Alex W Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 No, he is a croupier who worked at a local casino (the one right next to Blackpool's ground). He left, and a some time later Samuel Oyston made insinuations on Twitter (subsequently proved to be completely untrue) that the reason he had left was because of dishonesty. Now if such an allegation sticks in the gaming industry, you are dead meat, finished, and you will never get another job there, even sweeping up. A single hashtag cost Oyston £20 grand.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3078799/Blackpool-owner-Karl-Oyston-s-son-pay-20-000-damages-costs-fan-wrongly-alleging-thief.htmlhttp://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/community/community-news/seasiders-fan-pleased-to-clear-name-1-7262430 I just finished my stint in the gaming industry, you're not wrong, no-one will hire you if something like that comes out and appears even vaguely credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34771007 The owners of Blackpool Football Club have each won £20,000 in damages after they were defamed by a fan on a website. Owen and Karl Oyston sued supporter David Ragozzino over posts on a message board on Another View From the Tower. The posts included "lurid allegations of a sexual nature" and allegations of "fraudulent and corrupt behaviour", a High Court hearing was told. Judge Stephen Davies ruled the claims were of a "defamatory nature". Mr Ragozzino was "passionately aggrieved" about the way the club had been run, the judge added. He had protested against them in person at matches and on the internet. The 32-year-old previously denied libelling the Oystons and was supported by dozens of Blackpool fans at an earlier court hearing. Judge Davies said Mr Ragozzino had "consented to judgement being entered against him". "They [the claimants] accept that Blackpool FC's supporters are entitled to express opinions about such matters, in vigorous terms if they so wish," the judge said. "All of the allegations of sexual misconduct are appalling and must be viewed as extremely serious. "The allegations of fraud and corruption against Karl Oyston are also extremely serious. "Both Owen Oyston and Karl Oyston are entitled to aggravated damages." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Owen Oyston was the one convicted of rape wasn't he? I'm having a hard time seeing how a court could justify £20,000 worth of damage done by a supporters comments on the internet, but I guess they have knowledge of the full circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 2 minutes ago, Albert said: Owen Oyston was the one convicted of rape wasn't he? I'm having a hard time seeing how a court could justify £20,000 worth of damage done by a supporters comments on the internet, but I guess they have knowledge of the full circumstances. The Oystins must make more money out of suing fans than they do out of owning a football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 5 minutes ago, eddie said: The Oystins must make more money out of suing fans than they do out of owning a football club. To be fair, that's not a bad business plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Harford Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Was mates with David Bookbinder wasn't he? (one for the older heads) Was FALSELY (any lawyers reading) accused of a corrupt relationship relating to DCC pension fund, The Times had to publish an apology in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bridgford Ram Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 4 hours ago, Mick Harford said: Was mates with David Bookbinder wasn't he? (one for the older heads) Was FALSELY (any lawyers reading) accused of a corrupt relationship relating to DCC pension fund, The Times had to publish an apology in the end. Not really on subject but his son played at the Baseball Ground for Man City reserves (probably about 1985/6 because I went to a few of the games). Was roundly booed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombo Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 On 10/11/2015, 08:04:54, Albert said: Owen Oyston was the one convicted of rape wasn't he? I'm having a hard time seeing how a court could justify £20,000 worth of damage done by a supporters comments on the internet, but I guess they have knowledge of the full circumstances. To be fair it's picked up a lot of steam and made public opinion take a dive off a cliff. I think it's more the audacity of the lawsuit that's done it personally but there's no doubt the damage is done to their reputation. Diddums I know. No sympathy. But the damage is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 1 hour ago, Tombo said: To be fair it's picked up a lot of steam and made public opinion take a dive off a cliff. I think it's more the audacity of the lawsuit that's done it personally but there's no doubt the damage is done to their reputation. Diddums I know. No sympathy. But the damage is there. The problem is that Karl Oyston has a history of going online and goading fans. Then once they bite, he runs to the courts. The only times they lost was when he had a rant at a disabled fan (the 'enjoy your special needs day out' episode which cost him an FA ban) and when his son made insinuations as to why another fan who happened to be a croupier by profession had left the employment of one casino. That cost Sam Oyston 20 grand. I wouldn't dare post online my feelings towards that family, but I know that others who are big Blackpool fans have done, and it has cost them dearly. Raggy (Dave Ragazzino) did no more and no less than what others have done/will do when emotions get the better of them - but in libel cases, the law favours the rich, and so do the penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Harford Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 This is the only time I will ever defend an Oyston, and I do feel dirty saying it. But: I have read the judgement, and the allegations made are disgusting, not banter not realistic concerns of mismanagement, but genuine filth. As such I can understand him going after Raggy. If those things had been written about your father or mother, you would want some form of justice. Also appears that he received terrible legal advice and representation from a fellow BFC fan which has stiffed him in terms of compensation. Just to be clear, I despise the Oystons and their actions, but firmly believe that if you are going to protest then you have to have a firm factual basis if you wish to achieve your goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Just now, Mick Harford said: This is the only time I will ever defend an Oyston, and I do feel dirty saying it. But: I have read the judgement, and the allegations made are disgusting, not banter not realistic concerns of mismanagement, but genuine filth. As such I can understand him going after Raggy. If those things had been written about your father or mother, you would want some form of justice. Also appears that he received terrible legal advice and representation from a fellow BFC fan which has stiffed him in terms of compensation. Just to be clear, I despise the Oystons and their actions, but firmly believe that if you are going to protest then you have to have a firm factual basis if you wish to achieve your goal. have you got a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Harford Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2015/3232.html&query=oyston&method=boolean The claims start at para 16 Mostyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 interesting. Silly bloke to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 1 hour ago, eddie said: The problem is that Karl Oyston has a history of going online and goading fans. Then once they bite, he runs to the courts. The only times they lost was when he had a rant at a disabled fan (the 'enjoy your special needs day out' episode which cost him an FA ban) and when his son made insinuations as to why another fan who happened to be a croupier by profession had left the employment of one casino. That cost Sam Oyston 20 grand. I wouldn't dare post online my feelings towards that family, but I know that others who are big Blackpool fans have done, and it has cost them dearly. Raggy (Dave Ragazzino) did no more and no less than what others have done/will do when emotions get the better of them - but in libel cases, the law favours the rich, and so do the penalties. Perhaps, but it is also an important piece of legislation to protect free speech. It provides a fairly clear boundary on what is safe and what is not. In this case, this idiot has not just crossed the line, he's smashed through it and carried on running. He deserves everything he gets. As much as the Oystons are unpopular, you simply cannot, and should not be able, to publish these kinds of comments against other people without any kind of evidence whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Looks like another example where someone thinks the internet is some sort of protective barrier when it comes to posting abusive or factually incorrect information. I would expect that this was more about principle than the money for the oystons, so maybe some blackpool charity might benefit from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombo Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 3 hours ago, eddie said: Raggy (Dave Ragazzino) did no more and no less than what others have done/will do when emotions get the better of them - but in libel cases, the law favours the rich, and so do the penalties. Hmm, really? Having just read it, I don't agree.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 2 hours ago, VulcanRam said: Perhaps, but it is also an important piece of legislation to protect free speech. It provides a fairly clear boundary on what is safe and what is not. In this case, this idiot has not just crossed the line, he's smashed through it and carried on running. He deserves everything he gets. As much as the Oystons are unpopular, you simply cannot, and should not be able, to publish these kinds of comments against other people without any kind of evidence whatsoever. I have not read the comments, so all I know is second hand from a general perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 52 minutes ago, Tombo said: Hmm, really? Having just read it, I don't agree.... I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I have already given. I'm at work, so cannot read court transcripts at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 Doesn't look great, and these were posted and left on their forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 7 minutes ago, Daveo said: Doesn't look great, and these were posted and left on their forum? Luckily no-one would post anything on here that what end up wit you having yo meet the chairman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.