AG said he couldn't explain how the McCanns could be responsible - Can you?

[Mrs. B]

Of course facts can be libelous. If I was to state that "Mr. X has spent most of his adult life in prison", most sane, normal people would take that to mean that Mr. X is a hardened criminal. 

But let's say Mr. X instead is a dedicated prison officer with a long service record in Her Majesty's prison service - my statement is still factually correct - but Mr. X would have a very good cause to sue me for libel.

[John]

Of course facts can be libelous. If I was to state that "Mr. X has spent most of his adult life in prison", most sane, normal people would take that to mean that Mr. X is a hardened criminal. 

But let's say Mr. X instead is a dedicated prison officer with a long service record in Her Majesty's prison service - my statement is still factually correct - but Mr. X would have a very good cause to sue me for libel.

The claim would be false on two counts of course since Mr X would not have spent most of his adult life in prison having worked on average for only 40 hours out of a possible 168 hours every week.

[Mrs. B]

Of course facts can be libelous. If I was to state that "Mr. X has spent most of his adult life in prison", most sane, normal people would take that to mean that Mr. X is a hardened criminal. 

But let's say Mr. X instead is a dedicated prison officer with a long service record in Her Majesty's prison service - my statement is still factually correct - but Mr. X would have a very good cause to sue me for libel.

The claim would be false on two counts of course since Mr X would not have spent most of his adult life in prison having worked on average for only 40 hours out of a possible 168 hours every week.

Yes, true, but even if I had said "Mr. X has spent most DAYS of his adult life in prison", I'd most likely would still be sued.

[Angelo222]

I posted this a while back but one member doesn't like it and calls it libel.   Note to member...something is only a libel if it is untrue.

Debunker ?

Are you not going to point out the glaring error in Angelo's statement ?

Which error would that be ica?   The two elements which determine defamation or libel are truthfulness and intent to harm.  Repeating the truth or that which is recognised as the truth cannot be construed as a libel.

Corruption of the truth as referred to be Debunker is another issue.

[Angelo222]

As an example of this:

Posting that the McCanns killed Madeleine is false and a libel but posting that they were responsible for her disappearance is not as it is in fact a truth by reason had she not been left alone that evening she would not have been abducted.

The fact that I have just posted this is again not a libel as it is an example and not a stated opinion.

I repeat, to have a libel you have to have the element of intent to harm or damage.

[AnneGuedes]

As an example of this:

Posting that the McCanns killed Madeleine is false and a libel but posting that they were responsible for her disappearance is not as it is in fact a truth by reason had she not been left alone that evening she would not have been abducted.

The fact that I have just posted this is again not a libel as it is an example and not a stated opinion.

I repeat, to have a libel you have to have the element of intent to harm or damage.

Angelo, you can't say that. There is passive responsibility (very common) and active one. I'm pretty sure Mr and Mrs McCann weren't actively responsible for what happened to their daughter.

[Mrs. B]

As an example of this:

Posting that the McCanns killed Madeleine is false and a libel but posting that they were responsible for her disappearance is not as it is in fact a truth by reason had she not been left alone that evening she would not have been abducted.

The fact that I have just posted this is again not a libel as it is an example and not a stated opinion.

I repeat, to have a libel you have to have the element of intent to harm or damage.

IMO that would be threading a very fine line, clearly they weren't solely RESPONSIBLE, the person who took her was. Though I would think you could get away with claiming fair comment with a slightly different wording e.g "were partly responsible" or that they "bear some responsibility" for her disappearance.

[icabodcrane]

I posted this a while back but one member doesn't like it and calls it libel.   Note to member...something is only a libel if it is untrue.

 

Debunker ?

Are you not going to point out the glaring error in Angelo's statement ?

Which error would that be ica?   The two elements which determine defamation or libel are truthfulness and intent to harm.  Repeating the truth or that which is recognised as the truth cannot be construed as a libel.

Corruption of the truth as referred to be Debunker is another issue.

I was always of the same opinion as you Angelo  ...  that you can't libel with the truth

Debunker insists we are both wrong

[Angelo222]

You can't libel with the plain unadulterated truth Ica.  If you corrupt the truth or promote it in such a way so as to cause mischief, harm or attempt to destroy someone's reputation by manipulating it then that is a libel.

Simply stating the truth precisely and accurately however will never see you in any court.   

[Angelo222]

As an example of this:

Posting that the McCanns killed Madeleine is false and a libel but posting that they were responsible for her disappearance is not as it is in fact a truth by reason had she not been left alone that evening she would not have been abducted.

The fact that I have just posted this is again not a libel as it is an example and not a stated opinion.

I repeat, to have a libel you have to have the element of intent to harm or damage.

IMO that would be threading a very fine line, clearly they weren't solely RESPONSIBLE, the person who took her was. Though I would think you could get away with claiming fair comment with a slightly different wording e.g "were partly responsible" or that they "bear some responsibility" for her disappearance.

Yes...nicely put.   

[debunker]

I posted this a while back but one member doesn't like it and calls it libel.   Note to member...something is only a libel if it is untrue.

Debunker ?

Are you not going to point out the glaring error in Angelo's statement ?

Which error would that be ica?   The two elements which determine defamation or libel are truthfulness and intent to harm.  Repeating the truth or that which is recognised as the truth cannot be construed as a libel.

Corruption of the truth as referred to be Debunker is another issue.

Truth can be libel as I have noted and Justice Tugenhadt mentioned in the Tony Bennett case.

[Carana]

You can't libel with the plain unadulterated truth Ica.  If you corrupt the truth or promote it in such a way so as to cause mischief, harm or attempt to destroy someone's reputation by manipulating it then that is a libel.

Simply stating the truth precisely and accurately however will never see you in any court.   

It could, actually. Contempt of court, for example, prior to a trial by repeating someone's prior convictions or even by naming someone (even a victim) if that person has the right to anonymity.

[Mrs. B]

That's true, there are of course several cases where freedom of expression is curtailed.

[Mrs. B]

So has anyone been able to come up with a solution to the AG's dilemma yet?

"....it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. "

[south of the river]

So has anyone been able to come up with a solution to the AG's dilemma yet?

"....it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. "

I touched on this point  the thread on cadaver scents - I have yet to see a logical arguments that involve the parents in the disposal of a body - It just doesn't make any sense -

It makes far more sense that 3rd parties within the village could be involved - people who had transport - accommodation , a knowledge of the area , etc etc

I know that stats do point to people close to the victim as the most likely ie complete stranger abduction / murder is thank god rare - If you look at the last two high profile murders here in the UK - both were people who were very close to the family

This is a mystery though and one reason why 6 years later I am still posting about it