Perceptions of Madeleine's Abduction

[G-Unit]

Bennett's statements... By definition... Were libellous.

In UK libel law the onus is on Bennett to prove his innocence.
Do you understand that simple fact.
He gave no defence.. He is therefore guilty.. There is no POI..
There's a presumption of guilt

Here are the actual facts;

The principal practical difference between claims for libel and claims for slander is what a claimant must prove to succeed in his or her claim.
https://www.humphreys.co.uk/articles/defamation-elements-of-a-claim/

The claimant being the one who sues and it's the claimant who has to provide the proof. Wrong again!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Here are the actual facts;

The principal practical difference between claims for libel and claims for slander is what a claimant must prove to succeed in his or her claim.
https://www.humphreys.co.uk/articles/defamation-elements-of-a-claim/

The claimant being the one who sues and it's the claimant who has to provide the proof. Wrong again!

so if I write a newspaper article claiming Boris Johnson is a paedophile are you telling me he has to prove that he is not for the claim to be considered libellous?

[G-Unit]

so if I write a newspaper article claiming Boris Johnson is a paedophile are you telling me he has to prove that he is not for the claim to be considered libellous?

Every case is different, I'm just correcting an incorrect claim about UK law.

It's quite clear. Under UK law, it's the claimant who has to prove he/she has been slandered or libelled. It's not the defendant who has to prove they are innocent.

The law is the same in Portugal and in most other countries. That's why, despite their perceptions that Madeleleine McCann was abducted and that they were innocent of any wrongdoing, her parents failed to prove their case imo.

[Mr Gray]

Here are the actual facts;

The principal practical difference between claims for libel and claims for slander is what a claimant must prove to succeed in his or her claim.
https://www.humphreys.co.uk/articles/defamation-elements-of-a-claim/

The claimant being the one who sues and it's the claimant who has to provide the proof. Wrong again!

I think that post can truly be desribed as junk.. You don't seem to understand the written word.... From your cite.

[Mr Gray]

Every case is different, I'm just correcting an incorrect claim about UK law.

It's quite clear. Under UK law, it's the claimant who has to prove he/she has been slandered or libelled. It's not the defendant who has to prove they are innocent.

The law is the same in Portugal and in most other countries. That's why, despite their perceptions that Madeleleine McCann was abducted and that they were innocent of any wrongdoing, her parents failed to prove their case imo.

It's quite clear you haven't read or understood the cite you have quoted. Do you want to read it again or shall I explain.
The law is different in different countries...

The reason the McCann's lost in Portugal wasn't because they failed to prove their case.... That's total junk.
It's because the SC decided that although they had a right to reputation amarals right to free speech should take precedence

[Eleanor]

I have to say that Gunit's Cite seems quite clear to me.  And not much to do with what Gunit thinks it means.

[Mr Gray]

I have to say that Gunit's Cite seems quite clear to me.  And not much to do with what Gunit thinks it means.

gunit doesnt seem to understand teh cite she has made...because shes only quoted one line of it....this is a little more...


The principal practical difference between claims for libel and claims for slander is what a claimant must prove to succeed in his or her claim. In libel claims, the claimant does not have to prove that he or she has suffered loss or damage as a result of the publication. In contrast, in claims for slander, the claimant must prove actual damage. There are however several exceptions to the rule that actual damage must be proved in claims for slander.

For example, if the spoken words accuse the claimant of committing a crime; of having a contagious disease; of being unfit for his or her office, business or profession; or if the communication is an attack of the credit of trades people; or an accusation of being unchaste or adulterous against a woman or girl. In these cases damage is presumed and need not be proved.

[G-Unit]

Please stop describing my posts as junk. (which seems to be your word of the moment). Have another cite, as you seem to prefer scoffing to providing evidence.

In the common laws of libel, it is frequently said that the "burden of proof" in English defamation law falls upon the defendant. However the Defamation Act 2013 added a requirement that the claimant show "serious harm" was caused or was likely to be caused to the claimant's reputation, adding a significant burden of proof upon the claimant.[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#:~:text=While%20in%20libel%20cases%20there,'slander%20actionable%20per%20se'.

[Mr Gray]

Please stop describing my posts as junk. (which seems to be your word of the moment). Have another cite, as you seem to prefer scoffing to providing evidence.

In the common laws of libel, it is frequently said that the "burden of proof" in English defamation law falls upon the defendant. However the Defamation Act 2013 added a requirement that the claimant show "serious harm" was caused or was likely to be caused to the claimant's reputation, adding a significant burden of proof upon the claimant.[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#:~:text=While%20in%20libel%20cases%20there,'slander%20actionable%20per%20se'.

Is this a new rule.....I was under the impression it was fine to attack the post. if you post junk....as you are doing at the moment....i think its reasonable to describe it as such.
 

[Brietta]

Every case is different, I'm just correcting an incorrect claim about UK law.

It's quite clear. Under UK law, it's the claimant who has to prove he/she has been slandered or libelled. It's not the defendant who has to prove they are innocent.

The law is the same in Portugal and in most other countries. That's why, despite their perceptions that Madeleleine McCann was abducted and that they were innocent of any wrongdoing, her parents failed to prove their case imo.

My opinion is that it is glaringly obvious that those who promulgate the myth of abduction denial are seriously misguided.

There is not one scrap of evidence in existence which justifies the theory making it impossible for you to post any argument other than semantics.  Just as there was absolutely no evidence supporting the parental involvement theory adopted by Portuguese police which derailed competent initial investigation.

That is Madeleine's tragedy.

All that can be said about that is that the scenario with which we are familiar and which was prevailing in 2007 is night and day away from the evidence led investigation of 2022.

Today's prime suspect hid in plain sight while credibility preventing anyone taking notice of the fact was played out on Portuguese media day and daily for over fifteen years.

I think that far outweighs the current obsession of posting about libels. 
Although I do think there is enough material there to justify a thorough future official investigation. The propensity for one or two key players in this who have used their notoriety to punt what can only be seen as a propaganda war actually might go much further than Swiss banking the retirement pin money so readily available to them over the years.

[Mr Gray]

Please stop describing my posts as junk. (which seems to be your word of the moment). Have another cite, as you seem to prefer scoffing to providing evidence.

In the common laws of libel, it is frequently said that the "burden of proof" in English defamation law falls upon the defendant. However the Defamation Act 2013 added a requirement that the claimant show "serious harm" was caused or was likely to be caused to the claimant's reputation, adding a significant burden of proof upon the claimant.[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#:~:text=While%20in%20libel%20cases%20there,'slander%20actionable%20per%20se'.

if you read the rest of the article you will see taht it contains the explanation that if the libel infers or claims criminal activity damage is assumed and does NOT have to be proved.

you cant answer a simple question.
Was bennetts claim libellous?

Yes it was ...no argument...its  a fact you need to accept that

[Vertigo Swirl]

Every case is different, I'm just correcting an incorrect claim about UK law.

It's quite clear. Under UK law, it's the claimant who has to prove he/she has been slandered or libelled. It's not the defendant who has to prove they are innocent.

The law is the same in Portugal and in most other countries. That's why, despite their perceptions that Madeleleine McCann was abducted and that they were innocent of any wrongdoing, her parents failed to prove their case imo.

So, please explain how someone who had been publicly accused of being a paedophile would prove that they were not a paedophile?   Over to you.

[Mr Gray]

So, please explain how someone who had been publicly accused of being a paedophile would prove that they were not a paedophile?   Over to you.

they obviously dont have to..the burden of proof is on the defendant...gunit cant seem to grasp that simple fact.

[barrier]

Please stop describing my posts as junk. (which seems to be your word of the moment). Have another cite, as you seem to prefer scoffing to providing evidence.

In the common laws of libel, it is frequently said that the "burden of proof" in English defamation law falls upon the defendant. However the Defamation Act 2013 added a requirement that the claimant show "serious harm" was caused or was likely to be caused to the claimant's reputation, adding a significant burden of proof upon the claimant.[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#:~:text=While%20in%20libel%20cases%20there,'slander%20actionable%20per%20se'.

One mans junk is another mans treasure.

[Eleanor]

One mans junk is another mans treasure.

Gunit's Comments are a treasure alright.