| The Phil ban 23:01 - Feb 3 with 3157 views | Pendejo |
Been skim reading... So please forgive tvatish errors.
A contributor posted our team for Lincoln on TWTD
Lambert and his henchman, err coach didn't like this
- They feel a confidentiality betrayed, fair enough
They ask Phil to betray a confidentiality that he is legally bound to maintain
Because Phil won't break the law, he is banned
Phil even maintains confidentiality over this ban for some weeks (not sure how that info leaked out)
I am no legal expert but have ITFC or any of their employees possibly committed crimes here. I mean real criminal offences, not being a sht football team.
Encitement or conspiracy to breach Data Protection?
Blackmail?
Restraint of trade?
All over some random fan who got a bit of inside info and posted it on this website?
I know Lambert tends to use a bingo machine to pick his teams, but surely Lincoln's manager didn't need to know our line up to instigate his match p!an.
The issue lies with someone in or close to the day to day team operations... that's the person who really needs to apologise - to Phil as much as anybody, and I don't mean the poster... Unless he's inner circle ITFC.
Had Phil casually dropped a post it more with the posters real name, does that then mean the club sending a "persauder" out to then find out who their source was? It's all a bit "Hollywood conspiracy" really isn't it?
It's really not in the clues interest to lose the revenue of not having fans in the ground, but I bet in a way they maybe thanking this adversity.
Only sad little men with little intelligence or ability but massive over inflated egos follow this course of action. If YOU are reading this leave our club, please.
|  |
| |  |
| The Phil ban on 23:29 - Feb 3 with 3082 views | chrismakin |
Like I said earlier they're also blackmailing Phil to break the law.
If phil gives the details of the poster they will allow him back. Until then he is banned and therefore they are costing Phil and Gav money.
They must be breaking a law with this. Its blackmail and disgusting |  |
| |
| The Phil ban on 23:34 - Feb 3 with 3076 views | Illinoisblue |
The fact it’s got this far and gone on so long tells you everything about the “leadership” at the club. If Evans had a spine he would have told Lambert to stop his whining, quit crying and get on justifying your five year contract. But of course Evans just bends over.
Lambert and his assistants are a disgrace to our once proud club. |  |
| |
| The Phil ban on 23:53 - Feb 3 with 3026 views | BluedanW |
| The Phil ban on 23:34 - Feb 3 by Illinoisblue |
The fact it’s got this far and gone on so long tells you everything about the “leadership” at the club. If Evans had a spine he would have told Lambert to stop his whining, quit crying and get on justifying your five year contract. But of course Evans just bends over.
Lambert and his assistants are a disgrace to our once proud club. |
No doubt the Lincoln manager was scouring through the TWTD message board an hour before kick off to find any clues of the Ipswich team and tactics.
You couldn't make it up.
Joke of a club.
Everyone knows his tactics, 1 up front as he's told everybody himself we are useless any other set up. Also no matter who are in the team and whoever we are playing we are too easy to play against anyway |  | | |
| The Phil ban on 05:16 - Feb 4 with 2897 views | shamboy |
This sort of garbage goes a long way towards helping the club to justify exiling Phil. There was no legal infringement by the club. Saying that there was appears childish. Their decision was at best mean, and at worst vindictive. | | | |
| The Phil ban on 07:33 - Feb 4 with 2761 views | Keno |
Could Lamberk be arrested for impersonating a football manager? |  |
| |
| The Phil ban on 07:44 - Feb 4 with 2737 views | DanTheMan |
| The Phil ban on 05:16 - Feb 4 by shamboy |
This sort of garbage goes a long way towards helping the club to justify exiling Phil. There was no legal infringement by the club. Saying that there was appears childish. Their decision was at best mean, and at worst vindictive. |
They asked him to break GDPR laws. |  |
| |
| The Phil ban on 08:27 - Feb 4 with 2669 views | thebooks |
Nah, you can ask for info as much as you like. At the end of the day, the club can have whoever it wants at press conferences, or even not run them — they don’t have any obligation to provide journalists with a living.
I’m still amazed that a) they thought it’d be a good idea banning Phil b) they asked him to handover confidential data — any barely functioning, legally compliant organisation understands this isn’t possible and b) it wasn’t some functionary at the club, it was the ASSISTANT MANAGER.
What a fücking joke of a club. |  | | |
| The Phil ban on 08:27 - Feb 4 with 2671 views | yarmoblue |
Maybe they were just bored of him reporting shot, although this is highly unlikely due to his wage demands lol |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Phil ban on 08:31 - Feb 4 with 2645 views | DanTheMan |
| The Phil ban on 08:27 - Feb 4 by yarmoblue |
Maybe they were just bored of him reporting shot, although this is highly unlikely due to his wage demands lol |
Eh? | |
| |
| The Phil ban on 08:59 - Feb 4 with 2589 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
| The Phil ban on 05:16 - Feb 4 by shamboy |
This sort of garbage goes a long way towards helping the club to justify exiling Phil. There was no legal infringement by the club. Saying that there was appears childish. Their decision was at best mean, and at worst vindictive. |
Nonsense both blackmail and asking someone to breach GDPR is illegal.
Choosing not act in an illegal manner cannot ever be used as justification of behaviour.
The club is on thin ice with that request. Phil would be opening himself up to a law suit if he provided the details requested. |  |
| |
| The Phil ban on 10:03 - Feb 4 with 2502 views | Pendejo |
| The Phil ban on 05:16 - Feb 4 by shamboy |
This sort of garbage goes a long way towards helping the club to justify exiling Phil. There was no legal infringement by the club. Saying that there was appears childish. Their decision was at best mean, and at worst vindictive. |
If Phil edited it and commented "this doesn't really help" as he has done a number of times then I'd be apologetic.
As for garbage, that's your opinion and that's what this medium is for sounding out your opinions, within the parameters of both the law and decency.
However, as others have stated. If Phil revealed the real name behind the user name he WOULD be breaking the law. The specific law I believe is Data Protection Act rather than GDPR.
Data Protection Act 2018 - is about the rights to protection of the people whose data has been collected i.e. Protection against misuse.
GDPR - governs the holder of the data, what they keep, how they keep it, including protecting confidentiality.
The contact details are for the sole and exclusive use of TWTD, they may not be passed on to a third party.
Whilst my sense of humour can be childish and infantile the point regarding breaking the law isn't.
Take it back to the purpose of obtaining that info - what are then going to do?
Go through the UKs telephone books terminator style until they find the right "Sarah Connor" leaving a trail of destruction behind them?
When they locate "Sarah Connor" what then? Another ban? Legal action... For breaching data protection? Hmm, over to m'learned friends. I would assert any legal breach came from within the club.
One thing you are correct on
"Their decision was at best mean, and at worst vindictive."
Language no stronger or weaker than I used to describe the situation.... So by your measure, not helping either.
Think of it this way.
Your next door neighbour throws some litter outside your garden, when you notice it you pick it up and put it in your bin, as you do so a council warden issues you with a littering fine because he witnessed the litter on the ground and you picking it up.
Phil is banned cos someone* dropped some litter on the bulletin board.
*arguably many of us drop litter many times everyday... It's just our litter hasn't come from within the club. | |
| |
| The Phil ban on 10:21 - Feb 4 with 2450 views | clive_baker |
| The Phil ban on 23:29 - Feb 3 by chrismakin |
Like I said earlier they're also blackmailing Phil to break the law.
If phil gives the details of the poster they will allow him back. Until then he is banned and therefore they are costing Phil and Gav money.
They must be breaking a law with this. Its blackmail and disgusting |
I would imagine proving what someone might have intimated would be a challenge. We all know what 'balls in your court' was implying, but if it was a verbal comment, it's one persons word against another. I can't see that standing up in court when the other party simply denies saying it.
Furthermore, TWTD would need to have the appetite for a long, drawn out expensive, inevitably public legal battle, ultimately against one of the wealthiest people in the country. Not sure I would fancy that ball ache.
Hopefully common sense prevails, and with Lamberts departure comes TWTD reinstatement. It's disgusting treatment of such a loyal partner of the club and loyal supporter. Obviously I hope its resolved ASAP, but its going to leave a very bitter taste now. Tells you a lot about how the club is being run. Results on the pitch are one thing, performances are subjective, and there's a million and one reasons why we're not as competitive as we might be at this level, but there's one thing utterly within our own hands to influence and that's how we treat other people, and the club has failed in that quite spectacularly. Shame on them all. |  |
| |
| The Phil ban on 13:19 - Feb 4 with 2315 views | shamboy |
| The Phil ban on 10:03 - Feb 4 by Pendejo |
If Phil edited it and commented "this doesn't really help" as he has done a number of times then I'd be apologetic.
As for garbage, that's your opinion and that's what this medium is for sounding out your opinions, within the parameters of both the law and decency.
However, as others have stated. If Phil revealed the real name behind the user name he WOULD be breaking the law. The specific law I believe is Data Protection Act rather than GDPR.
Data Protection Act 2018 - is about the rights to protection of the people whose data has been collected i.e. Protection against misuse.
GDPR - governs the holder of the data, what they keep, how they keep it, including protecting confidentiality.
The contact details are for the sole and exclusive use of TWTD, they may not be passed on to a third party.
Whilst my sense of humour can be childish and infantile the point regarding breaking the law isn't.
Take it back to the purpose of obtaining that info - what are then going to do?
Go through the UKs telephone books terminator style until they find the right "Sarah Connor" leaving a trail of destruction behind them?
When they locate "Sarah Connor" what then? Another ban? Legal action... For breaching data protection? Hmm, over to m'learned friends. I would assert any legal breach came from within the club.
One thing you are correct on
"Their decision was at best mean, and at worst vindictive."
Language no stronger or weaker than I used to describe the situation.... So by your measure, not helping either.
Think of it this way.
Your next door neighbour throws some litter outside your garden, when you notice it you pick it up and put it in your bin, as you do so a council warden issues you with a littering fine because he witnessed the litter on the ground and you picking it up.
Phil is banned cos someone* dropped some litter on the bulletin board.
*arguably many of us drop litter many times everyday... It's just our litter hasn't come from within the club. |
Sorry for my early morning bad temper :)
Saying 'Hand over the data' is not illegal.
Saying 'Hand over the data or else we will break your legs' is likely illegal. | | | |
| The Phil ban on 13:25 - Feb 4 with 2293 views | hype313 |
| The Phil ban on 13:19 - Feb 4 by shamboy |
Sorry for my early morning bad temper :)
Saying 'Hand over the data' is not illegal.
Saying 'Hand over the data or else we will break your legs' is likely illegal. |
Saying 'Hand over the data' is not illegal
Maybe not, but why would Phil and the team want to risk a fine, GDPR sets forth fines of up to 10 million euros, or, in the case of an undertaking, up to 2% of its entire global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher.
it's his livelihood. |  |
| |
| The Phil ban on 13:32 - Feb 4 with 2253 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The Phil ban on 23:53 - Feb 3 by BluedanW |
No doubt the Lincoln manager was scouring through the TWTD message board an hour before kick off to find any clues of the Ipswich team and tactics.
You couldn't make it up.
Joke of a club.
Everyone knows his tactics, 1 up front as he's told everybody himself we are useless any other set up. Also no matter who are in the team and whoever we are playing we are too easy to play against anyway |
Bound to be wasn't he. Imagine his surprise we he found out we cunningly planned to set up the same way and with most of the same players who'd been playing in the previous few games. You can see how it contributed to our defeat (not).
The whole thing is pathetic and not a good look for the club at all. |  |
| |
| The Phil ban on 13:37 - Feb 4 with 2241 views | shamboy |
| The Phil ban on 13:25 - Feb 4 by hype313 |
Saying 'Hand over the data' is not illegal
Maybe not, but why would Phil and the team want to risk a fine, GDPR sets forth fines of up to 10 million euros, or, in the case of an undertaking, up to 2% of its entire global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher.
it's his livelihood. |
This is like pulling teeth!! To answer your question, he wouldn't want to. No one would want to.
If he replied something along the lines of ' I am unable to' or 'I choose not to' and the club chucked him out based in part or in full on that refusal, such an action would be at best mean and at worst vindictive. | | | |
| The Phil ban on 13:39 - Feb 4 with 2230 views | Pendejo |
| The Phil ban on 13:19 - Feb 4 by shamboy |
Sorry for my early morning bad temper :)
Saying 'Hand over the data' is not illegal.
Saying 'Hand over the data or else we will break your legs' is likely illegal. |
Repeat encitement or conspiracy
- encitement the act where they ask someone to do something unlawful
- Conspiracy would be applied to both parties if Phil agreed to do so
Incitement
Section 59 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 abolished the common law offence of incitement, with effect from 1 October 2008.
For offences committed before that date, incitement occurs when a person seeks to persuade another to commit a criminal offence. A person is guilty of incitement to commit an offence or offences if:
They incite another to do or cause to be done an act or acts which, if done, will involve the commission of an offence or offences by the other
Conspiracy
A conspiracy is an agreement where two or more people agree to carry their criminal scheme into effect, the very agreement is the criminal act itself:the
Not exactly crime of the century stuff but a crime none the less. | |
| |
| The Phil ban on 17:06 - Feb 4 with 2120 views | shamboy |
| The Phil ban on 13:39 - Feb 4 by Pendejo |
Repeat encitement or conspiracy
- encitement the act where they ask someone to do something unlawful
- Conspiracy would be applied to both parties if Phil agreed to do so
Incitement
Section 59 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 abolished the common law offence of incitement, with effect from 1 October 2008.
For offences committed before that date, incitement occurs when a person seeks to persuade another to commit a criminal offence. A person is guilty of incitement to commit an offence or offences if:
They incite another to do or cause to be done an act or acts which, if done, will involve the commission of an offence or offences by the other
Conspiracy
A conspiracy is an agreement where two or more people agree to carry their criminal scheme into effect, the very agreement is the criminal act itself:the
Not exactly crime of the century stuff but a crime none the less. |
A data protection breach only becomes a criminal offence in a very limited circumstance, namely a failure to notify or comply with a DPA order etc not for a negligence or intent resulting in a ‘data breach’.
I think you have adequately covered Incitement.
Conspiracy is a legal device which exists in order to join perpetrators to a charge even if they were not actually present at the scene of the crime, or cannot be proven to have been present. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
