I have a rather amusing exchange saved away from where Dutch was convinced that The Highway Code doesn't apply to cyclists The law doesn't apply to cyclists Assault on a cyclist is actually attempted murder, despite judges ruling otherwise Kept referring to the Highway Code which he quite obviously has never read as he claims it contains content which it most certainly doesn't. Even after I used facts to disprove his ridiculous ideology and complete and utter lack of understanding of British law and the Highway Code, he still insisted he was right and the facts were wrong. This mostly happened via pm as halfway through the exchange he must have realised he was completely wrong and making an absolute fool of himself as he deleted all the posts (yes completely deleted them rather than moving them into a new thread with a childish name) then deleted the thread I made to carry on the discussion too. The point is, Dutch is just a bit thick and will carry on his uninformed rabble despite being proven wrong. So just leave him to be an idiot on his own, because if you try and argue with an idiot, he will bring it all down to his own level and beat you with experience, as this thread quite clearly shows.
Pound to a pinch of ****, if you post something in an attempt to support any of that crap, you'll have written it yourself. Post what you've got Hatty.
This whole discussion is related to a specific issue and the fundamental basis (that you speak of) may have a part to play in how our laws are devolved and how some are enacted, but there comes a point were specific instances take on a more broad-brush rule of thumb as in the balance of probabilities. It is different to that of the USA as it does not have a deliberate scale of evidence. Tuckin, if he were to explain himself more fully, has every basis to say what he does - it's not bollocks.
I've read more ****e on this thread than I have in a long time and I still don't know the answer Who can piss the furthest on here?
1. Everton did the right thing, legally correct or not. 2. In creating an internal policy to ban John Smith, the (allegation) has been spread to a third party other than the two entities involved. Basically the letter writer told club security, who told stewards, who told the IT crowd to update their banned persons list, etc. 3. Even if the account holder chose to make the letter public, it was the club who chose to make the allegations public by spreading it internally. This counts as potentially defamatory. 4. John Smith can now bring forth a claim of defamation with the defendant being the club. THE ONUS IS ON JOHN SMITH TO PROVE A FEW BASIC POINTS. First, that the allegations are hurtful to his character (they are easily) and second that the claim has been shared amongst other parties. This is also true though there could be a talking point about whether internal discussion constitutes a third party. I think it does. ONCE THESE TWO POINTS ARE PROVEN THE ONUS SWITCHES TO THE CLUB TO PROVE THE COMMENTS ARE TRUE OTHERWISE THEY ARE BY DEFINITION DEFAMATORY. 5. The club will state the arguments and facts that they believe to be true. These can be disputed and found to be incorrect assumptions. 6. The access to a twitter account is highly debateable. Just because it is his account does not always mean he is responsible for what is written. Negligence in security or contravening internal rules could allow unauthorized access and an alibi. 7. Since John Smith has gone through the process and proved that the comments were potentially defamatory, the club has to find the proof that what they alleged was true (that the account holder posted those tweets). 8. If they fail to do so they can be found to have been guilty of defamation. Various penalties can apply. 9. The club might still have the right to deny him entry. 10. That being said he's still a twat who hasn't denied it and whatever the club does it has tried to show its stance which is commendable.
Ah right, so you're having a totally separate argument to the one I'm having. Fair enough, you carry on, but don't bring me into it though, there's a love. As I've repeatedly said, it's the general principles of English Law that I'm arguing, no more, no less.
Thick? After I invented a full house of quotes? Yes, very thick considering I didn't post a single quote. And you know full well you asserted those opinions. Is this an admission that you were wrong? I'm guessing you've finally read the Highway Code and looked a little into the basics of English law? I will accept an apology should you admit, for once, that you're wrong. Your embarrassment can be confined to the depths of oblivion.
Piss or get off the pot Hatty. I'm saying what you claim is bollocks, as it would seem, is your knowledge of the basic principles of English Law. You claim it, you prove it.
An EFC internal employee knowing of the issue relating to this idiots twitter account, is not harming his personal reputation as they don't know who he is. Any claim for defamation on the grounds of slander in relation to this would be laughed out of court once the fact that the idiot himself has then put the private letter into the public domain. Thus spreading the potential damage to his reputation to people i.e. his employers etc who might actually matter to him. It's a fantasy scenario
When a person is banned from a premises the only time there is defamation of character is when and if the reason for the ban is directly linked by name to him and it turns out that it was wrong. If a shoplifter is convicted of theft and banned from a supermarket. The store can issue a description including a name and they can say that this person is banned because they have been convicted of shoplifting. However if they only suspect that someone is a shoplifter and they are banned, the store can still post a picture and say "this person is banned" as long as it does not go into any detail. Everton as a football club is an entity and so discussion and internal communication within the club can name someone suspected of racial abuse without any fear of prosecution. There does not need to be evidence to ban someone from a place, a ban can be made on suspicion alone. For example a teacher accused of being a kiddy fiddler will be banned from a school. The reason for the ban will not be made public until it has been investigated, but it can be discussed within the school and its governing authorities. In the Everton case the nature of the ban has been released but not the fans name, so whilst someone may link the two actions as long as it isn't Everton, nothing can be done.
I disagree. If the individual can be identified, then actions can be taken. There have been instances of people, such as us on messageboards, where it was succesfully argued that a username can act as a personal name. Also, except for certain specific cases, there's no strict immunity as such for comments made in discussions. If an allegation's made to a third party, there's a potential for action to be initiated. I would also say there's an argument for action for putting an image up. For example, if I just decided to ban you from my shop, and posted your picture, with 'banned' underneath, would you not feel you had some recourse to protect your reputation?
Your reputation with who? That's the simple point you appear incapable of grasping. If the shop stuck it in their window or on the net then you'd have point, but as an internal document you haven't.
Isn't a bastard when you write a reasoned reply, and it gets morphed into a load of meaningless letters like that ^^^ when people get to read it.
Yet again you use what I've now come to understand is your standard MO, which you wheel out when confronted with a post that you simply can't counter. You've made yourself look a right tit on this thread mate.
Erm, I've countered the crap you've posted time and again. It's you looking a total clueless tit, as you seem to do so often. I can't even suggest you use the web to educate yourself better, as it's simple comprehension you're struggling with. You seem to mix up the fact, many don't have much interest in Everton with your own specific idiot. It's those nagging general principles you keep tripping up over.
