The breathtaking hypocrisy of those that support the McCanns

[stephen25000]

No one is Guilty until proved so by a court.

You didn't answer my question.

Please try again.

[Aiofe]

True but we don't follow any of them. We're free thinkers

Everyone like to think that.

Read up on cults. I gave references yesterday, but the thread was disallowed.

http://www.hgi.org.uk/archive/cults.htm#.UoE7vPnIaAm

[jassi]

I am certainly open to rational argument.

Now pray tell, how can you be declared innocent of a crime which has not been defined or being given any legal form ?

Pray tell.

English law only allows 2 conditions - guilty and not guilty. If you haven't been convicted of a crime , you must be considered not guilty

[Aiofe]

You didn't answer my question.

Please try again.

You do not need to be declared innocent; you are presumed so.

[Redblossom]

No. Mainly people like you who abuse free speech in the belief that it allows defamation to be expressed on the internet. With your post history and count, you could be a first level target!

never been on twitter in my life.........and your definition of defamation is so thoroughly skewed and machiavellianesque to be laughable.......in your opinion 90 per cent of what anyone says could be construed as defamation......
thats the evidence of an extremist.........and a semantical bully....
and a [ censored word ] of freedom of expression......the mccann case is shoved in the publics face day in day out by the media...go say people cant have a right of reply in case it offends is pathetic to the extreme.....

[Redblossom]

Read up on cult behaviour.

Err no, I asked YOU, as seeing as you are supposed to be studying it, writing some paper on it, you should find  it so very easy to answer.....instead of evade.....

[stephen25000]

English law only allows 2 conditions - guilty and not guilty. If you haven't been convicted of a crime , you must be considered not guilty

The crime has to be determined first and placed in a legal framework.

[AnneGuedes]

Bennett folded, you can't be sure those who follow him will. Also what of those with no assets ?

I, and many like me, will never stop asking questions no matter what the threat and I'm afraid certain parties will have to get used to it.

Sure, the more they threaten, the more we'll question and relate and make people think instead of swallowing a ready made abduction... from bed !

[faithlilly]

He did not 'fold'. It was made plain to him that he had no way out and accepted a very generous offer that left him with his house but little spending money. His retirement will be impoverished.

But that is different. He gave undertakings to a court and then broke them. If he had not given them he would probably have been better off! He gave them and broke them, making it a case of contract law rather than libel.

The quaint trick with the McAlpine gambit is that you do not need deep pockets to sue in the way that he did, but any defendent would have to have deep pockets to defend thecase.

CR would have to either conduct the cases pro bono or go after posters that have large enough assets to make it worth their while, even with a CFA in place.

The McCann's support is already leaking away faster than water from a leaky bucket and I can't imagine systematically making posters and their family impoverished will help with that.

[Lyall]

Everyone like to think that.

Read up on cults. I gave references yesterday, but the thread was disallowed.

http://www.hgi.org.uk/archive/cults.htm#.UoE7vPnIaAm

I know all about cults. Been studying one for years now.

[AnneGuedes]

A narrative that would mention Mr McCann entering the flat with his key on one hearing at the PJ and entering the flat by an opened door-window on the following hearing at the PJ does nothing else than mention facts and isn't expressing any opinion. No need to say this change of statement is "weird" or "curious", people aren't stupid.

[Redblossom]

CR would have to either conduct the cases pro bono or go after posters that have large enough assets to make it worth their while, even with a CFA in place.

The McCann's support is already leaking away faster than water from a leaky bucket and I can't imagine systematically making posters and their family impoverished will help with that.

They should get priorities straight.......even if they managed to close down all main forums....or sue half the world and its wife.....they  can  never protect their kids from reading the case.....in the future....in all sorts of other places...which I imagine is their main worry.....

[Aiofe]

never been on twitter in my life.........and your definition of defamation is so thoroughly skewed and machiavellianesque to be laughable.......in your opinion 90 per cent of what anyone says could be construed as defamation......
thats the evidence of an extremist.........and a semantical bully....
and a [ censored word ] of freedom of expression......the mccann case is shoved in the publics face day in day out by the media...go say people cant have a right of reply in case it offends is pathetic to the extreme.....

You may not like it, but it is the law.

If Sally Bercow can go down for a six figure sum for tweeting "Lord McAlpine is trending. Wonder why ;)" then most anti-Mccanns on twitter and forum are in the proverbial.

Try reading the judgement in the Bercow case. It surprised even me!

[Aiofe]

Err no, I asked YOU, as seeing as you are supposed to be studying it, writing some paper on it, you should find  it so very easy to answer.....instead of evade.....

Whatever.

[Aiofe]

A narrative that would mention Mr McCann entering the flat with his key on one hearing at the PJ and entering the flat by an opened door-window on the following hearing at the PJ does nothing else than mention facts and isn't expressing any opinion. No need to say this change of statement is "weird" or "curious", people aren't stupid.

It depends on the context and the posting history. See the Bercow case!