Not an expert at all then if that's your view...I'm afraid http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Article_Directory/Defamation_Law/The_ins_and_outs_of_defamation_law
Thanks for confirming what most of us knew, always good to get a definitive answer from an expert on the matter though. I'll leave it there.
Defamation is different in terms of the burden of proof in the UK and if you knew a ****ing thing about the subject you'd know that http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Article_Directory/Defamation_Law/The_ins_and_outs_of_defamation_law TTFN
I think you need to re-read that link. It says: "In most other kinds of legal action the defendant is presumed innocent and the prosecution have to prove their guilt. In defamation cases, however, the defendant is presumed guilty and their claims to be false, unless they can prove them to be true." The defendant (who has to prove they're right) is the person/organisation that made the allegation. The allegedly slandered person is the plaintiff.
You may just want to rethink that desperate crow, and comprehend as well as read what people have put. I'll try to help... I'm guessing you've googled and latched onto this bit? "Another interesting element of English defamation law is that the usual burden of proof is reversed. In most other kinds of legal action the defendant is presumed innocent and the prosecution have to prove their guilt. In defamation cases, however, the defendant is presumed guilty and their claims to be false, unless they can prove them to be true. There is also a difference in the burden of proof between regular citizens and public officials. A public official must prove that there was malice or intent behind the libel or slander to gain compensation, while a regular citizen musty only prove negligence." Now, re-read what quite a few of us have been saying by way of examples. (Edit: Tuckin pipped me to it) I do like the confirmation in the last line though. Ta for that.
Most folk stayed with the topic the OP commented on. Dutch used this topic (or case) to open his argument (or debate ) and then took a case driven point of law (as TOM correctly says) based on the balance of probabilities, onto being an abstract, hypothetical debate about burden proof, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion everyone else was having. It did serve his purpose in giving him his usual stage to abuse, belittle and demean anyone who questioned him, however reasonably; of course it also allowed him to play this self-inflicted persecution card. The man who can't be wrong, but usually is.
Aye up, here comes Fez to re-word the question and wonder why the comments already posted don't answer it as usual. A hint for you, don't try to guess my motives, you're invariably wrong.
No re-wording done by me; unless you can show me it? You've constantly evaded and denied the truth. I've no idea what your motives are, but to achieve them you demonstrate the same old bombastic style of posting, time and again. You keep making claim to people who support your views; I think I have read one rambler who you desperately claimed, Mullet agreed on one point but his broader opinion was in stark contrast to yours and everyone else disagreed with your argument and its style. To be fair you do seem to have some sort of morbid attraction as there are posters who recognise it is ****e but can't stay away, instead coming back to read it and post to complain. PLT - I don't know why you felt the urge to answer Chazz's question with enough info to make it obvious who sent you a PRIVATE message; I am not bothered by it, but it does break the trust expected and won't be repeated. When giving my reason, perhaps you should try re-reading it and stating the correct one, if you really think it is either necessary or unavoidable. You asked for reasons to open it to be sent by PM and then you betray the basic principle of that.
Ah, you thought you'd just post as an excuse for a half arsed dig. Fair enough, I guess you're feeling a bit left out at having another essay ignored, and from what you've just put, you asked for the thread to be kept open because you thought it was so important. It's taken quite a while to reach the point where most are supporting the comments I made.
