Ah, my computer (at work) is slow, and the comments hadn't caught up with my system. Okay, so Tobes makes a complete and utter fool of himself by misrepresenting the law! Is anyone really surprised?
Section 1 of the new act clearly defines that a statement is no longer defamatory unless a claimant can show that ‘…its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to [his/her] reputation. It's intent is to deter trivial claims and give the opportunity to strike them out early in the process. A comment on a football website referencing previously published stories from the National red tops wouldn't fit that parameter would it? A simple yes or no will suffice.
You're a clown mate, pack it in you're playing with the big boys now. You're liable to get another bloody nose if you carry on. How much humiliation is enough for you to call time on it?
I reckon he did a law degree as he has a scratch the surface understanding of certain aspects of the law. Now he works reception.
Jesus, I wish I'd never brought it up now! This is the site at it's worst. My only point was that now Eva has included Jose personally in her legal action, it could get very interesting as we may get to see a bit of what goes on in the background of the club. And given they have gone from Champions (comfortably) to poor without significant changes, that will be an interesting view.
If Jose does go it will be a brave man who takes over a job which sacks its coach the season after winning the league and Capital One cup.
The only part of the 1952 Act that is repealed by the 2013 Act is section 6. Other parts of the 52 Act are amended, but most of it remains intact, including (crucially to your pathetic attempt to explain the law) section 2. I'm not going to argue with you on this subject, as you clearly don't understand it. Suffice it to say, that if anyone has made any kind of statement that that Chelsea doctor had sex with any of her clients, such statement would, be defamatory and, by virtue of section 2 of the 1952 Act (and countless cases defining the ambit of that section) be automatically actionable in damages. Clown or not, that is the law.
Makes me giggle all these lawyers that pop up. I wouldn't be surprised if she's been banging dick. And she did seem close to Ivanovic. Now the sensitive ****ers have forgotten to be loyal to the fans, because Jose has dumped the pussy. It's not the first time pussy has ruined a good thing. It's the only thing I back Mourinhio with. It's obvious he thought she was a bit of a hinderence. I can imagine him seeing her 'bantering' in a way women do when they are getting attention...on an almost daily basis. Mourinhio being Mourinhio has waited as long as he can, I.e the first game of the season and turned the whole thing on its head and ****ed her off. For that...well played Mourinhio. Plus there was a male doctor involved too who got some Mourinhio treatment. Papers haven't focused on him..why? Because he is a man. This female doctor everyone seems to **** over, however has decided to milk all this and make it into a sexist thing. People here behaving outraged, because she is a bit of pussy.
What she felt and what actually happened is two different things. Seeing as the other person who went on the field with her is back working with the club, proves that her position was not untenable. He actually went onto say just because they are not travelling with the first team at the moment does not mean they will not in the future. It was not in anyway shape or form constructive dismissal, as the Manager of the team its his choice as to who he wishes to take to games. The actual interview itself, all he said was that they were naive, it is the press who has blown this up, to the point that she has felt she had to leave. If no one had of mentioned it , she would not have gone on social media to thank everyone for their support, and he would not then have felt it better for her to stay at cobham. I know you guys are rubbing this in , because hey it give you a chance to kick chelsea, fair enough, but this bullshit has cost us one of the few high profile female role models in the games. Arent you proud?
Section 2 of the 1952 act is irrelevant to the point at hand you spanner. As all it states is that " it shall not be necessary to allege or prove special damage, whether or not the words are spoken of the plaintiff in the way of his office, profession, calling, trade or business.". It doesn't alter the fact that under Section 1 of the latest act " a statement is no longer defamatory unless a claimant can show that ‘…its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to [his/her] reputation" Your definitive statement in the last paragraph clearly shows that your knowledge of the law is restricted to google. As no lawyer I've ever met would talk in such a definitive tone about what is a very subjective point. I also note you never answered my very simple "yes or no" question. I eagerly await your response.
Too much point proving going on here. Can't we just have a 'my dick is bigger than yours' contest instead?
I don't know why anyone would spend so much time trying to convince people that they are a lawyer. Most lawyers are charmless tools. My guess would be that HIAG wants us to think that he's rich. Quite sad really.
