Was stranger abduction unlikely due to the checking regime?

[Alfie]

Another member described a scenario and said it couldn't have happened because....................

My reply said that their reason for rejecting the scenario was flawed because................

The discussion was never about whether the scenario actually took place, it was about whether the member's reason for rejecting the scenario was valid or not valid.

Perhaps you would like to quote the bit where the member described a scenario and said it couldn't have happened because...?

[Alfie]

Another member described a scenario and said it couldn't have happened because....................

My reply said that their reason for rejecting the scenario was flawed because................

The discussion was never about whether the scenario actually took place, it was about whether the member's reason for rejecting the scenario was valid or not valid.

PS: this is laughably disingenuous also.  We all know where you're coming from, and to try and pretend you're not accusing anybody just won't wash I'm afraid.

[G-Unit]

Perhaps you would like to quote the bit where the member described a scenario and said it couldn't have happened because...?

Have you forgotten already?

[Brietta]

Another member described a scenario and said it couldn't have happened because....................

My reply said that their reason for rejecting the scenario was flawed because................

The discussion was never about whether the scenario actually took place, it was about whether the member's reason for rejecting the scenario was valid or not valid.

I did not refer to any specific posts ... merely posted the legal definition of defamation using innuendo ... posters may not be aware such constitutes libel.
I do.
If I see it and cannot modify it ... I delete it.

[G-Unit]

PS: this is laughably disingenuous also.  We all know where you're coming from, and to try and pretend you're not accusing anybody just won't wash I'm afraid.

I have explained my position. If you are unable to understand/accept it that's up to you.

[Alfie]

Oh dear. People don't have to be 'monsters' to make bad decisions.

Repeatedly drugging your kids with some inappropriate substance so that you can enjoy some "me" time, then covering up the death of one of these children by carrying her body to some unmarked grave and then spending the next 10years lying about it and making money from the disappearance constitutes more than a "bad decision" in my book, but you keep on trying to defend the indefensible, it's an interesting volte face.  You don't consider the issue of leaving the kids alone for 30 minutes alone. a bad decision, I think you described it as an act of lunacy, so the McCanns were mentally ill when leaving the kids alone,  but just normal loving parents who made a bad decision when they were drugging them and hiding one of the kid's body.  Hmm....I think you're a bit confused aren't you?

[Alfie]

Quote from: G-Unit on February 28, 2017, 02:18:33 PM
Anyone can make a mistake. Sometimes mistakes cause suffering. Very often we can empathise because the mistake is one that anyone could have made. In those cases I agree, criticism doesn't help; although I wouldn't go so far as to bring morality into the equation.

The problem with the Madeleine McCann case is that many people cannot empathise with the parent's actions because they can't make sense of them. They can't understand the logic of their decision-making process. Why lock up in the daytime but not at night? To allow a small child to negotiate an exit via a balcony where she should always have been supervised? To allow her to find her parents at night in a strange place in the dark?

That, in my opinion, isn't a mistake, it's sheer lunacy.

[Alfie]

The staggeringly bizarre thing is that there is understanding being shown here for parents who drug their kids, find one dead, hide the body and then go on to set up a fraudulent fund, deceiving their family, friends and the world for 10 years, but no empathy or understanding whatsoever for parents leaving their kids in an unlocked apartment in the evening whilst they dine, checking on them every 30 minutes or so. 

[slartibartfast]

PS: this is laughably disingenuous also.  We all know where you're coming from, and to try and pretend you're not accusing anybody just won't wash I'm afraid.

You seem to be trying to create both sides of the argument to ensure you win.

[G-Unit]

I did not refer to any specific posts ... merely posted the legal definition of defamation using innuendo ... posters may not be aware such constitutes libel.
I do.
If I see it and cannot modify it ... I delete it.

You posted the information in reply to a post of mine, so I took it as being aimed at my posts. I do apologise if I was mistaken.

[Alice Purjorick]

I recommend you read defamation law in the UK which explains two types of innuendo ...

• false innuendo: which is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.
• legal innuendo: is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.

Using the device of a disclaimer regarding an innuendo made, would I imagine be no defence in law against in an accusation for defamation.

It is explained in here:
https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/legal-help/definition-of-defamatory

"Though a civil case, defamation relies on the judgement of a jury. If a judge decides that the communication has the possibility of being damaging then the jury must consider firstly what the meaning of the words or imagery is in its normal context, then they need to decide if its use can be defamatory. The jury should not consider the intention of the defendant, nor the knowledge that they have.

There are two different kinds of meaning that can be considered in a case of defamation – the normal meaning, which includes all the alternative, figurative and connotative meanings that can be derived from the word or imagery, and the innuendo meaning. An innuendo meaning is subdivided again into false innuendo and true innuendo. False innuendo is when the meaning suggested through innuendo is generally available to most people and does not require any other knowledge. True innuendo is when the innuendo intended requires special knowledge to understand and make it defamatory. For example if the defendant congratulated the plaintiff on their expectation of a baby this would not be viewed as being defamatory, until or unless you have the knowledge that the plaintiff is an 18 year old devout Christian, who is unwed and regards her own body as pure and chaste. In this case the seemingly amiable congratulations on a pregnancy can be seen, with special knowledge, to make an innuendo that the plaintiff is not as sexually ascetic and religiously principled as they are generally considered to be. This would be defamatory".
This should be read in conjunctione with the 2013 Defamation Act 

[Brietta]

You posted the information in reply to a post of mine, so I took it as being aimed at my posts. I do apologise if I was mistaken.

You are not mistaken that I was aware that I was replying to your post.

[G-Unit]

The staggeringly bizarre thing is that there is understanding being shown here for parents who drug their kids, find one dead, hide the body and then go on to set up a fraudulent fund, deceiving their family, friends and the world for 10 years, but no empathy or understanding whatsoever for parents leaving their kids in an unlocked apartment in the evening whilst they dine, checking on them every 30 minutes or so.

I can differentiate between voluntarily making a choice and being forced into making a choice.

[Alfie]

You seem to be trying to create both sides of the argument to ensure you win.

What utter nonsense.

[Alfie]

I can differentiate between voluntarily making a choice and being forced into making a choice.

Well done you.  No one in the scenario we are discussing was FORCED into abandoning their sense of decency and morals, they chose to put their own well-being and liberty above the feelings and well-being of their family and friends, and above the law.   Decent people with a reasonably developed view of what is right and what is wrong would not have chosen this course of action - you wouldn't, I wouldn't, or are you actually able to picture yourself in that situation, making those choices?  Because if you are, I would say that was rather alarming to say the least.