What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[G-Unit]

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

Clearly you are unable to provide a cite to support your claim that Amaral retired in order to make money by writing a book. Consequently you were offering an opinion, not a fact as you insisted. I have no need to say more.

[Robittybob1]

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

You agreed the other day not to misquote me, and you are doing it again. 

[G-Unit]

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.

VS claimed it was right by claiming it was a fact. That's what made it libellous.

[Robittybob1]

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.

That makes it sound like you would just believe whatever anyone says.   I remember Gerry saying they had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter.    Do you believe that?

VS claimed it was right by claiming it was a fact. That's what made it libellous.

And do you think Amaral is going to be heartbroken and damaged by that?  It doesn't result in damage so it can't be libel.

Or are we judging posts on the basis of truthfulness?

[G-Unit]

That makes it sound like you would just believe whatever anyone says.   I remember Gerry saying they had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter.    Do you believe that?

And do you think Amaral is going to be heartbroken and damaged by that?  It doesn't result in damage so it can't be libel.

Or are we judging posts on the basis of truthfulness?

Facts are 'the truth'. Opinions are what the author thinks is the truth. Posting opinion as fact is against forum rules because that's potentially libellous.

I thought this thread was set up to try to explore what libel is, by consulting legal explanations. It's become a thread where members are airing grievances and arguing with each other again. I'll leave you all to it, I think.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Clearly you are unable to provide a cite to support your claim that Amaral retired in order to make money by writing a book. Consequently you were offering an opinion, not a fact as you insisted. I have no need to say more.

Clearly you are unable to say why it is ok to say that one man is a hustler, a liar and a money grabber on this forum, but not say the same thing about another.  The facts speak for themselves - I have no need to say more.

[Mr Gray]

You agreed the other day not to misquote me, and you are doing it again.

As I recall you posted a public figure can't be libelled... But the post has gone

[Robittybob1]

Facts are 'the truth'. Opinions are what the author thinks is the truth. Posting opinion as fact is against forum rules because that's potentially libellous.

I thought this thread was set up to try to explore what libel is, by consulting legal explanations. It's become a thread where members are airing grievances and arguing with each other again. I'll leave you all to it, I think.

I know in the end it won't make that much difference to the forum explaining what I think, as there are many other moderators who will be deleting posts for libel when there are other posts of a similar vein that are being allowed to stand.

If VS says "Amaral wrote his book to make money", it is impossible to say whether that is true or not.  You are definitely able to point out that Amaral gave another reason.  That doesn't resolve the issue unless we can be absolutely sure Amaral only ever tells the truth.  I think we fail to get that assurance.

[Robittybob1]

As I recall you posted a public figure can't be libelled... But the post has gone

Have you heard of the condition of early-onset dementia?  I have never said, "a public figure can't be libelled". 

[G-Unit]

I know in the end it won't make that much difference to the forum explaining what I think, as there are many other moderators who will be deleting posts for libel when there are other posts of a similar vein that are being allowed to stand.

If VS says "Amaral wrote his book to make money", it is impossible to say whether that is true or not.  You are definitely able to point out that Amaral gave another reason.  That doesn't resolve the issue unless we can be absolutely sure Amaral only ever tells the truth.  I think we fail to get that assurance.

Lets look at it another way. The McCanns said the shutters and window were open in their children's bedroom at 10pm on 3rd May 2007.

I can say that in my opinion it's possible that they were not open, as there was no corroberation by any of the witnesses present at the time. I cannot say it's a fact that they weren't open, because that's an accusation that they lied and I can't prove it so it's libellous.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I know in the end it won't make that much difference to the forum explaining what I think, as there are many other moderators who will be deleting posts for libel when there are other posts of a similar vein that are being allowed to stand.

If VS says "Amaral wrote his book to make money", it is impossible to say whether that is true or not.  You are definitely able to point out that Amaral gave another reason.  That doesn't resolve the issue unless we can be absolutely sure Amaral only ever tells the truth.  I think we fail to get that assurance.

We should be less concerned with the specifics and more concerned with the principles IMO.  Is it ok to accuse man A of doing x,y and z but not ok to accuse man B of doing x, y and z?  Because that seems to be the case here.

[Mr Gray]

Have you heard of the condition of early-onset dementia?  I have never said, "a public figure can't be libelled".

As I recall you did... But the post has gone now so iis impossible to judge who's right

[Robittybob1]

Lets look at it another way. The McCanns said the shutters and window were open in their children's bedroom at 10pm on 3rd May 2007.

I can say that in my opinion it's possible that they were not open, as there was no corroberation by any of the witnesses present at the time. I cannot say it's a fact that they weren't open, because that's an accusation that they lied and I can't prove it so it's libellous.

Amaral is a public figure, the McCanns aren't.  I think that has a bearing on what we can say about what they say.

Certainly, Amaral doesn't believe the McCanns in general, even though he seemed to accept that the window was open. 
You say "I cannot say it's a fact that they weren't open"   I would say anyone who claims to know what state the windows were in is lying for they weren't there.   Only Kate can say, but we don't have to believe her just because she says so.

"anyone who claims to know what state the windows were in is lying for they weren't there"   So the post could be deleted for being  untruthful.  Rather than being libellous.

[Eleanor]

Have you heard of the condition of early-onset dementia?  I have never said, "a public figure can't be libelled".

Enough with the insults, if you please.

[Robittybob1]

As I recall you did... But the post has gone now so it is impossible to judge who's right

You are basing it on memory but I know I would never say that. 

Enough with the insults, if you please.

That wasn't an insult.   My neighbour has that condition.  It is something we have to be aware of.   I never said what Davel claims, and I know I would never say that.  So I'm wondering why he won't accept that.

Eleanor make a comment on Davel's post to be fair, please.  Davel said "As I recall you did... But the post has gone now so it is impossible to judge who's right"