Forest

[AnelkasBeard]

Josh, after a stellar few months you’re not covering yourself in glory here.

I really couldn't care less. 

I don't claim to be an expert, I'm just joining in a debate. It's funny how people shoot you down, tell you you're wrong but don't actually explain why. 

My question to Prag, is; Explain Libal law, then? He's clearly someone with vast experience in the subject matter (I assume given the nature of his responses) I've asserted that although Atwell may have a claim in principle, it won't be a claim worth pursuing as I can't see where the financial loss is coming from? He's not lost his officiating role, infact he's even been selected for a prestigious role in the Euros today!

Forest have embarrassed themselves. But have they really damaged Atwell's reputation to the extent his reputation will suffer?

Is my understanding that you have to suffer financial loss as a result of libelous comments incorrect? If so, then what would the basis of his case be? 

It's all well and good getting arsey with my posts, but at least respond in an adult manner and carry on the debate.

No you do not need to suffer any financial loss to claim for libel.

Forest have basically claimed that Atwell has deliberately abused his position to cheat in favour of the club he supports. If they cannot prove it then it’s libel.

Josh, after a stellar few months you’re not covering yourself in glory here.

I really couldn't care less. 

I don't claim to be an expert, I'm just joining in a debate. It's funny how people shoot you down, tell you you're wrong but don't actually explain why. 

My question to Prag, is; Explain Libal law, then? He's clearly someone with vast experience in the subject matter (I assume given the nature of his responses) I've asserted that although Atwell may have a claim in principle, it won't be a claim worth pursuing as I can't see where the financial loss is coming from? He's not lost his officiating role, infact he's even been selected for a prestigious role in the Euros today!

Forest have embarrassed themselves. But have they really damaged Atwell's reputation to the extent his reputation will suffer?

Is my understanding that you have to suffer financial loss as a result of libelous comments incorrect? If so, then what would the basis of his case be? 

It's all well and good getting arsey with my posts, but at least respond in an adult manner and carry on the debate.

Well I certainly didn’t mean to offend.

He could quit due to the defamatory comments and claim that it has made it impossible for him to continue, sue for loss of earnings for the rest of his (likely) refereeing career and also sue for pecuniary damages for the stress, hurt and general damage to his reputation.  Unless Forest have clear evidence he would almost certainly win. 

Libel quickly summarised is the making of untrue statements to third parties, causing them loss or damage to their reputation.  If there is no evidence to prove that the comments are true - and it up to the person making them to prove that they are true - then the defamed person will win. 

The quantum of damages not only relates to actual loss suffered, but also “pain and suffering”.  An untrue statement read by 27 million people worldwide within 2-3 hours (and many more subsequently) is a lot of global damage to his character and reputation.  Mention the name “Stuart Attwell” and a huge number of people will know that name in a negative manner specifically because of Forest’s allegations.  Thats a lot of “pain and suffering”.  A jury awarding damages would hammer a Premier League club with the vast riches involved.

Precisely to both posts.

Josh, whilst I take your point about the singing of songs such as "refs a wanker" etc, that comes from amorphous groups of fans that aren't in a professional capacity. You're right in that they expect to receive at least some level of abuse from fans who simply won't like a decision that has been made, even if correct.

That is very very different to an official spokesperson (which is what club twitter accounts are these days) claiming outright that a decision has been made deliberately wrong because of bias/corruption. That's akin to one of your colleagues sending a company-wide email saying you've deliberately done action X to harm colleague Y and/or the company.

That's a very good point. I think I'm finding it difficult to differentiate between what we've all said on here, in the pub, on Twatter, in the ground, and pretty much what fans of every club have been saying since football was invented, that officials are corrupt, and when a professional body has actually said it. That's on me, apologies. They're the exact same comment but one is pretty much a standard response by a supporter when they don't get their way, and the other is potentially damaging. I get it. 

I'm still of the opinion, however, and this is probably me not fully appreciating the position Atwell is now in, that I'd be very surprised if Atwell has suffered due to the comments. I think a previous post nails it above, Forest have come out of this much worse than he has. But I'm willing to be proved wrong if/when he releases a statement. I do understand the point, now, though. 

Edit. Since the statement my view of Atwell and officials hasn't changed at all. My opinion of Forest has - They've made themselves look like petulant, unprofessional cunts, and while, as I've said above, as fans we've all said, and even suspect, some form of corruption, we don't actually go around publicly accusing individuals! I still find the whole Twatter posts/statement laughable from a professional body.

On a side note, this is why I get frustrated on here, at times. I post something, and if it's not agreed with you're met with posts saying how wrong you are, rather than saying why and having a debate. The last few responses towards my posts have been great and helpful. I generally mean that.

Add this layer too. My and your opinions, with all due respect, don't matter in terms of how a referee is viewed professionally (by his peers, players, clubs etc). One of the clubs that he is refereeing saying he's biased absolutely will have an effect on how he is viewed professionally, and if there's no evidence for it, it's libellous.