I note that the alleged moderator of our rivals board has ban yet more supporters for "defamatory statements" re Mr Singh. I have been long banned from their board without explanation, although I concede that describing them as Scumlington might have something to do with it. But to return to my point, lets look at facts
1. Darlo look certain to go in to administration or bankruptcy this week
2. None of the players have been paid this month
3. The better players have voted with their feet and gone to Clubs who will meet their contractual obligations
4. Mr Singh follows a long line of, at best, grossly incompetent Chairman
5. If admin becomes a reality for the third time dozens of local creditors, small businesses in the main will be lucky to get 10p in the £ of what they are owed
6. There is no manager and hasn't been for 2 months
7. A transfer embargo is once again in place
8. The supporters are being totally kept in the dark and roundly sh*t on yet again

In these circumstances how does Thornberry justify trying to silence these dissenters?
As Dylan Thomas said " Rage, against the dying of the light"
As usual I do not expect a response from the arrogant self agrandising Mr Thornberry.

How does he justify it?

Because he can't be arsed with solicitors ringing him when he's providing a service to people out of his own pocket. I'm sure he'd be happy for people to vent their spleen and say what they want but I doubt he wants to get into trouble for hosting the forum for those views or have the trouble of having to give details of his members out for legal action.

There's no such thing as free speech, especially on the internet where every word can be brought back up in an instant. Plenty on the Pools boards know all about that.

Their admin (Scott Thornberry) was contacted by solicitors threatening legal action if the alleged defamatory posts weren't removed forthwith and an pubic retraction and apology issued. The problem is that administrators are liable for posts in the same way that a newspaper editor is liable for the writings of their journalists.

Now the problem with libel laws is the sizeable cost. Say for example I wrote that Elton John was an old queen and he decided to sue me for libel. I would have to defend myself to the tune of six figures and prove that I was correct in my assertions. Otherwise in the absence of a defence, I would lose the case and possibly be hit with hundreds of thousands in damages.

The problem is not the truth of the allegation, its your ability to afford the court case. In the case of Singh v Uncovered the sensible course of action is to avoid the case completely. Thats why posts were deleted and an apology issued irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the assertions.

We've been here several times before; Mike Newell set solicitors onto members of this board because they 'alleged' he had been drinking to excess around the town. Now this was clearly untrue (honest your honour) but public apologies had to be made. I've had the same sort of threats from a local media 'personality'.

As an administrator you have to be very careful, you are jointly liable so when allegations are made sometimes they have to be removed.

Is it Belper Poolie or Barnie Pete..

YAWNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!

Listen Mr irrelevant, I have heard all this shite about legal action against message board moderators before and to my mind it is a limp excuse put forward by people like Thornberry who are actually living in the pockets of people like Raj Singh. Answer me this can you quote me which moderators have ever been sued by individuals regarding what has been posted on message boards. All of the examples that you have quoted to date are examples of sabre rattling by solicitors who are out to intimidate on behalf of their clients. As anyone knows suing for defamation of character or libel is fraught with difficulties just ask Gillian Taylforth if you don't believe me.
I also note that you don't dispute my analysis of the situation at Darlo. I hope if we ever find ourselves in the same position as the white elephant arena muppets that we won't lie down as die just because someone like ST is threatened by some tinpot solicitor

take this in the spirit in which its intended, but for someone with less than 50 posts, you've got some strong fookin opinions about the machinations of a messageboard.

Why is it shite?

What do you know?

Did you even bother to read Mr I's post? It has happened on another Poolie board to a number of regular posters on here and as an outsider looking in, it did not appear to be a pleasent experince for those involved.

To be fair, the threat of legal action is bad enough in itself, who wants to sit about and find out if these people will take it further?

What a fooking stupid series of posts belper.

I know i've said this already today, but why not start your own messageboard, slag off whoever the fook you like, and if legal action is threatened to you, you can see if they'll go through with it or not.

So let me get this right yloop, the more you post on here the more you know? Give your head a shake. As for why is it shite, I thought I had explained that in my post, but if you didn't understand either read it again or I'll water down the content to a level you can tune into

And your last "manager" was how long ago? Forgive if I'm wrong but Director of Football and 1st Team Coach arent the same thing.

As for the rest of the guff you are moaning about, try running a messageboard where people can say what the hell they like about anyone and see how long it is before you have to sell your house to pay for legal bills.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you are all jumping to the defence of ST. Where is your extensive evidence of all the hundreds of message board moderators who have ever been sued...... answer there is none.

Did I mention your number of posts?

I asked what you knew. Evidently nothing as you've never run a messageboard.

If you did then you wouldn't have needed to ask the question in the first place.

Hope this helps, etc.

Might be a good idea to calm down and take a breath before posting, as you've just had a go at the wrong person re: posting levels!!

PS - for the record I think Scott has always done a pretty good job on Uncovered, he's been running it now for over 10 years. Given the sh**e they've been through, I can't imagine he's in the pocket of anyone.

Can I just return to my original point just how bad does it have to get at Darlo before it becomes legitimate to criticise the Chairman and for St to do the brave thing and not bend to illegitimate sabre rattling?

Email Scott Thornberry. He doesn't post here.

Not only does he not post hear he doesn't reply to e-mails either. But I'm sure you'll bring him up to date with today's debate

think its time to leave that dead horse alone...

Ever thought he could just be sick of you? I know I dont reply to spam either!

Ah loan star ever the intelligent response.............how did things go today by the way

Face it, under both your usernames on Uncovered you were just there to get peoples backs up, you even managed to do that on here as well. I'm sure someone as intelligent as you is capable of finding the scores out.

Loan Star have you thought of trying a different technique? Instead of handing out gratuitous insults why not read my original post and try to answer some of the points made therein?

Belper, you take an unhealthy and unnatural interest in the politics of another club's message board.

If you like I can give you the personal email address of a director of one of the UK's largest publishers, a publisher that in its portfolio holds several very large online forums. He can probably supply you with details of the claims that have been made against them, and the cases where they have been forced to pay out because of the actions of members.

If you can't understand why you can't just say what you like about who you like perhaps the internet isn't for you.

If a company that has a multi-million pound turnover has to be harsh to avoid libel cases, how harsh do you think it is reasonable someone who runs a board from their own bedroom on a tight budget need to be to protect themselves, and apparently the users from their own stupidity?

wow is there such a thing as a tin pot solicitor?
oh look thats my 1111 post

agree its more trouble than its worth being a moderator, and I would be deleting posts left and right if I was in charge rather than face solictors letters etc..

Can't imagine who wrote on here and threatened to sue though.

Ok then, just for you.

1. Darlo look certain to go in to administration or bankruptcy this week - quite possibly, no one has been banned for suggesting so

2. None of the players have been paid this month - correct, apart from youth team players and club staff other than the first team squad, again no one has been banned for suggesting so.

3. The better players have voted with their feet and gone to Clubs who will meet their contractual obligations - only 1 player has left who was under contract until the end of the season, Ian Miller. Again, no one has been banned for saying anything about this.

4. Mr Singh follows a long line of, at best, grossly incompetent Chairman - In some cases yes, in this case he let his heart rule his head and his current actions are not those you would associate with a good businessman. Again, people have said as much and not been banned.

5. If admin becomes a reality for the third time dozens of local creditors, small businesses in the main will be lucky to get 10p in the £ of what they are owed - According to Singh, the club had no debt until he stopped paying the players wages. As far as I know this is the only debt the club has. I have traded with the club and have had full payment for works done and that was paid a month ago. If someone accused Singh of racking up debts then that person would have to have prove otherwise they would be banned or made to retract their statement unless they wished to get into bother.

6. There is no manager and hasn't been for 2 months - Correct, just like Hartlepool since Wilson was sacked. Again, nobody has been banned over this.

7. A transfer embargo is once again in place - Correct, again no bans

8. The supporters are being totally kept in the dark and roundly sh*t on yet again - Correct, and some of the posts made on Uncovered because of this are close to the knuckle and where these could be libelous, these have been removed and posters warned.


In these circumstances how does Thornberry justify trying to silence these dissenters? - Why should he? He is protecting his life and that of those who have posted things they shouldnt.

All in all, totally different to your banning which I believe was done because all you did was go on there and wind people up with your appalling banter.

Hope the above helps.

I can't seem to get accross to people on here that a solicitors letter threatening to sue for libel or defamation of character is largely an empty threat. Whilst I agree that defending any such legal action is costly, so is pursuing one. Solicitors are very happy to charge anyone £50+ to send out such letters. I accept that lots of moderators may have been threatened with legal action but to date I have only seen anecdotal evidence of moderators being prosecuted. The legal annals of this country are riddled with failed libel cases where for example calling someone a "lying cheating bastard" was deemed to be fair comment. Successful pursuance of libel actions against both individuals and news media are few and far between. Hence my earlier reference to the case of Ms Taylforth

In which case you'll no doubt be perfectly happy to send me a legal document with your name and address in which you accept all liability for any potentially liableous posts on this board. Get one of these inexpensive solicitors to draw up a document and have it notarised.

The only shock for me in all of this is that Pete's not corrected anyone's spelling yet.

Just to keep yloop happy what on earth is "liabeleous"? Incidentally there is no such thing as a cheap solicitor

along with pumpture and speed thermometer

Chimlee?

that's it I'm gonna get your name redchested by the authorities

pelanty!

Febyouworry!

can you be more pacific?

When's the funedrel?

Didn't he used to suffer fron Arthur-ritus?

I dunno, couldn't hear me with him being death

He needs to take a good look in the mirrow.