Beware of calling specific Holdings directors liars

[_Stefan_Kuntz]

It is possible that the result of someone on a message board or other social media calling a Holdings director a liar could be litigation in terms of libel and defamation of character.

Yet there are people on the message boards and other social media who do this. They are taking a risk. If they wish to do it then they should be able to provide evidence / proof of exactly what was said and also evidence / proof of it being a lie. I.e. it is no good saying that "I heard it on BBC Radio Cumbria 7 years ago", that would be hearsay, which is inadmissible. You would need to get the actual audio evidence / proof of him saying that which you claim, which may no longer be possible, and also get evidence / proof of it being a lie.

Here is evidence / proof of John Nixon saying that something had happened which at the time had not happened and still has not happened.
https://tinyurl.com/mpsuemsa


If it had happened then it would show in the Holdings records at Companies House. It does not show in those records that can be viewed here :-
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02681218/filing-history

So above I supply evidence / proof that he said that something specific had happened. Also above I supply proof that it had not / has not happened.

Clearly I make no claim that he is a liar. He is the most honourable of men. I am merely stating that what he said had occurred had not / has not occurred and I have supplied evidence / proof of him saying it and proof of it not occurring.

Ironically, we are aware of the ramifications of a BBCRC employee stating on air something that someone at Holdings did not like to hear.

[cayambe]

He looks down to the right when he is speaking which I understand is a sign of an untruth being said.

[_Stefan_Kuntz]

That is expressed in terms that can just about keep you clear of possible trouble. But if you accused him of lying because that was evidence / proof of a lie, such 'evidence / proof' would be riculed in court. You would lose unless you could provide evidence / proof of him saying something and provide evidence / proof of it being a lie.

I am being cautious. Folk can please themselves about making accusations about someone being a liar. But if they make an accusation, cannot prove that the person said it or cannot prove that it is a lie then they are open to litigation which could also involve the site moderator and the site operators / owners, in the case of FootyMad that would be DSG.

We need to be very careful about trying to be clever in our form of words. Prefacing or suffixing an accusation with "allegedly" does not work, according to the solicitors of Hat Trick Productions, the company that makes 'Have I Got New For You'.

[cayambe]

To be honest, I don't know if he is telling porkies or not. Nor do I care, as this saga has gone on for so long I take everything that is said with a pinch of salt.

[6EQUJ5]

The point is that in our displeasure with the Holdings board some of us can get so aggrieved that we can make mistakes in expressing such displeasure. This has the potential to get not only us but the moderator and DSG into trouble, threatening the entire structure of FootyMad.

[mullen103]

I have the bbc recording where Nixon stated he wasn’t talking to anyone and they were no approaches.

This was *******s because Lapping had made an approach and they were talking.

Is that classed as a lie/confidentiality or something else?

I’d say lie and I have no problems with saying Nixon has lied on multiple occasions . But you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place if someone asks a question and you can’t answer truthfully due to confidentiality and later on it’s proved you’ve lied or misled.

[_Stefan_Kuntz]

Good, if you have such evidence of him saying something that is a lie you can put it on here immediately and you can also put the evidence that it is a lie on here immediately. It's that simple. If there is a reason why you cannot do that then it seems that you have a problem. If there is a confidentiality aspect about you being able to produce evidence then you have failed and would be unwise to make such an assertion.

Here is an interesting point. If you accuse someone of generally being a liar you are safer than if you accuse that person of telling a specific lie. This is because you could use the evidence of one lie to defend your case. But if you accused someone of a specific lie you would have to get evidence of the person saying it and evidence that it is a lie.

We may regard the Holdings directors as 'public figures' for want of a better expression. Such people can be very sensitive and you know that the Holdings directors are not your best mates.

If you wish to place your audio of Nixon on here and your proof that it is a lie on here then that will be progress indeed. If you have these pieces of evidence then you have no need to fear putting them on here, the technique is simple.

If you cannot provide proof of an assertion of what someone has said and proof that it is a lie then you are potentially in the sort of difficulty that cannot be helped by pleading confidentiality of source.

Richard, your heart is in the right place but you leave yourself open to potential trouble. As yet, nobody has got into serious trouble through making assertions about any Holdings board members. I am aware of your past problem with one of them. That seems to be the most that has occurred. I just do not want anyone to get into trouble by being too 'enthusiastic' about making accusations.

[griff]

Good conversation this. It’s incumbent on us all to ensure that assertions are correct and provable. Speculation about potential signings is completely different to speculation about a person’s moral or legal integrity where there is a potential for legal action. That’s why Piglet had to go. Stefan mentioned Hat Trick productions but I suspect that one of the participants in Have I got News for You, Ian Hislop, who edits Private Eye could tell a few stories about when speculation went too far.