Perceptions of Madeleine's Abduction

[barrier]

Bennett libelled the mccanns according to UK libell law. He offerred no defence and agreed not to repeat the allegations

Was he found guilty of libel, a simple yes or no will suffice.

[Mr Gray]

Was he found guilty of libel, a simple yes or no will suffice.

You should already know the answer to that.. I do. Its  apathetic attempt to suggest his claim wasnt libellous...which it clearly was.

[barrier]

You should already know the answer to that.. I do. Its  apathetic attempt to suggest his claim wasnt libellous...which it clearly was.

Ok so he wasn't , simple wasn't it .The rest is your imagination .

[barrier]

Still I'm sure we'll get back to the imaginary scenario of an abduction afor long.

[Mr Gray]

Ok so he wasn't , simple wasn't it .The rest is your imagination .

whatever...lol

[Lace]

Was he found guilty of libel, a simple yes or no will suffice.

https://www.anorak.co.uk/290238/madeleine-mccann/kate-and-gerry-mccann-sue-madeleine-foundation-secretary-tony-bennett.html

[G-Unit]

Bennett libelled the mccanns according to UK libell law. He offerred no defence and agreed not to repeat the allegations

That suggests that, just like the UK newspapers, he wasn't convicted in a court of law. I know his reasons for not defending himself were financial. That does not equate to an admission of guilt. The only one who risked every penny he had to defend himself was Amaral, and he won.

[Mr Gray]

That suggests that, just like the UK newspapers, he wasn't convicted in a court of law. I know his reasons for not defending himself were financial. That does not equate to an admission of guilt. The only one who risked every penny he had to defend himself was Amaral, and he won.

I find yours and others attempts to prove his statements were not libellous in the uk pathetic....and wonder what your motive could be.. perhaps thats all sceptics have to cling onto now.

could you answer a simple question...do you aknowledge his claims were libellous under UK libel law?

Amarals victory is irrelevant to the argument because it is not yet decided if his claims were libellous or an error by teh SC who claimed they were applying ECHR law correctly

[Mr Gray]

That suggests that, just like the UK newspapers, he wasn't convicted in a court of law. I know his reasons for not defending himself were financial. That does not equate to an admission of guilt. The only one who risked every penny he had to defend himself was Amaral, and he won.

Forum rules...libellous post removed on site

as a mod would you deem Bennetts claims libellous

So do you understand libel
do you understand the forum rules

[G-Unit]

Forum rules...libellous post removed on site

as a mod would you deem Bennetts claims libellous

So do you understand libel
do you understand the forum rules

I understand that unqualified people who claim expertise in the libel laws of any country are not experts at all, but just think they are. It's all opinion dressed up as fact. I have been accused of libel and had posts deleted by some who think they understand libel, but I've had those posts reinstated on appeal. Courts and judges decide what is or is not libel, not posters on forums. I have no intention of accepting your none expert opinions. I have no intention of believing people who suggest that Benett was convicted of libelling 'by inference' when they can produce no evidence of this conviction.

[Mr Gray]

I understand that unqualified people who claim expertise in the libel laws of any country are not experts at all, but just think they are. It's all opinion dressed up as fact. I have been accused of libel and had posts deleted by some who think they understand libel, but I've had those posts reinstated on appeal. Courts and judges decide what is or is not libel, not posters on forums. I have no intention of accepting your none expert opinions. I have no intention of believing people who suggest that Benett was convicted of libelling 'by inference' when they can produce no evidence of this conviction.

I think your post shows such a poor grasp of knowledge and logic. ...so much so that it undermines your credibility.
No wonder I refer to several of your posts as junk... And this is another one if them.
No one claims to be an expert so your criticism is worthless.
Libel law in the UK is on the whole quite simple to understand.... Perhaps not simple enough for you and others here

[Vertigo Swirl]

That suggests that, just like the UK newspapers, he wasn't convicted in a court of law. I know his reasons for not defending himself were financial. That does not equate to an admission of guilt. The only one who risked every penny he had to defend himself was Amaral, and he won.

I thought he used money raised on his behalf by his fanclub?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I understand that unqualified people who claim expertise in the libel laws of any country are not experts at all, but just think they are. It's all opinion dressed up as fact. I have been accused of libel and had posts deleted by some who think they understand libel, but I've had those posts reinstated on appeal. Courts and judges decide what is or is not libel, not posters on forums. I have no intention of accepting your none expert opinions. I have no intention of believing people who suggest that Benett was convicted of libelling 'by inference' when they can produce no evidence of this conviction.

In which case nothing we write on this forum can possibly be judged as libellous as none of us is an expert on libel laws as far as I'm aware, nor are we in a court.  The McCanns murdered Maddie.  We can say that without having it removed as it cannot be judged as libellous by you or John.  Right?

[Eleanor]

Anthony Bennett certainly came a rather large financial cropper for some legal reason or another.

[barrier]

In which case nothing we write on this forum can possibly be judged as libellous as none of us is an expert on libel laws as far as I'm aware, nor are we in a court.  The McCanns murdered Maddie.  We can say that without having it removed as it cannot be judged as libellous by you or John.  Right?

Spammy would agree with you.