Geordies Takeover.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
highpeak tiger said:
I appreciate that, with libel, you might have to prove its true, but, with the law of the land you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Or has that changed.
Click to expand...

That’s exactly why it’s a risk to run.

Unless the new owners have been found guilty of these things, it’s legally risky to run the picture.

The article mentions what the banner alleges, but it’s attributed to the banner. There’d be a big difference to publishing the banner itself.
 
Drew said:
You don’t think featuring a picture alleging someone is a terrorist could be a legal issue?
Click to expand...

What comments are there about race? Seen banners with similar accusations about Israel at demos but the police didn’t investigate.
 
RayVonn said:
What comments are there about race? Seen banners with similar accusations about Israel at demos but the police didn’t investigate.
Click to expand...

I didn’t mention race?

Were these banners published by media or were they just at the demos? There’s a difference.
 
Drew said:
I didn’t mention race?

Were these banners published by media or were they just at the demos? There’s a difference.
Click to expand...

Well I saw them in the media. A quick google will bring plenty of examples up.

Why are the police investigating it for racism as it doesn’t mention race. Would a banner accusing Germany in 1938 of similar things have had the police investigating it for racism?
 
RayVonn said:
Well I saw them in the media. A quick google will bring plenty of examples up.

Why are the police investigating it for racism as it doesn’t mention race. Would a banner accusing Germany in 1938 of similar things have had the police investigating it for racism?
Click to expand...

I think we’re discussing different things.

I was talking about why sections of the media might be risk averse in publishing the banner themselves, rather than what the police should and shouldn’t be investigating.

I do find the banner a little stereotypical but racist? Not overtly.

It’s difficult to judge the Israel banners as it will depend on context. Also it is different as it’s accusations being thrown at a state, rather than individual people involved in Newcastle.
 
Presumably somebody reported it to the police and alleged it was racist and they have to investigate
It isn't so that shouldn't take too long
 
Drew said:
I think we’re discussing different things.

I was talking about why sections of the media might be risk averse in publishing the banner themselves, rather than what the police should and shouldn’t be investigating.

I do find the banner a little stereotypical but racist? Not overtly.

It’s difficult to judge the Israel banners as it will depend on context. Also it is different as it’s accusations being thrown at a state, rather than individual people involved in Newcastle.
Click to expand...

Depends on what context? The banner mentions what the.state of Saudi Arabia has done which is pertinent as it basically state money being used in the purchase.
 
RayVonn said:
Depends on what context? The banner mentions what the.state of Saudi Arabia has done which is pertinent as it basically state money being used in the purchase.
Click to expand...

Depends on what the banner says against Israel and how it was published.

The Saudi Arabian banner is talking about both what the state has done and what the individuals in charge of Newcastle have done.

They are one and the same but legally this is targeting individuals who also happen to run Saudi Arabia.

Unless you can prove they are guilty of every single thing on that banner, it’s a risk to publish.

Im not saying it can’t be published, I’m saying there is a risk.
 
highpeak tiger said:
I think it might be libelous but it sure as hell isn't racist
Click to expand...

Criticising anyone belonging to certain religions is considered racist even though you , I or anyone else could become members of that religion. Which I think is the case here and why the police are investigating as they are frightened of being accused of racism for not doing so.
 
Drew said:
Depends on what the banner says against Israel and how it was published.

The Saudi Arabian banner is talking about both what the state has done and what the individuals in charge of Newcastle have done.

They are one and the same but legally this is targeting individuals who also happen to run Saudi Arabia.

Unless you can prove they are guilty of every single thing on that banner, it’s a risk to publish.

Im not saying it can’t be published, I’m saying there is a risk.
Click to expand...

I can remember demos with banners accusing Israel of all sorts of things with no action taken, one saying they are committing genocide. Nothing done about that.
 
RayVonn said:
I can remember demos with banners accusing Israel of all sorts of things with no action taken, one saying they are committing genocide. Nothing done about that.
Click to expand...

I know. But as I said, if these are published in the media, then it depends on the context it was published in.

Which banners did they choose to publish? Was there a caption attributed to the picture that gave context to the banner? Was the risk of publishing the banner worth it in the wider scheme of coverage of Israel issues? Did it name individual people, or was it just criticism of the state? Was there a statement from the Israeli government in the article?

There's many things to consider, rather than 'this was OK to publish so this must be too'.

Also, you can't compare the two as accusations against Israel are different to accusations against individual people who run both Newcastle United and Saudi Arabia.
 
I wouldn’t even say it’s libellous. The people bankrolling the Newcastle takeover are the same ones who chopped up a journalist into little pieces in an embassy.

That being said, I hope all those criticising the Newcastle takeover show the same consistency when England play in an equally-disgusting and murderous dictatorship next year, and refuse to watch the tournament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shag, Gone For A Walk, SW3 Chelsea Tiger and 1 other person
at least steve bruce isn't a set of murdering bastards. newcastle fans ought to be grateful for that.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ion-over-crystal-palace-fans-newcastle-banner

They also displayed the banner in a report about the police investigation. The very newspaper I would say is woke?

I read a recent article in the gruniard, written by one of the in house legal experts. The decisions to publish or not. All those who have claimed libel on this thread better e mail the paper with their findings, and perhaps tell them the in house expert may have got it wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back