Perceptions of Madeleine's Abduction

[barrier]

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

That talks of  suing, not of guilt proved in court.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Spammy would agree with you.

And he is allowed to say so because we cannot judge it as libellous.  So I can say that Amaral knows CB was involved in Madeleine's disappearance and deliberately tried to set the parents up with Grime's help to deflect attention from CB and his paedo mates.  Not libellous. Not at all.

[G-Unit]

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

What a pity you didn't understand why and how.

[barrier]

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

It was of his own doing .

[barrier]

And he is allowed to say so because we cannot judge it as libellous.  So I can say that Amaral knows CB was involved in Madeleine's disappearance and deliberately tried to set the parents up with Grime's help to deflect attention from CB and his paedo mates.  Not libellous. Not at all.

Nope, but out and out manure.

[Eleanor]

What a pity you didn't understand why and how.

I can't say that I care.

[G-Unit]

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?

It's John's forum and John's choice. You can challenge him but his decisions will always prevail.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Nope, but out and out bull shite.

Same as the McCanns murdering Madeleine.  Out and out manure but exactly what you would expect from a troll.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's John's forum and John's choice. You can challenge him but his decisions will always prevail.

Is John in any position to decide what is libel and what is not?  It would seem from what you have written that you don't think so. 

[Mr Gray]

It's John's forum and John's choice. You can challenge him but his decisions will always prevail.

It's your understanding of libel that is being questioned not Johns... And if you think bennets claims were not libellous you don't understand libel

[G-Unit]

Is John in any position to decide what is libel and what is not?  It would seem from what you have written that you don't think so.

I'm not an expert on libel, but if I think a post is libelous and John doesn't he will overrule me and I don't have a problem with that.

[G-Unit]

It's your understanding of libel that is being questioned not Johns... And if you think bennets claims were not libellous you don't understand libel

The question is whether he was convicted of libel, which was claimed on here. It seems he wasn't.

[Eleanor]

Which ever way you want to look at it, Anthony Bennett did Libel The McCanns.  And repeatedly.  And whatever it was that actually happened it did cost him huge amount of money.

[barrier]

Which ever way you want to look at it, Anthony Bennett did Libel The McCanns.  And repeatedly.  And whatever it was that actually happened it did cost him huge amount of money.

Indeed it did, but he carried on despite court injunctions and was held in contempt of court .

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm not an expert on libel, but if I think a post is libelous and John doesn't he will overrule me and I don't have a problem with that.

Why do you think you need to be an expert to spot a written statement is defamatory f you can’t provide proof to vback it up.?  For example when Spam says the McCanns murdered Maddie why do you allow that to remain on the forum?  Do you think it isn’t  libellous to accuse someone of murder without  proof?  It only seems to bother you when CB is being accused of said crimes.