What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[Robittybob1]

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.

Some take the whole process very personal and don't seem to have such an easy-going attitude.
When you write a post do you consider if you have libelled someone?  Is it in your consciousness?  A method of prevention in other words.

[barrier]

Yes I really think I could and have already provided cites to back up my claim.

Didn't you make a claim that a certain author produced a book for monetary gain as opposed to monetary gain was made but only has a secondary nature.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Didn't you make a claim that a certain author produced a book for monetary gain as opposed to monetary gain was made but only has a secondary nature.

Pardon?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

That’s interesting.  So it is not libellous to make a claim (without any evidence)  that Mr Sillence was paid for a newspaper interview in which he gave false information?  Is that the view of the forum owner?  If this is true then we should certainly be able to describe Amaral as a hustler out to make a buck, yes?

[barrier]

Pardon?

Perfectly clear like libel law.

[Robittybob1]

Is Amaral saying that in his opinion Maddie died in the apartment.. The McCanns covered up her death.. Then lied to the police..

Is that libellous. I would say it is

Did you bother to read the link to the Carter-Ruck FAQs?   What Amaral said of the McCanns is more than a year old.  Does that mean it now can be repeated without it being a problem.

"Is Amaral saying that in his opinion Maddie died in the apartment? The McCanns covered up her death.. Then lied to the police.."  We've heard this many times, so it still causing damage?   
That was the first time I have heard there is a limited time for action on libel.

[Mr Gray]

That’s interesting.  So it is not libellous to make a claim (without any evidence)  that Mr Sillence was paid for a newspaper interview in which he gave false information?  Is that the view of the forum owner?  If this is true then we should certainly be able to describe Amaral as a hustler out to make a buck, yes?

So can I say that IMO Grimes judgement in PDL may have been influenced by a conflict of interest

[Vertigo Swirl]

So can I say that IMO Grimes judgement in PDL may have been influenced by a conflict of interest

Basically if Faithlilly is right you can say anything you like.  You can call a man a liar.  You can say he received payment for doing so.  You can call him names.  And all without supplying any evidence.  Happy Days!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Perfectly clear like libel law.

The matter has been settled now.  It’s ok to call a man a hustler, out to make a buck, you don’t need to supply evidence and you can call him a liar too, Faithlilly has confirmed it’s ok.

[barrier]

That’s interesting.  So it is not libellous to make a claim (without any evidence)  that Mr Sillence was paid for a newspaper interview in which he gave false information?  Is that the view of the forum owner?  If this is true then we should certainly be able to describe Amaral as a hustler out to make a buck, yes?

Faith could back that claim up with newspapers declaring they pay for articles therefore it could be argued that this could be the case, your point imo is nothing of the sort, lest you provide a cite that the author you mention produced a book purely for monetary gain, not hard is it to recognise the difference.

[Robittybob1]

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

It is agreed that the statement is true, Wolters has said that, but I would still object to any suggestion that you write down that you think the case is complete, or something like that, implying CB is guilty before he has had a fair trial.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Faith could back that claim up with newspapers declaring they pay for articles therefore it could be argued that this could be the case, your point imo is nothing of the sort, lest you provide a cite that the author you mention produced a book purely for monetary gain, not hard is it to recognise the difference.

Hilarious.  I can provide a claim that authors make money from books, like Faithlilly provided a cite that people can sell their stories to the papers, so would that let me off the hook libel wise?  Also I never said “purely for monetary gain”, YOU said that.

[Robittybob1]

I don't agree... In fact you are libelling Wolters

How?  He is a public figure and it is more difficult to libel a public figure. 

[Mr Gray]

Did you bother to read the link to the Carter-Ruck FAQs?   What Amaral said of the McCanns is more than a year old.  Does that mean it now can be repeated without it being a problem.

"Is Amaral saying that in his opinion Maddie died in the apartment? The McCanns covered up her death.. Then lied to the police.."  We've heard this many times, so it still causing damage?   
That was the first time I have heard there is a limited time for action on libel.

i read it and learnt nothing new...I alreaddy knew about the limited time action....so was  it libellous when he said it?

ive actually pointed out several times he hasnt said it for a very long time

[Vertigo Swirl]

This thread is embarrassing, John will surely have to delete it if he has any sense.