ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Could you point me to where I've posted personal information ?
Other than the bolded bit, that seems to be the case.
Good thing the club isn't heavily in debt, otherwise that might be a more important discussion than this amateur detective stuff.
What about if you do have evidence?
Then it should be posted. If it isn't those making the claims/perpetuating the rumours should be banned. Either put up or shut up. It's pathetic.
Good point. You've posted nothing factual at all.
Indeed. If it's relevant to this thread and is quite a major point to United fans who might be basing their opinions on his posts, then we should hear about it.
I doubt that's the case though.
I think where a person works constitutes as personal information regarding that person. He may not have posted it (yet), but that's all he's blabbering about - "'Should I tell it?', 'Should I invite Suzie from RI', 'They found out about him at 007', 'The results were very interesting'" etc.
He probably works for one of the sponsors, or something along those lines.
If so, it's hardly a ground breaking discovery that discredits him.
He maybe Papa Glazer's butler, but where's the need for a big "exposure" to "discredit everything he says"? That has got nowt do with anything.
I'm assuming there are some pretty good legal reasons why said details haven't been posted.
I've no idea. In fact, despite being derided for talking shit, people like me who are trying to follow the back and forth surely have noticed that even Anders has been giving him credit lately.
Not that it makes him any less of a plank, of course, but maybe he's a slightly more accurate plank than we thought in the first place.
Then it's better left alone. After all, we don't want another legal threat to Redcafe now, do we?
Well if it's true, it'll explain his stance. And no, he doesn't work for one of the sponsors.
Allegedly.
Well here's a funny thing I learned in my first tort lecture at university: truth is the ultimate defence for defamation. You can't libel or slander with the truth. Other than that I see no legal reason why it shouldn't be revealed: other than it being made up. Legal reasons: convenient. Exposing him on here is hardly going to be the ruin of him or cost him anything is it.
Certainly not. A very good reason why named individuals should not be defamed on line.
There is a very good reason, Richio.
You are correct, but you can be prosecuted for revealing details that are protected under the Data Protection Act.
Then why do what you're doing?
So let me get this straight. You know something, but won't tell us what it is for legal reasons.
So basically, it's pointless keep bringing it up then, isn't it? If you can't prove what he is saying is wrong with facts and figures, try to put doubt in the minds by discrediting him? That seems a bit desperate to me, but hey what do I know.
So basically, it's pointless keep bringing it up then, isn't it? If you can't prove what he is saying is wrong with facts and figures, try to put doubt in the minds by discrediting him? That seems a bit desperate to me, but hey what do I know.
Anyhow, I do agree with Richio that there's no point in debating this without evidence that can be posted. As I said, I've defended GCHQ against these allegations before, and do believe that sometimes there can be smoke without any fire but there looks like there may be something behind this and I've been unconvinced in the extreme by what he's posted in response.
I havent revealed anything.
I have just asked GCHQ to tell us what he does for a living.
Defamation?
Fred was just talking about his job for Christ sake.
Some bored people in here, who cares.
Lets just stick to the topic, there is enough holes in what is being said without needing to know job titles.
Fred was just talking about his job for Christ sake.
Some bored people in here, who cares.
Lets just stick to the topic, there is enough holes in what is being said without needing to know job titles.
I simply want GCHQ to tell you what so many people already know anyway but cant say in public.
If he's got nothing to hide, then why doesnt he tell you all.
Surely you must be wondering why he doesnt want you to know.
And yet it's ok to pedal such information by pm eh, as must have been going on?
Extra edit: so basically Julie respected data protection by pming half of red issue with that information, then you all did exactly the same.
How is that relevant to anything, Fred? And hasn't he said no to that question for about 200 times already? On top of it, it's illegal, and stupid.
Not really; common sense says that if someone doesn't want to do something, you don't force him/her to. Give it a rest.
so why keep going on about it? you're not getting anywhere and it's just dragging the thread off track. If he was so easy to discredit on red issue then do the same here? on the actual salient points. If we're being provided with faulty analysis then surely there's information out there that you can show that?
I'm sure this very argument happened a few months ago on here and came to nothing. No one is under any obligation to reveal their job on here and it's largely irrelevant anyway.
I'm sure this very argument happened a few months ago on here and came to nothing. No one is under any obligation to reveal their job on here and it's largely irrelevant anyway.
oh feck no - we cant possibly back on all this 'who do you work for?' bullshit can we?!
Even if one of us was Uncle Malcolm himself then what does it fecking matter?
Unsuprisingly it is fred who starts all the witchhunt bollocks again - when all your arguments have been blown out of the water then I guess all you have left is to try and discredit those who made you look like a fool.
Even if one of us was Uncle Malcolm himself then what does it fecking matter?
Unsuprisingly it is fred who starts all the witchhunt bollocks again - when all your arguments have been blown out of the water then I guess all you have left is to try and discredit those who made you look like a fool.
Have to say, I have little time for much or any of GCHQ's comments in this thread, but the idea he has a burden to declare who he's employed for is absolutely ludicrous. And you're right, so what if he was employed by the club? His comments should be debated on the merits of its contents and nothing else. I think by in large most on here do more than enough to show some of his views and opinions are naive bordering on stupid, this stuff just takes the debate off on a needless tangent
What's all this shit about the 'data protection act' here? That act has no relevance to this. What is relevant are the laws covering journalism. Just as a newspaper can write a story about a person and what they do, and name that person, so can someone on an internet forum. If that information proves to be false and damaging then that person has potentially been libelled.
Under the data protection act, it would be illegal for RedCafe to reveal someone's email address or personal information it has collected, however it would not be illegal for a member to post information it has gathered independently of data gathered by the site. That is 'investigative journalism', not data collected by business as governed by the data protection act.
What do Fred and Ralphie do for a living? Let's all post our jobs shall we? Seems that's the only way for people to be happy. My name is Mike and I work in Music Publishing... for feck's sake, you lot are Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime.
Under the data protection act, it would be illegal for RedCafe to reveal someone's email address or personal information it has collected, however it would not be illegal for a member to post information it has gathered independently of data gathered by the site. That is 'investigative journalism', not data collected by business as governed by the data protection act.
What do Fred and Ralphie do for a living? Let's all post our jobs shall we? Seems that's the only way for people to be happy. My name is Mike and I work in Music Publishing... for feck's sake, you lot are Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime.
<----You're looking at the finest ad man in the U.K.
Right, time to put up then.
My name is Ian and I work as a Hotel Manager.
Anyone else up for it ?
If we are going to be open and honest lets all play the game, so we know exactly where we are all coming from.
The thing is, Fred, he doesn't want anyone to know about his job/personal life, why is it so difficult for you to accept that? And doing so against his wishes, or pestering him 24/7 about it, should surely be against the forum rules as well.
My point was Fred, that there is no legal barrier for you to post information if you are confident it is true. Someone shouldn't feel obliged to post their personal information on the internet if they don't want to - indeed a big benefit of the internet is the anonymity it provides so arguments are judged on merit rather than reputation. However, if you have information you feel is pertinent to this discussion, then you can post it. If not, please shut up about it, it's boring.
Right, lets straighten this out.
Andersred comes on here and gives his opinions. He tells us where he gets his information from, who he gets it from, and explains how he is qualified to make the judgements he does.
In short you know what hes saying, you know how hes come to the conclusions he does, and you know why hes saying it.
Now GCHQ has done nothing but rubbish what Anders says.
Not once has he offered to tell us how he is qualified to dismiss what Anders says. He doesnt tell us where he gets his information from, he doenst offer any insight at all.
Someone said that this thread should be locked and let Anders and GCHQ fight it out then people can make their own judgements based on their arguments.
Great lets do it..
We know all about Anders, and what he does, and where hes coming from. How about GCHQ offers the same information and we let them two get on with it.
I make that challenge to both Anders and GCHQ..
I know for a fact Anders wont bottle it...
Say he came out and said,"I'm john from Manchester and I'm an accountant". What would you say then Fred?
- Status