I take it you must be texting the ****er then! Let's start with the "full Nelson" on Alonso by Cahill in the build-up to the first goal, the judo hold by Osman on Finnan on the six-yard line for the second, the blatant handball by Hibbert on the same six-yard line when he simply laid down and picked the ball up as it was goal-bound, IN FRONT OF POLL!
The funniest thing is the idea that any of them give a flying **** what we think. I doubt they even know we exist.
The burden of proof is yours though, you'd have to back up your statement as being factual My point was that 'opinion' is not automatically a 'get out of jail' cover all, in matters of potential defamation.
[video]http://images.dailystar-uk.co.uk/dynamic/58/photos/45000/27045.jpg[/video] Sir Alex Ferguson exchanged private CALLS and TEXTS with Prem ref while Man Utd boss
Can't say I'm surprised by this. We've all known for years how cosy Fungus was with his selection of refs....but text messages is mad?? United should be stripped of all their titles the crooked ****ers Dirty, corrupt club........IMO
Honest opinion is now a legitimate defence in defamation cases. If an honest person could hold the opinion based on any facts available then you have a strong defence.
In this case, are you saying that the facts support that opinion? Texting to and from Fergie is supportive of an opinion of dodgy and bent refereeing?...In that case no referee should be friends with any club manager.
quite simple. players get banned for betting even on games they don't play in due to the "risk" here we have an official in communication with one manager of one team in the league he officiates in. the merest hint of impropriety is enough to bring the game into disrepute. simply put in my opinion it hints at collusion and fixing.
It isn't always as cut and dried as facts supporting opinion because the same facts lead to many other different opinions being held - but if the person holds the opinion based on any facts available that make him hold that opinion then he has a good defence. And yes refs and managers need to keep it professional. If a 'friendship' develops then officials need informing in the same way that refs can't officiate the team they support, they shouldn't be able to ref their 'friends' games.
I didn't say honest opinion couldn't be used as a defence. What I said was that your earlier statement (below) was wrong.
I think it's more right than wrong because the first thing you must prove is that the statement [opinion] constitutes a false statement of fact, which is very hard to do - not impossible depending on the case obviously but in general terms opinions aren't actionable as defamation, particularly online defamation.
No, the first thing that you must prove is that it's damaged (or may damage) your reputation. It's up to the person who made the statement to prove that it has a basis in fact, not vice versa.
That's actually the second thing you have to prove. If the statement was the truth the claimant is unlikely to win the case.
Again you're wrong I'm afraid, as sometimes in these situations the 'truth' is merely a matter of subjective opinion. A dispute between 2 parties that has 2 sides, but one chooses to slander or libel the other party in a way that damages their reputation.
