Libel ....

[Miss Taken Identity]

a lot of people are dishonest, but don't have a conviction. So by what you are saying not having a conviction for anything makes people very honest?

[mercury]

What is libel?

And what isn't it?

Discuss.

23

Why does it matter at all

[ferryman]

Is it OK for me to suggest that the McCanns are hiding something?

If, like John Stalker, you go on to add that you don't think, for one minute, you believe the McCanns are responsible for anything nefarious in respect of Madeleine's disappearance, no.

But if you quote John Stalker as saying what he said (without the qualification) then you, but - not John Stalker -  are guilty of Libel.

[ferryman]

Find Laws, Legal Information, News & Solicitors - Findlaw UK > Accidents and Injuries > Defamation > What difficulties are involved in bringing a defamation claim?
What difficulties are involved in bringing a defamation claim?
by FindLaw UK
What is defamation?

Defamation occurs when, for example, person A uses untrue words about person B – either verbally or in writing – that have the effect of making other people (such as persons C, D and E) think less of person B, therefore damaging person B’s reputation.

Defamation is a ‘strict liability’ tort. In other words, it does not matter if the person who made the statement did not mean to defame the subject of it. In the above example, the intentions of person A towards person B, in making the statement, are irrelevant.

What is the difference between libel and slander and what connection do they have to defamation?

Libel and slander are legal actions that protect a reputation against defamation.

If the defamatory words are communicated, or ‘published’, in a permanent form (such as in a book, magazine or film), the defamation is ‘libel’. If the publication is in a temporary form (for instance, spoken words), it is known as ‘slander’.

Who can sue for defamation?

Any ‘legal entity’ – an individual, trading company or partnership – can sue for defamation.

What are the main obstacles facing people who want to bring a defamation claim?

COMPLEXITIES OF DEFAMATION CASES

Interpreting the meaning of words can create uncertainty in libel claims. Both the literal and any hidden meaning of words are capable of being defamatory.

For instance, it is not defamatory – on the face of it – to say that a person eats meat. However, if people who come to read the statement know that the person who is said to be a meat-eater publicly professes to be a dedicated vegan, the statement can be considered defamatory because it suggests that the person is hypocritical or dishonest. In this instance, it is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate the facts supporting an innuendo.

LENGTH OF DEFAMATION CASES

It takes approximately 12 months from the issue of defamation court proceedings until trial. However, it is not uncommon for defamation cases to take several years to reach completion.

COST OF DEFAMATION CASES

Legal aid is unavailable to people bringing or defending a defamation action. Therefore, the cost of legal proceedings has to be paid for privately.

However, when the prospects of success are sufficiently good, some lawyers may be willing to act under a Conditional Fee Arrangement – commonly known as a ‘no win, no fee‘ arrangement.

You may also like:

What is an injunction?
What do I need to know about libel?
What do I need to know about defamation?
What are the legal implications of false allegations?
What do I need to know about slander and the…

Disclaimer:
If you cannot find what you are looking for on Findlaw.co.uk please let us know by contacting us at: findlaw.portalmanager@thomsonreuters.com.
Furthermore, please be aware that while we attempt to ensure all our information is as up-to-date and relevant as possible occasionally some our articles may no longer be accurate.

So simply by saying someone is a meat-eater, you can libel them (if they have a reputation based and built on eating a vegan diet and campaign vigorously against the killing of animals for food on basis of cruelty).

http://findlaw.co.uk/law/accidents_and_injuries/defamation/what-difficulties-are-involved-in-bringing-a-defamation-claim.html

(link 2016)

[stephen25000]

I don't suppose you were able to provide examples to support your assertions. I haven't seen anyone calling the McCanns liars. I've seen (and posted) examples of their contradictory statements, which is quite another matter.

So alfie, if the mccanns make contradictory statements, what does that make them ?

[Benice]

Questioning the McCanns veracity is quite a common occurrence on this forum.

Posts like... 'We only have their word for it' and.... 'There is no evidence she is telling the truth' ... etc etc.   leave the reader in very little doubt of what is actually being proposed by the poster.

Such comments usually occur when the poster cannot challenge the content of the post they are replying to -and IMO it's become a set way of overcoming that problem.

The general pattern seems to be that if what was said by K&G suits them - then they are telling the truth -  but if what they said doesn't suit them - then they are almost certainly not telling the truth.

Totally illogical IMO - and of course you can make a case against anyone -  about anything - by using those cherry-picking tactics,  which imo is exactly what Amaral did.


AIMHO

[Alfie]

So alfie, if the mccanns make contradictory statements, what does that make them ?

Why don't you tell us your opinion Stephen, let's put forum rules to the test.

[Alfie]

Questioning the McCanns veracity is quite a common occurrence on this forum.

Posts like... 'We only have their word for it' and.... 'There is no evidence she is telling the truth' ... etc etc.   leave the reader in very little doubt of what is actually being proposed by the poster.

Such comments usually occur when the poster cannot challenge the content of the post they are replying to -and IMO it's become a set way of overcoming that problem.

The general pattern seems to be that if what was said by K&G suits them - then they are telling the truth -  but if what they said doesn't suit them - then they are almost certainly not telling the truth.

Totally illogical IMO - and of course you can make a case against anyone -  about anything - by using those cherry-picking tactics,  which imo is exactly what Amaral did.


AIMHO

Also the honesty of Jane Tanner and Andy Redwood are constantly called into question...

[stephen25000]

Why don't you tell us your opinion Stephen, let's put forum rules to the test.

I asked you the question.

[Alfie]

I asked you the question.

I don't think the McCanns are liars and that contradictions in statements are not uncommon in honest witness testimony can be explained, now what do you think?

[ferryman]

This latest ruling in the McCann v Amaral libel trial (so far as I can judge) doesn't dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book, but rather argues that because Amaral quit the PJ before he wrote it, he can't be held responsible (for breaching judicial secrecy).

However, if there is, in Portuguese law, a concept of accountability, then Amaral might be held accountable for the leaks on his watch (much shorter than Rebelo's watch, even though, under Rebelo, there was one leak, not particularly injurious to Kate and Gerry; even though media scrutiny of the investigation was just as intense, and even though Rebelo's tenure in charge was much longer than Amaral's).

If Rebelo could do it, why couldn't Amaral?

And if Amaral is accountable (for the leaks during his tenure in charge) even if he can't be held, personally and directly, responsible for them, sanity (and proper order) should be restored.

[jassi]

The good thing about an internet forum is that if you don't like the rules you don't have to join in the game.

[ferryman]

John has referred to the FSS as feeding duff information to amaral...is that libellous

The FSS no longer exists.

But John Lowe (so far as I am aware) is very much still alive, as are his colleagues who worked with him on the (meagre) material they were presented with to work on.

If John Lowe (and his colleagues) could be thought identifiable and referred to by John's comments, then yes! (in short)

[John]

The FSS no longer exists.

But John Lowe (so far as I am aware) is very much still alive, as are his colleagues who worked with him on the (meagre) material they were presented with to work on.

If John Lowe (and his colleagues) could be thought identifiable and referred to by John's comments, then yes! (in short)

I would love to know who provided the original information to Amaral which led him to take the actions he did in advance of the final Report.

[jassi]

I would love to know who provided the original information to Amaral which led him to take the actions he did in advance of the final Report.

Not only who, but why.