Was stranger abduction unlikely due to the checking regime?

[G-Unit]

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.

Sometimes people choose to leave their children unsupervised and unprotected so they can go out and enjoy themselves. That is a freely taken decision and the motivation is selfishness.

Other people may find themselves faced with much more difficult decisions. Doing the right thing according to morality and social norms means that someone's liberty may be curtailed, careers may be ruined, a family may be destroyed, wider family may be seriously hurt and those involved will be vilified and ostracised. Doing the wrong thing means there's a chance that all those consequences can be avoided. Choosing to do the wrong thing in that situation has an element of selfishness, but also concern for others too.

I sincerely hope that I would be brave enough to always choose the right course of action regardless of the consequences for myself and my family. Owning up is an important part of my personal integrity and something I insisted that my children took on board.

[ferryman]

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 

Malice is a prosecution's argument; it works to counter a defence of fair comment or qualified privilege. If it can be proved that the defendant acted with defamation due to malicious intent then those defences would not be operative.

Malice is defined as the act of defamation performed with the intent to harm the party being defamed. An absence of belief in the defamatory statement, or a reckless disregard for whether or not the statement was true, is usually enough to conclude that the defamation was performed with "actual malice".

In England, the intent in Amaral's book would invalidate the defence of 'honest comment'.

[Benice]

Sometimes people choose to leave their children unsupervised and unprotected so they can go out and enjoy themselves. That is a freely taken decision and the motivation is selfishness.

Other people may find themselves faced with much more difficult decisions. Doing the right thing according to morality and social norms means that someone's liberty may be curtailed, careers may be ruined, a family may be destroyed, wider family may be seriously hurt and those involved will be vilified and ostracised. Doing the wrong thing means there's a chance that all those consequences can be avoided. Choosing to do the wrong thing in that situation has an element of selfishness, but also concern for others too.

I sincerely hope that I would be brave enough to always choose the right course of action regardless of the consequences for myself and my family. Owning up is an important part of my personal integrity and something I insisted that my children took on board.

The loss of a beloved child means that at a stroke - the parents lives and future happiness have been destroyed forever anyway.   And nothing they could do would ever change that.   

There is no way that normal loving parents would consider the death of their child to be an appropriate situation where they could sit down and basically look for ways 'to make the best out of a bad job' unless neither of them were normal loving parents and both them were psychopaths.   

Only psychopaths could be so cold, calculating and totally devoid of conscience to be able to downgrade the death of their child to a level equivalent to that of an inconvenient bag of rubbish.
AIMHO

[Alfie]

Sometimes people choose to leave their children unsupervised and unprotected so they can go out and enjoy themselves. That is a freely taken decision and the motivation is selfishness.

Other people may find themselves faced with much more difficult decisions. Doing the right thing according to morality and social norms means that someone's liberty may be curtailed, careers may be ruined, a family may be destroyed, wider family may be seriously hurt and those involved will be vilified and ostracised. Doing the wrong thing means there's a chance that all those consequences can be avoided. Choosing to do the wrong thing in that situation has an element of selfishness, but also concern for others too.

I sincerely hope that I would be brave enough to always choose the right course of action regardless of the consequences for myself and my family. Owning up is an important part of my personal integrity and something I insisted that my children took on board.

I despair, truly. 

[Alfie]

This discussion rather puts me in mind of one of the leading lights of the sceptic community who once confessed that he could envisage a situation in which he might find himself prepared to fling the corpse of one of his grandkids off a cliff (I paraphrase) - I know some of you will know who I am talking about.

[ShiningInLuz]

I despair, truly.

Not sure why.  The logic in G-Unit's premise is solid.

Against this appears to be 1 or more posters believing that the McCanns were good parents and believing good parents would never do such a thing.

With all the different religions in the world, most of the people who believe have got it wrong, however much they believe.

[Mr Gray]

Not sure why.  The logic in G-Unit's premise is solid.

Against this appears to be 1 or more posters believing that the McCanns were good parents and believing good parents would never do such a thing.

With all the different religions in the world, most of the people who believe have got it wrong, however much they believe.

gunits logic is rock solid....in your opinion

[Brietta]

Not sure why.  The logic in G-Unit's premise is solid.

Against this appears to be 1 or more posters believing that the McCanns were good parents and believing good parents would never do such a thing.

With all the different religions in the world, most of the people who believe have got it wrong, however much they believe.

I fail to see the logic in the suggestions made. In my opinion the fact the totally unsupported proposition is still being discussed X years down the line with the virulence it commands is indicative of something extraordinary.

What a pity though that you are unable to appreciate the diversity and aspiration to inner goodness of most of those who follow and believe in the religions of the world ... none of whom I think have "got it wrong" but are merely seeing things according to the culture they were born into.
Unfortunately there are those who utilise their religion as a weapon to go out of their way to damage others.  Just as there are those who utilise their logic to go out of their way to damage others.  Both examples of aberration.

Logic dictates that the chances that Madeleine McCann was abducted far outweighs any other option ... what the religious believe is a matter entirely for them

[Alfie]

gunits logic is rock solid....in your opinion

SIL's unfailing support of G-Unit's posts is another major bafflement for me. 

[Alice Purjorick]

In England, the intent in Amaral's book would invalidate the defence of 'honest comment'.

I don't recall passing comment on it one way or another. I don't really give a rats ass whichever is true.

[ShiningInLuz]

I fail to see the logic in the suggestions made. In my opinion the fact the totally unsupported proposition is still being discussed X years down the line with the virulence it commands is indicative of something extraordinary.

What a pity though that you are unable to appreciate the diversity and aspiration to inner goodness of most of those who follow and believe in the religions of the world ... none of whom I think have "got it wrong" but are merely seeing things according to the culture they were born into.
Unfortunately there are those who utilise their religion as a weapon to go out of their way to damage others.  Just as there are those who utilise their logic to go out of their way to damage others.  Both examples of aberration.

Logic dictates that the chances that Madeleine McCann was abducted far outweighs any other option ... what the religious believe is a matter entirely for them

I am not aware of G-Unit proposing that this is THE solution, the most likely solution, or indeed a solution of any sufficient probability to convince a jury that this is what happened.

But to repeat, the opposition to this premise is based on belief.  Both in the nature of the McCanns (and presumably Matthew Oldfield) and that being good people, they would not do such a thing.  What you are asking the forum to accept is that both these beliefs are true.

Roughly speaking, it is like saying the belief the Earth was flat means exploration across the oceans should not have been permitted.

[ferryman]

Not sure why.  The logic in G-Unit's premise is solid.

Against this appears to be 1 or more posters believing that the McCanns were good parents and believing good parents would never do such a thing.

With all the different religions in the world, most of the people who believe have got it wrong, however much they believe.

Unless there is a God, in which case the atheists have it wrong.

G-Unit's 'premiss' is devoid of logic.

[G-Unit]

The loss of a beloved child means that at a stroke - the parents lives and future happiness have been destroyed forever anyway.   And nothing they could do would ever change that.   

There is no way that normal loving parents would consider the death of their child to be an appropriate situation where they could sit down and basically look for ways 'to make the best out of a bad job' unless neither of them were normal loving parents and both them were psychopaths.   

Only psychopaths could be so cold, calculating and totally devoid of conscience to be able to downgrade the death of their child to a level equivalent to that of an inconvenient bag of rubbish.
AIMHO

The tabloids are very fond of writing emotive copy which leaves readers in no doubt where their sympathies lie;

'suffering' 'agonised' brave' 'hounded' are adjectives often used to describe the McCanns.
'bumbling' 'blundering' 'disgraced' 'sacked' are adjectives often used to describe Amaral and the PJ.

Their ploy may work on casual readers with no knowledge of the facts of the case, but has no effect on those who understand that it is a ploy.

It definitely doesn't work on a forum, so using that ploy in a debate is a waste of time.

[ferryman]

The tabloids are very fond of writing emotive copy which leaves readers in no doubt where their sympathies lie;

'suffering' 'agonised' brave' 'hounded' are adjectives often used to describe the McCanns.
'bumbling' 'blundering' 'disgraced' 'sacked' are adjectives often used to describe Amaral and the PJ.

Their ploy may work on casual readers with no knowledge of the facts of the case, but has no effect on those who understand that it is a ploy.

It definitely doesn't work on a forum, so using that ploy in a debate is a waste of time.

Adjectives apposite to their chosen subjects.

[G-Unit]

In England, the intent in Amaral's book would invalidate the defence of 'honest comment'.

Once more your opinion is at odds with the SC judge's;

Page 67

Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants, i.e an animus injuriandi, but rather an animus informandi and an animus defendendi.