Has Gonçalo Amaral become the fall guy in the Madeleine McCann case?

[slartibartfast]

Erm...

No. I don't get it, John. Particularly not from you.

I'm not sure why some have so much problem with understanding libel?

[John]

Why not? I thought the libel laws had changed here recently. If I repeat the quote from Amaral's book that you have seen fit to remove from this forum, would I be committing libel in this country?

Depends which country you mean, our rules don't allow it as well you know.

[John]

Erm...

No. I don't get it, John. Particularly not from you.

From me?  Isn't that what they commonly call free speech?  Some people think that impugning someone is the exact same as defaming them, I merely pointed out they should consult a thesaurus. You can impugn someone without defaming them. Statements of pure opinion, which cannot be proven true or false, cannot form the basis of a defamation.

[John]

I'm not sure why some have so much problem with understanding libel?

The difficulty is that Portuguese people can say and write things in Portugal which those in the UK can't.  As our members are spread all over the globe a one size fits all policy cannot work here thus why we have rules broadly based on the more stricter English Law.

[Alfie]

Depends which country you mean, our rules don't allow it as well you know.

So in this country Amaral's book is considered defamatory, but not in Portugal, is that what you're saying?  But according to you we all have the right to espouse any theories and to impugn. Could you explain how we are able to do this, whilst not defaming anyone?  If my theory involved disposal of child's body in a bin by one of the parents for example, it would be my right to espouse it (says you) but how do I actually espouse it without at the exact same time defaming the parent? 

"He is entitled to hold a view and espouse a theory just as everyone else is entitled to, he is also free to impugn any person or persons based on the knowledge he himself has gleamed from the investigation but what he is not entitled to do is defame"

[Alfie]

I'm not sure why some have so much problem with understanding libel?

I have a problem with understanding John's version of it:


"He is entitled to hold a view and espouse a theory just as everyone else is entitled to, he is also free to impugn any person or persons based on the knowledge he himself has gleamed from the investigation but what he is not entitled to do is defame"

[John]

So in this country Amaral's book is considered defamatory, but not in Portugal, is that what you're saying?  But according to you we all have the right to espouse any theories and to impugn. Could you explain how we are able to do this, whilst not defaming anyone?  If my theory involved disposal of child's body in a bin by one of the parents for example, it would be my right to espouse it (says you) but how do I actually espouse it without at the exact same time defaming the parent? 

"He is entitled to hold a view and espouse a theory just as everyone else is entitled to, he is also free to impugn any person or persons based on the knowledge he himself has gleamed from the investigation but what he is not entitled to do is defame"

Hasn't that always been the accepted situation.  Isn't that why Amaral's books are freely available in most of the world now but not in the UK or Ireland?

Impugn has several meanings as you already pointed out so why don't you read your own post?   According to the Oxford dictionary to impugn means to assail by words or arguments; to call into question , statements, evidence , etc, something we do here regularly.

[Alfie]

Hasn't that always been the accepted situation.  Isn't that why Amaral's books are freely available in most of the world now but not in the UK or Ireland?

Impugn has several meanings as you already pointed out so why don't you read your own post?   According to the Oxford dictionary to impugn means to assail by words or arguments; to call into question , statements, evidence , etc, something we do here regularly.

I've read all my own posts thanks.  Impugn doesn't just mean to question, it means calling into question by implying dishonesty or guilt of the one who one is assailing, references to online dictionaries which I have supplied and which you have chosen to delete.  Was a time when if you claimed the McCanns / Friends were lying on this forum it would result in a warning from you and the post removed.  Is that still the case or not?

[Alfie]

Let's have some examples of impugning the McCanns that aren't defamatory then.

impugn:  to assail by words or arguments :  oppose or attack as false or lacking integrity <impugned the defendant's character>

[John]

I've read all my own posts thanks.  Impugn doesn't just mean to question, it means calling into question by implying dishonesty or guilt of the one who one is assailing, references to online dictionaries which I have supplied and which you have chosen to delete.  Was a time when if you claimed the McCanns / Friends were lying on this forum it would result in a warning from you and the post removed.  Is that still the case or not?

Impugning means many things I agree so to infer it only implies dishonesty is incorrect.

Could we move on please and discuss the topic, "Has Gonçalo Amaral become the fall guy in the Madeleine McCann case?"

[Alfie]

Impugning means many things I agree so to infer it only implies or infers dishonesty is incorrect.

Nonsense.  If you "call into question" the McCanns' and their friends' version of events (Eg your thread suggesting the half-hourly checks were a convenient invention after the fact) then you are implying dishonesty on their part.  Amaral's impugning of the McCanns in his book is one long critique of their alleged lack of honesty and integrity.  But according to you this is is fine as long as it's not defamation, which it obviously is (as you yourself have confirmed by removing passages of his book from this forum!)

[Alfie]

Impugning means many things I agree so to infer it only implies dishonesty is incorrect.

Could we move on please and discuss the topic, "Has Gonçalo Amaral become the fall guy in the Madeleine McCann case?"

Fall guy is a colloquial phrase that refers to a person to whom blame is deliberately and falsely attributed in order to deflect blame from another party.

So - the contention here is - Amaral is free of all blame but is falsely being blamed for....what, exactly?  The failings of the PJ in this case?  Then who in the PJ is ultimately to blame for the failings if not him?

[slartibartfast]

Nonsense.  If you "call into question" the McCanns' and their friends' version of events (Eg your thread suggesting the half-hourly checks were a convenient invention after the fact) then you are implying dishonesty on their part.  Amaral's impugning of the McCanns in his book is one long critique of their alleged lack of honesty and integrity.  But according to you this is is fine as long as it's not defamation, which it obviously is (as you yourself have confirmed by removing passages of his book from this forum!)

Why does it seem to imply dishonesty? You can suggest their recollection of their timings was incorrect without them being dishonest.

[John]

Fall guy is a colloquial phrase that refers to a person to whom blame is deliberately and falsely attributed in order to deflect blame from another party.

So - the contention here is - Amaral is free of all blame but is falsely being blamed for....what, exactly?  The failings of the PJ in this case?  Then who in the PJ is ultimately to blame for the failings if not him?

Amaral must take some responsibility as far as his involvement was concerned but since he was denied the opportunity to complete the task that responsibility is somewhat mitigated.  As far as being a fall guy was concerned I believe that blame was deliberately and falsely attributed him in order to deflect blame from others.  It appears that political interference in this case had much to do with it.

[Eleanor]

Amaral seems to have made an awful lot of frightful mistakes, and then got unfairly hoisted by his own petard.