the law, eg racism, libel?

My arse is on the line, probably.

Even if not I think its a good thing there is a line here. A bit of respect to people involved in our club should be applauded. We can want them gone or think they are bad at their jobs, but slandering them in the heat of the moment is over the line and we could all do with a reminder of that every now and again.

[oldhill_avfc]

I'm not particularly trying to defend alfi.  Its just that he comes across as a bit of an eccentric and has,in his own way repeated what's been said before. 

I agree that we don't want to be offensive let alone go beyond that, but i'd hate to stifle some of the daft posts unless its legally necessary to do so.

[brian green]

The law is clear and specific.  It has to be. Just being daft is no defence.  Break any law, including the libel laws and you get punished.

[Ads]

Seeing as his professor confirmed it, it's an outright lie.

Being a semi-literate whopper is a feature of the Defendant than a defence.

[OCD]

I appreciate the website's need to protect itself but I don't see the motivation for a club's owner to take the club's fanzine website to court for libel over one outspoken fan commenting that something that is a verifiable fact isn't true. I guess in this day and age that's the way it is though.

[oldhill_avfc]

Then law is indeed clear.   What isn't clear, to me at least, is who are the plaintiffs and who is the defendant. 

If xia thinks he has libelled then he has the right to make his claim and seek redress through a court.   Redress from whom is the interesting point.

At the moment all I see are some posters who mocked then style of the post, and the moderators naturally wanting to avoid a potential problem.

[Drummond]

Redress from the publication that published or allowed the quote. In the era  of anonymous posting etc, the site is held accountable. In the same way that a newspaper would be held accountable for a story published on its pages.

[oldhill_avfc]

That's interesting and goes against the notion that social media sites are platforms, not publishers.

I can find a few instances where individuals have claimed that posters are libellous, for example when McAlpine asked twitter users to make a charitable donation in lieu of damages, which are analogous to the situation on here.

Another interesting point is that "Defamation law makes a distinction between statements made about a public figure and statements made about a private figure. In order to be liable for libel against a public figure, a person must have acted with “actual malice,” which is defined as either knowing that the statement in question was false or acting with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement."

So the questions seem to be  (and i don't know the answers):
(1) is the Harvard doctorship issued resolved one way or the other?
(2) Did Alfie actually know the answer to (1)
(3) was he being reckless, provided that he was wrong about (1)


As a final note there a number of newspaper articles making allegations around then time he took over - he never took many action at that point.

[brian green]

There comes a point in the life of very many public figures when they have no choice but to take legal action.  It does not matter whether the damage is being done by a lie in a red top tabloid or a parish newsletter.  The person who seeks to protect themselves has to act against the justification by the potential defendant of an action that the target never acted before when the same things were written.

[Clampy]

Not only does he spout libellous nonsense, he only seems to do it when we don't win a game.

[Risso]

Redress from the publication that published or allowed the quote. In the era  of anonymous posting etc, the site is held accountable. In the same way that a newspaper would be held accountable for a story published on its pages.

I think you're right, and I could be wrong, but I think the only defence against it is if the site never moderates any comments.  The implication being that if you actively moderate comments, then you should have picked up the libellous comments and removed them.  If you can prove that nothing is ever moderated, then the blame passes back to the individual who made the post.  I'm sure one of our resident bone idle, fraudulent, lying solicitors like Ads or Richard can confirm if that's right.

[chrisw1]

The reality is Xia would never take H&V to court over one idiots ramblings.  But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be called out for it.  And frankly the style and content is almost unfathomable and given the amount of times people have commented on this I only assume deliberate.  I wash over the posts as I'm sure the majority of people on here do.  Shame there isn't a block feature.

[Risso]

The reality is Xia would never take H&V to court over one idiots ramblings.  But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be called out for it.  And frankly the style and content is almost unfathomable and given the amount of times people have commented on this I only assume deliberate.  I wash over the posts as I'm sure the majority of people on here do.  Shame there isn't a block feature.

It's not worth taking the risk.  Thee are examples out there where people have done exactly that:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/football-club-solicitor-awarded-18000-over-struck-off-libel-/5061422.article

A solicitor at Blackpool suing because he was being incorrectly described as 'struck off' on a football forum isn't a million miles away from falsely stating that Dr Xia has made up credentials.  And of course, Dr Tony is a lot, lot richer than anybody connected with Blackpool.

[chrisw1]

The reality is Xia would never take H&V to court over one idiots ramblings.  But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be called out for it.  And frankly the style and content is almost unfathomable and given the amount of times people have commented on this I only assume deliberate.  I wash over the posts as I'm sure the majority of people on here do.  Shame there isn't a block feature.

It's not worth taking the risk.  Thee are examples out there where people have done exactly that:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/football-club-solicitor-awarded-18000-over-struck-off-libel-/5061422.article

A solicitor at Blackpool suing because he was being incorrectly described as 'struck off' on a football forum isn't a million miles away from falsely stating that Dr Xia has made up credentials.  And of course, Dr Tony is a lot, lot richer than anybody connected with Blackpool.

I think the difference is I don't think Xia would do it to a fans forum.  I do take the point though that there could be some risk there.

Frankly, I'm all for seeing less of Alfs eye hurting posts, libellous or not.

[robbo1874]

He probably just has a few purple tins of super before he posts...

Tony that is, not Alfi 😄

Oops!