What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[Robittybob1]

There seems nothing more troublesome than is the term "Libel".

What are some theoretical examples of libel?

There was a good summary of the rules around Libel on another part of the forum so I thought it might be interesting to have the link here too.

https://www.carter-ruck.com/media-law-defamation-libel-and-privacy-lawyers/libel-and-slander-faq


One thing I was pleased to read is that there is a time limit to take action to a possible libellous statement and that was 1 year.
"Is there a time limit for bringing proceedings for defamation (libel or slander)?"
"Yes. You usually must start a claim for libel or slander within one year of the date of publication. In the case of material which continues to be published online, the time will start to run from the date the material was first published."

Phew! 

[carlymichelle]

i think some people use the term Libel on here     to make threats  about peoples posts  that they dont like    not mentioning names

[Robittybob1]

i think some people use the term Libel on here     to make threats  about peoples posts  that they dont like    not mentioning names

If someones' reputation could be damaged that would constitute potential libel.  Damage originating from the UK Justice forum would in itself be very minimal, but the forum owner obviously would prefer not to be involved with legal action. 

So what are you saying? ...  "some people use the term Libel on here  to make threats  about peoples posts that they don't like"  So you are saying they don't like the member or they don't like the post by that member or maybe a combination of both?

[carlymichelle]

If someones' reputation could be damaged that would constitute potential libel.  Damage originating from the UK Justice forum would in itself be very minimal, but the forum owner obviously would prefer not to be involved with legal action. 

So what are you saying? ...  "some people use the term Libel on here  to make threats  about peoples posts that they don't like"  So you are saying they don't like the member or they don't like the post by that member or maybe a combination of both?

a combination of  both    IMO

[Robittybob1]

a combination of  both    IMO

I suspect you are talking about your own posts, would that be right?   A person who posts intermittently is definitely harder to monitor for trends like that.

Would you say your posts are bordering on libel?   Would they hurt someone's reputation?   That must be the criteria to pass in the first instance. 

[barrier]

Re thread title: who is qualified on here to what is what, its all subjective thats why a lot of cases don't reach juries, no knowing which way a jury will be swayed.

J Archer's case reached court in the first instance but when it was found he wasn't actually libelled he settled out of court, paying back monies with interest.

[G-Unit]

On the whole uncorroberated statements of fact which damage someone's reputation can be seen as libellous. Stated opinions are less likely to be seen as defamatory.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/libel-vs-slander-different-types-defamation.html

That's the reason why statements of fact should be corroberated by cites or other reliable evidence. If such support can't be supplied, then the statement should be acknowledged as an opinion.

[Vertigo Swirl]

i think some people use the term Libel on here     to make threats  about peoples posts  that they dont like    not mentioning names

I received a warning for libel for making a true statement from a mod who doesn’t like me so you might be right there.

[Mr Gray]

On the whole uncorroberated statements of fact which damage someone's reputation can be seen as libellous. Stated opinions are less likely to be seen as defamatory.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/libel-vs-slander-different-types-defamation.html

That's the reason why statements of fact should be corroberated by cites or other reliable evidence. If such support can't be supplied, then the statement should be acknowledged as an opinion.

You never provided a cite recently  despite being asked multiple times.. Makes your post a bit of a joke

[G-Unit]

I received a warning for libel for making a true statement from a mod who doesn’t like me so you might be right there.

Unless you can explain what your 'true statement' was, and supply corroberating evidence of it's truth you are posting opinion. Similarly you are posting your opinion of a mod's feelings towards you.

[G-Unit]

You never provided a cite recently  despite being asked multiple times.. Makes your post a bit of a joke

Yes I did. We are supposed to be discussing "What is libel etc" so please don't deflect this thread into a G-Unit bashing thread.

[Mr Gray]

Yes I did. We are supposed to be discussing "What is libel etc" so please don't deflect this thread into a G-Unit bashing thread.

I've raised it on the other thread...you can give the cite there.

[faithlilly]

I appealed a warning for libellous content which lead to the moderation of my posts. It was subsequently accepted that my post had not been libellous and the points were removed.

What you lose on the swings, you make up for on the roundabouts.

[Vertigo Swirl]

On the whole uncorroberated statements of fact which damage someone's reputation can be seen as libellous. Stated opinions are less likely to be seen as defamatory.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/libel-vs-slander-different-types-defamation.html

That's the reason why statements of fact should be corroberated by cites or other reliable evidence. If such support can't be supplied, then the statement should be acknowledged as an opinion.

And yet you didn’t remove a clearly libellous statement about a named individual that accused him of lying to the press for money.  And you approved of a statement of fact that by inference made it clear that the McCanns covered up their child’s death.  So do you understand libel but turn a blind eye when it suits you?

[Mr Gray]

If I say Wolters has said he has concrete evidence that CB murdered Maddie... Then that is a true statement and not libellous