JohnnyCarey
Viv Anderson
Because there's a vast legal difference between accepting that X is possible and should be prevented and implying that a specific identifiable individual is guilty of X. To take it out of the football context, MPs have to declare their interests which implicitly accepts that they might be influenced by those interests. But if I say that a particular named MP has voted in a certain way because of his interests, that's actionable.There is very good defence here for forest though. As per the PGMOL's own rules, each referee has to declare who they support or if a family works at a club. This means the PGMOL themselves are implying that there could be bias and/or conflict in taking charge of matches with an associated club.
Therefore why is wrong for Forest to infere this but not for the PGMOL to do so?