Trinity Mirror and CT also told to Shut Up (3 Viewers)

[georgehudson]

i'm sure the general public, especially CCFC fans, would love to know who these 'backers' are ?
& further, would the 'backers' be happy at the way their money is being used ?

 

---

[ajsccfc]

Let the twats try to silence this site up your Arse SISU hope we get a top home draw in round three love seeing you loose money [Expletive Deleted]

That's how to avoid legal action, make it illegible!

 

[Tonylinc]

Other football clubs including our own have done this before. I don't know of one trying to sue fans though but perhaps mcginnity has been advising sisu on that one.

What is it with you and McGinnity? Did he run off with your Mrs. or something?

 

[Sky Blues]

I'm finding this a bit hard to swallow :thinking about:
The press don't get gagged unless it's a question of National Security or a serious police matter involving courts etc. Football doesn't come into it.

Talking about the law generally and not about any particular case, just the threat of libel proceedings can be enough to shut down all but the most well resourced media. Just the threat of the costs involved in fighting a legal case can be enough to make most shut up, even if they are reporting honestly. The libel laws in England are in desperate need of revision.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

What is it with you and McGinnity? Did he run off with your Mrs. or something?

It's hardly radical for him to bring McGinnity up in that context.

Anybody who was on GMK back in the day would know full well why...

 

[RegTheDonk]

Have to agree with you Noggin. The Coventry Telegraph have been often disappointing. With one or two notable exceptions. They supported the march, the petition.
The Sepalla 'interview' with Les Reid was a poor affair. Putting it mildly. I had hoped the Telegraph would stick up for the football team a bit more. The 'investigative' side of things is not looked at by them.
I don't listen to phone ins on the radio. Clive irritates me. Irritating as he could be, I was wishing for a Tony Butler like broadcaster. Remember him? Big Baggies fan, but he spoke his mind.
Sisu really have shot themselves in the foot with this apparent press gagging. I hope those few that go to Sixfields see them for what they are. We do need a total boycott.

I fail to see how SISU, or anyone for that matter, can enforce in effect a gagging order unless someone has printed an out-and-out lie. I would have thought that the journo in question would also be smart enough to phrase his article in a way that it wasn't liable. Also, I didn't see the council or ACL moaning at some of Reid's reports - many of which (not necessarily about CCFC) really slate the council. SISU are a bit daft to try and threaten the newspaper, its only bringing more attention to the situation.

Clive did try his best on Friday, but it was clear Labovich wasn't going to admit to anything other than spinning the party line...his reason when pressed about why not get more income by returning to the Ricoh, was that they couldn't trust the landlords was the most laughable excuse from him to date. If the Ricoh was sold to a 3rd party, they would sill come up with an excuse not to do a short term rental deal, it matters not who the landlords are. He's as bad at PR as Fisher and, presumably, Joy has now put him in the frame for media quotes which is showing his limitations.

On the subject of Clive, I remember some of Butler's rants on BRMB and while he was quick to slate anyone who he thought deserved it, I don't think he'd last too long if he tried it on in today's climate of powerful, profit hungry football clubs...they would soon ban the station from the ground. Shame he got the boot, he was a good laugh, though George Gavin and Tom Ross were also entertaining. I think they must have tossed a coin before each phone-in to decide who was going to play the bad guy.

 

[skybluetony176]

i would hope that the way the press have been going on about suggested regulation being akin to press gagging and a crime against freedom of speech would mean that 1 Mr Les Reid will be pissed by this and do a full story on it for Mondays edition of the CET.

what's the odds

 

[ajsccfc]

The odds on him lashing out in the press against an organisation threatening legal action against people lashing out at them in the press?

 

[skybluetony176]

The odds on him lashing out in the press against an organisation threatening legal action against people lashing out at them in the press?

exactly.

all he has to do is report the fact's

 

[wingy]

The odds on him lashing out in the press against an organisation threatening legal action against people lashing out at them in the press?

2-1 I reckon,bring on an Inside out special a la Leeds UTD style.

 

[Florence1898]

Anyone know was Joe E has gone quiet? Has he too been gagged?

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Anyone know was Joe E has gone quiet? Has he too been gagged?

Not all bad news then.

 

[Noggin]

i would hope that the way the press have been going on about suggested regulation being akin to press gagging and a crime against freedom of speech would mean that 1 Mr Les Reid will be pissed by this and do a full story on it for Mondays edition of the CET.

what's the odds

He was asked about it on twitter today, he was asked is it right for the club to threaten legal action. He ducked the question and said "It's balanced to say council/ACL/ #CCFC/Sisu dispute led to #CCFC at NTFC. Solely blaming owners as u& Conn do isn't" he was asked And again, is it right for club to threaten to sue own fans for linking to a critical article? He responded that he hadn't seen the letter so couldn't comment. He was asked "I don't think you need the letter to comment on the principle. Threatening legal action to suppress dissenting opinion." and he responded " I can't assume as u do what #CCFC[FONT=Arial, sans-serif] said to SBT or Guardian. In principle, I believe any1 has right of reply & SBT should be balanced"

So even managed a dig at the trust at the end poor response as usual from Les.

 

[dongonzalos]

He was asked about it on twitter today, he was asked is it right for the club to threaten legal action. He ducked the question and said "It's balanced to say council/ACL/ #CCFC/Sisu dispute led to #CCFC at NTFC. Solely blaming owners as u& Conn do isn't" he was asked And again, is it right for club to threaten to sue own fans for linking to a critical article? He responded that he hadn't seen the letter so couldn't comment. He was asked "I don't think you need the letter to comment on the principle. Threatening legal action to suppress dissenting opinion." and he responded " I can't assume as u do what #CCFC[FONT=Arial, sans-serif] said to SBT or Guardian. In principle, I believe any1 has right of reply & SBT should be balanced"

So even managed a dig at the trust at the end poor response as usual from Les.

Why should SBT be balanced?

Should it not represent the views of its members?

It is a privately funded organisation
Funded by its members.

 

[skybluetony176]

Why should SBT be balanced?

Should it not represent the views of its members?

It is a privately funded organisation
Funded by its members.

exactly. whats good for the goose is good for the gander. hedge funds only represent their investors.

 

[Grendel]

Why should SBT be balanced?

Should it not represent the views of its members?

It is a privately funded organisation
Funded by its members.

I'm a member and I support the balanced approach.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

I think that the balanced approach makes absolute sense while you believe that there is a chance of both parties acting reasonably.

Following the events of the last week, even the most optimistic must be accepting that this is unlikely.

At that point, it would seem sensible to reappraise.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

I'm a member and I support the balanced approach.

In a democracy the majority view wins.....:laugh:

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

I fail to see how SISU, or anyone for that matter, can enforce in effect a gagging order unless someone has printed an out-and-out lie. I would have thought that the journo in question would also be smart enough to phrase his article in a way that it wasn't liable. Also, I didn't see the council or ACL moaning at some of Reid's reports - many of which (not necessarily about CCFC) really slate the council. SISU are a bit daft to try and threaten the newspaper, its only bringing more attention to the situation.

I think it is quite easy for any well funded organisation to quell dissenting voices.

Newspapers have a duty to shareholders to make a profit, as much as any other corporate body. The costs of defending action could soon wipe out any reserves.

The trust is supported by member subscription. It clearly lacks funds to defend itself, even if its board feels they have done nothing in breach of any laws.

If you print something you believe to be true, or is quite clearly an opinion, would you then be happy to risk taking down the newspaper you work for, your organisation and/or all of your life savings having to defend yourself? Once the threats start and it becomes real, it becomes quite a different matter. I would imagine...

 

[Noggin]

my view of balanced and Les Reids view seems very different.

His view seems to be in the blue corner we have the people who think the earth is a sphere, lets give them 5 articles in support and to make their point, in the red corner we have the people who the people who think the earth is flat, lets give them 5 articles in support and to make their point (without questioning the fact everything they are saying is clearly not true), Then he sings the praises of how balanced, I'm giving each side equal coverage.

Thats NONSENCE!!

Blameing Sisu 90% is balance thats the conclusion any completely impartial, unbiased, reasonable person comes too when they are fully educated on the subject. He shouldn't be trying to give each side equal blame and equal "grilling" because each side does not deserve equal blame.

 

[shmmeee]

The problem is laws regarding the internet are being fought all the time with test cases being set as it's all relatively new. The recent lord mcalpine retweets for example, would a good lawyer argue that a retweet and hyperlink are the same?
Introduce an anti terrorist law, use the same law to restrict movement of a demo then the next step is to use it against a football crowd.

See its that essential misunderstanding of technology that scares me. Everyone knows a retweet is like quoting and hyperlinks are just directions, but a "good" lawyer and a technophobe judge is a worrying combination.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

I think that the balanced approach makes absolute sense while you believe that there is a chance of both parties acting reasonably.

Following the events of the last week, even the most optimistic must be accepting that this is unlikely.

At that point, it would seem sensible to reappraise.

I still think balance is better. Butting heads solves nothing, but I'm always a fan of handing people the rope, rather than being pushed into the rules of engagement desired by others...

 

[bigfatronssba]

I still think balance is better. Butting heads solves nothing, but I'm always a fan of handing people the rope, rather than being pushed into the rules of engagement desired by others...

It depends what you class as balanced though. Les Reid is adamant that his view is being balanced and every one else isn't.

Generally people who shout from the roof tops about how they are balanced are normally the most stubborn ones.

We all have preconceived ideas about certain parties, and its only natural for those ideas to form part of your opinion.

I have no problem in stating that I'm not balanced, as I blame one party more than the other in this mess. For me to claim to be balanced would be hypocritical.

Does it mean my opinion is right? Not automatically no. Does it mean my opinion isn't valid as it makes me a "Rabid anti Sisu" (Les Reids words, not mine), of course not. All fans opinions are equal, even (in my opinion) the incredibly stupid ones (see RFC)

 

[NorthernWisdom]

It depends what you class as balanced though. Les Reid is adamant that his view is being balanced and every one else isn't.

Generally people who shout from the roof tops about how they are balanced are normally the most stubborn ones.

We all have preconceived ideas about certain parties, and its only natural for those ideas to form part of your opinion.

I have no problem in stating that I'm not balanced, as I blame one party more than the other in this mess. For me to claim to be balanced would be hypocritical.

Does it mean my opinion is right? Not automatically no. Does it mean my opinion isn't valid as it makes me a "Rabid anti Sisu" (Les Reids words, not mine), of course not. All fans opinions are equal, even (in my opinion) the incredibly stupid ones (see RFC)

Nobody is ever balanced (I could go on about that tediously for many thousand of words, but I might lose my audience sharp-ish ) but there is a difference between actively trying to skew it and butt heads, and offer the option of rapprochement.

It's where both the Trust and Ann Lucas have improved dramatically on past efforts, recently.

And... you can look at the results. The rope is given to the other 'side' to either use to pull each other up to a stable surface... or it's used as a noose.

It's a far better approach than Mutton's inflammatory antagonistic statements at first (he has a lot to answer for, for those IMHO!) and the trust being simply a SISU Out campaign group. The problem with the latter in particular is it wouldn't have learnbed from our own recent past, where Richardson Out didn't solve our problems, and nor did Robinson Out! There needed to be more interrogation beyond that...

 

[Astute]

See its that essential misunderstanding of technology that scares me. Everyone knows a retweet is like quoting and hyperlinks are just directions, but a "good" lawyer and a technophobe judge is a worrying combination.

The big difference is one is saying what others are saying and the other is saying look at what someone has said.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Nobody is ever balanced (I could go on about that tediously for many thousand of words, but I might lose my audience sharp-ish ) but there is a difference between actively trying to skew it and butt heads, and offer the option of rapprochement.

It's where both the Trust and Ann Lucas have improved dramatically on past efforts, recently.

And... you can look at the results. The rope is given to the other 'side' to either use to pull each other up to a stable surface... or it's used as a noose.

It's a far better approach than Mutton's inflammatory antagonistic statements at first (he has a lot to answer for, for those IMHO!) and the trust being simply a SISU Out campaign group. The problem with the latter in particular is it wouldn't have learnbed from our own recent past, where Richardson Out didn't solve our problems, and nor did Robinson Out! There needed to be more interrogation beyond that...

"Balance" is destablised by intransigence....step forward SISU.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

I still think balance is better. Butting heads solves nothing, but I'm always a fan of handing people the rope, rather than being pushed into the rules of engagement desired by others...

Generally I'd agree and I'm not suggesting that the time is ripe for "armed insurrection", but I think that the "both sides are equally to blame" approach no longer survives any rational scrutiny.

 

[Noggin]

I still think balance is better. Butting heads solves nothing, but I'm always a fan of handing people the rope, rather than being pushed into the rules of engagement desired by others...

What is balance to you though, I consider myself impartial and balanced in that I started with no preconceptions and little preference towards any side and came to my conclusions based on the facts, on the evidence, on how people have behaved, if anything I had initial bias towards sisu because they are in essence ccfc and I wanted them to buy the stadium, I also had some bias against the council because I have been hurt by them in the past.

Continuing to act that all sides are equally to blame, and each side must take the same responsibility to fix it just isn't helpful, sisu are to blame, sisu are the only ones who can fix it.

I don't see any benefit to playing nice the only benefit seems to be you get to go to a supporters group meeting and listen to Tim spout more, half truths, more lies and to continue to spin and mislead.

I still consider myself unbiased despite almost entirely blaming sisu, my only bias is that when sisu do something good I tend to look for the angle rather than assuming they actually are attempting something good, now this is bias but it's also been earnt and is based on them breaking trust over and over, so it seems a reasonable position.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Generally I'd agree and I'm not suggesting that the time is ripe for "armed insurrection", but I think that the "both sides are equally to blame" approach no longer survives any rational scrutiny.

What has had more effect recently?

The 'they're all as bad as each other' as Mutton/Trust set up in opposition to SISU/club, and there appears (whether intentional or not) an uneasy impression that there appeared to be an attempted coup.

Or... the 'open to talking about anything, aren't we reasonable, let's see how reasonable you are in return'?

I'd say the latter is far more effective in shining a light.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Balance interpret it as you will

 

[wingy]

What is balance to you though, I consider myself impartial and balanced in that I started with no preconceptions and little preference towards any side and came to my conclusions based on the facts, on the evidence, on how people have behaved, if anything I had initial bias towards sisu because they are in essence ccfc and I wanted them to buy the stadium, I also had some bias against the council because I have been hurt by them in the past.

Continuing to act that all sides are equally to blame, and each side must take the same responsibility to fix it just isn't helpful, sisu are to blame, sisu are the only ones who can fix it.

I don't see any benefit to playing nice the only benefit seems to be you get to go to a supporters group meeting and listen to Tim spout more, half truths, more lies and to continue to spin and mislead.

I still consider myself unbiased despite almost entirely blaming sisu, my only bias is that when sisu do something good I tend to look for the angle rather than assuming they actually are attempting something good, now this is bias but it's also been earnt and is based on them breaking trust over and over, so it seems a reasonable position.

I came from the polar opposite ,was reading a few posts from when I first joined this site this morning,and have to wonder what changed ,It has purely been the actions of the owners I conclude and there has been a litany .

 

[Jack Griffin]

I still think balance is better. Butting heads solves nothing, but I'm always a fan of handing people the rope, rather than being pushed into the rules of engagement desired by others...

Reid however is does not give a balanced viewpoint, if you analyse his articles about 2/3 of each presents quotes or viewpoints of made by SISU in the most prominent positions & the rest, usually near the bottom is the other view. Even when he headlines with an Ann Lucas/Council story the lead is very short & he is quickly into the Labovich/Fisher response at some length.

 

[shmmeee]

The big difference is one is saying what others are saying and the other is saying look at what someone has said.

No. One is saying look what someone has said, the other is saying "this is where to find what's been said". Neither are you saying it yourself in any real sense.

You can retweet and link to things you disagree with, the act itself condones nothing.

 

[wingy]

Reid however is does not give a balanced viewpoint, if you analyse his articles about 2/3 of each presents quotes or viewpoints of made by SISU in the most prominent positions & the rest, usually near the bottom is the other view. Even when he headlines with an Ann Lucas/Council story the lead is very short & he is quickly into the Labovich/Fisher response at some length.

He like Linnel are extremely quick to adopt the Fisher Stance that ACL are Irrelevant In trouble and will fail

 

[SonOfSnoz]

About time the club gagged some individuals!
Keys/Hoff Dhinsa, etc