Dunkan Jenkins on Twitter

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Chang can't sue can he? (not because it isn't true!)

 

Jenkins said this happened, Chang said it didn't - you can't sue on that anyway. Even if he had proof, there has to be a reason to sue, you can't sue on the basis that you didn't insult/threaten someone to the extent they said you did!

It s defamation of character or at the very least libel.

[Whelan]

Hang on a minute, does that mean anyone can go round accusing anyone of anything?

 

Ah, that isn't what I am saying though!

 

If both met at Otterspool Prom for a 'chat' and then you came on here and said I threatened to release your personal details to all and sundry, fuck your business up and put dogshit through my door - I couldn't sue if I actually said 'don't fuck with me i'll fucking finish you if I have to' - despite denying I said what you said I did say.

 

I think! I am sure you have to be proven to have damaged someone's character or reputation or some shit like that.

[zigackly]

I am sure you have to be proven to have damaged someone's character or reputation or some shit like that.

 

Oh I see, because this hasn't damaged Chang's reputation at all.

[Whelan]

It s defamation of character or at the very least libel.

 

But what bit?

 

If the encounter did get tasty, although Chang denies saying what Jenkins has said, he may well have got shitty with him and did threaten him. I am not a solicitor so, gonna bow to you.

 

I hope to fuck Code72 does actually eat Moose and toss Elk's or i'm fucked!

[Whelan]

Oh I see, because this hasn't damaged Chang's reputation at all.

 

As strange as it may seem, I'm not sure the opinion of TLW forum members counts.

[TheHitman]

I listened to the Anfield Wrap and the fellow who was the go between seemed to say there was a technical reason the season ticket could have been withdrawn. In other words a tactic the club have used on fans before when they know the season ticket you are using isn’t in your own name.

 

I do think the lad has every right to be pissed off that the club would try and intimidate him, but I do think people are slightly embellishing the level of threat handed to the person. It wasn’t a direct threat, ie the dogshit and his dads business, if there is any evidence of those words being used. More having very little faith in how us football fans behave.

[Whelan]

But it could well of damaged Jen's rep, as we see people call for his head etc that would mean in a libel case that malice has been caused. But then DJ could just say prove i'm making it up etc... I think they refer to it as proven truth defence.

 

But doesn't there have to be some sort of commercial damage as well? If he keeps his job, and continues to be employed it is difficult to say his reputation has been damaged.

 

I am not being pedantic (despite how it seems) but Chang not suing him isn't proof of anything, just as Suarez not suing the FA wasn't proof of guilt, or Ma Terry suing Carraghers Brother wasn't either!

[chauncey]

Wow, all of this looks boss, im seeing top class ITK action, a fair bit of xenophobia, and tons of internets.

 

 

I'm repping you for this in my mind.

[Il Fenomeno]

For anyone doubting this, what does DJ stand to gain by any of this?

 

Publicity?

 

But anyway, we'll have a better idea once all the facts come out, and we get to hear both sides of the story. Not just this guy's no doubt biased account of what went on.

[Brownie]

Some people are extremely naive.

[zigackly]

Your assumption of bias is completely unbiased of course. I'm biased, I admit it. I've heard more of the story than you though.

[Major Tom]

Publicity?

 

But anyway, we'll have a better idea once all the facts come out, and we get to hear both sides of the story. Not just this guy's no doubt biased account of what went on.

 

Exactly. What this DJ guy says may well be gospel and probably is. But we don't know for sure and my guess is we never will.

 

And probably for the best. This farce should just be left to fade away.

[Jarvinja Ilnow]

So we have an employee of LFC being accused of something which he denies.

 

The accuser has no evidence of what he claims except his own words, no video or audio evidence exists.

 

It reminds me of the Suarez/Evra issue, when 99% of us rightly claimed that using 'no evidence' except one man's word against another was a farcical and unjust way to arrive at (or decide) the truth.

 

We also claimed that by using this farcical process of one man's word over another it was proof that people were not interested in what actually happened and were only interested in driving an agenda!!

 

It would appear that we have a few hypocrites amongst our fanbase!

 

Did you? When and where was that?

 

Not sure you are amongst our fanbase.

[stringvest]

I think he means 'employees' Bazza.

[BillyBob]

Did you? When and where was that?

 

Not sure you are amongst our fanbase.

 

What is it with people on here who challenge allegiances because you don't like what you see?

 

I'm not particularly bothered if you want to be paranoid about who or what I am, to be honest it gives me a laugh when people like yourself respond like you just have.

 

You are quite happy trying to call me out, yet you don't seem too bothered that another 'supposed' fan is willing to create scandal for the club! Fair enough!

 

Anyway as I said, it seems okay to now blindly support accusers of LFC employees, despite any evidence supporting their accusations. A sort of complete turnaround for some Liverpool fans!

[stringvest]

Perhaps there is a substantial body of people who think that Chang should never have been appointed - he's clearly out of his depth - and we should be in a position to employ someone with a serious reputation in this field, with experience, skill and clout, rather than some credibility-free random from the internet with a scatological gangster fetish.

 

Well at least he can be relieved - he has a reputation now.

[Code]

Its not a scandal for the club, its a blessing for the club in the long run as they might get someone competent in instead.

[stringvest]

What is it with people on here who challenge allegiances because you don't like what you see?

 

 

I can't make up my mind whether you're on a retainer from our hapless comms team, or whether you are in fact Strontium Dog.

[Major Tom]

Perhaps there is a substantial body of people who think that Chang should never have been appointed - he's clearly out of his depth...

 

Based on what? The ramblings of a self confessed internet prankster? Or other stuff?

 

How do people know so much about Chang? Who the fuck is he? Wasn't he SI?

[Jarvinja Ilnow]

I can't make up my mind whether you're on a retainer from our hapless comms team, or whether you are in fact Strontium Dog.

 

That's interresting because the Strontium Bitch negged me for questioning this wanker about when and where he'd actually defended Suarez, earlier in the thread.

[BillyBob]

Its not a scandal for the club, its a blessing for the club in the long run as they might get someone competent in instead.

 

I have no real knowledge of who Chang is, or whether or not he is competent! Maybe the owners wanted to try something different after the PR disaster that was presided over by Cotton last year. A man who was clearly seen as competent for the previous 16 years, yet completely fucked up when it mattered!

 

Until something is proven about Chang's threats then I feel that the calls for him to be sacked are embarrassing, especially because these calls are hypocritically based on one man's word with no supporting evidence and as it stands Chang is innocent of any wrongdoing!

[BillyBob]

I can't make up my mind whether you're on a retainer from our hapless comms team, or whether you are in fact Strontium Dog.

 

Tell you what mate, why don't you just not let me bother you?

 

I don't give a fuck who you are, how many times you've stood on the kop or how much of a super superfan you are, the reason being is that you are unimportant to me! You should try that approach.

[Jarvinja Ilnow]

What is it with people on here who challenge allegiances because you don't like what you see?

 

I'm not particularly bothered if you want to be paranoid about who or what I am, to be honest it gives me a laugh when people like yourself respond like you just have.

 

You are quite happy trying to call me out, yet you don't seem too bothered that another 'supposed' fan is willing to create scandal for the club! Fair enough!

 

Anyway as I said, it seems okay to now blindly support accusers of LFC employees, despite any evidence supporting their accusations. A sort of complete turnaround for some Liverpool fans!

 

I was only questioning your supposed history of great work supporting our players. Not so surprising given you only joined in August.

 

What you have just used is a common tactic used by politicians when asked a direct question, it's called 'fogging'. I asked when and where you defended Suarez previously, as you claimed to have done so. You then went off on a tangent.

 

I'll help you out - you can make up any website and username and prtend it's you. I won't go checking, and can't be arsed, but be careful not to use a name that someone on here might use on another website.

[zigackly]

What is it with people on here who challenge allegiances because you don't like what you see?

 

You've got us all wrong. It's because you only post about this and nothing else, and because you are taking the side of the club employee not the fellow fan, especially when we know many organisations with a media profile are not beyond having the odd internet plant. After all it only takes a minute to register on a website, but look at the way you can completely fail to influence anyone's opinion!

[stringvest]

That's interresting because the Strontium Bitch negged me for questioning this wanker about when and where he'd actually defended Suarez, earlier in the thread.

 

No, Im sure it's not SD. Stronts may be his own form of zealot, but he's not insane. I was just having a little jape at his expense.