doombear
Member
- Location
- Too far from Selhurst Park
- Country
England
The Machiavelli in me suggests it's because he wants one of our players and it's the only way he can "persuade" Parish to say yes.
Marinakis suing Palace for Defamation
- Topic starter Eagle-Trucker
- Start date
Eagle-Trucker
Member
- Country
Ireland
TheBigToePunt
Member
- Country
-
England
Surely Palace will simply say that they had no prior knowledge of the banner, and did not support or encourage it? They will doubtless accept some responsibility for its display at selhurst park seeing as they've already accepted an FA charge to that effect, but otherwise seek to disassociate themselves from it. Fair enough, too.
The alternative, as put forward by many posts on here, is that palace say the banner is not defamatory as it's content is either a joke, or true.
To pass it off as a joke might, perhaps, work although who are palace to describe it in those terms? After all, they didn't create it, so can only say that they think it's a joke, or took it as one.
Plus, it's clearly a very specific personal attack, even if by humour.
The idea that palace will use this case as an opportunity to expose all of Marinakis wrong doing, spectacularly overturning all the acquittals and not guilty verdicts that followed years and years and Christ knows how much in legal bills, taking a stand on the part of global moral justice and succeeding where law enforcement agencies and investigative journalism have failed, just seems like childish nonsense. On top of everything else, is Parish now Captain America or Erin Brockovich or something? He's going to address this by entangling palace in some interminable long term murk of no benefit to the club, is he? Doubt it.
The 'persons unknown' bit is interesting. I wonder if the location of the banner can be used to identify seat numbers and, thereafter, the people holding the banner? I can't imagine who else it could mean. Those people, if they become subject to proceedings, could offer whatever defence they want, including that the banner is a joke. Perhaps they are well placed to make that case. Doubt it, though. I'd imagine they will end up realising that freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from the consequences of what you say.
I'd imagine this will end with some kind of public apology to Marinakis. All of that performative 'support' and banner waving that seems to have far more to do with self importance than supporting the team, aimed far more at the media who lap it up than the players, will look a bit less authentic and passionate.
Should have just stuck to the established facts about the highly dislikable fat bully, the shocking state of the regulations that led to our demotion from the Europa League, and the shamelessness of a venerable old club like Forest in acting as they did. Christ knows there's enough there to work with for any banner.
The alternative, as put forward by many posts on here, is that palace say the banner is not defamatory as it's content is either a joke, or true.
To pass it off as a joke might, perhaps, work although who are palace to describe it in those terms? After all, they didn't create it, so can only say that they think it's a joke, or took it as one.
Plus, it's clearly a very specific personal attack, even if by humour.
The idea that palace will use this case as an opportunity to expose all of Marinakis wrong doing, spectacularly overturning all the acquittals and not guilty verdicts that followed years and years and Christ knows how much in legal bills, taking a stand on the part of global moral justice and succeeding where law enforcement agencies and investigative journalism have failed, just seems like childish nonsense. On top of everything else, is Parish now Captain America or Erin Brockovich or something? He's going to address this by entangling palace in some interminable long term murk of no benefit to the club, is he? Doubt it.
The 'persons unknown' bit is interesting. I wonder if the location of the banner can be used to identify seat numbers and, thereafter, the people holding the banner? I can't imagine who else it could mean. Those people, if they become subject to proceedings, could offer whatever defence they want, including that the banner is a joke. Perhaps they are well placed to make that case. Doubt it, though. I'd imagine they will end up realising that freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from the consequences of what you say.
I'd imagine this will end with some kind of public apology to Marinakis. All of that performative 'support' and banner waving that seems to have far more to do with self importance than supporting the team, aimed far more at the media who lap it up than the players, will look a bit less authentic and passionate.
Should have just stuck to the established facts about the highly dislikable fat bully, the shocking state of the regulations that led to our demotion from the Europa League, and the shamelessness of a venerable old club like Forest in acting as they did. Christ knows there's enough there to work with for any banner.
Last edited:
Mark B
Member
- Country
USA
I think you are close with Niccolo but I think it is money he is after. He just created a derby that is getting a lot of interest and between him being a dork and Glasner being Benedict Arnold, the next match on October 10th between them is going to be sold out as will the follow up in May and both are likely to do solid viewership numbers.
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
-
Ireland
He's misunderstood. He wants to be loved.
Part Time James
Member
- Country
-
England
Sounds like Jimmy Savile suing people that say he looks like a nonce.
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
Interesting choice on a British message board.
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
The club will argue they did not disseminate at all, as they only own the land on which the statement was made. At most they were innocent disseminators, itself a defence.
The individuals who made and held the statement will have a much tougher task defending themselves. Then again, they are likely to be men of straw who can't possibly defend themselves or meet any damages or costs awarded.
Mr Creosote will likely use the claim and his inevitable "success" (a judgment in default of any defence) against the unrepresented individuals as validation of his position.
I hope the news reports exactly what happens.
The individuals who made and held the statement will have a much tougher task defending themselves. Then again, they are likely to be men of straw who can't possibly defend themselves or meet any damages or costs awarded.
Mr Creosote will likely use the claim and his inevitable "success" (a judgment in default of any defence) against the unrepresented individuals as validation of his position.
I hope the news reports exactly what happens.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
Scotland
That won't help if the judge isn't religious.
BromleyMonkey
Member
- Country
-
England
The HF should make a banner about that 🤣
Counter sue for his charge against our club has damaged the reputation of our club
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
If the way to his heart Is through his stomach Marco Polo would turn the trip down.
Joseph Paxton
Member
- Location
- Haywards Heath
- Country
-
England
It can only be seen to 'harm his global image' by being electronically disseminated by the TV/Media transmissions and through fan/citizen social media reproduction.
So, why is he not involving the media companies in his writ? Otherwise it would be a limited scope libel, narrowcasted to the 25k fans inside Selhurst Park, most of them hostile to him - and thus not likely to suffer a depreciation in their opinion of him?
So, why is he not involving the media companies in his writ? Otherwise it would be a limited scope libel, narrowcasted to the 25k fans inside Selhurst Park, most of them hostile to him - and thus not likely to suffer a depreciation in their opinion of him?
Mark B
Member
- Country
-
USA
You mean a guy who hated the British and only switched sides because his ego got hurt when he was passed over for a job?
Are you trying to tell me something about youself?
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
Spindle
Member
- Country
-
England
Spindle
Member
- Country
-
England
lol nice comparison
12m to get about 1.2m of TV revenue though. It's all rather strange isn't it.
Mark B
Member
- Country
-
USA
I would agree, it has been a minute. Arnold just rubs me the wrong way because of why he did it. If he had been a Tory, no issues, Tarleton, no issues. Switching teams because your ego just rubs me wrong.
A fun fact is that Independence from Britain is widely recognized as the most common non-religious holiday theme globally, with 65 nations celebrating. And 64 of them waited for your grandparents to say "I'm bored with you, you can leave now."
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
And to this day no one ever wants to come here to live.