MORALS

[gilet]

No it doesn't.  A news reporter reporting on proceedings in court enjoys privilege so long as his reports are fair and accurate.

If it was said in court that A caved in the head of B, the reporter will not be at risk of an action for libel, so long as it was said in court that A caved in the head of B ...

Inferential libel is the same as direct libel as an offence and simply adding "allegedly" does not automatically remove the clear inference of a statement being made. Even posing the statement as a question can be inferential libel.

So to ask in certain circumstances; for example as the last line of a report. "Did Mr. A. kill his daughter?" could well get a person into trouble with the law.

Didn't Bercow merely pose a question?

[stephen25000]

This trial is not about libel, it's about money, no more, no less.

[Jazzy]

It has nothing to do with the trial by the way, not as far as I am concerned, it was questions asked and issues raised.

[LagosBen]

This trial is not about libel, it's about money, no more, no less.

Nonsense.

[John]

I cannot see how you can put a price on the alleged damage that Gonçalo Amaral's book and documentary caused to the search for Madeleine when we don't even know if she was alive when they were published.   If Madeleine was alive and being kept somewhere then there might be a case to answer.  If however she was dead then no matter what Amaral did and said would have had little effect.

That means we are back to the original question,  How can the Tribunal determine the case when they don't know if she was alive or dead when Amaral published his works? A Court cannot decide a case on the basis of maybes or what ifs.

[stephen25000]

Nonsense.

Nope.

It's all about the dosh.

[gilet]

I cannot see how you can put a price on the alleged damage that Gonçalo Amaral's book and documentary caused to the search for Madeleine when we don't even know if she was alive when they were published.   If Madeleine was alive and being kept somewhere then there might be a case to answer.  If however she was dead then no matter what Amaral did and said would have had little effect.

That means we are back to the original question,  How can the Tribunal determine the case when they don't know if she was alive or dead when Amaral published his works? A Court cannot decide a case on the basis of maybes or what ifs.

In a civilised country surely the court must presume her to be living and findable. How can they declare her dead only one year after her disappearance without any proof whatsoever of that death?

[stephen25000]

In a civilised country surely the court must presume her to be living and findable. How can they declare her dead only one year after her disappearance without any proof whatsoever of that death?

Please tell me this.

What would the UK police give as a probability of finding a missing child being found after 24 hours  ?

[John]

In a civilised country surely the court must presume her to be living and findable. How can they declare her dead only one year after her disappearance without any proof whatsoever of that death?

A Court is not entitled to presume anything.  It all comes down to evidence.  That said however, a Court can make an Order declaring an individual dead after a certain period of time has elapsed.

Someone has already pointed out that there is no precedent in modern times in western civilisation of a three year old child being found alive and well after more than six years.

[Redblossom]

A Court is not entitled to presume anything.  It all comes down to evidence.  That said however, a Court can make an Order declaring an individual dead after a certain period of time has elapsed.

Someone has already pointed out that there is no precedent in modern times in western civilisation of a three year old child being found alive and well after more than six years.

Even if they had, besides I thnk any such cases would be ones of familial abduction where the mother or father has run off with a child, there is neither no precedent for any police force keeping an active investigation open ad infinitum after its been exhausted...what they do is leave an appeal and details on their websites for any information, sometimes new evidence is found or a new lead and they may either do an appeal on crimewatch eg or reopen a case if the leads are concrete....its happened here in the Uk so many times and cases have been moved forward and people brought to justice

[gilet]

A Court is not entitled to presume anything.  It all comes down to evidence.  That said however, a Court can make an Order declaring an individual dead after a certain period of time has elapsed.

Someone has already pointed out that there is no precedent in modern times in western civilisation of a three year old child being found alive and well after more than six years.

But the period of six years is totally irrelevant to this trial. The book was written just over a year after death.
I don't believe any jurisdiction allows declaration of death after one year without a shred of evidence of that death.

Unless they can pronounce death then a living child has to be presumed, surely. When the book was published there was no evidence of death at all, no record of death and no evidence of death therefore in the eyes of the court she would be alive.

[C.Edwards]

But the period of six years is totally irrelevant to this trial. The book was written just over a year after death.
I don't believe any jurisdiction allows declaration of death after one year without a shred of evidence of that death.

Unless they can pronounce death then a living child has to be presumed, surely. When the book was published there was no evidence of death at all, no record of death and no evidence of death therefore in the eyes of the court she would be alive.

There you go again with your "opinion posted as fact" angle.  The investigating police force believe they have enough of a shred of evidence of death to declare she's more likely dead than alive.  Do you believe you know more than the investigating team then?

[Sherlock Holmes]

A Court is not entitled to presume anything.  It all comes down to evidence.  That said however, a Court can make an Order declaring an individual dead after a certain period of time has elapsed.

Someone has already pointed out that there is no precedent in modern times in western civilisation of a three year old child being found alive and well after more than six years.

So sad

[gilet]

There you go again with your "opinion posted as fact" angle.  The investigating police force believe they have enough of a shred of evidence of death to declare she's more likely dead than alive.  Do you believe you know more than the investigating team then?

"Enough of a shred of evidence"???
What absolute tosh!

Do you really think courts work on "enough of a shred of evidence"?

[C.Edwards]

"Enough of a shred of evidence"???
What absolute tosh!

Do you really think courts work on "enough of a shred of evidence"?

Why not? You seem to be functional on a shred of intelligence.