Spot Fixing?

[mikesiva]

Lawyer jokes moved here....

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3596

[Mr Popodopolous]

Broadcasters having the final say on how international cricket must be run is as damaging to the game as spot-fixing itself.

He who pays the piper and all that? FWIW, I'm uneasy about the amount of influence had over sport by rights holders but they DO pay a lot of money so it is only natural they will have their say in that context.

[captaincolly]

How does Butt know what is supposedly being discussed in "bookie circles"? Presumably he isn't referring to Ladbrokes!

[SaintPowelly]

How does Butt know what is supposedly being discussed in "bookie circles"? Presumably he isn't referring to Ladbrokes!

I thought that

[Alviro Patterson]

How does Butt know what is supposedly being discussed in "bookie circles"? Presumably he isn't referring to Ladbrokes!

My thoughts exactly, how are they going to "investigate the matter?"

[D/L]

Lawyer jokes moved here....

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3596

My last comment on this thread wasn't a joke, Mike. Can you move it back here please?

Cheers.

[DeltaAlpha]

Quite right, D/L, I think Mike over-reacted there. I know I caused the 'diversion', but I immediately - in the same post - apologised and moved back to the topic. The Papal Visit thread has been discussing the UK economy all day but apparently that isn't a problem.

Let's have some consistency, and, preferably, a little flexibility.

Mods: You can move this post wherever you like...

[D/L]

Starting the new thread with my moved post also appears to make me the initiator, DA, and people may infer from this that I don't have the greatest respect for the legal profession. Oh, hang on a minute...

...Yes, on reflection, I'll still have it moved back please, Mike.

[sussexpob]

Well, I'm not so sure that any lawyer could successfully cast doubt on Butt's second sentence being an accusation, and the fact that Butt has denied making any accusations leads me to think that he, or someone advising him, realises this.

The fact that he may have been "lashing out" makes no difference at all - he said what he said, and that's all that matters.

The Burden of proof in defamation cases is solely on the defendant to prove his innocence.... in first instance it would not be for the claimants to prove such an accusation, but for Butt to justify his comments with some evidence or truth.

Either way its a pretty tough one. He refers to "some English players", and as such is not reflecting on the ECB as an organisation, so they have arguably not been defamed. Also any single English player does not have a strong case for defamation, as he hasnt name anyone inparticular, or that it is the whole team involved....

In short, it would give any defence lawyer a wide gambit to argue against this, so the ECB may aswell drop it.

[DeltaAlpha]

The Burden of proof in defamation cases is solely on the defendant to prove his innocence.... in first instance it would not be for the claimants to prove such an accusation, but for Butt to justify his comments with some evidence or truth.

Either way its a pretty tough one. He refers to "some English players", and as such is not reflecting on the ECB as an organisation, so they have arguably not been defamed. Also any single English player does not have a strong case for defamation, as he hasnt name anyone inparticular, or that it is the whole team involved....

In short, it would give any defence lawyer a wide gambit to argue against this, so the ECB may aswell drop it.

Of course! Defamation law is, in reality, very simple, isn't it?

Send your advice to the ECB, sussex; I'm sure they'd be very grateful.

[mikesiva]

Quite right, D/L, I think Mike over-reacted there. I know I caused the 'diversion', but I immediately - in the same post - apologised and moved back to the topic. The Papal Visit thread has been discussing the UK economy all day but apparently that isn't a problem.

Let's have some consistency, and, preferably, a little flexibility.

Mods: You can move this post wherever you like...

D/L, post moved back as requested....

D/A, actually it wasn't moved because it was 'wrong', but rather, it could stand on its own in the Lounge. As things stand, it's already started to mushroom into quite a few lawyer jokes!

I hope you don't mind....

[DeltaAlpha]

No, I don't mind, Mike, I just think it was unnecessary.

[sussexpob]

The Burden of proof in defamation cases is solely on the defendant to prove his innocence.... in first instance it would not be for the claimants to prove such an accusation, but for Butt to justify his comments with some evidence or truth.

Either way its a pretty tough one. He refers to "some English players", and as such is not reflecting on the ECB as an organisation, so they have arguably not been defamed. Also any single English player does not have a strong case for defamation, as he hasnt name anyone inparticular, or that it is the whole team involved....

In short, it would give any defence lawyer a wide gambit to argue against this, so the ECB may aswell drop it.

Of course! Defamation law is, in reality, very simple, isn't it?

Send your advice to the ECB, sussex; I'm sure they'd be very grateful.

My gut reaction would be to say Butt would lose, but the defence has too many arguments to make such an action severely messy and drawn out..... which is why Defamation cases are always very expensive to get a good verdict from. They would argue all day long he hasnt targetted anyone, and even if he did his words have backfired onto him in the press, and no damage has been done to the reputation of England because no one seems to believe him. Be better to maybe persue another tort claim, such as malicious falsehood in that respect.

Any person who wants to sue him would have to prove his "some English players" related to them specifically..... the high cost to find out whether the courts agree with you are simply not worth it.

[yuppie]

The Burden of proof in defamation cases is solely on the defendant to prove his innocence.... in first instance it would not be for the claimants to prove such an accusation, but for Butt to justify his comments with some evidence or truth.

Either way its a pretty tough one. He refers to "some English players", and as such is not reflecting on the ECB as an organisation, so they have arguably not been defamed. Also any single English player does not have a strong case for defamation, as he hasnt name anyone inparticular, or that it is the whole team involved....

In short, it would give any defence lawyer a wide gambit to argue against this, so the ECB may aswell drop it.

Of course! Defamation law is, in reality, very simple, isn't it?

Send your advice to the ECB, sussex; I'm sure they'd be very grateful.

My gut reaction would be to say Butt would lose, but the defence has too many arguments to make such an action severely messy and drawn out..... which is why Defamation cases are always very expensive to get a good verdict from. They would argue all day long he hasnt targetted anyone, and even if he did his words have backfired onto him in the press, and no damage has been done to the reputation of England because no one seems to believe him. Be better to maybe persue another tort claim, such as malicious falsehood in that respect.

Any person who wants to sue him would have to prove his "some English players" related to them specifically..... the high cost to find out whether the courts agree with you are simply not worth it.

Could the England players sue as a team, or would they have to do it as individuals?

[Aidan11]

Can the England cricket team sue? My understanding of law is that you can't sue a group of individuals. The ECB may be able to sue but not the England cricket team.