Everton bans fan over racist Richard Wee tweets

Nothing new, he always does. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

"Dull tools"...how apt.

 

There are many people who just hate to waste time tying their shoes. If you don't particularly like to constantly tie your shoes, or you're looking for a hip way to display your laces, try a different method of tying. You can actually have your laces in the shoes, still providing comfort and support, but without all the tying. In just a few seconds you can learn to lace up your shoes so you never have to tie them again.

 

See, now the boots on the other foot.

 

I do that with some shoes, only with trainers. Think 9/10 times they look better without tied laces showing

 

Firstly you've not countered my points at all. You've consistently avoiding doing so, and have just ploughed on posting the same old inane ****e after chucking in a few barbed comments in a vain attempt to paint yourself as being the intellectual superior.

You haven't got a grasp of how the basic simple principles that you keep harping on about, work in practice, you one dimensional dolt.

 

I can only guess you're leaving notes to yourself on here now.

Look Toby, you've ignored the questions I and others have asked you when trying to help you see why you're mixing up several issues. The specific issue of your fellow idiot, is of little consequence to the point others are making.

 

Dutch are you quoting law from Wikipedia?

ETC don't appear to have published the letter so are not the publisher for the purposes of the act. You can't be guilty of defamation for sending a private letter. It may come under the malicious communications act but doubt that would apply.

Informing security is very unlikely to be slander either. Depends on what was said and to whom I suppose but Mel makes a very valid point.

And just for information there are more defences to a defamation claim than what was said was true.

It's not a straightforward area of law but happy to assist further if you send me 500 quid plus vat

 

Exactly. One important word that hasn't been mentioned yet is malice, and no judge in the land would read any malice in a club simply informing the relevant security staff etc of someone being banned. (Not that it would ever get that far in this case, given that there's no defamatory content anyway here since he was clearly identified as the poster of the tweets).

 

Isn't actual malice mainly for public officials?

 

Nah - that's just a side issue about compensatory damages (rather than punitive).

 

But doesn't a none public figure only need to prove that the person making the statement was negligent, rather than malicious?

 

Again, not for punitive damages. For those you must prove actual malice.

 

But.. ignoring damages, to prove the case, a non-public figure wouldn't need to prove malice?

 

please log in to view this image

 

Tobes, as you showed before, you really, really don't have a clue, best you stop your digging now.

 

You'd better get back to wiki lad, you might educate yourself further on this subject

 

Nope. Although it would help a lot if they did.

 

DMD, you are trying to make a point in a law that is complex and in general case driven. It is impossible for anyone on here to be certain of the facts and the rule of law may be applied in different ways, dependant on the facts as presented before council and in a court. What is seen as defamation to some may not carry the same wieght as it does to others. Cases such as this are generally only brought to court after opinion has been sought to the likely success or failure.

The only fact is that once again you have a circular argument going. This thread could go on for years and never get any resolution simply becuase in the end it is all about opinion and interpretation.

 

In other words, the hypothetical scenario has drifted miles and miles away from the real-world one of Everton and the racist, where the club has no case to answer.