Can People Who Doubt the McCanns Safely Debate on This Forum ?

[icabodcrane]

I am asking the Justice Forum Admin to confirm whether or not they are collecting information of 'abuse'  against the McCanns

If it is true,  then does that mean members who post on this forum are at risk of being judged  'abusive'  and added to  'the list' ?

Who is this  'list of McCann abusers'  for  ...  who  asked  for it ? 

And,  most importantly,  will personal details of members of this forum be passed to others  ? 

These are very relevent and important questions,  and as a member who has trusted this forum with my personal details,  I feel I am perfectly entitled to ask them

I will answer that for you icabodcrane and can confirm that we have been asked by twitter to keep a record of anything which has been directed at our sister site and which may be considered abusive or libellous.  Anyone who uses that particular social media site and who has reported abuse will be aware of this.

As regards this forum, there are ample mechanisms in place to deal with any unacceptable conduct.  Personal registration details are never passed to any third party but may be requested under police powers as part of an investigation or if subject to a Court Order.

I trust this helps?

Thankyou for that explanation and reassurance

[AnneGuedes]

I should think you are quite safe as long as you don't defame innocent people - are you able to post without doing so?

Tell me, are admin here experts on defamation law or are they just going to report things willy nilly on the off chance it may be libellous ?

If a person backs up a claim with evidence for that claim then it is probably not libellous.

The problem comes when people make claims (in this case, about the McCanns) without posting any evidence to back up those claims. Those claims could be potential libel and if in the considered opinion (I very much doubt any report would simply be willy nilly as you claim.) of moderators they appear to be so, reported as such.  It would be up to others then to determine whether it is actual libel.

There are occasions where the claims made are clearly untrue and are actually contradicted by evidence which is easily available. Those could be reported as probable libel.

Personally, as I have no intention of libeling anyone and at all times endeavour only to post evidenced claims and I won't be abusing anyone on the forum then I won't be worrying at all.

I suspect people would only worry if they thought that what they were doing was likely to be considered abusive. 

I know that there are many people on Twitter, for example, who post abusively there because they think it is unregulated and they find the thrill of being abusive quite intoxicating. Thankfully, I don't find I need that kind of thrill. I find life is perfectly satisfying without having to be so offensive. 

Personally, when I see abuse happening I don't turn a blind eye. I do whatever I can to ensure that it stops. I think that is the decent thing to do. Those who either abuse others or even those who simply condone such abuse (for example, by criticising others who report their concerns) are in my view beneath contempt.

If posters weren't anonymous, they would be more careful, imo (I use my real name).
Libel is certainly an issue, but disinformation is not less one. Not that speculating has no value, it's challenging, but it could be stuck in a special thread.

[AnneGuedes]

@ gilet

Of course you do mean the abuse from both sides of the divide, don't you ?

In relation to this thread I mean specifically serious abuse towards the McCanns. I don't condone the "willy nilly" reporting of minor things about anyone.

If you can provide any evidence of any serious abuse towards anyone else then please open a new thread and we can discuss it there without distracting from the point of your own thread here.

The reality is that there are some people (yourself included) who are deliberately closing your eyes to the fact that here and on Twitter there is serious abuse directed at the McCanns. By ignoring that abuse you are telling us a great deal about your underlying motives.

Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !

[AnneGuedes]

I think that claiming the McCanns and their friends have fabricated their statements in order to cover-up the crime of hiding a body is defamation.  "Asking questions" about the McCanns and their friends (with the clear implication being that you think they are hiding something), publicly on the internet where everyone can read the questions, and repeatedly over a period of months and years amounts to an abusive and prolonged campaign of defamation in my book..

This is right and a good reason to try not to solve this case (how could we ?) but to blow myths.
Personally I find nothing to suggest the TP7 lied to cover the disposal of a corpse. I've a doubt concerning the other two, mainly because right away they lied about the modus operandi to their families and friends. I can understand why they did, but it had disturbing consequences they did nothing to dissipate, like "sorry we thought they had been forced, sorry we were out of our minds and erased clues touching them"). One of the effects of this lie is that any one, believing a little girl was snatched by a predator who jemmied shutters and window, would criticize a police who spent the precious golden hours trying to find where the little girl had wandered off.

[gilet]

I think that claiming the McCanns and their friends have fabricated their statements in order to cover-up the crime of hiding a body is defamation.  "Asking questions" about the McCanns and their friends (with the clear implication being that you think they are hiding something), publicly on the internet where everyone can read the questions, and repeatedly over a period of months and years amounts to an abusive and prolonged campaign of defamation in my book..

This is right and a good reason to try not to solve this case (how could we ?) but to blow myths.
Personally I find nothing to suggest the TP7 lied to cover the disposal of a corpse. I've a doubt concerning the other two, mainly because right away they lied about the modus operandi to their families and friends. I can understand why they did, but it had disturbing consequences they did nothing to dissipate, like "sorry we thought they had been forced, sorry we were out of our minds and erased clues touching them"). One of the effects of this lie is that any one, believing a little girl was snatched by a predator who jemmied shutters and window, would criticize a police who spent the precious golden hours trying to find where the little girl had wandered off.

It is your opinion that the McCanns lied. It is not mine as there is no proof of that. You have no idea what they believed at the time and calling their comments lies is abusive unless you make it clear that is simply your opinion.

[AnneGuedes]

Faithlilly.  In answer to your question.  As a general principle, if you consider that everything you put in writing in the public domain COULD be used in court, either by the prosection or the defence, and act accordingly you will not go far wrong.

I find it a good idea. Forces one to read and re-read before sending.

[AnneGuedes]

...and I notice that those that squawk the loudest about those who question the McCanns are often the quietest when similar, or worse, abuse is thrown at Amaral, any of his colleagues, the PJ at large, Tony Bennett, Martin Grime and in fact anyone that dares to doubt "the word".

I have nothing for or against Gonçalo Amaral, but after reading incredible hatred against him, I can't but feel some compassion. So insults are really counterproductive.

[AnneGuedes]

...the crime he (Amaral) failed to solve and try to earn money from that?

This, Gilet, for me is defamatory. Things are much more complex than that.

[Luz]

Seems the UK Justice forum has been asked by someone, I assume connected to the McCanns, to report any tweets on #mccann that 'abuse' the McCanns. How safe therefore are our details and what we write here ?

I hope so. I offer my info to their attorneys as soon as they get their asses here and request me. I would love to see them in Court.

[gilet]

...the crime he (Amaral) failed to solve and try to earn money from that?

This, Gilet, for me is defamatory. Things are much more complex than that.

That is a factual statement. When you post facts you cannot be accused of defamation.

Do you really believe he solved the case? No? Then it is factual to state that he did not solve the case. No defamation there then.

Do you deny that he wrote a book which was going to earn money? No? Then it is factual to state that he tried to earn money by writing that book. No defamation there then.

Your attempt to claim that what I posted in your quote is defamation is so crass and ridiculous that it makes Tom and Gerry cartoons look positively real.  If that is the best example you can find you really are showing desperation.

 

[gilet]

Was this forum created as a kind of abuse repairing ? You see, I don't follow nobody related to the McCann case on Twitter, I don't do FB, I don't know those anti or pro sites, which means I can't help !

Is that your clever way of trying to say without saying it openly that you do follow McCann related people on Twitter? Are you using a double negative in the hope of believing that you don't follow such people? Or were you just being untruthful about it?

Is it pure co-incidence that another poster happens to be called Anne Guedes and who just happens to claim to live in Portugal and also shows interest in the McCann case? Or would that be you? Because if Anne Guedes (@aacg) is you then you do follow McCann related people (Including Nigel Moore, Paul Reis, Joana Morais etc,) don't you?  And if you are @aacg then you do know those anti sites at least as you have posted on the Joana Morais page haven't you?

So is it a pure coincidence?

Or did you lie about this?

Or were you trying to play silly word games to hide the truth?

We deserve the truth.

[AnneGuedes]

It is your opinion that the McCanns lied. It is not mine as there is no proof of that. You have no idea what they believed at the time and calling their comments lies is abusive unless you make it clear that is simply your opinion.

Do you doubt instead all those who said they received phone calls describing forced shutters and window, doors all locked, etc. ? The probability various people, some not communicating to one another, invented the same story is very dubious.
Anyhow, we know the shutters and window weren't forced, so why did Clarence Mitchell wait months (25 Octobre 2007) before admitting this on RTÉ (Prime Time) ?

[Luz]

Many people here would have a lot to respond to if legality was to be imposed, starting by some moderators that are biased and offer unfounded opinions.

But we know that the UK is a paradise for predators of the soul when the victims are foreigners.

Nevertheless, if I were you I would just ignore those carter-ruckers and the likes, they only intervene when someone is going into their pockets, and the McCs are just not getting enough charity money to pay them. For them we are less then mosquitos.

And if they want to fight me because I say their clients are liars and are involved in their daughters disappearance, and there is no abduction, so be it.

As a free citizen I have a right to free thinking and speech

I'll rather speak than speach.

[AnneGuedes]

Why on earth should the McCanns publicly apologise for believing in the first instance that the apartment shutters had been forced? Who has been damaged by this supposed lie?  It really is nonsense to expect the McCanns to issue public retractions over things like this.

Assuming they "believed" is your belief, because they never said they had believed this and didn't pretend to the GNR nor to the PJ they had found forced shutters and window, whereas, meanwhile they were telling this to their UK circle. You could argue that the lie was "internal" and that they're not responsible if their family and friends spread it to the media. I would agree with that, had they corrected.

[gilet]

Many people here would have a lot to respond to if legality was to be imposed, starting by some moderators that are biased and offer unfounded opinions.

But we know that the UK is a paradise for predators of the soul when the victims are foreigners.

Nevertheless, if I were you I would just ignore those carter-ruckers and the likes, they only intervene when someone is going into their pockets, and the McCs are just not getting enough charity money to pay them. For them we are less then mosquitos.

And if they want to fight me because I say their clients are liars and are involved in their daughters disappearance, and there is no abduction, so be it.

As a free citizen I have a right to free thinking and speach.

Just a shame that you have no actual evidence for any of these disgusting claims you make isn't it?

When people like you descend to the lows of simply posting such claims without even attempting to back them up with any evidence at all it is clear for all readers to see that you have failed and are nothing but an abusive person.

You can think what you like. But everyone can see your failure to back up your thoughts with evidence. It shows you in an extremely bad light.  Congratulations on showing what at least one Portuguese person (you) is like and what your views on justice are like and the best thing is that you managed to do it without any help from anyone else.