Police Visit Bolton Forum after allegations...

I sometimes spy on other forums. Bwfcforum got a visit from PC plod recently over something someone had posted on their forum.

Personally I think it's pathetic and I can't think of much which could have been said to inspire a police raid but it makes you think doesn't it.

I used to see the internet and forums as places where I could spout whatever nonsense I liked without consequence - and I fully expected that people would just see it as my nonsense being spouted rather than something I could be prosecuted over...

Is the world mad?

Think it's shame that the owners of the site are getting agro from the police and perhaps the club it won't be much fun for them. Think we should all heed that lesson on here and make sure our comments don't bring anything down on the anyone here.

http://www.bwfcforum.co.uk/forum/Football-Chat/53816-Important---please-read.html#53838

I think we're safe on here. This forum is like the Twilight Zone of BWFC forums, hidden from the rest of the internet.

They got what they deserved.

The police didn't visit in respect of allegations as your title suggests - they visited over disgusting and libellous posts that were made and allowed to remain on the public forum.

The owner of the site and the internet provider were both issued well before the police 'visit' with warning letters from Bolton Wanderers FC's solicitors about what they had been posting and they decided not heed the warning.

It may be one thing taking the piss out of someone in fun but these were libellous comments about the professional integrity of people that would affect their future careers if left unchecked.

Nothing even approaching the vile abuse that as daily been posted on that site would ever be allowed to remain on this forum.

Is it any wonder the main three contributors to that site were the same ones that caused the clubs Official Forum to be closed down because of abuse and death threats that they made and their remaining posters are teenagers, fake accounts and a bloke who has been banned for life from Sky's FanZone for making racist comments?

Sounds like you have read the offending comments Sluffy. I would appreciate some sort of indication as to how bad the comments were.

I mean, lots of posts on here could be described as 'questioning the professional integrity of people', couldn't they? X is useless, Y can't be arsed, Z is a greedy so-and-so.

The comments related to a small number of the clubs officials (most of whom are not in the public eye) and made what I personally would have considered to be libellous and abusive remarks against their professional competence - not just as a one off but continually over a period of time.

Reading between the lines it seemed to me that there was clearly some form of personal agenda from at least two of the key posters on that site against the said club officials.

The forum admitted that its owner had received a solicitor’s letter from the club (not relating specifically to this matter) but it would seem he clearly chose to ignore the general warning of legalistic unhappiness with how the site was being allowed to be run.

The site as been publishing all sorts of allegations under its Manny Road blog and probably thought as nothing had been done to stop it - it had challenged the club to take action against it for what it had been stating in the blog - probably thought they were in some way immune from any actions being taken against it.

At the end of the day the club is a private multi-million pound business, who employs paid professional employees to run it.

How anybody can get their knickers in a twist over a game of football is simply beyond my comprehension - it's a GAME ffs!

Thanks for that, but how specific were the comments?

Let me explain a bit better what I am asking for.

a. Tony the Tiger is a completely fucking useless marketing executive.

b. Tony the Tiger is a completely fucking useless marketing executive, and only has a job because he is Mickey Mouse's cousin.

c. Tony the Tiger is a completely fucking useless marketing executive, and only has a job because he is Mickey Mouse's cousin. He is on the take from the company he works for, the Acme Cartoon Company.

In your opinion were the comments that have caused the club to complain in line with comment a, b, or as bad as comment c?

I'm not being pedantic, but I would say comment a and b could be found on any BWFC forum around, including this one. It makes me worry about posting anything personally critical, who needs the old bill on your doorstep?

It is very difficult to gauge without seeing the comments myself and with that comes an uncertainty as to knowing where to draw the line - or just keeping shut in future...

So if my mate told me that his mate who works for the club had heard that PG was stealing pasties from the club shop lunch delivery would I be allowed to post what I had heard?

If I overheard Muamba calling Coyle a nonce with my own ears could I say what I heard on here?

On your criteria I would suggest the posts were well beyond the C mark.

And I'm not exaggerating either!

Some people think they can post whatever they want with impunity just because it is on the internet. It's no coincidence that the law is now getting much tougher in this area.

What interests me about this is I always thought that libel was a civil - not a criminal - matter.

For the police to be interested in the complaint, the posts must have either made allegations of criminal activity against others, or have been credibly interpreted as threatening.

I'll explain why I am of this opinion.

Someone I know very well IRL posted a message on a professional rugby club's self-hosted forum a few years ago. In this post, he remarked that a particular rugby player, who had retired something like 18 months after receiving a bad injury from a spear tackle, had deliberately deceived his club into giving him a new contract, and then retired shortly after the contract was signed, knowing full well he couldn't play that season.

It was a stupid thing to post and there was a case that it was libellous. The player himself read the post within an hour of him posting it. The poster deleted the comment within 2 hours of posting it, maybe 5 people would have read the post, as it was done in the middle of the night and deleted in the middle of the night, and a week later the poster received a 40-odd page dossier via email from the legal representatives of the player's union (I have read the dossier).

In it, they were demanding that the poster signed a form acknowledging that the post was knowingly libellous, undertaking not to repeat the comments, and to make a 1,000 pound donation to the a charity nominated by the retired player. The poster was a very well known supporter of the club and his identity was obvious. The player also wanted to reserve the right to press ahead and sue for libel at a later date. The poster would have been a plank to sign a document admitting libel, but that's what the player was after. The player was arguing that the forum post was damaging to his media career and reputation etc.

The poster replied to the email saying he had no intention of paying or signing anything. The player tried to deliver a copy of the legal documents to the poster's home, the poster refused delivery as 'not known at this address', and that was the end of the matter.

Anyway, long story I know, but it was not a criminal matter.

jayjay23 wrote:It is very difficult to gauge without seeing the comments myself and with that comes an uncertainty as to knowing where to draw the line - or just keeping shut in future...

So if my mate told me that his mate who works for the club had heard that PG was stealing pasties from the club shop lunch delivery would I be allowed to post what I had heard?

If I overheard Muamba calling Coyle a nonce with my own ears could I say what I heard on here?

JayJay, in very simple terms you don't say anything that may cause someone "a loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them" – unless you can prove what you say is true.

In other words if you tell a lie about someone, it causes them 'harm' in some way, and you did this without trying to at least check what you were saying is true - then you could be in the poo.

However let me try to put your mind at rest a bit - there are many BWFC forums who have said all sorts over the last decade yet only the one to my knowledge as ever posted such specific allegations against just a few individuals as to have them have the police making a visit. They clearly crossed the line by a bloody long way (and often!) for that to have happened.

Believe me I wouldn't have let anybody post anything like as bad on here (or ba prior to this).

Also fwiw I don't believe that site can simply say people's views are their own and nothing to do with the forum - any libellous posts that the site allow to remain, make the site equally responsible for the allegation - ie they become as equally to blame for the comment if it is untrue.

Forums have mods for a reason not simply because we are a group of power crazed nazis you know!

There have been numerous posts on that site of alleged criminal activity by a number of people employed by the club.

No such allegations would ever be allowed to be posted on this site without there being evidence that they were true statements.

Sluffy wrote:There have been numerous posts on that site of alleged criminal activity by a number of people employed by the club.

Fair enough, that explains it.

It makes some of the comments in that thread on bwfcforum look a bit silly. Especially the one about 'Dave Higson and Nat Lofthouse turning in their grave'.

I really hope we don't get a situation where if anybody thinks bad of the club they use the 'Lofthouse' line.

Sluffy, if these characters decide to migrate to this forum, would you allow them in?

gloswhite wrote:Sluffy, if these characters decide to migrate to this forum, would you allow them in?

I'm already in, and now you're guilty by association

I doubt they would want to join on any forum where I have any degree of authority as I have crossed swords with and/or banned all of the main 'characters' in the past on previous forums I've been involved with.

I know for a fact that the majority of the people I refer to have been independently banned for their behaviour on many of the other BWFC forums.

Personally I would not like any of them to pitch up on here but I would grant them a fresh start with us just as long as they managed to keep to our site rules.

I couldn't imagine they would be able to do that for long though!

Are these comments made on the Mavies site the ones on the Manny Road blog? I remember reading some absolute shite on there a few months back claiming Phil Gartside was corrupt, and challenging Gartside to sue them.

I'm glad the club have taken some action. Fans should be free to slag players/management/staff off if they don't like the job they're doing, there's nothing wrong with critisism. But to doubt someones honesty is a step too far.

Yes, the Manny Road blog and Mavies site are all linked together with the same people being involved in each.

The person visited by the police as since owned up - he thinks he is some sort of working class poet and had produced a book of his poems. His first agent dropped him because of the abuse and libellous comments contained in many of his 'works'.

He toned it down a bit and tried to get the club shop to sell it - they refused - and he's held a grudge about it ever since.

This is the same bloke who openly bragged he was chucked off Sky's Fanzone for his continual racist comments.

Unsurprisingly to me he is seen as something of a folk hero on the Mavis site.

Birds of a feather and all that.

Largehat and Hipster have both called me a man in the past, can I sue them as it's hurting my business. People keep coming in to see the bearded lady.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Largehat and Hipster have both called me a man in the past, can I sue them as it's hurting my business. People keep coming in to see the bearded lady.

What you don't have a beard? Thats spoiled my imagination about you.

Nat, if you are of a hirsute nature, don't worry, we won't hold it against you.