Patchelicious Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 UPDATE 4 No word from Swen Lauer or transfer since his previous charming email and prior request for bank details. It's safe to assume I should just write off the money... I hope others learn from my mistake and never pay for a monthly service in advance. I could have avoided this whole situation had I not done that. - School Fees! Thanks guys for your support and see you on the trails. Have a great biking weekend!Don't give up!! The Hub giveth and the Hub will taketh away!
Jigghead Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 ,,,if my aunty had balls she WOULD have been my uncleIf your aunty had balls, you may be a Kardashian!
GlockG4 Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Mods please, close this thread. Nothing good will come from this. Its a matter between the OP and mr Lauer and until their case is resolved posting here is pointless.I get that we might be going a bit overboard, but lots of good has already cime from this. Now we all know he is not to be trusted (would you use him?), so a few people avoided a scam, and the OP just might get his money back. He has had ample time to give his side of the story or to pay back the money before everything snowballed, instead he resorted to a childish tantrum and blackmail.
Pikey Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I get that we might be going a bit overboard, but lots of good has already cime from this. Now we all know he is not to be trusted (would you use him?), so a few people avoided a scam, and the OP just might get his money back. He has had ample time to give his side of the story or to pay back the money before everything snowballed, instead he resorted to a childish tantrum and blackmail.Exactly couldn't agree more,it's not like he can deny knowing about what the op posted..... For funking sakes
T-Bob Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 In the up side though this thread might show up if people google the Swen for referenced... That should provide an interesting angle.
TALUS Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 In the up side though this thread might show up if people google the Swen for referenced... That should provide an interesting angle. Correcto!
r0adrunner Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Ah man I was just looking for a new coach and I was about to send him an e-mail... Shot bru, guess i'll go to that other tjom from Stellies this.
Ryno. Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I almost made use of him a month ago, but he was to expensive. And now I am glad I didn't . It would have been best for him to just state his side but now it is waaaayyyyy to late...
King_Crispy Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I remember watching some of his videos before the 2013 W2W (they were linked to W2W website I think). Always found him quite comical and couldn't take him seriously. Also his bike always looked too big for him.No, he was too small for the bike.Don't blame the spez.
Baron Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/145939-swen-lauer/
Harryn Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Please explain. Serious question. My understanding in a libel situation, is that the plaintiff (Swen) has to prove the statement/s made by the OP, are false. Why would the OP (assuming his facts are correct) be found guilty in that situation?Well, Your understanding is wrong. Though the conclusion you draw is right. A Plaintiff has to prove that the statements published concerning him are defamatory of his character, good name & reputation. (Note: the term "libel" is actually not used in the South African legal lexicon). One of the available defenses to a defamation action is that the defamatory allegation is - 1. True; and2. In the public benefit. The onus of proving 1 and 2 above lies on the person who is being sued. It does not take a lawyer or a rocket scientist to see how the defense of truth and public benefit could be applied to the OP's posts on this thread. For what it's worth, I think the OP has been measured and careful in his approach. He has simply relayed a version of events, the truth of which has not been contested.
Thor Buttox Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 Well, Your understanding is wrong. Though the conclusion you draw is right.A Plaintiff has to prove that the statements published concerning him are defamatory of his character, good name & reputation. (Note: the term "libel" is actually not used in the South African legal lexicon).One of the available defenses to a defamation action is that the defamatory allegation is -1. True; and2. In the public benefit.The onus of proving 1 and 2 above lies on the person who is being sued. It does not take a lawyer or a rocket scientist to see how the defense of truth and public benefit could be applied to the OP's posts on this thread.For what it's worth, I think the OP has been measured and careful in his approach. He has simply relayed a version of events, the truth of which has not been contested.I think it is also fair to say that if I was the Accused #1, and if I thought the OP was malicious, and that his version was untrue, I would first take care of matters legally, and then come onto what is in essence an anonymous school playground, and set matters right. I think what Reno, Unarmed and Dangerous, (sorry Capi, ) and I were getting at, I think, is that a version is just a version. And no matter how good the OP's intentions are in this case, at some point someone will have a beef to pick unrelated to a factual financial arrangement (in maybe someone snagged his wife and he is trying to destroy the guy's professional reputation) and the reactions of baying masses to 'suspend him from work' won't end happily. Ps:dammit, I remembered it wrong. It's Remo!!!
Harryn Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 I think it is also fair to say that if I was the Accused #1, and if I thought the OP was malicious, and that his version was untrue, I would first take care of matters legally, and then come onto what is in essence an anonymous school playground, and set matters right. I think what Reno, Unarmed and Dangerous, (sorry Capi, ) and I were getting at, I think, is that a version is just a version. And no matter how good the OP's intentions are in this case, at some point someone will have a beef to pick unrelated to a factual financial arrangement (in maybe someone snagged his wife and he is trying to destroy the guy's professional reputation) and the reactions of baying masses to 'suspend him from work' won't end happily. Ps:dammit, I remembered it wrong. It's Remo!!!1. This is the hub. We are judge, jury, executioner and keyboard warrior, uncannily in synch with one another. Its a supremely satisfying experience. Summary Judgment is entrenched into our civil procedure. 2. This is not the ICC. So, I don't think the government would want to unsubscribe. They should have brought Al Bashir to us, our jurisdiction extends to any IP address. Much to Mr Lauer's "funking" chagrin. 3. You say the thread will not end well. You forget that it did not begin well - an innocent guy is €600 down. Multiply by 13 to translate that into localized pain. Your "version is just a version" shpiel is, with respect, lacking in merit. Mr Swen has seen the thread. He has elected not to give a contrary version. Ergo - he does not dispute the facts. These facts do not do him credit. 3. 1 & 2 are in jest. (Another defense to a defamation suit.)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.