« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 193 194 [195] 196 197 ... 224   Go Down

Author Topic: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB  (Read 358360 times)

0 Members and 15 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2910 on: February 05, 2021, 01:53:17 AM »
Quote from: Eleanor on February 04, 2021, 08:37:34 PM
The message said, Libel, Potential Libel and Inappropriate Comments.

I am not talking about anything.  John is.  You and me have to use our common sense and apply it to Everyone and not just the ill fated.
Well, I'd like to know what potential libel is too.  We'd been moderating those threads and we let those post go through, and then John comes along and says he wiped a lot of them out.  I'd like to know how we can improve our judgement on these matters. 
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline barrier

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2911 on: February 05, 2021, 06:08:03 AM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 01:53:17 AM
Well, I'd like to know what potential libel is too.  We'd been moderating those threads and we let those post go through, and then John comes along and says he wiped a lot of them out.  I'd like to know how we can improve our judgement on these matters.
At a guess I can quote a supreme court ruling in that the McCanns haven't been ruled innocent, but if I were to suggest the same without reference then that would be libel? yeah? Also I can quote Wolters because he is on record of saying his suspect killed Madeleine, but if I were to say the same once again without reference then that would also be libel, it's all about context, but the problem  imo is the zealous mod will hide behind John's crack down if a post or posts appear which although perfectly legit would disappear because they didn't like it content.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2021, 06:26:11 AM by barrier »
Logged
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline The General

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2912 on: February 05, 2021, 07:27:20 AM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 01:53:17 AM
Well, I'd like to know what potential libel is too.  We'd been moderating those threads and we let those post go through, and then John comes along and says he wiped a lot of them out.  I'd like to know how we can improve our judgement on these matters.
Easy, stop talking about anything, because 'potential libel' could be just about anything.
Logged
Subject Matter Expert - Hobos.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2913 on: February 05, 2021, 07:36:12 AM »
Quote from: The General on February 05, 2021, 07:27:20 AM
Easy, stop talking about anything, because 'potential libel' could be just about anything.
I'm struggling to see any potential libel in what you wrote, but it seems to be bordering on Goading. 
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2914 on: February 05, 2021, 09:27:00 AM »
Quote from: barrier on February 05, 2021, 06:08:03 AM
At a guess I can quote a supreme court ruling in that the McCanns haven't been ruled innocent, but if I were to suggest the same without reference then that would be libel? yeah? Also I can quote Wolters because he is on record of saying his suspect killed Madeleine, but if I were to say the same once again without reference then that would also be libel, it's all about context, but the problem  imo is the zealous mod will hide behind John's crack down if a post or posts appear which although perfectly legit would disappear because they didn't like it content.

The SC never said the McCanns had not been ruled innocent....so your statement would be libellous. Ive pointed out enough times what they said so wont bother repeating it.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2021, 09:42:50 AM by Davel »
Logged

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2915 on: February 05, 2021, 09:57:07 AM »
Quote from: Davel on February 05, 2021, 09:27:00 AM
The SC never said the McCanns had not been ruled innocent....so your statement would be libellous. Ive pointed out enough times what they said so wont bother repeating it.
Who was libelled?
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2916 on: February 05, 2021, 10:00:26 AM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 09:57:07 AM
Who was libelled?

If someone calims the SC stated the McCanns were not innocent...that is not true and therefore potentially libellous against the McCanns. Can you not see that.
Logged

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2917 on: February 05, 2021, 10:09:13 AM »
Quote from: Davel on February 05, 2021, 10:00:26 AM
If someone claims the SC stated the McCanns were not innocent...that is not true and therefore potentially libellous against the McCanns. Can you not see that.
To me the lie is that the SC either said the McCanns are innocent or they didn't say that.  It has no bearing IMO on the status of the McCanns.
To me it is the SC that could sue for libel.
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2918 on: February 05, 2021, 10:14:09 AM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 10:09:13 AM
To me the lie is that the SC either said the McCanns are innocent or they didn't say that.  It has no bearing IMO on the status of the McCanns.
To me it is the SC that could sue for libel.

You are wrong imo but I can't be bothered to discuss it..
The SC as I understand.. Cannot be libelled
Logged

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2919 on: February 05, 2021, 10:18:40 AM »
Quote from: Davel on February 05, 2021, 10:14:09 AM
You are wrong imo but I can't be bothered to discuss it..
The SC as I understand.. Cannot be libelled
Why not?  You probably can't hurt its feelings. 
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2920 on: February 05, 2021, 10:20:02 AM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 10:18:40 AM
Why not?  You probably can't hurt its feelings.

You are a moderator... Moderating on libel... You should know
Logged

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2921 on: February 05, 2021, 10:23:04 AM »
Quote from: Davel on February 05, 2021, 10:20:02 AM
You are a moderator... Moderating on libel... You should know
Well, I have made my ruling but it is only you who disagrees.
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2922 on: February 05, 2021, 10:29:29 AM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 10:23:04 AM
Well, I have made my ruling but it is only you who disagrees.

Is it... I don't think so... I don't want to continue a pointless discussion
Logged

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2923 on: February 05, 2021, 10:35:39 AM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 05, 2021, 10:09:13 AM
To me the lie is that the SC either said the McCanns are innocent or they didn't say that.  It has no bearing IMO on the status of the McCanns.
To me it is the SC that could sue for libel.

You are wrong, Rob.  It is quite simple.
Logged

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2924 on: February 05, 2021, 10:39:11 AM »
Quote from: Eleanor on February 05, 2021, 10:35:39 AM
You are wrong, Rob.  It is quite simple.
Can you prove that I'm wrong?  Can you give me an example of a libel case of that sort?
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.
Pages: 1 ... 193 194 [195] 196 197 ... 224   Go Up
« previous next »