Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:40 pm  

Tommy Duckfingers wrote:

If I sign a bit of paper saying you can punch me in the face as hard as you like, would it be then legal for you to do so? Or would I be able to go to the police and press charges?

(Not for 1 second I think we could, would or should go down that route that is)

That's exactly the example I used just the other day!

Again, as many people have said, I wouldn't advocate a legal challenge for one second - just trying to point out that signing a contract does not automatically bind you to it, if the terms of it are later deemed to be unfair.

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:40 pm  

Tommy Duckfingers wrote:

If I sign a bit of paper saying you can punch me in the face as hard as you like, would it be then legal for you to do so? Or would I be able to go to the police and press charges?

(Not for 1 second I think we could, would or should go down that route that is)

I think we can see the point you are making and agree but you are talking of criminal law in your example and you are correct no one can issue exemptions from Criminal Law.

Contract Law on the otherhand is not surprisingly governed by the Law of Contact. You can sign a Contract and even though you signed it willingly if you believe that the Contract was not fair you can challenge the Contract under the "UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977"

Whether you win or not is a matter for the Judge but just because you signed it does not mean you are up a creek without a paddle.

Thats why we have so many well paid Lawyers.

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:49 pm  

Sandal Cat wrote:

I think we can see the point you are making and agree but you are talking of criminal law in your example and you are correct no one can issue exemptions from Criminal Law.

Contract Law on the otherhand is not surprisingly governed by the Law of Contact. You can sign a Contract and even though you signed it willingly if you believe that the Contract was not fair you can challenge the Contract under the "UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977"

Whether you win or not is a matter for the Judge but just because you signed it does not mean you are up a creek without a paddle.

Thats why we have so many well paid Lawyers.

I simplified to make the point, that's all. It's academic anyways as most sensible people agree I think.

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:53 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

I sort of agree with your view here.

The problem is, in modern journalism and a 24 hour news culture, things move quickly and the speed of the story is important for many media outlets such as websites and radio. Also, journalism and journalists are not what they used to be. The need to fact check has become secondary to the speed of the news itself. So, our young reporter here at the YP is probably a junior member of the website team, his news editor throws a press release and story at him, which he then uses the internet to research and does not bother picking up the phone to James or the club at all. That is ok to him, other news outlets are reporting they have shelved Newmarket, that was not clear in the press release, so we will run with that... someone must have checked this before me??? Err, no, someone, somewhere made an assumption and now the whole media circus is reporting this as a fact because the story is not big enough or worth the time for the website reporter to check any further... he is now writing his 10th story of the day for the website about some Mum's wanting a pedestrian crossing on a dangerous bit of road.

This can also work the other way and I must admit, RW and Cas seem to do well here!

Remember how Cas had SOLD WR for £50m the other week... it was on the BBC main website for gods sake, it must be true! Of course it wasn't, the reporter at the BBC website (paid slightly more money than the guy at the YP and lives in London) made some assumptions. To be fair to Cas, the press release didn't say that at all, it said the development value was worth £50m, which is probably true! However, quick as a flash in the rush to report the story the whole of the media are reporting this as being a fact... even Sky News, who probably should have just picked up the phone to the sports department and fact checked it with them and got the right answer. But now the BBC have said...

You need to be very clear about key messages and I think you are right, that it was not clear enough and now this is the result!

None of which is an excuse for such shoddy, negligent, lazy and incompetent reporting!

How long would you last if you just guessed at the answers because you were up against a deadline? Apply that logic to just about any job, builders, teachers, surgeons, bookies, chemists etc.. It wouldn't be acceptable and the dole would be your only destination for such amateurism.

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:58 pm  

Roverswall wrote:

You do know that work to extend the east stand (adding 1.6K on the capacity figure) has already been started don't you?
You do know it is 1 stand so not 'stands' and that is getting moved over to the other end with it being roofed off in is premanet home and it will only be used as an overflow stand dont you?
You do know that planning is accepted and funding is in place and all set to go any day now for our new £6M north stand dont you?
This work will be started BEFORE the franchises are given out.
We will have 12k, ALL underoof, All apart from 1 stand as seating,
Completley complient.

I do know yes!

The temporary improvements to NCP are not as extensive as the temporary improvements to BV!

The permanent improvements to NCP will not be as good as the permanent solution to BV i.e. Newmarket!

That said, I have great respect for the Rovers for coming up and making things happen, my comments are not meant as a criticism but IMO my above statement is correct.

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:02 pm  

t-r-i-n-i-t-y wrote:

What doesn't help is I can't find mention of Newmarket in the story on the club's website...very poorly written.

That's not a licence to make stuff up!

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:08 pm  

The Clan wrote:

None of which is an excuse for such shoddy, negligent, lazy and incompetent reporting!

How long would you last if you just guessed at the answers because you were up against a deadline? Apply that logic to just about any job, builders, teachers, surgeons, bookies, chemists etc.. It wouldn't be acceptable and the dole would be your only destination for such amateurism.

I 100% agree Clan, but I was explaining why this is happening, not making an excuse for him or the YP.

Now, we have this guy from Sporting Life who has clearly... picked up the phone this morning and spoke to James!!! What a great idea for a journalist, gather some facts about the story you are writing! Low and behold, he has a good accurate story and also uncovered lots more information and detail not even mentioned last night!

Rocket science it isn't, good journalism it is! If only they were all as good as this!

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm  

The Clan wrote:

That's not a licence to make stuff up!

Or better still have a pre worded statement ready to be handed to the press, words of your choosing rather than leaving it to chance.

AG knew the meeting content so could have had something written/e mailed well in advance rather than leave YEP to make any old crap up.

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:25 pm  

Gahan wrote:

Or better still have a pre worded statement ready to be handed to the press, words of your choosing rather than leaving it to chance.

AG knew the meeting content so could have had something written/e mailed well in advance rather than leave YEP to make any old crap up.

Indeed - the very first thing they teach on the 'Dealing with the Media' training course.

Unfortunate that it didn't happen, but not the end of the world.

Re: NEWS FROM TONIGHT'S BIG MEETING : Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:30 pm  

The Clan wrote:

I do know yes!

The temporary improvements to NCP are not as extensive as the temporary improvements to BV!

The permanent improvements to NCP will not be as good as the permanent solution to BV i.e. Newmarket!

That said, I have great respect for the Rovers for coming up and making things happen, my comments are not meant as a criticism but IMO my above statement is correct.

Fair enough but NCP will pass the franchise this time as work will be started pre francise time and even if it isnt it is better that BV without those extra's, You are saying to the RFL that you promise works AFTER the licencing.
So even if neither us actually did the work we are saying we will NCP wins and even if we both do the work we promise NCP wins.
With the work NCP passes everything a stadium needs, Better or not Newmarket will pass those same criteria and that is all that counts in the grander scheme of things.
I will say that we have plans for a new south stand at which point NCP wil be no diffrent from The HJ our old West stand aside.