Marinakis suing Palace for Defamation

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."
But they still use our railways.
🙂
 
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.
Doesn't Parish/club, regularly 'donate' to the HF's banners etc?
 
I've not heard that, but even if they do I doubt very much the Parish knew about the content of the banner in question.
Not sure how this would be legally treated.

Presumably there are criminal regulations on e.g. obscenity. If the club contributed to the cost of banners and one infringed those regulations, could the club be prima facie guilty for failing to have in place proper controls? Is that analogous?

Does defamation require the offending party to have actively disseminated a libel? Can a failure to have editorial control amount to a libelous statement. The freewheeling publishers of a book may be liable if they published something without fact checking.

Defamation caries strict liability. There is no need to prove an intention to defame. Thus, is it sufficient that the statement merely appeared on your land in circumstances where there should have been tighter control?

Dunno.
 
Not sure how this would be legally treated.

Presumably there are criminal regulations on e.g. obscenity. If the club contributed to the cost of banners and one infringed those regulations, could the club be prima facie guilty for failing to have in place proper controls? Is that analogous?

Does defamation require the offending party to have actively disseminated a libel? Can a failure to have editorial control amount to a libelous statement. The freewheeling publishers of a book may be liable if they published something without fact checking.

Defamation caries strict liability. There is no need to prove an intention to defame. Thus, is it sufficient that the statement merely appeared on your land in circumstances where there should have been tighter control?

Dunno.
I've no idea either, but you'd think the club has some sort of liability. The FA has fined them for not controlling banners, and clubs are commonly punished for the misbehaviours of their fans. That all points to some sort of culpability.

I'm not sure it would be on the same scale of responsibility as a publisher printing something defamatory, though. That publisher has the chance to read and consider the text before deciding to put it out into the world. Indeed, without the publisher that text doesn't get out into the world to anything like the same extent. They are perhaps more culpable even that the writer.

Palace failed to check a banner being brought in to the ground (though perhaps they took all reasonable measures to do so). Once it was displayed, did the club act to remove the banner? Did they know about it? What procedures do they have for checking on these things? I imagine this is what the case against Palace will focus on. None of that is the same as a publisher taking a defamatory text and, in the cold light of day, deciding to publish it widely for profit. Palace didn't know about the banner and didn't benefit from it.

That's my guess, anyway.
 
I've no idea either, but you'd think the club has some sort of liability. The FA has fined them for not controlling banners, and clubs are commonly punished for the misbehaviours of their fans. That all points to some sort of culpability.

I'm not sure it would be on the same scale of responsibility as a publisher printing something defamatory, though. That publisher has the chance to read and consider the text before deciding to put it out into the world. Indeed, without the publisher that text doesn't get out into the world to anything like the same extent. They are perhaps more culpable even that the writer.

Palace failed to check a banner being brought in to the ground (though perhaps they took all reasonable measures to do so). Once it was displayed, did the club act to remove the banner? Did they know about it? What procedures do they have for checking on these things? I imagine this is what the case against Palace will focus on. None of that is the same as a publisher taking a defamatory text and, in the cold light of day, deciding to publish it widely for profit. Palace didn't know about the banner and didn't benefit from it.

That's my guess, anyway.
Possibly the central point. Was there a check policy in place?

If there wasn't at all, was that omission sufficient to place legal responsibility for any statement displayed as there should have been? Seems unlikely to me.

If there was, the position becomes trickier if it was actually checked by club employees and passed.

In the club's favour (and please correct me), the HF had a history of big stadium banners; but none like this. Stadium banners are now a thing in football and we have a rep for quite good ones which is why the club part finance them and support them (or used to). It was as much a surprise to the club as anyone. And it would have to require some undertaking to unfurl a thing that large outside the ground - hence your point about "reasonable measures".

Once it was up and photographed, it would make little difference if officials had it torn down. The "damage" was done.
 
Who's role encompasses turning up once a decade planting the odd tree and having to sit through an unimaginably tedious cultural offering with a fixed smile.
King Charles is a Burnley fan.

But do you know which royal we do have? Only the best in all of England, that's right, Count Binface is a Crystal Palace fan!!

1786725503730.webp
 
Possibly the central point. Was there a check policy in place?

If there wasn't at all, was that omission sufficient to place legal responsibility for any statement displayed as there should have been? Seems unlikely to me.

If there was, the position becomes trickier if it was actually checked by club employees and passed.

In the club's favour (and please correct me), the HF had a history of big stadium banners; but none like this. Stadium banners are now a thing in football and we have a rep for quite good ones which is why the club part finance them and support them (or used to). It was as much a surprise to the club as anyone. And it would have to require some undertaking to unfurl a thing that large outside the ground - hence your point about "reasonable measures".

Once it was up and photographed, it would make little difference if officials had it torn down. The "damage" was done.
There was a policy in place not to allow banners into the ground and the FA have already found us guilty of that offence and fined us.
Couple of issues:-
1. Not sure how the courts will look upon this (if it goes that far) as we have already been punished once, double jeopardy will set an interesting precedent, although arguably the whole case does.
2. How he proves ‘reputational damage’ as the information portrayed was in the public domain already. The gun to MGW’s head is arguably a metaphor used in everyday life to portray that someone was made to do what they might not have wanted to do.
3. My view is it suits him for the persons displaying the banner not to be identified. If found they could successfully challenge the case by stating that it was their honest held opinion that what was displayed was true. The allegations of criminal behaviour are already in the public domain with numerous court cases and the ‘Vampire Ship’ article which provides a far more powerful wording than the banner of his alleged criminal links. ‘ Disclosure’ could become a major factor in this with transcripts, witnesses from other cases and journalistic material all being introduced by the defence.
4. However, and this is where it becomes a bit murky, Palace may not be able to introduce any of this supporting material if they are alone defending this case as their side of the case involves only that they failed to stop it happening. They didn’t create it and should not have allowed it to be displayed, and didn’t know or have any influence over what was in it, therefore any evidence Palace introduce can only relate to that and ‘Disclosure’ would be significantly restricted by the Court.
 
Possibly the central point. Was there a check policy in place?

If there wasn't at all, was that omission sufficient to place legal responsibility for any statement displayed as there should have been? Seems unlikely to me.

If there was, the position becomes trickier if it was actually checked by club employees and passed.

In the club's favour (and please correct me), the HF had a history of big stadium banners; but none like this. Stadium banners are now a thing in football and we have a rep for quite good ones which is why the club part finance them and support them (or used to). It was as much a surprise to the club as anyone. And it would have to require some undertaking to unfurl a thing that large outside the ground - hence your point about "reasonable measures".

Once it was up and photographed, it would make little difference if officials had it torn down. The "damage" was done.
There is a history of similar banners being displayed, the one celebrating Newcastle's new ownership comes to mind. The club makes no financial contributions towards any display. They are all fan funded.
The club are in communication with the HF around larger displays (they need to comply with a range of safety regulations). The club would have had zero prior knowledge of the Marinakis banner. It would have been smuggled into the ground inside a small child.
The club comply with security checks at the gates and could prove that there is a heavier presence at the gates on the Holmesdale Road.
The security staff made reasonable effort to take the banner down, and this is likely to be documented on security videos.
Are the club responsible for defamation🤷‍♂️
 
Are you sure? Google search seems to suggest he supports Spurs.
Link to the Burnley Article. The unexpected football team King Charles supports is bound to surprise you

That being said, I've also found at least three of teams that he has been quoted as supporting as well. I think it is a case of "what do the local media want to hear, oh yeah, love those guys, great squad."

My favorite part of the Count Binface Manifesto was down at the bottom: The royal family to keep one of Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, St. James’s Palace and Clarence House, with the rest gifted to the nation to help eradicate homelessness. If the royals complain that one palace isn’t enough, they will be forced to buy Crystal Palace soccer team.
 
There is a history of similar banners being displayed, the one celebrating Newcastle's new ownership comes to mind. The club makes no financial contributions towards any display. They are all fan funded.
The club are in communication with the HF around larger displays (they need to comply with a range of safety regulations). The club would have had zero prior knowledge of the Marinakis banner. It would have been smuggled into the ground inside a small child.
The club comply with security checks at the gates and could prove that there is a heavier presence at the gates on the Holmesdale Road.
The security staff made reasonable effort to take the banner down, and this is likely to be documented on security videos.
Are the club responsible for defamation🤷‍♂️

The banners criticising the board and the club show they are fan led and not club led. The banners were not up for long, probably about a reasonable length of time I would say. The amount of time it takes for a club to get it removed.

This whole thing is a huge waste of time and will only lead to more people seeing what these allegations are based upon.
 
I've not heard that, but even if they do I doubt very much the Parish knew about the content of the banner in question.
The club facilitate the HF. Their own area at Selhurst. Sections of seats for important away matches, and 'somehow' the drum and banner poles get through security at Selhurst.

Maybe the club knew the content of the banner, maybe not, but they were complicit in facilitating the display.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top