What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[barrier]

There’s a lot of something definitely.

Can't you smell it, its out of Germany .

[Robittybob1]

Therefore saying HCW has solved the case isn't libel... You are so inconsistent

I wasn't thinking you had libelled HCW but CB by your done and dusted comment, in the context it was made.  Did I even use the word Libel, I remember arguing you had destroyed CB's right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

[Mr Gray]

I wasn't thinking you had libelled HCW but CB by your done and dusted comment, in the context it was made.

Just as spams comment libelled the mccanns

[Robittybob1]

Just as spams comment libelled the mccanns

I don't remember each and every post on the forum, sorry.

[Mr Gray]

I don't remember each and every post on the forum, sorry.

That would explain the inconsistencies... You referred to it 5 mins ago

[Robittybob1]

That would explain the inconsistencies... You referred to it 5 mins ago

Cite please.  I don't relate to your post.

[Mr Gray]

Cite please.  I don't relate to your post.

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11904.msg640602#msg640602

[Robittybob1]

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11904.msg640602#msg640602

"Libel is damaging statements.  Saying “Amaral solved the case in 2007” isn't damaging to Amaral so it couldn't be libel IMO."   Can't you see that?  I'm not saying it is true, but just that it is not damaging to Amaral.

[Mr Gray]

"Libel is damaging statements.  Saying “Amaral solved the case in 2007” isn't damaging to Amaral so it couldn't be libel IMO."   Can you see that?  I'm not saying it is true, but just that it is not damaging to Amaral.

But its libel towards the McCanns.. Can't you see that
When I say Wolters has solved the case you say it's libel towards CB

[Robittybob1]

But its libel towards the McCanns.. Can't you see that
When I say Wolters has solved the case you say it's libel towards CB

Of course its not libel towards the McCanns.  Can you see any sentence in the Carter-Ruck article linked to in the OP that would come close to backing your statement?

"When I say Wolters has solved the case you say it's libel towards CB"  You would need to see the actual words you used. 

[faithlilly]

But its libel towards the McCanns.. Can't you see that
When I say Wolters has solved the case you say it's libel towards CB

It’s not true is more to the point.

[Mr Gray]

Of course its not libel towards the McCanns.  Can you see any sentence in the Carter-Ruck article linked to in the OP that would come close to backing your statement?

"When I say Wolters has solved the case you say it's libel towards CB"  You would need to see the actual words you used.

I don't think you understand libel. Spam is clearly referring to Amaral's claims that the McCanns are guilty.. Yet when I refer to Wolters you assume I'm talking about CB. Totally inconsistent

[Mr Gray]

It’s not true is more to the point.

It's not true that Amaral solved the case... More inconsistency

[Robittybob1]

I don't think you understand libel. Spam is clearly referring to Amaral's claims that the McCanns are guilty.. Yet when I refer to Wolters you assume I'm talking about CB. Totally inconsistent

Cite the post you are referring to. 

Spam could claim: "Honest Opinion: it is a defence to a defamation claim if the publisher can show that what they published was a statement of opinion; that the statement complained of indicated the basis of that opinion; and that an honest person could have held the opinion based on any fact which existed at the time the statement was made. The defence is defeated if the claimant can show that the defendant did not hold the opinion."

[Vertigo Swirl]

Libel is damaging statements.  Saying “Amaral solved the case in 2007” isn't damaging to Amaral so it couldn't be libel IMO.

Of course it’s not damaging to Amaral!!!  Think again.