News: Sins of the Father

[globaleagle]

RE: Sins of the Father

Thanks for posting the article.

I feel......

sombre.

Glad to hear your off the drink.

"You're"

Guess I'm more sober than you! 🙂

Ah hahahahahahahahahah woooooooooooot

Apologies, It's been a long day in airports/planes/times zones/ countries.

 

[bob dylan]

Ha ha my late night lack of punctuation or is it misspelling.

 

[Dan]

I hate to do this to you guys, but the fact that the article was removed from their site means we also have to remove it from ours.
I know that this will be an unpopular decision, and I am sorry that I read the thread now, but I have no desire to cop another call from any law firm with "requests" to remove the article. (Something that has happened in similar circumstances twice before).

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

As I have said before the really sad thing is there are gazillion people out there who still reckon he's guilty, you only have to visit other football forums to see that (The Kennel recently is a good example) and those people won't have read this story. AND you won't see the Telecrap, nor Bourbon Becky coming out with a front page apology anytime soon......as someone said above "this is the same organisation that hacks murdered kids phones".

The reality of it all is the journo's are all complete and absolute arseholes, they'll write anything and everything and as long as they use the word "alleged" they are 100% covered.

IMO the law needs to be changed so they can't do that!!

 

[Dan]

I would disagree about it being an over-reaction. I didn't see what was put up or edit the post, but the thinking behind it is sound. Dan, as owner, doesn't have the financial or time resources to get caught up in a legal stoush. Having been through a couple of these it can turn a life upside down. I agree with your end sentiment about the kids but I can't support jeopardising the site. Feel free to put it up on your FB account if you want 🙂

You didn't see it or hear it, but you'll jump in for your two-bobs worth regardless. :huh:
I'll not say anymore on this topic as I am still seathing over the article. I just want to give Brett a big man hug!

You are entitled to your opinion but I don't get why you are getting upset. It was made clear by you that the person involved was named in this thread. You won't suffer any consequences of that but Dan and others may. I've been here for 8 years and know of the times that legal action has been threatened so please respect why we unfortunately do what we do and say. Your belief in the justification of outing doesn't stop the reality of the legal consequences. Peace.

I would love to have the luxury of brushing off any legal threats or fighting them, but the truth is I do not have the resources to do so, nor do I have the inclination to put my family through that.

Legal threats to this site are a very real thing, and I have in the past had two due to articles that have been posted and many due to general things that fans have posted. Now if Silvertails were a million dollar business I would take on that risk, but I am not willing to do so, since it isn't.

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

So because they Telecrap delete a printed article means now it was never written ?

 

[Dan]

So because they Telecrap delete a printed article means now it was never written ?

hey look publish it on pastebin or your facebook if you want. That is up to you, however I need to comply with certain rules. That is of course unless you feel like paying any of my legal bills.

Technically we shouldn't republish it at all.

 

[lsz]

No - they clearly reached a settlement which included the removal of the article

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

So because they Telecrap delete a printed article means now it was never written ?

hey look publish it on pastebin or your facebook if you want. That is up to you, however I need to comply with certain rules. That is of course unless you feel like paying any of my legal bills.

Technically we shouldn't republish it at all.

No problem

 

[Cameron]

Not having a crack at you dan but that's bull****.
That filthy poor excuse of a paper published those articles and they should be able to be posted any where. If they aren't good enough to be posted on the net now why we're they published in the first place.
They are such grubs. But why should we be surprised we have see the filth news ltd has been exposed for In the UK.

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

*Goes looking for something called pastebin

 

[Dan]

Not having a crack at you dan but that's bull****.
That filthy poor excuse of a paper published those articles and they should be able to be posted any where. If they aren't good enough to be posted on the net now why we're they published in the first place.
They are such grubs. But why should we be surprised we have see the filth news ltd has been exposed for In the UK.

That is completely incorrect. For reasons I will not go into in much detail.
However generally speaking when the source article is removed, you need to remove any copy you have that is re-published. Mainly because this is either the source of a current court action or was part of a settlement agreement is generally the reason why we get removal requests.

In this case, the person being damaged, even in hindsight is Brett and I don't want to be part of that in any form, happy for you to publish it elsewhere if you wish.

However I will take the legal advice I have taken over yours.

It was in the public domain and open for anyone to read, however it is no longer in the public domain and thus should be removed. Again if you can commit to and show me you have the resources to pay any legal bills and resorting settlements figures then I will be happy for it to be posted here.

Remember there is more than your personal feelings of grievance at stake here

 

[Cameron]

Not having a crack at you dan but that's bull****.
That filthy poor excuse of a paper published those articles and they should be able to be posted any where. If they aren't good enough to be posted on the net now why we're they published in the first place.
They are such grubs. But why should we be surprised we have see the filth news ltd has been exposed for In the UK.

That is completely incorrect. For reasons I will not go into in much detail.
However generally speaking when the source article is removed, you need to remove any copy you have that is re-published. Mainly because this is either the source of a current court action or was part of a settlement agreement is generally the reason why we get removal requests.

In this case, the person being damaged, even in hindsight is Brett and I don't want to be part of that in any form, happy for you to publish it elsewhere if you wish.

However I will take the legal advice I have taken over yours.

It was in the public domain and open for anyone to read, however it is no longer in the public domain and thus should be removed. Again if you can commit to and show me you have the resources to pay any legal bills and resorting settlements figures then I will be happy for it to be posted here.

Remember there is more than your personal feelings of grievance at stake here

Dan I thought news must of pressured you to remove it. I was obviously wrong.

What does it say for them that these articles were still on the net until they were posted again on here.

 

[Dan]

Not having a crack at you dan but that's bull****.
That filthy poor excuse of a paper published those articles and they should be able to be posted any where. If they aren't good enough to be posted on the net now why we're they published in the first place.
They are such grubs. But why should we be surprised we have see the filth news ltd has been exposed for In the UK.

That is completely incorrect. For reasons I will not go into in much detail.
However generally speaking when the source article is removed, you need to remove any copy you have that is re-published. Mainly because this is either the source of a current court action or was part of a settlement agreement is generally the reason why we get removal requests.

In this case, the person being damaged, even in hindsight is Brett and I don't want to be part of that in any form, happy for you to publish it elsewhere if you wish.

However I will take the legal advice I have taken over yours.

It was in the public domain and open for anyone to read, however it is no longer in the public domain and thus should be removed. Again if you can commit to and show me you have the resources to pay any legal bills and resorting settlements figures then I will be happy for it to be posted here.

Remember there is more than your personal feelings of grievance at stake here

Dan I thought news must of pressured you to remove it. I was obviously wrong.

What does it say for them that these articles were still on the net until they were posted again on here.

Well to me it speaks volumes of them. The fact it was published in the first place speaks plenty about them really.

I don't even bother reading any telegraph article these days. I would say that this article was most likely removed specifically because of Berks tweets on the subject and subsequent retweets on Friday. It went a bit crazy and was directed straight at the news paper. They certainly wouldn't have wanted that attention, there is a good chance this one was meant to be removed originally too, but was missed for whatever reason. hard to say really

 

[WAMF]

RE: Sins of the Father

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1111119127871

Rotten to the core

By Rebecca Wilson
The Daily Telegraph
March 14, 2009 12:00AM


The weak board ridiculously asked the team's coach what he wanted. Not surprisingly, Des Hasler opted for the win-at-all-costs option and the board bought it. Even a gaggle of famous female fans came out in support of Brett Stewart without having been present on the night or hearing the facts of the story.

Hearing the facts of the story...

No better words should echo in Wilson's head, over and over and over!

Great words to remember for any jounalist!

"Page not found" on the article link.
I doubt it's because News Ltd feel ashamed because this mob evidently have no shame.

News Ltd, you can continue to remove the harmful dribble you reported in 09 but those here will never forget and promise to continue reminding you of the blatant lies you manufactured, complete with dubious quotes from known 'unreliable sources' and reporting these as fact.

You didn't for one moment care that you were ruining someone's life. You only cared that you could file a report and fill newspaper space for your pay cheque.
Bunch of lowlifes indeed.

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

Not having a crack at you dan but that's bull****.
That filthy poor excuse of a paper published those articles and they should be able to be posted any where. If they aren't good enough to be posted on the net now why we're they published in the first place.
They are such grubs. But why should we be surprised we have see the filth news ltd has been exposed for In the UK.

That is completely incorrect. For reasons I will not go into in much detail.
However generally speaking when the source article is removed, you need to remove any copy you have that is re-published. Mainly because this is either the source of a current court action or was part of a settlement agreement is generally the reason why we get removal requests.

In this case, the person being damaged, even in hindsight is Brett and I don't want to be part of that in any form, happy for you to publish it elsewhere if you wish.

However I will take the legal advice I have taken over yours.

It was in the public domain and open for anyone to read, however it is no longer in the public domain and thus should be removed. Again if you can commit to and show me you have the resources to pay any legal bills and resorting settlements figures then I will be happy for it to be posted here.

Remember there is more than your personal feelings of grievance at stake here

Dan I thought news must of pressured you to remove it. I was obviously wrong.

What does it say for them that these articles were still on the net until they were posted again on here.

Well to me it speaks volumes of them. The fact it was published in the first place speaks plenty about them really.

I don't even bother reading any telegraph article these days. I would say that this article was most likely removed specifically because of Berks tweets on the subject and subsequent retweets on Friday. It went a bit crazy and was directed straight at the news paper. They certainly wouldn't have wanted that attention, there is a good chance this one was meant to be removed originally too, but was missed for whatever reason. hard to say really

The tweets were directed at Kent & Slothfield mainly

---

Btw
Are you going to remove the topic article any time soon too as I want to save that as well

 

[Cameron]

They cannot write an article without using harsh hurtful language.
Just this weekend their sports editor at large (whatever that means) rothfield refered to Dave Taylor as looking like Tarzan but playing like Jane and called the head of the Arlc an egomaniac. Then when Dave Taylor had the hide to return serve on Saturday night post game he cops another spray this morning for not handling the truth.

The Telegraph has been out of control since super league they have acted like the arrogant principals kid who think they can get away with anything because their organisation owned 50% of the game and their man was CEO.

I think the opportunity is there for ARLC to revisit media accreditation and introduce a code of ethics.

No member of the Melbourne print media would dare call demetriou an ego maniac.

 

[Dan]

Not having a crack at you dan but that's bull****.
That filthy poor excuse of a paper published those articles and they should be able to be posted any where. If they aren't good enough to be posted on the net now why we're they published in the first place.
They are such grubs. But why should we be surprised we have see the filth news ltd has been exposed for In the UK.

That is completely incorrect. For reasons I will not go into in much detail.
However generally speaking when the source article is removed, you need to remove any copy you have that is re-published. Mainly because this is either the source of a current court action or was part of a settlement agreement is generally the reason why we get removal requests.

In this case, the person being damaged, even in hindsight is Brett and I don't want to be part of that in any form, happy for you to publish it elsewhere if you wish.

However I will take the legal advice I have taken over yours.

It was in the public domain and open for anyone to read, however it is no longer in the public domain and thus should be removed. Again if you can commit to and show me you have the resources to pay any legal bills and resorting settlements figures then I will be happy for it to be posted here.

Remember there is more than your personal feelings of grievance at stake here

Dan I thought news must of pressured you to remove it. I was obviously wrong.

What does it say for them that these articles were still on the net until they were posted again on here.

Well to me it speaks volumes of them. The fact it was published in the first place speaks plenty about them really.

I don't even bother reading any telegraph article these days. I would say that this article was most likely removed specifically because of Berks tweets on the subject and subsequent retweets on Friday. It went a bit crazy and was directed straight at the news paper. They certainly wouldn't have wanted that attention, there is a good chance this one was meant to be removed originally too, but was missed for whatever reason. hard to say really

The tweets were directed at Kent & Slothfield mainly

---

Btw
Are you going to remove the topic article any time soon too as I want to save that as well

---

No that one can stay there is nothing wrong with that

 

[the mauler]

I'd love for someone to ring 2ue when Bourbon Bec is on and confront her about her article now this gas all come out. She is an absolute disgrace and should not be allowedto get away with such slander.

 

[lsz]

If i am not mistaken News reached a settlement with Brett. Brett may or may not have chosen the terms of the settlement to not include a public apology (as it stands none of us really know)

Therefore they did not get away with it. Brett, who is the only one that really matters, reached a settlement that he must be happy with it