Everton bans fan over racist Richard Wee tweets

[originallambrettaman]

After the 2011 riots, two lads were banged up for four years each for promoting the riots via Facebook.

There was no burden on the police to prove that it was them who'd posted on their pages.

If they hadn't posted on their pages themselves, presumably they'd have used that as their defence, but they were charged based on what was posted on their private pages.

There's loads of people who've been charged with sending racist tweets and even our own Sagbo is currently banned for two games for sending one, there was no need for the FA to prove he actually sent it.

 

[HCAFC (Airlie Tiger)]

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.

See post #59 as to why your making yourself look even more of a tit.

 

[Stuart Blampey]

Richard Wee?

He's taking the piss.

Everton should have just pooh-poohed the comments.

 

[Tobes]

See post #59 as to why your making yourself look even more of a tit.

Oh look another ****ing idiot who can't read. Try going back to #52

 

[DMD]

After the 2011 riots, two lads were banged up for four years each for promoting the riots via Facebook.

There was no burden on the police to prove that it was them who'd posted on their pages.

If they hadn't posted on their pages themselves, presumably they'd have used that as their defence, but they were charged based on what was posted on their private pages.

There's loads of people who've been charged with sending racist tweets and even our own Sagbo is currently banned for two games for sending one, there was no need for the FA to prove he actually sent it.

There is. The law needs proof, not just a strong suggestion.

Sagbo admitted he'd posted it.

 

[Carmine Galante.]

This defamation of character malarkey.

Does it mean anyone who gets found not guilty after trial(which is in the public domain) can sue the Crown for defamation of character?

I appreciate it's a bit of a side issue in relation to the main topic of 'debate' but it's not something that routinely happens to my knowledge.

 

[DMD]

The point about who's the burden of proof would be if a case of defamation was sought...

in your own time soft lad

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?


Do you chuck in pithy 'insults' when/if you talk to people face to face?

 

[ellewoods]

There is. The law needs proof, not just a strong suggestion.

Sagbo admitted he'd posted it.

Edit: Never mind you went and started talking about that as I was typing.

 

[DMD]

This defamation of character malarkey.

Does it mean anyone who gets found not guilty after trial(which is in the public domain) can sue the Crown for defamation of character?

I appreciate it's a bit of a side issue in relation to the main topic of 'debate' but it's not something that routinely happens to my knowledge.

Not routinely, but it has happened. The difference is in the way the allegation is made. The charge is an allegation. It tends to be only stated as a fact inside the Court, where other rules apply.

 

[DMD]

Im not a lawyer, but my partner is a high power one. She went to Columbia Law School as well as a couple other schools including Saint Andrews in Scotland.

You dont actually need proof for everything. There is a burden of proof required for specific things and that burden of proof changes depending on what legal issue one is talking about. I know this because she is always complaining about having to explain which burden of proof is required to other lawyers.

So chances are as we are not talking about murder. The burden of proof would very small. Coming from their account would probably be enough. I would ask her, but she has already left for work.

That's true, but the burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused. There's a diiferent level of proof required for criminal compared to civil cases, where civil is in the balance of probability, criminal is beyond all reasonable doubt, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, the one making the positive assertion.

 

[Spook]

DMD is technically right, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove the defendant committed the offence. Even if the defendant doesn't plead his innocence he is still innocent in the eyes of the law until the accuser can provide substantial evidence to prove that he is guilty. At the moment he is innocent, Everton's ban still remains valid though unless he challenges it.

 

[ellewoods]

That's true, but the burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused. There's a diiferent level of proof required for criminal compared to civil cases, where civil is in the balance of probability, criminal is beyond all reasonable doubt, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, the one making the positive assertion.

Sounds good to me. I try not to pay to much attention when she is rambling about legal issues.

 

[Tobes]

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?


Do you chuck in pithy 'insults' when/if you talk to people face to face?

and still you ignore the salient point....

That being that you were talking about burden of proof and defamation. If he chose to try and pursue a defamation case, then the burden of proof in relation to the supposed defamation would he his, get it? It seriously isn't complicated....

 

[DMD]

and still you ignore the salient point....

That being that you were talking about burden of proof and defamation. If he chose to try and pursue a defamation case, then the burden of proof in realtion to supposed defamation would he his, get it? It seriously isn't complicated....

Is that seriously what you think you've been arguing?

In any event, you're still wrong. The claimant only needs to show that that statement was made (the letter) and that it was defamatory, which it is as the Club see it as grounds for a ban. They've proven his case on that.

The Club would then be faced with proving the statement to be true.

 

[Tobes]

Is that seriously what you think you've been arguing?

In any event, you're still wrong. The claimant only needs to show that that statement was made (the letter) and that it was defamatory, which it is as the Club see it as grounds for a ban. They've proven his case on that.

The Club would then be faced with proving the statement to be true.

You've just spent an hour arguing (with yourself it seems) over the fact that the accuser has the burden of proof.

If he went for defamation then that is his. He has to prove that the club have damaged his reputation. Which is where we started....

Given that it's him who put that private and confidential letter (marked specifically not for publication) into the public domain, then he's got no chance of saying that the defamation was caused by EFC. The content of the letter and whether it was even factual or not is not the primary issue in that scenario, it's whether the club damaged his reputation with it, but it was him who published it...................case closed Ma'lud.

 

[DMD]

DMD is technically right, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove the defendant committed the offence. Even if the defendant doesn't plead his innocence he is still innocent in the eyes of the law until the accuser can provide substantial evidence to prove that he is guilty. At the moment he is innocent, Everton's ban still remains valid though unless he challenges it.

I'm not sure he can challenge the ban. As it's a private place, they can refuse admission to anyone, unless they're doing it in a discriminatory way, such as on race, gender etc grounds.

 

[DMD]

Absolute bollocks.

You've just spent an hour arguing (with yourself it seems) over the fact that the accuser has the burden of proof.

If he went for defamation then that is his. He has to prove that the club have damaged his reputation. Which is where we started....

Given that it's him who put that private and confidential letter (marked specifically not for publication) into the public domain, then he's got no chance of saying that the defamation was caused by EFC. The content of the letter and whether it was even factual or not is not the primary issue in that scenario, it's whether the club damaged his reputation with it, but it was him who published it...................case closed Ma'lud.

Wrong again, for all the reasons already stated. The Club have made the claim to someone other than the fan, they had to in order to discuss it, it didn't have to be widely publicised. But it will have to be publicised to enforce the ban.

That may make a difference to the penalty, but not the claim. The allegation is indisputably defamatory.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Wrong again, for all the reasons already stated. The Club have made the claim to someone other than the fan, they had to in order to discuss it, it didn't have to be widely publicised. But it will have to be publicised to enforce the ban.

That may make a difference to the penalty, but not the claim. The allegation is indisputably defamatory.

He's a racist gobshite, he's obviously not going to do anything about the ban, as it was him, so none of this really matters.

 

[Spook]

I'm not sure he can challenge the ban. As it's a private place, they can refuse admission to anyone, unless they're doing it in a discriminatory way, such as on race, gender etc grounds.

I know, it has its own code of conduct that is separate from the law. This isn't even a legal matter anyway, this is just a private company banning someone from the premises, either party could make it a legal issue if they really wanted to. Does anyone know what this man supposedly said and can they tell us?

 

[Tobes]

Wrong again, for all the reasons already stated. The Club have made the claim to someone other than the fan, they had to in order to discuss it, it didn't have to be widely publicised. That may make a difference to the penalty, but not the claim. The allegation is indisputably defamatory.

Who heard this accusation? As for it to be slander then surely the person who was privy to that conversation other than the bloke who signed the letter who have to be named and be witness to the supposed slander?

For it to be libel, then it would have had to be printed in the public domain, which it wasn't - aside from by him.....

As for the supposed allegation, it's nothing of the sort. It's a statement of fact. The tweets, the account, the e-mail address, the home address are all his, therefore the club have decided that's enough information with which to decide to ban him from their ground. They've not accused him of racism, they've just listed the exact tweets and said that they contravene their terms and conditions.

It's akin to the owner of this site or a mod banning you for making racist posts, you could deny it was you and that someone hacked your account, but they'd still ban it and you'd have no redress. Only if they then posted on their site that you were banned for being a racist could you have grounds for complaint, Until that point it's a private matter.