And repeating a libel is also libel - so probably best for people to be careful when posting links to the dodgy comments.Stan A. Einstein wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 2:11 pm The poster above who brought up the subject of libel is correct. Unless some of the allegations made are true then there would be a strong case. Although people who make such comments don't usually have enough money to be worth suing. They are as we say in the trade, men of straw.
You do have though to distinguish between libel, fair comment and vulgar abuse. Only libel is actionable. As in Stan Einstein is a crook is libel. Stan Einstein is a sh!t commentator on the affairs of Newport County is fair comment. By that even if it were wrong it is only an opinion and one which anyone is entitled to hold. Stan Einstein is an egotistical dickhead, is merely vulgar abuse.
Although my views on Flynn were mixed. I wasn't totally convinced by him but his record, The escape, two excellent Cup runs, and two play-off finals in less than five years is commendable.
That's a bit simplistic. And in the context of links probably wrong.Jonesy3 wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 2:52 pmAnd repeating a libel is also libel - so probably best for people to be careful when posting links to the dodgy comments.Stan A. Einstein wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 2:11 pm The poster above who brought up the subject of libel is correct. Unless some of the allegations made are true then there would be a strong case. Although people who make such comments don't usually have enough money to be worth suing. They are as we say in the trade, men of straw.
You do have though to distinguish between libel, fair comment and vulgar abuse. Only libel is actionable. As in Stan Einstein is a crook is libel. Stan Einstein is a sh!t commentator on the affairs of Newport County is fair comment. By that even if it were wrong it is only an opinion and one which anyone is entitled to hold. Stan Einstein is an egotistical dickhead, is merely vulgar abuse.
Although my views on Flynn were mixed. I wasn't totally convinced by him but his record, The escape, two excellent Cup runs, and two play-off finals in less than five years is commendable.
You may well be right about Flynn being unlikely to resort to the law for redress but I totally disagree with your views about people who have an education in the law. I have always found that such characters are very good company and their education and experience invariably yields a wealth of amusing anecdotes and they often possess a sharp and agile wit. Your dislike for people able to memorise quotes and passages of poetry is similarly unfair, they surely cannot be blamed if their memory is retentive of such stuff and I’m sure most brains tend to have a foible for such things, uninteresting though it may be to some others. To make it clear, I have no personal interest in the sleight because my training was in a health profession and not the law so my literary exclamation was often ‘“ and here we execute stern Pluto’s will - and ply thee daily with a pill “. Perhaps a chill pill in this case eh?Bangitintrnet wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 4:55 pm This thread encapsulates all that is wrong with the legal system.
I have recently retired, however most of my day job involved interaction and decisions made with grounded people in the real world. Engineers, Developers, Farmers etc. People whose starting point was "is there a business case for spending this money"
Once or twice a week I had to deal with the legal bods, which ment colliding into a fantasy world of what if's.
The higher up the tree they got, the worse they were.
If you think about the type of person who decides to follow a legal education, it's the type of person who likes to show off by memorising long legal definitions or bits of poetry. They learn these off by heart in Uni, when everyone else was down the pub getting pissed. As a result the pissheads drop out Uni or fail their legal qualifications and become normal again. However those that progress get more and more into this fantasy world of what if this happens, we will have to write a clause for that, and what about this catastrophic event, that will need to be in it. Nevermind that it's not likely or real, it's just fantasy.
If I gave instructions to a junior member of staff they would follow a template and cross out anything inappropriate. They still had hope of being at least a tiny bit nomal.
A senior member however, would be so immersed in this fantasy world, that the likelihood of the event happening would not even be a factor.
So do we in the real world, think it likely that Flynn will take a litigious view?
Of course not, therefore you can safely ignore all of the posts above this one that discuss the possibility of it.
Bit weird. In Michael Michael Flynn....thread.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 4:55 pm This thread encapsulates all that is wrong with the legal system.
I have recently retired, however most of my day job involved interaction and decisions made with grounded people in the real world. Engineers, Developers, Farmers etc. People whose starting point was "is there a business case for spending this money"
Once or twice a week I had to deal with the legal bods, which ment colliding into a fantasy world of what if's.
The higher up the tree they got, the worse they were.
If you think about the type of person who decides to follow a legal education, it's the type of person who likes to show off by memorising long legal definitions or bits of poetry. They learn these off by heart in Uni, when everyone else was down the pub getting pissed. As a result the pissheads drop out Uni or fail their legal qualifications and become normal again. However those that progress get more and more into this fantasy world of what if this happens, we will have to write a clause for that, and what about this catastrophic event, that will need to be in it. Nevermind that it's not likely or real, it's just fantasy.
If I gave instructions to a junior member of staff they would follow a template and cross out anything inappropriate. They still had hope of being at least a tiny bit nomal.
A senior member however, would be so immersed in this fantasy world, that the likelihood of the event happening would not even be a factor.
So do we in the real world, think it likely that Flynn will take a litigious view?
Of course not, therefore you can safely ignore all of the posts above this one that discuss the possibility of it.
If you can win clean and good for folks. I don't believe you have to be qualified. Vast parts of the law you can operate in this way if you are good enough. But one day if you extend, a little too far. you might say, you'll have your day in court. (Because you can't know a Judge.)Bangitintrnet wrote: November 3rd, 2021, 9:47 am My experience of the law in this country goes back 40 years, but not quite to the Magna Carta
My observation is that people who are good in the educational system, can qualify and then not prove to be much use at the actual job.
I guess there are just as many wannabe doctors out there as wannabe footballers, but some end up as chiropodist's.
But what of the legal system, where do the purely academics progress too?
To corporate law - settle issues through dispute resolution, desist and refrain correspondence, whilst never seeing the inside of a court room.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 3rd, 2021, 9:47 am
But what of the legal system, where do the purely academics progress too?
Or even made enquiries at the Intellectual Property Office in Newport.Stan A. Einstein wrote: November 3rd, 2021, 9:56 am Having blocked Bangedonhishead unless he is quoted I am usually spared/denied his wisdom/stupidity.
However having read his latest post can't help but feel the urge to point out that had Newport County and their kit manufacturers bothered to consult an intellectual property lawyer before introducing their Burberry range of kit, both might have been spared a great deal of expense and embarrassment.
I know that I shall meet my fate
Somewhere among the clouds above;
Those I fight I do not hate
Those I guard I do not love;
However I should add that where bangedonhishead agreed with me, in that Flynn wouldn't litigate I have slight hopes for him. That I told you why, 'men of straw' is simply my attempt to educate. I confess my first degree was in history. As a young man I got pissed up in student union bars and learned very little. In my 30's, tired of having to take orders from idiots I studied law in the evenings to qualify for my chosen profession. As I wasn't wasting my time getting drunk I also had time to become acquainted with such things as poetry. The four line above are from W.B.Yeats. Enjoy.
Stan A. Einstein wrote: November 3rd, 2021, 9:56 am
However having read his latest post can't help but feel the urge to point out that had Newport County and their kit manufacturers bothered to consult an intellectual property lawyer before introducing their Burberry range of kit, both might have been spared a great deal of expense and embarrassment.
In the real world the decision would have been how much of the third kit do we normally sell? And how much money was made out of this one.......
But of course that's not what YOU thought, was it?
Users browsing this forum: Trigger
