What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[barrier]

Rob says can't libel Wolters as he's a public figure so it's OK to libel Amaral

Oh goody, I can say Cressida Dick is a complete arse, yeh or nay ?

[G-Unit]

Rob says can't libel Wolters as he's a public figure so it's OK to libel Amaral

I thought Rob said it's more difficult to libel a public figure?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Sort out your post and then I will answer.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't know what other reasons, if any, Amaral expressed for resigning. Please provide a cite where he claimed/admitted it was to make money by writing a book. Unless you can do that you are expressing your opinion, not posting a fact as you claim.

Faithlilly's posts and the resulting actions have nothing to do with your posts and my actions. If you feel unfairly treated there are procedures which you can use to appeal, and they don't include endlessly complaining on public threads imo.

This thread is about what constitutes libel.  Given that Faithlilly has claimed the post about Sillence was deemed not libellous by those who make the rules on this forum it is highly relevant to this discussion.   To remind you once again: Faithlilly claimed Sillence was a hustler, who made a quick buck by selling his story to the press, a story she claimed was probably in part made up.  She provided no evidence to back up her claims.  This was deemed permissable (according to her).  Now explain how my post about Amaral broke forum rules whilst hers did not

[Mr Gray]

I thought Rob said it's more difficult to libel a public figure?

Im sure he said you cant...but he seems now to have removed his post

[faithlilly]

Oh goody, I can say Cressida Dick is a complete arse, yeh or nay ?

Isn’t that honest comment ?

[barrier]

Isn’t that honest comment ?

Operation Midland and the fall out is finding her out imo.

[Robittybob1]

It's not that important because it allows me to say what I want about Amaral...

That is why it is important to know.

[Robittybob1]

I did not accuse him of lying.  Provide a cite or withdraw your claim.  It is entirely consistent to claim you are resigning in order to "excercise freedom of speech" with publishing a book which enables you to do just that.  What do you think he actually meant by being able to speak freely?  Chatting about the case with his mates down the pub?  Of course not, he made it absolutely clear that he intended to speak publicly about the case, and that included writing his book and talking about it on TV.  The initial print run of his book was 40000, he made a public appearance at a bookshop in Lisbon on the day of publication at which there was a queue of hundreds waiting to get their book signed, and you don't think cashing in on the case ever crossed his mind beforehand?  Do me a favour!
In any case, all by the by: As Faithlilly has now confirmed, the forum is OK with members making unevidenced claims against individuals of hustling, taking money for media interviews and telling lies in those interviews, so kindly rescind my warning for libel as hers was.  Thank you.

Someone needs to sort this out.  I'm just getting up but that is a pretty thought-out answer. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Someone needs to sort this out.  I'm just getting up but that is a pretty thought-out answer.

What you need to do is find out who rescinded Faithlilly’s points for libel and on what basis.  If we can have it confirmed that it is now not against forum rules to make unevidenced claims about people which are derogatory (lying, money grabbing, etc) then we know where we all stand.

[Robittybob1]

What you need to do is find out who rescinded Faithlilly’s points for libel and on what basis.  If we can have it confirmed that it is now not against forum rules to make unevidenced claims about people which are derogatory (lying, money grabbing, etc) then we know where we all stand.

Changing warning points downward is not an area that I can question.  Sorry, that is too difficult.

[Robittybob1]

Im sure he said you cant...but he seems now to have removed his post

Maybe someone else removed my post you mean.  I'm not sure what happened if it has gone.  But it was clear from my research of libel it is more difficult for a public figure to claim libel, so I was thinking that should be reflected in what we can post about public figures.   OK then there will be arguments about whether the publicity was intended or not.

[Robittybob1]

This thread is about what constitutes libel.  Given that Faithlilly has claimed the post about Sillence was deemed not libellous by those who make the rules on this forum it is highly relevant to this discussion.   To remind you once again: Faithlilly claimed Sillence was a hustler, who made a quick buck by selling his story to the press, a story she claimed was probably in part made up.  She provided no evidence to back up her claims.  This was deemed permissable (according to her).  Now explain how my post about Amaral broke forum rules whilst hers did not

Is there a way of seeing if the post you refer to is still on the forum?

[Robittybob1]

Oh goody, I can say Cressida Dick is a complete arse, yeh or nay ?

It would have to be phrased in nicer language.  There are rules about bad language.

[Robittybob1]

With out evidence thereof ?

Absolutely.  Even if they give another reason.  We don't have to accept it.  So I tend to disagree with G-unit on this aspect about Amaral. 
You write a book someone can say you did it for the money.  It is a fair comment.  I'm not saying it is right, but it is not a libellous statement IMO.