My place overseas

[Scunner]

If one party to a dispute chooses not to post on a public forum for a multitude of reasons, then why is it assumed the incident happened?

You aren't listening.

I didn't "assume the  incident happened". I was recalling that both 'sides' appeared to confirm it did - what I said was that in defence of the premises owner, some people (I assume sympathetic or close to him) offered a very different version of the events that night leading up to the incident - (e.g. I recall someone saying the boyfriend was extremely drunk and got aggressive, accusing people of stealing his sunglasses, etc) - so effectively they explained what may have made the guy act the way he did.

So once again for the hard of understanding - My recollection was that the incident was ultimately not denied. The cause/reason/build up to the attack was disputed. So it happened, but take your pick on the stories as to why?

[kawasakikid]

I am listening, but your right, I am not understanding.

Lets break down what you originally said into bite sized chunks, a technique you are familiar with:

My recollection was that the incident was ultimately not denied.

And my response to that was:

If one party to a dispute chooses not to post on a public forum for a multitude of reasons, then why is it assumed the incident happened? Or put it another way, the allegation must be the truth?

.

Your response was:

I didn't "assume the  incident happened". I was recalling that both 'sides' appeared to confirm it did

BUT in your original post you state:

So it happened

A clear contradiction of your own words.  So I repeat, did anyone at anytime actually witness the alleged incident?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Scunner]

Ok I will, just for you, try a third time.

After the reports of the 'incident'...

The family of the holidaymaker said it happened

The friends of the restaurant owner said it happened but the holidaymaker was no innocent party.

I make that two yes's. One more and he's in the live final.

I can't make it any simpler for you, sorry.

[Scunner]

Could also be two yeses or two yesses. I'll wait for Colwyn to clarify.

[Colwyn]

To clarify this thread would require an industrial-scale filtration system. But I'll settle for "yeses" {or possibly "noes"}.

[kawasakikid]

Ok I will, just for you, try a third time.

After the reports of the 'incident'...

The family of the holidaymaker said it happened

The friends of the restaurant owner said it happened but the holidaymaker was no innocent party.

I make that two yes's. One more and he's in the live final.

I can't make it any simpler for you, sorry.

Your not going to say it are you? The answer to my question is:

NO. THERE WERE NO WITNESSES OR ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE ALLEGED INCIDENT.

[Scunner]

Just as a general point.

Unsavoury incidents over there (and elsewhere) do often depend on a lack of witnesses being around at the chosen time.

And as another general point.

A lack of witnesses isn't evidence something didn't happen.

Again, those who defended him said he did it because of the provocation he received. Witnesses or not, even his friends didn't deny it happened!

[kawasakikid]

I agree with all what you say in the above post. However, speculation and gossip can never be a substitute for the facts.

Nite nite!

[Scunner]

And you have provided exactly zero facts that it didn't. Even his defenders accept it did - but of course you know better.

[kevin3]

My place overseas is in Hisaronu. Over the years members from Calis have routinely knocked Hisaronu.

I have kept all my toys in the pram and sat there placidly,trying to figure out why these people would

choose to buy properties built on a swamp.       Marmite indeed.


Colwyn.       Could you verify if "nite nite" is grammatically correct, looks dodgy to me.