Topic: "Epic Swindle" and UK libel law - calling RAWK's inhouse legal counsel

[madds]

I read the petition Hicks submitted to the Texas court and that was all his words. I think Sky were just guilty of letting the twat ramble on without interruption.

Fair enough, I haven't read that petition. I was probably trying to read too much into it.

I think the thing that riles most people, is in the interest of fair journalism, they didn't challenge even his wildest claims. Just presented the story as an exclusive.

[Alan_X]

Fair enough, I haven't read that petition. I was probably trying to read too much into it.

I think the thing that riles most people, is in the interest of fair journalism, they didn't challenge even his wildest claims. Just presented the story as an exclusive.

I think it's poor journalism rather than conspiracy, although both do the same damage. And it's not just Sky - the BBC still allow Lawrenson and Claridge to spew their bile about Benitez destroying Liverpool without pulling them up and asking for a few facts.

[bclfc]

It is actually astounding the level to which libelesque diatribes are allowed to appear on Sky etc... I wouldn't be at all surprised if MB sued Hicks for slander, as Hicks basically called him a backstabbing b*stard and all.  The fallout from this whole episode should be quite entertaining, methinks...

[free_at_last]

...and not one question as to why they turned it into a leveraged buyout when they said they wouldn't. I suppose that may have
shown how we were swindled.

[rossipersempre]

Thinking about this more this morning, at the very least they (the alleged swindlers) should threaten if only to seek a full and proper retraction and apology for his comments. Hicks clearly can pull strings to get a filmed interview with Sky, plus international news outlets should receive statements to that effect. Embarrass the scum.

[xerxes1]

Hicks clearly can pull strings to get a filmed interview with Sky, plus international news outlets should receive statements to that effect. Embarrass the scum.

It was a curious, and very sympathetic interview, wasn't it? With the mood against G&H, leveraged buy outs, and cynical  owners who know nothing about football other than  that which lies at the bottom of the balance sheet I was surprised by its content. By all means give G&H a platform to explain their actions, we are all intersted in that, but to allow the interview to become a factually flawed PR exercise was poor.

As for the threat of legal laction from G&H. Broughton has shown himslef to be sure footed. He was similarly adept at the  BHB and BAT. Petulant outbursts are best left at that.

[rossipersempre]

It was a curious, and very sympathetic interview, wasn't it? With the mood against G&H, leveraged buy outs, and cynical  owners who know nothing about football other than  that which lies at the bottom of the balance sheet I was surprised by its content. By all means give G&H a platform to explain their actions, we are all intersted in that, but to allow the interview to become a factually flawed PR exercise was poor.

As for the threat of legal laction from G&H. Broughton has shown himslef to be sure footed. He was similarly adept at the  BHB and BAT. Petulant outbursts are best left at that.

Yep, should have said "interview" as it was practically a PR release that as others have said, would never have been allowed to be broadcast by any reputable news outlet.

As for it being a petulant outburst best ignored I disagree. It's one thing if he'd have said "Broughton, the lot of them acted disgracefully", but quite another to suggest dishonesty and fraud. You can't let that one go unchallenged IMO.

[manifest]

I understand Bin Laden and al Qaeda have made an injunction to the libel court in Pakistan complaining about being compared with Liverpool supporters. They want an end to the occupation of all Islamic lands, and damages from Zionist pigs who compare them to 'these Scouse bastards sons of whores'

right lads...email campaign

osama@the caves.pak

It was a curious, and very sympathetic interview, wasn't it? With the mood against G&H, leveraged buy outs, and cynical  owners who know nothing about football other than  that which lies at the bottom of the balance sheet I was surprised by its content.

murdoch is 100% on hicks side, and represents hicks' class at every turn, and most definitely doesn't share "the mood". Fox exists above all else as a means to assassinate character....I mean, it's not reporting news is it. One of the things that gets lost is that murdoch did an LBO to get the prem on sky in the first place; in principle he did to england through the *** and sky what hicks did to Liverpool.

Though it would be interesting to know how others (non liverpool) in england saw it......I suspect it backfired if sympathy was hoped for.

[bridgetown]

I think that there may be a case for defamation, in all the circumstances of the interview he was inputing dishonesty by usingthe terms conspiracy and swindle. Martin Broughton and Christian Puslow, Ian Ayer have fine upstanding reputations within the city and business world,I am sure their lawyers will consider what has been said and the circumstances in which it was said. Sky's constant repeating could render them liable as well, because they failed to mention that the High Court in London had found in favour of the Liverpool board in regard to the lawful  sale of LFC.
Sky's lawyers appear to be as bad as the awful news chanel, 

[Raul!]

The defences are justification (truth), fair comment (although that has to be 'without malice' and based on provable fact) and privilege (it was said in court) you have absolute privilege in court and qualified privilege if you are reporting court proceedings.

Fair enough, then there are some differences in the UK from my jurisdiction, where the only defence is the truth.  Privilege of course is a defence for other things than defamation. 

[Brother Mouzone]

So if you were to hear someone repeat those quotes having obtained them from the sky interview, for example my City loving father in law, does that make Sky guilty of libel?

If you report a defamatory statement on a television radio or in a newspaper you are as guilty of making that defamatory statement as the person whose words you are using. That's why journalists train in media law so they don't fuck up so horrendously.

So by broadacasting the statement over and again Sky are vulnerable I would say yes.

[Brother Mouzone]

The problem is that you have to define the actual harmful imputation that will cause the damage or harm to the individual it was directed too. The problem with the term "swindle" is that it is probably a stretch to show this has the imputation of being a criminal or fraud or anything else which may be damaging and there is a highly arguable case that "swindle" could have been met in terms of being a shrewd business deal. It's highly arguable, indefinite and even if it was held to have a defamatory imputation the damages recoverable for the use of such a term would likely pale in contrast to the costs, time and effort involved in bringing such an action. Really only in exemplary cases will it be worthwhile. Furthermore it is likely that after all of this Hicks has little in the way of assets in the UK (thank your mother for the rabbits) and therefore the enforcement against assets held overseas is far from an easy prospect and is likely to be tied up in red tape - not to mention the fact that it's likely Hicks' overseas assets are protected via various tax and ownership vehicles to avoid any such claims.

The definition of swindle is to use deception to obtain money or the noun is a fraudulent scheme or action - so I guess the argument is then whether to swindle someone is a criminal act or just standard business practice. And if it's standard business practice he should just stop whingeing about it. If it's criminal it's a pretty unpleasant accusation.

There is no way that any of the people involved would sue - there really is nothing to be gained. But, if nothing else, it would have taught Sky to employ proper journalists with proper law training.