Rumour Bicks to head back to a media role?

[dogs105]

um... Maybe not on your planet, but here? Yeah it is.

Saying you're being truthful isn't. Proving it's truthful is a defence in Australia, but not in all jurisdictions. Proving can also be hard.

 

[Sanders]

Saying you're being truthful isn't. Proving it's truthful is a defence in Australia, but not in all jurisdictions. Proving can also be hard.

It's not defamation if it's true.

Not entirely the case.

Its NOT defamation if its true

 

[Sanders]

Saying you're being truthful isn't. Proving it's truthful is a defence in Australia, but not in all jurisdictions. Proving can also be hard.

It's not defamation if it's true.

Not entirely the case.

Its NOT defamation if its true

 

[dogs105]

Its NOT defamation if its true

You need to be able to prove it's true.

 

[Sanders]

You need to be able to prove it's true.

Matt's a sandwich short so at least he has an excuse.

But what part of "its not defamation if its true" are you unsure about?

 

[dogs105]

Matt's a sandwich short so at least he has an excuse.

But what part of "its not defamation if its true" are you unsure about?

It's not defamation if you can prove it's true.

http://www.qpilch.org.au/resources/factsheets/Defamation.htm

 

[Mattrox]

"If plaintiff’s reputation was not further harmed by the defamatory imputations."

Even if it's true and you prove the alleged defamation "further harmed" a reputation. ....

Anyway no point arguing with Sanders. He's always right....... especially when he's wrong.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Good week. Trigg, Bickley gone. Rendell, Cameron in. Harper to SANFL.

All this good news must mean there is a STINKINGLY BAD announcement imminent

 

[Sanders]

It's not defamation if you can prove it's true.

http://www.qpilch.org.au/resources/factsheets/Defamation.htm

how do you type with both fingers in your ears? La la la la

FFS.

 

[Sanders]

"If plaintiff’s reputation was not further harmed by the defamatory imputations."

Even if it's true and you prove the alleged defamation "further harmed" a reputation. ....

Anyway no point arguing with Sanders. He's always right....... especially when he's wrong.

Sometimes I think you are one of those blokes who gets off on being embarrassed:

The defences available under the 2005 Act are:

Justification: section 25 of the 2005 Act

It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory allegations are substantially true. Substantially true is defined as being “true in substance or not materially different from the truth”.

 

[Sanders]

"If plaintiff’s reputation was not further harmed by the defamatory imputations."

Even if it's true and you prove the alleged defamation "further harmed" a reputation. ....

Anyway no point arguing with Sanders. He's always right....... especially when he's wrong.

Sometimes I think you are one of those blokes who gets off on being embarrassed:

The defences available under the 2005 Act are:

Justification: section 25 of the 2005 Act

It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory allegations are substantially true. Substantially true is defined as being “true in substance or not materially different from the truth”.

 

[JP Sauce]

Good week. Trigg, Bickley gone. Rendell, Cameron in. Harper to SANFL.

All this good news must mean there is a STINKINGLY BAD announcement imminent

I can only assume that the AO deal is costing us $200,000 per home game and we'll be bankrupt by the end of next season.

 

[Mattrox]

The people aren't the Club.

It's not defamation if it's true.

Are you going to argue semantics?

I'll give an example because Mr. "everything is black and white" has convoluted the situation.

Let's say it could be proven that a board member knew about Tippettgate. An article goes to print with "proof" that the board knew and were incompetent in their dealings.

You and I would largely agree with that. We would call it "the truth".

However, if whoever made the allegations can't prove incompetence they could be found to be defaming the board member, or in fact the Club. The board member could establish the "proven truth" to be that there was an error of judgement. And that the information released paints a substantial difference in the readers mind (ie incompetence vs error of judgement) to the "proven truth", a defamation charge could stand.

This would be what the lawyers argue. And even if someone could "prove truth" later in court it doesn't stop a law suit from being filed.

What can be proven as truth and the actual truth may not be the same thing.

This is why I said not "necessarily" because there are shades of grey. As I said, those semantics would be argued by lawyers.

 

[Jinglebells32]

Time to get aggressive. Bickley out for Tredrea, Carey or Jono Brown. Camporeale out for Ling or Hayes. Clarke out for Dean Cox.

 

[betterthanu]

Our current ruckman is elite in the comp. Why are people hating on our current ruck coach?

 

[Slippery Pete]

Time to get aggressive. Bickley out for Tredrea, Carey or Jono Brown. Camporeale out for Ling or Hayes. Clarke out for Dean Cox.

We should seriously be looking at Tredrea. The guy is a phone call away, he's based in Adelaide, he's a student of the game (logical to a fault when it comes to football) and he's already done a job for us mentoring Tex Walker.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I'll give an example because Mr. "everything is black and white" has convoluted the situation.

Let's say it could be proven that a board member knew about Tippettgate. An article goes to print with "proof" that the board knew and were incompetent in their dealings.

You and I would largely agree with that. We would call it "the truth".

However, if whoever made the allegations can't prove incompetence they could be found to be defaming the board member, or in fact the Club. The board member could establish the "proven truth" to be that there was an error of judgement. And that the information released paints a substantial difference in the readers mind (ie incompetence vs error of judgement) to the "proven truth", a defamation charge could stand.

This would be what the lawyers argue. And even if someone could "prove truth" later in court it doesn't stop a law suit from being filed.

What can be proven as truth and the actual truth may not be the same thing.

This is why I said not "necessarily" because there are shades of grey. As I said, those semantics would be argued by lawyers.

One of my unanswered questions to Chapman was whether we would be suing The Age for defamation given that they published articles that said the Board were aware of the details of the Tippett contract - something denied publicly by the club.

Given that The Age painted us as liars and destroyed any credibility Chapman ever possessed, I thought it strange that we let it go.

It was almost as though The Age had copies of the Board minutes and could prove their allegations were true.

 

[Jinglebells32]

Our current ruckman is elite in the comp. Why are people hating on our current ruck coach?

Do you think Big Sauce's around the ground link up play is due to Clarke's coaching?
I haven't seen too much improvement in our back up ruckman.

 

[betterthanu]

Do you think Big Sauce's around the ground link up play is due to Clarke's coaching?
I haven't seen too much improvement in our back up ruckman.

We have backups?

 

[jenny61_99]

Sometimes I think you are one of those blokes who gets off on being embarrassed:

The defences available under the 2005 Act are:

Justification: section 25 of the 2005 Act

It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory allegations are substantially true. Substantially true is defined as being “true in substance or not materially different from the truth”.

Not commenting on what youve said or whatever, but seriously the law is an ass:

"True in substance or not materially different from the truth" WTF?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We should seriously be looking at Tredrea. The guy is a phone call away, he's based in Adelaide, he's a student of the game (logical to a fault when it comes to football) and he's already done a job for us mentoring Tex Walker.

Tredrea... phone...

Haha haha!

 

[lincsPJ]

Our current ruckman is elite in the comp. Why are people hating on our current ruck coach?

 

[beartoo]

Clarke has Sauce as a probable All Australian this year--get rid of him.
Our midfielders are on record as singing the praises of Camporeale--let's find someone else.
I've not seen Bickley at training so I don't know how he goes--others obviously do.
Make all the changes suggested on this thread at the same time and we'll get one good result next year--a high draft pick.

 

[hey shorty]

Clarke has Sauce as a probable All Australian this year--get rid of him.
Our midfielders are on record as singing the praises of Camporeale--let's find someone else.
I've not seen Bickley at training so I don't know how he goes--others obviously do.
Make all the changes suggested on this thread at the same time and we'll get one good result next year--a high draft pick.

Our mids also have a lack of defensive action (bar Sloane), a hallmark of Campos playing career. Clarke hasn't improved Sauce, it was almost all self driven, and none of our backups are worth a pinch of faecal matter. So yes, changes are needed and no it wont make our team any worse.

 

[Southerntakeover]

"Even if it's true and you prove the alleged defamation "further harmed" a reputation. ....

Are you really suggesting there's an action in tort for truthful statements that may harm a reputation?