What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[Mr Gray]

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.   

amaral couldnt prove his theory. In the case of repeated libel...does the clock start ticking again

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

I think if John approved Faithlilly’s post we can pretty much stop worrying about libel as an issue at all.

[Robittybob1]

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.

Amaral is an author, Sillence was quoted in the press.  Maybe they are similar and open to fair criticism.  Very interesting argument.

[Holly Goodhead]

I doubt any post made on this forum would be considered libellous on the basis a claimant would need to establish reputational damage and too few people read the forum to result in reputational damage.

Posts are edited/removed for a variety of reasons which in the main centre around keeping communication convivial and constructive as far as possible.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I would suggest Faithlilly repeats her claim about Gordon Sillence without providing any evidence to bsck it up and then we can ask John if he would be quite comfortable for Sillence himself to read the claim on his forum.  If the answer  is “yes” then I think we can all relax a bit about the libel issue.

[Mr Gray]

I doubt any post made on this forum would be considered libellous on the basis a claimant would need to establish reputational damage and too few people read the forum to result in reputational damage.

Posts are edited/removed for a variety of reasons which in the main centre around keeping communication convivial and constructive as far as possible.

welcome back Holly...something i have repeatedly said...Libel has to cause significant damage to reputation....nothing here would do that

[Vertigo Swirl]

I doubt any post made on this forum would be considered libellous on the basis a claimant would need to establish reputational damage and too few people read the forum to result in reputational damage.

Posts are edited/removed for a variety of reasons which in the main centre around keeping communication convivial and constructive as far as possible.

I would agree, and would strongly advocate ditching the libel rule so we can all say exactly what we think.

[Robittybob1]

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

Some of these issues are unresolved issues, and we need to sort them IMO.  We are asked to judge posts for libel without a full understanding of what is libel in the first place. 
It might get deleted but hopefully, we all learn something from it.

[Robittybob1]

Its still libelous to say  a public figure is lying

Can you prove that to the forum, please?    Case law or an example, please?

[Robittybob1]

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

It makes no difference.  If someone writes a book it is fair game for someone to claim they did it for the money.

[Robittybob1]

so i can say.. wolters has solved the case


ive hust removed the IMo

NO.   No, you can't as there has been no trial as yet.  Maybe 13years down the track you'd get away with it.

[kizzy]

so i can say.. wolters has solved the case


ive hust removed the IMo

If it makes "you" happy just say it.

But like you and Wolt also Fulscher its only words - nothing to back up those words,imo

It's turning out a bit of a joke imo.

Fulscher claims that an anonymous source has provided 'vital information' which will make Brits 'fall off their chair

German prosecutors have said they are ‘very confident’ of charging the chief suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and that the public’would reach the same conclusion if they knew the evidence we had’.

Now if Wolt has evidience - all he has to do is charge CB - why hasn't he,

Surely that shows you he hasnt - that seems to me it isnt true what he says..

[Robittybob1]

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.

But likewise, those that disagree can say GA didn't have clue.

[Robittybob1]

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.

it is certainly troubling.  But I think it is questioning whether Wolters really has concrete evidence as he made out he had but never presented this to us.    It is still questionable isn't it?

[Robittybob1]

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

Only an idiot would say that.  Wolters HAS Not solved the case yet.