"The ICT Thread - From the Premiership to the Seaside"

[DA Baracus]

5 minutes ago, Cardle is Magic said:

He would need to prove the statement/s was/were false, that they damaged his reputation and led to a loss of earnings.

I did think Gardiner would claim defamation when I was reading how blistering Savage had been about him.

It seems that Gardiner was undoubtedly incompetent though, so the ‘veritas’ (truth) defence could be used or perhaps even claim it was in the public interest?

End of the day, it’s likely he’s just trying to save face and we’ll hear no more about this or it will be withdrawn with some lame mention about “moving on” and “not engaging” with the situation any longer.

Thanks!

So sounds like he's, once again, talking pish! The John Hughes of the boardroom if you will.

[Cardle is Magic]

4 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Thanks!

So sounds like he's, once again, talking pish! The John Hughes of the boardroom if you will.

They’d still be best advised to just stop talking about him publicly all the same.

Just because they may be right, doesn’t mean you want to have to defend it in court. Or spend money you don’t have on a solicitor.

[parsforlife]

30 minutes ago, Cardle is Magic said:

They’d still be best advised to just stop talking about him publicly all the same.

Just because they may be right, doesn’t mean you want to have to defend it in court. Or spend money you don’t have on a solicitor.

Whilst they may do that out of convivence,  If your confident in your claims then you don't need to back down.   Private eye,  who whilst kinda set themselves for this sort of thing take the 'mon then' opinion. based on 2 things. 

First of all to be guilty of defamation you not only have had to said false things, but it needs proven that you knew these to be false.   Second, for the one making the defamation claim,  are you certain the claims are entirely untrue? Its one thing to defend yourself in future against claims made by an individual,  its much harder to defend yourself if a court decides the claims were true.

[PB1994]

Pretty sure Gardiner has already started the court proceedings against Savage so I’m sure we will find out!

[Thistle_do_nicely]

8 hours ago, LiviLion said:

Not convinced it's allowed unless we've found a loophole I wasn't aware of, but we're streaming today's game on YouTube

 

I tried to skip this to near the end and 1:52:00 onwards is glorious

"Time!!! TIIIIME. LINO. REF! REFEREE!"

"LINESMAAAN. HEY! f**kIN TIME LAD."

"AH DONT f**kIN REF IT"

"THERE YA f**kIN w****r"

[Cardle is Magic]

1 hour ago, parsforlife said:

Whilst they may do that out of convivence,  If your confident in your claims then you don't need to back down.   Private eye,  who whilst kinda set themselves for this sort of thing take the 'mon then' opinion. based on 2 things. 

First of all to be guilty of defamation you not only have had to said false things, but it needs proven that you knew these to be false.   Second, for the one making the defamation claim,  are you certain the claims are entirely untrue? Its one thing to defend yourself in future against claims made by an individual,  its much harder to defend yourself if a court decides the claims were true.

You’re comparing apples and oranges a tad, no?

Private Eye will have a far more stringent Public Interest defence as journalists/reporters. They are also pretty careful with their wording at times, even if they are far braver than most of the written press. 

Unless they’ve posted utter bollocks just to make someone look bad then they’re safe as houses. Someone with enough money or influence may cause a stink depending on the story of course.

For Savage, slamming Gardiner achieves absolutely nothing IMO and just risks further unnecessary headaches.

[ScottishLoon]

1 minute 44 seconds for those playing this week's round of Duncan Ferguson "plastic pitch" bingo.

[CALEDONIAN108]

[Stephen Malkmus]

5 minutes ago, CALEDONIAN108 said:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/xhAtV4orH2mXMooo8

[Sergeant Wilson]

10 minutes ago, CALEDONIAN108 said:

I count the f**king cash?

[CALEDONIAN108]

1 hour ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/xhAtV4orH2mXMooo8

[Nowhereman]

22 hours ago, Cardle is Magic said:

He would need to prove the statement/s was/were false, that they damaged his reputation and led to a loss of earnings.

I did think Gardiner would claim defamation when I was reading how blistering Savage had been about him.

It seems that Gardiner was undoubtedly incompetent though, so the ‘veritas’ (truth) defence could be used or perhaps even claim it was in the public interest?

End of the day, it’s likely he’s just trying to save face and we’ll hear no more about this or it will be withdrawn with some lame mention about “moving on” and “not engaging” with the situation any longer.

Gardiner doesn’t need to prove they are false. Savage has to prove they are true

[Cardle is Magic]

1 hour ago, Nowhereman said:

Gardiner doesn’t need to prove they are false. Savage has to prove they are true

It’s been a while since I was studying Scots Law but I’m pretty sure that Gardiner would have to first establish that a defamatory statement or statements was/were made about him and also that this statement or statements was/were communicated to others.

If Gardiner met this burden, Savage would then need to prove his statement was true, in the public interest etc, in order to avoid being liable for potential damages.

If I’ve got that wrong then I’ll put my hands up and admit that my law tutor at college was talking shite…

Edited Sunday at 19:14 by Cardle is Magic

[bdu98196]

If this goes to court there is a risk Savage will loose as SG is (allegedly) a huge orange mason regardless whether the points he is making are correct or agreeable.

Edited Monday at 07:36 by bdu98196

[Stephen Malkmus]

23 minutes ago, bdu98196 said:

If this goes to court there is a risk Savage will loose as SG is (allegedly) a huge orange mason regardless whether the points he is making are correct or agreeable.

The admasonstrators will probably hand Gardiner the club

[QoS99]

12 hours ago, Cardle is Magic said:

It’s been a while since I was studying Scots Law but I’m pretty sure that Gardiner would have to first establish that a defamatory statement or statements was/were made about him and also that this statement or statements was/were communicated to others.

If Gardiner met this burden, Savage would then need to prove his statement was true, in the public interest etc, in order to avoid being liable for potential damages.

 

 

If I’ve got that wrong then I’ll put my hands up and admit that my law tutor at college was talking shite…

 

Yes that sounds correct. However, Savage can also argue that his defamatory statements were his “honest opinion” meaning that from the evidence obtained, an honest/reasonable person could argue that his statements are true based on the relevant facts. So, (obviously depending on what Savage exactly said), if the negligence is true to the extent that some on here are claiming, there could very well be a good chance that Savage could be successful in defending the action.

[oneteaminglasgow]

On 12/10/2024 at 20:31, Cardle is Magic said:

 that they damaged his reputation 

Surely this is where the case falls apart?

Short of murdering babies, there’s basically nothing that could make Scot Gardiner’s reputation in Scottish football any worse.

[Hampden Diehard]

On 07/10/2024 at 17:43, The Moonster said:

You did this with Dumbarton fans too - start arguments and then claim folk are "trying to manufacture a rivalry". Nobody is buying it m8.

The guy did much the same with Queen's Park.

[welshbairn]

40 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

Surely this is where the case falls apart?

Short of murdering babies, there’s basically nothing that could make Scot Gardiner’s reputation in Scottish football any worse.

When Stuart "wings" Campbell lost his defamation case against Kezia Dugdale, the judge said that, even if he had found in Campbell's favour, the damages would have been no more than £100 given that his reputation was already in tatters. Same applies here imo.

Edited Monday at 09:02 by welshbairn

[1320Lichtie]

15 minutes ago, Hampden Diehard said:

The guy did much the same with Queen's Park.

Please pay little attention to it. He does the same with Arbroath fans too. 
 

Anyway… deadline day is Wednesday? What kind of timeline appears if administration is confirmed?
 

Actually think Charlie Reilly could really make a huge impact on Inverness as a team they were good at Gayf and Saturdays result was good too but if they were to go on and lose a lot of their players in the next month / two months then not sure how they recover from that.