Journalist Sonia Poulton promises "The untold story of Madeleine McCann".

[Lyall]

You are totally wrong..Bennet was told this by his lawyer...balance is not a defence to libel

I don't know what you're referring to, but it is very much the way you do it %£&)**# Or nothing could ever be published.

[Mr Gray]

I don't know what you're referring to, but it is very much the way you do it %£&)**# Or nothing could ever be published.

I am referring to the fact that poulton would not be able to claim balance as a defence against libel

[Lyall]

I am referring to the fact that poulton would not be able to claim balance as a defence against libel

Depends on what you say and the way you say it %£&)**#

If the issue was easy you wouldn't need courts or lawyers. It's not easy and not black and white.

[Mr Gray]

Depends on what you say and the way you say it %£&)**#

If the issue was easy you wouldn't need courts or lawyers. It's not easy and not black and white.

Libel is fairly black and white and that is why the vast majority of cases are settled OUT of court

[Lyall]

Libel is fairly black and white and that is why the vast majority of cases are settled OUT of court

Because they didn't provide balance? Like the newspaper articles in 2007.

[Mr Gray]

Because they didn't provide balance? Like the newspaper articles in 2007.

balance is not a defence against libel

[Anna]

Has the video of Sonia poulton and Katie Hopkins oct 2014 discussing Trolls, already been put on the forum?

[ferryman]

Fictionalised versions of the story of Madeleine McCann abound, and Sonia Poulton is likely to add to the canon (of fictionalised versions!)

I don't predict that her edition will win her fame and fortune.

[Eleanor]

Fictionalised versions of the story of Madeleine McCann abound, and Sonia Poulton is likely to add to the canon (of fictionalised versions!)

I don't predict that her edition will win her fame and fortune.

Everyone has a right to their opinion.  But I am having trouble trying to figure out what she can possibly have to say that won't be libellous or oft repeated.

[jassi]

Surely ALL accounts are fictional as no one knows what the truth is.

[ferryman]

Surely ALL accounts are fictional as no one knows what the truth is.

Certain truths are known, mainly the ones those of a certain persuasion choose to ignore ...

[jassi]

Certain truths are known, mainly the ones those of a certain persuasion choose to ignore ...

Sure. Madeleine is missing, reason unknown.

[ferryman]

Sure. Madeleine is missing, reason unknown.

Just as it was established, long before Jo Yeates' true murderer was finally brought to book, that her partner Greg Reardon was completely innocent; and later (but still before any conviction) that her Landlord Chris Jefferies was completely innocent, so it was long ago established (in fact, by the prosecutor's report and the final PJ report) that Kate and Gerry McCann had no part in the disappearance of Madeleine; neither any of their friends.

[Benice]

Everyone has a right to their opinion.  But I am having trouble trying to figure out what she can possibly have to say that won't be libellous or oft repeated.

Me too.

To satisfy many sceptics her documentary will have to include all the myths, lies, and misinformation which they still regularly claim are 'the troof'.   But if she does that then she will be wide open for a libel action IMO.  And rightfully so.

If she sticks to the facts and avoids making any libellous claims, then it will all be 'old hat' - as there is nothing new to reveal imo.    There will be many very unhappy sceptics if she takes that route imo.

Has she put herself 'between a rock and hard place'?   Only time will tell.

[Mr Gray]

It seems she knows next to nothing about the case yet she claims she can tell the untold story...there is no untold story