Yep, your view of what you think is the point in hand is strange in deed, but not a unique occurrence I notice. If you actually have a point, could you crack on and make it?
Looking through this thread it gives a feel that it has been derailed from being a point made on a real life event that has context to a pointless argument of fact in a case where the burden of proof is not applicable and the final judgment lays in the balance of probabilities. Fact: a racist/homophobic insult (not of the seventies variety) was made on an account within Twitter and used publicly; that account had adopted a form of association with Everton and the account had a registered account holder. Twitter, on allowing the use of their system takes various nuggets of information; one of which is an email account (traceable). Twitter also insists that the account holder (not owner) use a password to keep their account secure. Either the poster was complicit in the post or he was negligent in his security. The balance of probabilities, that the account owner was responsible, seems to be upheld. (It seems he does not deny it, in any case) I am not aware, although I may be wrong, that it is possible for a twitter account can be opened to other users in the same manner an email or calendar account can be, say to a colleague, PA, etc. Permission to use someone else’s Twitter account would need to be granted informally and not within the normal bounds of a private Twitter account, so inappropriately. On the other hand, if someone were to make public their email account password, so they lost control, and, subsequently, it was used in an abusive way, then the email provider would be likely to withdraw their service. The official act of access delegation is controlled and transparent. Everton wish to make a clear distinction in their non-association with the offending account (Twitter refer to the account as ‘You’ in its T&Cs – which infers that they place you the account holder and the account as one and the same – this is something the account holder signs up to). They (Everton) send a letter to the account holder (the account) expressing their displeasure and the removal of any privilege extended to the account holder to enjoy their services. They have made a simple presumption of probabilities that the account holder, who will have adhered to Twitter policy, will have been either directly involved in the offending post or was responsible through negligent security. The letter, once sent and received, could be disputed with any argument available to move the balance of probabilities in favour of the account holder; I don’t believe this has been done. Under these circumstances I fail to see how Everton have acted against the balance of probabilities and, therefore, have not made any defamatory remark. It’s just a daft lad who has been put back in his box. A burden of proof is not required and a red-herring in this debate. How is the letter defamatory when it does not damage the good reputation of the person it was sent to?
The burden of proof isn't a red herring, it's a fundamental basis of English Law. What could have saved all of that typing is the letter that says the bloke said it was his account in an email to the Club. I never mentioned it before because it's no baring on the general point.
I'm not going to go into detail as frankly I can't be bothered. But DMD is completely wrong about the legal matters on this thread.
Wahaay, the penny is starting to drop. Which bit of the oft repeated 'general principle' is now finally sinking in with you?
I don't know why I asked rather than just acting. This thread is ****. I'm closing it. Not breaking any rules but it's just ****. PM me if you disagree, ta.
Well I've had a PM making good points as to why it shouldn't be closed. (Not Dutch or Tobes) Sorry for the u-turn, as you were.
