summerof69 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-31299325 The owners of Blackpool Football Club are suing a web forum for libel in the latest of a series of actions against fans making derogatory comments online. Owen and Karl Oyston are seeking £150,000 damages from the Back Henry Street website. Papers were served on Thursday over six alleged defamatory comments which were made in 2014. A club spokesman confirmed the legal action but said it would not be commenting further. A notice published on the fans' website stated: "To clear up any rumours, on Thursday 5 February 2015, Back Henry Street was served papers from the court, relating to the Oystons' and Blackpool Football Club's intent to seek damages for six allegedly defamatory comments made on the site in 2014, limited collectively at £150,000. "For obvious reasons, we can not go into any more detail at this time. Thank you for your continued support." The forum has appealed to fans of the Championship side to help in its legal fight. 'Freedom of thought' One of its moderators posted a message saying: "A football club exists and prospers due to the support of its fan-base and Back Henry Street will forever champion the freedom of thought and expression in discussion of Blackpool Football Club. Horrible pricks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Uh-oh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Moody Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Somebody delete the Pardew thread before we all get done for Conspiracy to Bray a Cunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Premier League to announce live TV rights deal at 5pm this afternoon. Google and Al Jazeera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Premier League to announce live TV rights deal at 5pm this afternoon. Google and Al Jazeera. I know it's unlikely, but I hope Sky have been outbid, and even better if it was someone like Google that beat them. Games streamed live on YouTube Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Clarke context and comments First and foremost, and I should know this by now, twitter is not the place for this sort of thing, as it takes more than 140 characters to talk about anything seriously. So already I wish I hadn’t said anything, not because I regret the comment, but because the choice of forum was wrong and frankly understandable if people are riled up. Next thing is, I don’t suddenly want to air a list of grievances that sound sensationalist and do some tabloid’s job for them. Clarke and I have history, that involves money, lies, on one notable occasion me being interrogated by the police over something I knew nothing about… and all sorts of other stuff. Now, when it comes to mental illness, I understand it, I’ve lived around it, I’ve supported it, I fight against the stigmatization of it and so on. I think it’s a very real issue with a long road to go to combat it. So that said, on to this case… It’s extremely difficult to watch someone repeatedly ruin other people’s lives, then explain it in such a way that makes them immune to criticism. And it keeps happening. It’s now reached a point where, as this proves, it’s like emotional touch paper. And sure, I’m not a professional expert on mental health, and no doubt, neither are you. But I know more about this particular case than you do just because you read about it in the Sun, or saw a documentary. There comes a point where it’s just frustrating to witness someone constantly hammering the pattern of destruction for those around – and I was once one of those around - only to see the destructive force make a moving and sincere apology… then do it again. (On reflection, that’s the nature of addiction/illness, and I know that all too well, but as I say, a rash tweet and it’s not the place for it. ) I should also say that during the course of this twitter… whatever it is, Clarke has been in touch with a retrospective apology over things that went on a long time ago, and I think that has to be respected by all, myself included. Anyway... You have to be in a dark place to attempt suicide, and only a fool would suggest otherwise. However, I do find myself thinking that when you’ve been driving drunk five (is it?) times, risking lives of countless other people, and even in your darkest hour still manage to involve a lorry driver who could have died himself, and now has to live with that trauma and memory every day fro the REST of his life… Personally my stores of empathy start to dry up after a while. Am I really that out of order for suggesting that’s not on? Do we repeatedly overlook reckless destruction of other lives beacause someone apologizes, again and again, and says it’s an illness? Isn't there a point where we can go, "enough is enough"? I hate drink driving, I really do. I know victims of it, who have died, been paralysed, or lost loved ones, and I’ve watched this man get caught doing it several times then publicly forgiven, lauded, and handed a bloody good career! I’m sorry but that annoys me! And I think that’s my overriding feeling. I don’t feel sad for Clarke any more, I was drained of that some time ago. Instead I feel sad, and maybe a little angry, for Gemma, and the kids, and the lorry driver, and the people who dived out of the way of the car all those years ago, and all the other people who have been fucked over and over and over… you know who you are. Of course I wish Clarke a strong recovery – and not just from the crash. It would be a better world if he and all other sufferers of such an insidious disease could find a way to fight the good fight. But when he does end up facing the drink driving charges, this time around, I hope, not least out of respect for the hundreds of drink driving victims who tweet me every year, they throw the book at him. I don’t think that makes me a cunt, or gobshite, or a wanker, or any other delightful name some of you came up with, but hey it’s a free country. Though, as a final thought, I would say again, I’m a fool for forgetting that twitter is not, and never will be, the place for a comment like that. It’s too reductive and simplistic, and yes, without context, I can see it would seem insensitive and crass. Not my intention. I’m going to bed. Doesn't understand then, does he? I think he does. He's saying Carlisle is a selfish cunt who's been caught risking other peoples lives drink driving 5 times and that it ain't fair on the lorry driver who he jumped in front of either. They used to be good mates until Carlisle plundered Littles bank account and used the money to go on a bender. I understand what he's saying. I'm saying that he doesn't understand depression, which he clearly doesn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Premier League to announce live TV rights deal at 5pm this afternoon. Google and Al Jazeera. I know it's unlikely, but I hope Sky have been outbid, and even better if it was someone like Google that beat them. Games streamed live on YouTube Sky will get atleast 1 package in my opinion. I just hope we don't have 3 or more broadcasters as the fans will be shafted over with subscription bills. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Uh-oh. Let's hope Mike doesn't get any ideas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorJ_01 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Uh-oh. Surely there's no grounding for it? You can't realistically moderate every single comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieT Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Sky will get atleast 1 package in my opinion. I just hope we don't have 3 or more broadcasters as the fans will be shafted over with subscription bills. Given there is seven packages, it would be pretty unfathomable if they were to get less than four. To be honest, I like Sky's coverage and I am pretty happy with the service. If a third or fourth broadcaster gets packages the price to watch everything will go through the roof. Consumer can't really win. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Uh-oh. Surely there's no grounding for it? You can't realistically moderate every single comment. Tell that to RAWK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 How do we help them? They can't control a forum ffs. Fucking thought police. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Sky will get atleast 1 package in my opinion. I just hope we don't have 3 or more broadcasters as the fans will be shafted over with subscription bills. Given there is seven packages, it would be pretty unfathomable if they were to get less than four. To be honest, I like Sky's coverage and I am pretty happy with the service. If a third or fourth broadcaster gets packages the price to watch everything will go through the roof. Consumer can't really win. Whoever wins the majority of the rights will have a monopoly on it. Sky's broadcasting is hit and miss, some good people on there, some that shouldn't be on at all. To be honest I like older formats with minimal build up and less analysis (especially when they focus on the big clubs). The highlights package is the one that needs to be dealt with. No more should certain clubs get 20 minutes of footage and 20 minutes of analysis where as others get goals only. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Isn't that forum being sued because some of it's members said Oystons dad is a rapist? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkeye Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Sky will get atleast 1 package in my opinion. I just hope we don't have 3 or more broadcasters as the fans will be shafted over with subscription bills. Given there is seven packages, it would be pretty unfathomable if they were to get less than four. To be honest, I like Sky's coverage and I am pretty happy with the service. If a third or fourth broadcaster gets packages the price to watch everything will go through the roof. Consumer can't really win. The only way it can work in the favour of the consumer, or viewer, is to have a pay per view service where you pay a reasonable amount for the games you want to see, regardless of which channel they are broadcast. It is pretty straightforward to watch every game of your chosen club live via the interweb already - sometimes the quality is not great of course. If there was a way to watch the games I wanted to watch in HD quality for a sensible price I would be interested.. Not the 10 Pound per day option you can currently get, I can have the channel for a month for that amount with the rest of my Sky package. The cost per game should be 2- 3 Quids max!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieT Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Sky will get atleast 1 package in my opinion. I just hope we don't have 3 or more broadcasters as the fans will be shafted over with subscription bills. Given there is seven packages, it would be pretty unfathomable if they were to get less than four. To be honest, I like Sky's coverage and I am pretty happy with the service. If a third or fourth broadcaster gets packages the price to watch everything will go through the roof. Consumer can't really win. The only way it can work in the favour of the consumer, or viewer, is to have a pay per view service where you pay a reasonable amount for the games you want to see, regardless of which channel they are broadcast. It is pretty straightforward to watch every game of your chosen club live via the interweb already - sometimes the quality is not great of course. If there was a way to watch the games I wanted to watch in HD quality for a sensible price I would be interested.. Not the 10 Pound per day option you can currently get, I can have the channel for a month for that amount with the rest of my Sky package. The cost per game should be 2- 3 Quids max!! I worry a bit about any, particularly internet based subscription / season ticket like passes. I know its not really what you are referring to, but you can bet if something like that was introduced the top clubs would be wanting major changes do how the money is distributed. Internet broadcasting, particularly if they can negotiate it individually is the holy grail for top clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It will never work out cheap on pay per view. Does anyone else remember Prem+, it was something like £6 for a single match. We used to get a season ticket, but that was still expensive. The only thing that is garunteed is that prices will go up and tickets won't get cheaper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Sky will get atleast 1 package in my opinion. I just hope we don't have 3 or more broadcasters as the fans will be shafted over with subscription bills. Given there is seven packages, it would be pretty unfathomable if they were to get less than four. To be honest, I like Sky's coverage and I am pretty happy with the service. If a third or fourth broadcaster gets packages the price to watch everything will go through the roof. Consumer can't really win. The only way it can work in the favour of the consumer, or viewer, is to have a pay per view service where you pay a reasonable amount for the games you want to see, regardless of which channel they are broadcast. It is pretty straightforward to watch every game of your chosen club live via the interweb already - sometimes the quality is not great of course. If there was a way to watch the games I wanted to watch in HD quality for a sensible price I would be interested.. Not the 10 Pound per day option you can currently get, I can have the channel for a month for that amount with the rest of my Sky package. The cost per game should be 2- 3 Quids max!! If you were able to individually subscribe to each channel/reasonable set of channels (ie all sky sports channels), this would probably work out for the consumer just fine. I'd probably survive on BBCetc + Sky Sports + BT Sports, I'd pay less money because none of my money is going towards the other random filler shite, and Sky etc would mark up the price of those channels. Win-win. Get er done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieT Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It will never work out cheap on pay per view. Does anyone else remember Prem+, it was something like £6 for a single match. We used to get a season ticket, but that was still expensive. The only thing that is garunteed is that prices will go up and tickets won't get cheaper. And that was donkeys years ago now. Would probably charge close to double that today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Sky will get atleast 1 package in my opinion. I just hope we don't have 3 or more broadcasters as the fans will be shafted over with subscription bills. Given there is seven packages, it would be pretty unfathomable if they were to get less than four. To be honest, I like Sky's coverage and I am pretty happy with the service. If a third or fourth broadcaster gets packages the price to watch everything will go through the roof. Consumer can't really win. The only way it can work in the favour of the consumer, or viewer, is to have a pay per view service where you pay a reasonable amount for the games you want to see, regardless of which channel they are broadcast. It is pretty straightforward to watch every game of your chosen club live via the interweb already - sometimes the quality is not great of course. If there was a way to watch the games I wanted to watch in HD quality for a sensible price I would be interested.. Not the 10 Pound per day option you can currently get, I can have the channel for a month for that amount with the rest of my Sky package. The cost per game should be 2- 3 Quids max!! If you were able to individually subscribe to each channel/reasonable set of channels (ie all sky sports channels), this would probably work out for the consumer just fine. I'd probably survive on BBCetc + Sky Sports + BT Sports, I'd pay less money because none of my money is going towards the other random filler shite, and Sky etc would mark up the price of those channels. Win-win. Get er done. Sky's other TV services are loss makers. It's their Sky sports and movies subscription that makes them money. They will never do that. Apple have been trying to get companies to do that for a few years with no results, hence why Apple and Google are starting to invest in content of their own and why they are interested in the rights for the Premier League. Netflix have started doing this recently. Cable companies won't let you subscribe to individual channels unless it comes with an excessive fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Premier League to announce live TV rights deal at 5pm this afternoon. Google and Al Jazeera. I know it's unlikely, but I hope Sky have been outbid, and even better if it was someone like Google that beat them. Games streamed live on YouTube Streaming games is not really ideal since there is still a lot of people with rubbish Internet speeds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Premier League to announce live TV rights deal at 5pm this afternoon. Google and Al Jazeera. I know it's unlikely, but I hope Sky have been outbid, and even better if it was someone like Google that beat them. Games streamed live on YouTube Streaming games is not really ideal since there is still a lot of people with rubbish Internet speeds Not if BT have won the rights. They can sell you a subscription service and then sell you mobile internet through EE who they are buying so you can stream it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31331496 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkeye Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Premier League to announce live TV rights deal at 5pm this afternoon. Google and Al Jazeera. I know it's unlikely, but I hope Sky have been outbid, and even better if it was someone like Google that beat them. Games streamed live on YouTube Streaming games is not really ideal since there is still a lot of people with rubbish Internet speeds How fast does your connection need to be to get a decent stream though? I have around 10meg and I thought that was good, I still have poor picture quality and occasional buffering while streaming a match... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts