If this bloke had a mate that used his twitter account then it's up to him to prove that he didn't post it. Everton have merely banned the account holder, they don't have to prove owt.
Perhaps, but that's not the debate I'm having. I'm talking general principles rather than this specific issue. The onus is on those making an allegation to prove it, not on someone proving their innocence.
Nope, it's up to them to prove it. It's a basic principle of English Law as well as logical argument. As a private place, the Club have the right to refuse admission, but if they went further and made specific allegations, they run the risk of being challenged, and they would be the ones needing to prove their case.
lol, the last resort of the beaten internet warrior. Come back when you've got a ****ing clue what you're talking about. Maybe bring your Dad.
They gave the reasons for the ban - which are merely listing specific proven FACTS, not conjecture - FACTS. The tweets were factual, the account was his, end of ****ing story. The only reason this is in the public domain is down to the tit who made the tweets.
What on earth are you rambling on about now you clown? I've suggested several points that show your logic is wrong, you just seemed to keep burbling out the same snot bubble each time, until now prattling on about warriors and parents. If you want to discuss it, crack on, if you want to just blow bubbles, I'll leave you to it.
So, which fact proved HE posted it? It being his account, only possibly shows he had some link to it, not that it was his, nor that he posted it. I have access to several peoples email accounts and I could easily create a twitter account that looked like it was them. I wouldn't, but how would anyone prove it was not them? Because in your world, it's a fact and they're hung, drawn and quartered. NB, I'm arguing general principles, if this lad owns up to doing it, it still wouldn't alter those general principles, it would simply be one of the FACTS that are currently missing would be available.
You've been talking out your hoop lad and I've explained why in detail. You've just ignored it and ploughed on re-iterating the same completely wrong assertion.
Have another read noddy. The general principle remains the same, you make an allegation YOU need to back it up with hard facts, not just a hope and gut feeling. It's how English Law works.
You haven't denied it's yours Pierot. You must therefore be guilty. He doen't have to deny it's his account. The onus is on the accuser to prove HE wrote it on that account.
Oh ffs. EFC have made no allegation, they've stated facts in a private letter to the account holder of a twitter account that's made racist and disgusting tweets. The account also happened to have the Everton name as part of it's title btw. The club have quoted their policies and reminded the holder of their zero tolerance of racist behaviour. They've therefore banned him from Goodison. In order to ban him they need no more proof than they deem necessary as it's their ground. So end of story, he's got no come back, legal or otherwise on that point. YOU then started waffling on about defamation and how he could claim against them. If he claimed defamation - the burden of proof is his you ****ing dipstick, as he'll have to prove that his character and reputation has been damaged by the actions of EFC. It'd have nothing to do with the club having to prove whether it was him who made the tweets as it'd be him suing them in a private prosecution where the burden of proof is his to prove how their words have damaged him.
As I said, and you replied with something about my dad being Thor or some such nonsense. You really haven't a clue. You're repeating some of what I've put, and telling me I'm wrong.
Again no answer. You're spent lad. Admit you've ****ing died on your arse here and we can all move on. Cheers
Well none other than all the ones you've blown snot bubbles instead of a reasoned response. Cut the cyber warrior ****, it makes you sound 12 years old.
Just a load of bollocks to detract from answering the point I made that destroyed your entire premise in post #52 lad. pffffttt.
What point was that trig? Two simple starters for ten. Ignoring the contradictory nonsense about the allegations Everton may have made, as it's general principles you're struggling to grasp. 1. Is the onus on the accused to disprove an allegation or is it on the accuser to prove an allegation? 2. Does owning the account prove who made the posts in question?
The point about who's the burden of proof would be if a case of defamation was sought... in your own time soft lad
