What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[Mr Gray]

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

Its still libelous to say  a public figure is lying

[barrier]

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.

Did you imply it though. I've never said monies weren't made, its the difference which you fail to see.

[Robittybob1]

Is the statement “Amaral solved the case in 2007” permissable, yes or no?

It is obviously a pretty extreme opinion.    It doesn't come under the heading of libel IMO. Even though it is IMO wrong.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Did you imply it though. I've never said monies weren't made, its the difference which you fail to see.

If it’s ok to call Gordon Sillence a hustler out to make a buck and imply he is lying then I can do exactly the same for Amaral, and will do so at every opportunity from now on, knowing that the moderators or owners  of this board have agreed it’s not libel.

[Mr Gray]

It is obviously a pretty extreme opinion.    It doesn't come under the heading of libel IMO. Even though it is IMO wrong.

so i can say.. wolters has solved the case


ive hust removed the IMo

[Vertigo Swirl]

It is obviously a pretty extreme opinion.    It doesn't come under the heading of libel IMO. Even though it is IMO wrong.

Shouldn’t it at least have had an IMO?  It didn’t and was approved of by a forum moderator.  The statement clearly implies the McCanns are guilty.

[Mr Gray]

It is obviously a pretty extreme opinion.    It doesn't come under the heading of libel IMO. Even though it is IMO wrong.

is this libellous referring to wolters...by a mod..

He's a liar!  Had the Germans got anything concrete CB would have been interviewed and charged long ago.

[Vertigo Swirl]

so i can say..IMO wolters has solved the case

Better still you can say Wolters HAS solved the case.  No problem.

[Mr Gray]

Better still you can say Wolters HAS solved the case.  No problem.

with robs approval

[Vertigo Swirl]

with robs approval

certainlly with G-Unit’s as she is a completely impartial arbiter and has already approved “Amaral solved the case in 2007”.  So , fill your boots.

[Robittybob1]

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.

If you are producing a controversial book you would have to be nuts not to expect some sort of criticism.  That sort of insinuation should not have been classed as possible libel. 

[kizzy]

Thats in Portugal... If moderators are moderating libel they should be able to answer the question

Look the mccs had the best liable lawyers money could buy. -

Do you honestly think if GA had libelled them -  the Book would have gone a long time ago?.

I don't think the mccs realised exactly what they were taking on IMO seeing everything else went there way.

[Vertigo Swirl]

is this libellous referring to wolters...by a mod..

He's a liar!  Had the Germans got anything concrete CB would have been interviewed and charged long ago.

That’s perfectly fine.  Calling a man a liar is not libel, we’ve learned something here today.

[Robittybob1]

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

Can you prove that?   "May have been" is tending towards opinion rather than fact, compare it to: "IMO Grimes judgement in PDL was influenced by a conflict of interest".  "May have been" still allows for the possibility that it wasn't.   

[Robittybob1]

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!

Well hopefully not.  But if John allowed it on one occasion I don't think it should be classed as an approval.  John takes his own risks.