IRONIC TIMING: WARREN AND KHAN THREATENING TO SUE FACEBOOK!

[Deserter]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/se ... n-facebook

I'm not familiar with the groups of FB in question, but on this occasion, if they are racist and defamatory then it seems fair enough that they want them pulled.
Does clearly love his legal actions does Frank though, eh?

[Deserter]

Though i've just read this comment that made me laugh out loud:

"Taylor Heath stressed that his clients did not have a problem with fan sites or fair comment around the sport, but want to clamp down on comments that were seriously racist or defamatory"

Good to know that Warren doesn't have a problem with fan sites like, er... british boxing forums...

[Adamj1987]

why is it ironic timing?

[banjo]

I don't use facebook but if it's anything like the shite you see on youtube comments then facebook need to sort it.

[Adamj1987]

I don't use facebook but if it's anything like the shite you see on youtube comments then facebook need to sort it.

there are group s you join to share idea's generally the racists congreagate together.

its like on here the TPS people dont seem to bother other people that much usually stay to 1 group

[chesh]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/se ... n-facebook

From the article above: "Warren, who has fought several high-profile legal battles.... "

Why does the journalist not elaborate on that with some simple facts??

[chesh]

Then why reference them at all?

[chesh]

Seems more like a glaring omission to me, particularly in light of the fact that one such case was heard very recently. A brief factual reference regarding the judgement would not have been incongruous in the article.

[overhand_right]

Fairplay, surely any anti-Khan groups on Facebook are as equally disturbing as the comments on virtually any boxing related video on You Tube, only with Facebook you can put a face to the horrendous bile the unwashed retards are spouting from a stolen PC on their council estate.

[dondada]

Seems more like a glaring omission to me, particularly in light of the fact that one such case was heard very recently. A brief factual reference regarding the judgement would not have been incongruous in the article.

But it has nothing to do with the article whatsoever.

It is entirely relevant to the article. Man threatens to sue huge website. Why is this particular man choosing to do so when thousands of others who are potentially defamed by it are not doing so? Because he has a history of using the courts and has very recently done so.

[Asterix]

If there are people being racist on Facebook then report them. I really don't understand the sue-happy attitude. Warren is just creating more and more negative PR for himself.

------

I've just performed as search for the term "amir khan" on Facebook and looked through the categories. I couldn't find anything racist or defamatory, so this part...

Stephen Taylor Heath, head of sports and media at Lupton Fawcett, said that a cursory search of Facebook quickly led to "bogus" pages that used the images and names of the pair to link to material that would be "highly defamatory" if published in a newspaper or magazine.

...is untrue.

[chesh]

Seems more like a glaring omission to me, particularly in light of the fact that one such case was heard very recently. A brief factual reference regarding the judgement would not have been incongruous in the article.

But it has nothing to do with the article whatsoever.

I would agree, had the journalist not written: "Warren, who has fought several high-profile legal battles.... ". It was the journalist - not I - who mentioned other "legal battles". I will not comment further, but an uninformed reader might draw an incorrect conclusion from that. I maintain that the omission of further facts is potentially misleading. No reference at all in the article to other legal issues would have validated your point and negated mine.

[states]

I'd fornicating piss myself if Facebook declared themselves bankrupt, then relaunched as Facebook2.

[Asterix]

I'd effing piss myself if Facebook declared themselves bankrupt, then relaunched as Facebook2.

[dondada]

But that clearly isn't the angle on which this article is written, his previous court cases hold no relevance to him threatening to sue facebook.

I've clearly explained why it is relevant. If you can't see it, so be it.

[chesh]

[/quote]I would agree, had the journalist not written: "Warren, who has fought several high-profile legal battles.... ". It was the journalist - not I - who mentioned other "legal battles". I will not comment further, but an uninformed reader might draw an incorrect conclusion from that. I maintain that the omission of further facts is potentially misleading. No reference at all in the article to other legal issues would have validated your point and negated mine.[/quote]

How can it mislead them?[/quote]

Are you now being deliberately obtuse?

[dondada]

But that clearly isn't the angle on which this article is written, his previous court cases hold no relevance to him threatening to sue facebook.

I've clearly explained why it is relevant. If you can't see it, so be it.

But it isn't relevant, its as simple as that. None of the previous court cases are anything like this, this is a boxing manager suing facebook. Any previous court cases have no relevance to that, Its quite obvious why they left it out.

Right, I'll have one more go and then we'll just agree to differ.

Do you not think a reader might ask why, out of the thousands and thousands of people who might very well be defamed on Facebook on a daily basis, that this particular boxing manager is threatening to sue them? Further, the last time readers saw him in the news and not sport pages was when he was also in court - a case that led to his company going into adminstration for goodness sake. It is entirely relevant WIDER CONTEXT to this - especially as the journalist actually mentions other cases, as chesh has pointed out.

[states]

It may not be directly related, but any journalist worth their salt would point out that Warren's previous company owes millions in the last court case he was involved with.

I very much doubt this is the first time Facebook has lead to some unsavoury comments. Any decent journalist would point out Warren's history of threatening to sue anyone who disagrees with him. They may also point out that Hatton and Calzaghe, Britain's two highest profile boxers both won their cases, against him.

[dondada]

But this is clearly not an in depth article, any previous court case holds no relevance at the moment, he is only threatening to sue, If legal proceedings do occur expect a much more in depth look at the case and of his previous legal history. But this will more than likely not end up in court, this article does not need to go into depth about any previous court cases, because right now none of them hold any relevance to him threatening to sue facebook, that is quite clear, the only reason this is an article is because it has wider implications than just khan and warren.

I do take your point, really I do. I didn't say depth though - perhaps a sentence would have done.

Yeah - man threatens to sue incredibly wealthy website. Man recently saw company go into adminstration because they couldn't pay their bills. Not relevant at all.

[dondada]

It may not be directly related, but any journalist worth their salt would point out that Warren's previous company owes millions in the last court case he was involved with.

I very much doubt this is the first time Facebook has lead to some unsavoury comments. Any decent journalist would point out Warren's history of threatening to sue anyone who disagrees with him. They may also point out that Hatton and Calzaghe, Britain's two highest profile boxers both won their cases, against him.

None of the other major newspapers mention them either. Im sure there is at least one competent journalist between them all.

That's because we know more about it than they do. Well, I certainly fecking do.

[dondada]

Come on, this information is freely available. If they felt it was required to put in the article it would be in there, but none of the major newspapers did, I didn't check any of the tabloids though.

Yeah, that's true. I would have put it in though and so would anyone who knew anything about boxing and/or the prospective litigant whereas these generalist journos might not. But that's only my opinion.

You seem to be well versed in the practice of journalism. Tell me more...

I have written hundreds and hundreds of articles for publication in print and on the web. I'm sure you know best though.

[dondada]

I'm not even sure I understand your previous sentence seeing as you've also highlighted something referring to me and not you.

The impression I get is that you seem to speak with some authority on why journalists would omit certain things, relevance, follow up pieces, angles, etc.

I'm just wondering where this knowledge comes from, that's all.

If it's just opinion rather than experience, then that's fine.

[dondada]

what did I highlight that was referring to just you?

'I have written hundreds and hundreds of articles for publication in print and on the web' this? that lead to...'I'm sure you know best though.' yeah that has nothing to do with me.

Its quite obvious to me why they left it out, they all left it out, there is a reason for that. Just out of curiosity what do you write about?

"'I have written hundreds and hundreds of articles for publication in print and on the web' this?"

Yes, that. I see you still haven't answered my question...which is answer enough.

I think they all left it out because either a) the copy originally came from someone like the PA and they've all done a little re-write and put their byline on it or b) because they didn't know enough about the background.

It certainly could be c) your version - you might very well be correct.

I write about boxing and education. Mainly about boxing.

[dondada]

I didn't miss it. I f*cking referred to it. I left out the 'lead to' (sic) bit because that actually DID refer to you.

Yes, the papers have all ran stuff on him.

Not sure what else to say. You have your (seemingly entirely unqualified and unpractised) opinion and I have mine.

Still, I repeat, you might be right.

[dondada]

would you have ended with:

'I'm sure you know best though'

without this first?

'I have written hundreds and hundreds of articles for publication in print and on the web'


Do you think you have to be a journalist to be able to read something and understand its content? What a daft argument, I'm going to stop now because you've resorted to 'oh well I know more because I'm a writer'. It seems very obvious to me why it was left out and only alluded to in one of the newspapers, and they didn't even go into detail on it.

Let's just leave the first bit alone. I can't be arsed to explain about it.

I just feel as someone who has done a bit that I might know a bit more about the workings of writing for publication than you do. It seems obvious to you because you don't have the knowledge to be able to see anything other than the obvious, in this case.

But, I'll say again - you might be right and it could have been a deliberate choice of ALL the journalists who ALL miraculously stumbled simultaneously across the same story to ALL leave it out. Do you seriously think they've ALL done their OWN story on this?

I contend it's more likely that ONE journalist did the piece and left it out because he probably wasn't aware of the significance of Warren's recent court case which was followed by others picking up on that story and doing a little re-write.