Marinakis suing Palace for Defamation

"Milord, the banner stated a numbers of things saying I was not any of them. This upset me, and I'm here to verify before the court that in fact I am those things it was said I am not".

"Case dismissed".
 
Lanzo-Ad said:
Bring it on, a good lawyer could ruin Marinakis in court, there is no libel or defamation in court, he could be opening up a hornets nest for himself, if i were Parish i would be get a private investigator to dig up all the dirt on him, maybe even a couple of witnesses to his "business dealings", its not a Greek court he is dealing with.
Click to expand...

The last ten all mysteriously and suddenly died before the court case was heard.

Get a big fat jab advert up, and 10 headstones
 
Part Time James said:
I said at the time that it's very easy to get contraband into a football ground and that the HF should've taken it into the City Ground to prove that point. The pat downs at football are terrible. Someone would only have to wrap that banner around themselves (it wasn't huge) and pop a coat over the top and it would've been a doddle. If his case is that the club 'let' the fans take it into the ground then I feel like somebody ought to scrutinise the security at the majority of Premier League grounds.
Click to expand...

Dress up as fatso and use the banner as padding
 
It all make him look like a very small man , which is some feat considering how fat the barstuard is .
 
Olympiakos lost their Champions League qualifier last night, which means they are now in the Europa Lague. Because they were qualifying through the League path, they now go straight into the group phase with us.

So me may be up against Mary Knickers in Europe as well.
 
Mariknickersinatwist. What a c***!

Hes got about as much chance of seeing his own p**** whilst looking down as being taken seriously surely?
 
Unfortunately, in law this is likely to factor the "no smoke without fire" aspect of republication of a damaging rumour:

Courts look at how a reasonable ordinary reader interprets a statement, rather than the literal dictionary definition of the words used. If Party A prominently denies an obscure rumor that the public previously knew nothing about, it can cause the reader to think less of Party B.

I think that because the very obvious comic context is clear here - a cartoon on a banner at a sport event - The "Bane and Antidote" Rule must be focused on. That the context of the satirical denial is so overwhelmingly convincing, clear, and absolute that a reasonable reader leaves the article completely certain that Party B is innocent. If the "antidote" completely neutralises the "bane" (the rumor), it may not be legally defamatory.

How liable are CPFC that the putative 'libel' occurred on their property or that they consented or permitted the 'libel'? A vicarious liability and probably not near as solid as Marinakis and his lawyers presume unless, of course they have dynamite evidence of club collusion.

How liable are the TV and Media companies for widely republishing the 'libel'? Hearsay and public interest would no doubt leave them out of this and Marinakis has not pursued them thus far as i understand.
 
BromleyMonkey said:
Did you ask Eagleman’s permission to post Python stuff? 🤣 it’s usually his job
Click to expand...
What's that muppet's name that supports Palace and thinks he's a stand up comedian? Not Jo Brand, the other guy. Arthur Daly or something. Was anyone around when he told someone off on Twitter (I actually want to say it was Chris who hosted the HOL radio show) for trying to be funny because he was the only Palace fan allowed to be funny?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top