What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Remind us the answer KM gave to this .

 On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

What’s that got to do with what I wrote?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I was thinking it would be interesting to see what admin would say if you PM'ed Admin.

I’m interested in what you think about it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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

It really is a mad house on here sometimes.

[Robittybob1]

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

We are discussing the topic of Libel not truth.

I’m interested in what you think about it.

Because both posts were not moderated by myself I'm not commenting.

[Robittybob1]

It really is a mad house on here sometimes.

Davel's Madhouse?

[Vertigo Swirl]

It’s not true is more to the point.

Nor is it true that Amaral solved the case in 2007 yet this post was endorsed by a moderator who gives me a warning for libel for saying Amaral cashing in on the case. You really could not make this shit up.

[Mr Gray]

Libel on the forum seems to be governed by the moderators personal bias and is inconsistent. The end

[Vertigo Swirl]

We are discussing the topic of Libel not truth.
Because both posts were not moderated by myself I'm not commenting.

Cop out.  I thought this thread was an attempt to define what is libel and what is not.  I was given a warning for suggesting that Amaral resigned to cash in on the case.  Is that libel?  If so why?  If not, why did I get a warning for it?  If it is libel why do others who write similar posts get their points revoked?  Please address these questions with the other mods and forum owner in private and report back because until we get some clarity on this we won’t ever know when we are breaching forum rules or not.  Thank you.

[Robittybob1]

Libel on the forum seems to be governed by the moderators personal bias and is inconsistent. The end

What is the solution?

[Mr Gray]

What is the solution?

I don't think there is one

[Robittybob1]

Cop out.  I thought this thread was an attempt to define what is libel and what is not.  I was given a warning for suggesting that Amaral resigned to cash in on the case.  Is that libel?  If so why?  If not, why did I get a warning for it?  If it is libel why do others who write similar posts get their points revoked?  Please address these questions with the other mods and forum owner in private and report back because until we get some clarity on this we won’t ever know when we are breaching forum rules or not.  Thank you.

I have referred your post to that private area.   I hope someone involved will explain their thoughts.

[Robittybob1]

I don't think there is one

That is not being very helpful.  I fear whatever the forum allowed some members will test it to the limit.  The forum owner would be freaking out that he will get a letter from Carter-Ruck.  Will he get another goodnight's sleep. 

[Mr Gray]

That is not being very helpful.  I fear whatever the forum allowed some members will test it to the limit.  The forum owner would be freaking out that he will get a letter from Carter-Ruck.  Will he get another goodnight's sleep.

It might not help but its the truth. In reality if you understood libel you would realise nothing on this forum is actionable as the readership is quite small

On this thread each post has an average of 5 views

[Eleanor]

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.

Of course it's Libel towards The McCanns.

[faithlilly]

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

Amaral solved the case...not true.

Wolter has solved the case....also not true.