1TeaminSX

[Jenks19]

I read your post on Martin Aldridge and I think your a disgrace. Martin was a great talent and to die at such a young age is a waste. He played for us doesn't that mean anything to you http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[Vange Shrimper]

I agree with Jenks here. You should be ashamed of yourself....

[Barmy Army]

Absolutely outrageous comments, ban him

[footymad13]

Don't think its fair to ban the guy however what was the point, its a shame that he felt the need to post such stupid and offensive comments however theres been worse.

[Barmy Army]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ July 14 2004,21:46)]Don't think its fair to ban the guy however what was the point, its a shame that he felt the need to post such stupid and offensive comments however theres been worse.
Sure comments have been worse, but this man has died!

[footymad13]

Quote[/b] (Barmy Army @ July 14 2004,21:48)]
Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ July 14 2004,21:46)]Don't think its fair to ban the guy however what was the point, its a shame that he felt the need to post such stupid and offensive comments however theres been worse.
Sure comments have been worse, but this man has died!
I realise that and im not saying what he said is right, far from right however you occasionally get a very stupid and sick comment on a board with as many posts as this.

In these situations why not delete the post and egnore it, if he makes a habit of these sick posts then ban him.

[Technician]

When his [1TeaminSX] post came out this morning, I was one of the first to read it and uncharacteristically, I had to read it twice to understand the gravity of the statement...

I am ashamed to say that I didn't [initially] know who Martin Aldridge was, or indeed that he had been at Southend for a short spell in 1998. Now however, I recall how he died and the emotions of many who new him!!!

Personally, I think banning this individual will be fruitless as he is clearly a SUFC fan and would find a way back using another alias if we did. Also, I am sure that if anyone out there knows who it is, they'll have a quiet word in his ear.

Mediators: We still have the original post [locked] on this forum! I think, out of respect for this young man's friends and family, that it should be removed completely! *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Just a suggestion.

[Napster]

Ok, it's deleted. But it took people a day to react and complain.

The only posts I will delete immediately are those which are potentially libellous, overtly racist or after advice from MtS.

[Leeboy]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ July 15 2004,09:08)]The only posts I will delete immediately are those which are potentially libellous, overtly racist or after advice from MtS.
seconded.

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ July 15 2004,09:08)]Ok, it's deleted. But it took people a day to react and complain.

The only posts I will delete immediately are those which are potentially libellous, overtly racist or after advice from MtS.
Ah, the power... Mwahahaha.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Only kidding. *I'll only advise deleting if I think a particular post will put SZ in jeopardy - i.e. place civil or criminal liability on the owners of the website.

So, as surprising as it may seem (to some), apparently innocuous posts questioning whether the declared gate was an accurate reflection of the size of the crowd are potentially far more serious than 1TeaminSX's post about Martin Aldridge - since the club could sue SZ in defamation for comments about the former; whilst (as the saying goes) you can't libel the dead.

That said, it doesn't prevent us from expressing our opprobrium at 1TeaminSX's comments, which were totally unnecessary and totally offensive. *But I would stop short of advising removal of such a message, since on a simplistic level it places SZ at no risk in a legal sense.

I still can't understand why he posted it, though...

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

But watch those posts saying "6,000? *They're having a laugh, there was more like 8,000 in there today!"... because those posts could put the club, and thus SZ, in a whole lot of hot water.

Lecture over.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

Matt

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ July 15 2004,17:08)]
Quote[/b] (Napster @ July 15 2004,09:08)]Ok, it's deleted. But it took people a day to react and complain.

The only posts I will delete immediately are those which are potentially libellous, overtly racist or after advice from MtS.
Ah, the power... Mwahahaha.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Only kidding. *I'll only advise deleting if I think a particular post will put SZ in jeopardy - i.e. place civil or criminal liability on the owners of the website.

So, as surprising as it may seem (to some), apparently innocuous posts questioning whether the declared gate was an accurate reflection of the size of the crowd are potentially far more serious than 1TeaminSX's post about Martin Aldridge - since the club could sue SZ in defamation for comments about the former; whilst (as the saying goes) you can't libel the dead.

That said, it doesn't prevent us from expressing our opprobrium at 1TeaminSX's comments, which were totally unnecessary and totally offensive. *But I would stop short of advising removal of such a message, since on a simplistic level it places SZ at no risk in a legal sense.

I still can't understand why he posted it, though...

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

But watch those posts saying "6,000? *They're having a laugh, there was more like 8,000 in there today!"... because those posts could put the club, and thus SZ, in a whole lot of hot water.

Lecture over.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

Matt

Matt
Thank you, Matt

Napster

Napster

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ July 15 2004,17:10)]Thank you, Matt
No worries.


Quote[/b] (Napster @ July 15 2004,17:10)]Napster

Napster

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[southend4ever]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ July 15 2004,17:08)]
Quote[/b] (Napster @ July 15 2004,09:08)]Ok, it's deleted. But it took people a day to react and complain.

The only posts I will delete immediately are those which are potentially libellous, overtly racist or after advice from MtS.
Ah, the power... Mwahahaha.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Only kidding. *I'll only advise deleting if I think a particular post will put SZ in jeopardy - i.e. place civil or criminal liability on the owners of the website.

So, as surprising as it may seem (to some), apparently innocuous posts questioning whether the declared gate was an accurate reflection of the size of the crowd are potentially far more serious than 1TeaminSX's post about Martin Aldridge - since the club could sue SZ in defamation for comments about the former; whilst (as the saying goes) you can't libel the dead.

That said, it doesn't prevent us from expressing our opprobrium at 1TeaminSX's comments, which were totally unnecessary and totally offensive. *But I would stop short of advising removal of such a message, since on a simplistic level it places SZ at no risk in a legal sense.

I still can't understand why he posted it, though...

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

But watch those posts saying "6,000? *They're having a laugh, there was more like 8,000 in there today!"... because those posts could put the club, and thus SZ, in a whole lot of hot water.

Lecture over.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

Matt
that would stop the club from telling fibs though! http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (southend4ever @ July 15 2004,17:34)]that would stop the club from telling fibs though! *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
So, SZ getting sued would "stop the club telling fibs"...? Hmm...


...mmm....


Nope. You've still lost me. It's a totally incomprehensible and daft argument, since:

1. It must be presumed that the club are not telling fibs; and

2. On that presumption, the only thing that a post on here saying "the club are fibbing about attendances" would achieve is a law-suit for Shrimperzone's owners.

So, just don't do it, OK?

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ghostface.gif http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Matt

[chadded]

Matt, people have the right to free speech, so surely with the disclaimer on SZ about the views being those of the individual, SZ would be at no risk.

Not saying you're wrong, coz I'm a A-level student and you're a lawyer.... http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[southend4ever]

Quote[/b] (chadded @ July 15 2004,22:46)]Matt, people have the right to free speech, so surely with the disclaimer on SZ about the views being those of the individual, SZ would be at no risk.

Not saying you're wrong, coz I'm a A-level student and you're a lawyer.... http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
why thank you very much. we are a totally independant site and in no way related to southend united football club. besides mcscriven http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Javea Shrimper]

FWIW the view from Spain is that 1TeaminSX made a very bad judgement call. His intentions may have been to raise a smile but they clearly did not, and from all quarters of the SZ community. But there's no sense in banning the guy. Hopefully I think he might think twice before posting such offensive material again ...

WS

[Technician]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ July 15 2004,18:53)]
Quote[/b] (southend4ever @ July 15 2004,17:34)]that would stop the club from telling fibs though! *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
So, SZ getting sued would "stop the club telling fibs"...? *Hmm...


...mmm....


Nope. *You've still lost me. *It's a totally incomprehensible and daft argument, since:

1. It must be presumed that the club are not telling fibs; and

2. On that presumption, the only thing that a post on here saying "the club are fibbing about attendances" would achieve is a law-suit for Shrimperzone's owners.

So, just don't do it, OK?

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ghostface.gif *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Matt
MtS. I have a point of view regarding this issue...

Is there an independant body, whose job it is to ratify that attendances published by a football club are correct? ie: checking computer systems, turnstyle counters etc. to ensure that the correct attendance is recorded [Audits?].

I too, was surprised that a couple of our official attendances for last season APPEARED lower than they perhaps should have been [mistake maybe?].

It would be nice to know that they are periodically verified, to confirm that they are accurate.

Just interested *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[footymad13]

Come on, SZ is not the only message board which will make claims about things such as dodgy dealings, financies and supposed attendence numbers. Surely a disclaimer would make sure SZ doesn't land itself in hot water and allow its members to talk freely

I mean this is a bloody message board, whats the point if you can't have a opinion or have a relative freedom of speech etc.

Seriously though its stupid, i know you don't make the laws Matt but do you not agree.

P.S I reakon Libel was made up by the Labour party, just in case of a war in Iraq http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Technician]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ July 16 2004,01:20)]Come on, SZ is not the only message board which will make claims about things such as dodgy dealings, financies and supposed attendence numbers. Surely a disclaimer would make sure SZ doesn't land itself in hot water and allow its members to talk freely

I mean this is a bloody message board, whats the point if you can't have a opinion or have a relative freedom of speech etc.

Seriously though its stupid, i know you don't make the laws Matt but do you not agree.

P.S I reakon Libel was made up by the Labour party, just in case of a war in Iraq *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
FM. I agree, but let's face it... Libel is not so much what you say, as how you say it! some issues are sensitive and I for one have similar views to most on this board and want to make myself heard [but without p*ssing people off if I can].

I accept full responsibility for my posts, but at the end of the day, I can still be held accountable in a number of ways. My post to MtS took 30 minutes & was edited several times because I was aware that the club may get to know about it. However, it's a view and may be answered in a way that would clear up any reasonable doubt for all of us.

MtS, any views on my previous post?

[Napster]

Ah yes but ISPs have been sued for people posting messages on their message groups. Newspapers have been sued for things their reporters have written.

Don't make the mistake of thinking because you post it, only you are held accountable. Disclaimers are fine for a lot of things, but to accuse the club of lying etc is libellous will lead to things unwaranted.

Don't forget Ron is counter-suing Wignall...

[steveh1510]

Ban everyone but 1teaminsx, then he'll have no-one to offend. Simple.

[Technician]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ July 16 2004,09:14)]Ban everyone but 1teaminsx, then he'll have no-one to offend. Simple.
Your funny... eating too much soup?

Napster: When I said "I accept full responsibility" I am including the position I could be leaving SZ in, with what I say. I doubt that this issue will be answered now anyway, so I'll let it drop... unless you can answer it of course?

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Technician @ July 16 2004,09:40)]
Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ July 16 2004,09:14)]Ban everyone but 1teaminsx, then he'll have no-one to offend. Simple.
Your funny... eating too much soup?
1) It's you're not your.

2) No, I haven't had any soup.

3) Chill out!

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Technician]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ July 16 2004,09:46)]
Quote[/b] (Technician @ July 16 2004,09:40)]
Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ July 16 2004,09:14)]Ban everyone but 1teaminsx, then he'll have no-one to offend. Simple.
Your funny... eating too much soup?
1) It's you're not your.

2) No, I haven't had any soup.

3) Chill out!

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Technician @ July 16 2004,09:40)]Napster: When I said "I accept full responsibility" I am including the position I could be leaving SZ in, with what I say. I doubt that this issue will be answered now anyway, so I'll let it drop... unless you can answer it of course?
I can answer it. Unless every single person posts in every post that they post that they claim full reponsibility for their thoughts, then as hosts of the discussion, we are partly liable for allowing dissemination.

This is publishing law, IIRC, and applicable to websites as well.

[Matt the Shrimp]

Technician - apologies for the lack of response; I have been utterly snowed at work.

Brief response: yes, there has to be an audit of attendances - since attendances = money = tax liability. *As a limited company, they are required by the Companies Act 1985 to publish audited accounts every year, so there will be an independent body auditing the accuracy of those accounts - namely SUFC Ltd's accountants.

BTW, not sure references to "appeared" and "mistake" were that kosher! *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif * The safest phrase is usually "it seemed to me as if..."

As to the publishing law issues, listen to Napster. *The man knows what he's on about.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Technician]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ July 16 2004,18:10)]Technician - apologies for the lack of response; I have been utterly snowed at work.

Brief response: yes, there has to be an audit of attendances - since attendances = money = tax liability. *As a limited company, they are required by the Companies Act 1985 to publish audited accounts every year, so there will be an independent body auditing the accuracy of those accounts - namely SUFC Ltd's accountants.

BTW, not sure references to "appeared" and "mistake" were that kosher! *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif * The safest phrase is usually "it seemed to me as if..."

As to the publishing law issues, listen to Napster. *The man knows what he's on about.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Cheers for that MtS...

firstly, I was writing that post when I should have been cutting some zzzzzzzzzzz's and it took me a while to write what "seemed to me" [sorry about that, but if I practice it, I'll get it right *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ] would be a legitimate post.

Secondly, I assume the audits are periodical [as with an internal audit for example?], but are the accounts published for the general public & if so, how would I go about getting hold of a copy at the appropriate time?

Other than those two points... I'm cool *http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif