Perhaps, and I have said a few times it's not so much this specific individual I was talking about, but the general principles at work. If you need to prove your innocence, we're arse about face from justice.
He made some pretty awful comments about the guys race, looks and size. He then made a charming reference to MH370 and Mr Wee. The tweets bore the same thick tone as the rest of his account, it was hardly a case for Poirot....... He's subsequently denied it, but he's bound to eh.... Absolute scumbag and I don't want the likes of him anywhere near my club and I applaud them for taking a stand on it, as it could have easily just been ignored.
I'm not sure it's that big a deal, it's like driving past a speed camera, until you can prove someone else was driving, you're liable for the points and the fine.
The complainant has the burden of proof. The defendant has the right to say nothing on the matter and is innocent until proven guilty. Are we all agreed? This relates to normal proceedings, which I appreciate these aren't but stay with me. In relation to the allegation of the tweets being offensive and warrant a ban. Everton are the complainants and Joe Bloggs is the defendant. Everton have the burden of proof. Are we all agreed? In relation to defamation of character; Joe Bloggs is the complainant and Everton are the defendants. The burden of proof is therefore with Joe Bloggs. Has that cleared things up?
Is speeding the same as racism and homophobia in the eyes of the man on the Clapham Omnibus? The difference with speeding is that you sign your life away as being the registered keeper on behalf of the DVLA, you are responsible for that car. The same burden doesn't necessarily apply to twitter accounts.
Why do they need to publicise it? They've just written to him telling him he's banned. His season ticket would be refunded and his customer account closed. They don't have wanted posters up at every turnstile mate.
Nope. The burden of proof for defamation is easily proven as it's self evident, the case then falls to Everton to show they didn't make the statement, or that the statement is true.
He's not denying the account is his though. He's saying that someone else hacked it, which is improbable given the context and content of the tweets, and irrelevant as far as EFC are concerned as they banned the account holder. Job done.
No-one can pay on the day at Goodison. But I'm sure that if he wanted to he could obtain a ticket without too much hassle, same as every other banned football fan. The difference with him being that the ban hasn't got the force of the law behind it i.e. it's not a football banning order, which is enforced by plod
Why though? In this case, it's his account that has tweeted obhorent remarks. He needs to prove that it wasn't him otherwise everyone could go around writing all sorts of **** on the internet passing the blame.
If he's been refused entry, he's committing a trespass by going into the ground. What you seem to be saying is that this whole thing is just Everton paying lip service, as you seem to think there's no way they can enforce it. I suspect the lack of picture is just something else you've got wrong.
What statement? They've not made a statement, aside from that of fact. Tweets - fact Account holder - fact e-mail address - fact home address - fact club ban for the account holder - fact That's it.
It's how English Law works. Supposing you pissed me off, and I got your details, and created a twitter account associated with you and abused people. How would you prove it wasn't you?
It's EFC making a stand against ****ers who think they can say what they like on social media without any recourse. If you want to dumb that down with pedantic comments like that carry on lad.
The allegation re defamation of character is made against EFC is it not? They are the accused. They are innocent on the matter until proven guilty. Their defence would be that what they've alleged in relation to the tweets is true. Where's Mullet when you need him?
