To be fair, I think any reasoned post would go to waste when there's people with other agendas. It's interesting how many see debate as a contest rather than a discussion to shed light.
More insults, tssskkk. Dismounted the moral high ground on that one now I see. Must be really rattled..... It's there for all to see try re-reading it, as it seems your 'point' and British law changed during it...... All of those who had an obvious understanding of the subject matter told you, you were wrong and yet still you ploughed on.....
Rattled?? You wish. You avoided it previously, so, as my basic position is that the onus is on the accuser to prove an allegation rather than the accused to disprove it, can you enlighten me where that's wrong?
In the case of defamation it's in essence the complete reverse of that........... I explained in detail why IN THIS CASE there was nothing for the 'accuser' i.e. EFC, to prove at the very beginning, try reading it......
DMD, the onus can shift. An accuser may have to prove something is true, but the accused may have to prove that it wasn't. It is circular, the accuser can become the accused and visa vera.
Seriously? You believe that if someone calls you a rapist, the onus is on you to prove you're not rather than for them to prove you are? 'This case' is irrelevant to what I've been saying, but even then, Everton still needed to be able to prove their allegation, it's why they wrote their letter in a way that they did.
Your answer still confirms that the burden of proof lays with the accuser. It's the fundamental basis of our law. The onus doesn't shift from the accuser, it's the accuser/accused role that's reversed not the burden of proof.
No, the burden of proof can change. Innocent until proved guilty is different to accusation. You can be accused of a crime and the only way to defend yourself is to prove that you did not do it. You are not guilty of anything until either you admit the wrong doing or it is proved (civil, its slightly different for criminal, where reasonable doubt exists). You remain innocent, but you are the accused. The accuser does not have to prove anything, they remain the accuser. In defamation the roles can be reversed The accused takes action against the accuser and so in turn becomes the accuser themselves.
Can you give me a specific example of where this has happened? It appears to fly in the face of the logical argument the law is based on, in that the onus always falls on the one making the positive assertion. If someone said you'd been posting abusive and derogatory comments, you'd expect them to prove you had, rather than you prove you hadn't, wouldn't you? Within that, the dynamics of who is accusing who can change, but it remains that the one making the positive assertion has the burden of proof.
Yes, if the potential defamation is obvious then the onus shifts to the person who's been slandered to explain why the statement is false. Everton only needed as much proof as they deemed necessary. The only people they needed to satisfy were themselves.
Good luck in court with that last sentence, the first one makes no sense, you seem to be saying that you would have to prove a negative if someone said you were a rapist. How would you do that?
You wouldn't have to prove anything if you're a barkeeper and you wanted to bar someone. Why would/should it be different in this scenario?
And round and round we go. Mentioned very early on, the operators of a private place, be it a pub, football ground etc can refuse admission, provided they're not doing it on racist/sexist etc grounds. The wider issue is where the burden of proof lies if someone makes a statement that can be seen to be derogatory.
Correctimundo. The burden of proof does lie with the accuser, always has as far as I'm concerned. Everton accuse Joe Bloggs of posting offensive tweets and in normal practice need to prove this to be successful. Joe Bloggs accuses Everton of defamation of character. The same rule applies. He has to prove defamation of character has occurred to which Everton would offer a defence. As in it was a private letter and was the truth. That's how I see it. If anyone disagrees fair enough. No childish, sanctimonious or patronising comments though please. It just makes you look a bit of a silly sausage.
The claimant in a defamation case would have to prove that the defendant published something and that it was defamatory. If they can establish that the defendant would then have to establish that it can rely on one of the available defences. In the civil courts if a party (claimant or defendant) puts forward a positive statement in their claim or defence they need to prove it in evidence.