What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[Robittybob1]

Presscott fought back.

Are you talking about a comedian?  Calling someone a racist isn't funny. It's no joke.  It would damage his reputation and his livelihood.

[faithlilly]

Look up top.  " Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight"  But what I wanted to work out how am I to determine what is  Libellous or defamatory material.   I'm not a lawyer so how do I decide.

Is it just the simple test "Would you want the things to be said about you?".

And therein lies the rub.

[barrier]

Are you talking about a comedian?  Calling someone a racist isn't funny. It's no joke.  It would damage his reputation and his livelihood.

He could be described as a comedian, being a MP at one stage, some one threw a egg  he took a swing back.

[Robittybob1]

He could be described as a comedian, being a MP at one stage, some one threw a egg  he took a swing back.

OK  I think that scene was on the news even in NZ.

https://youtu.be/8UhME8dcOqc?t=31 

[Mr Gray]

Nothing on this forum would reach the level of causing serious harm... That's how CMOMM gets away with so mucn.

[Robittybob1]

Nothing on this forum would reach the level of causing serious harm... That's how CMOMM gets away with so mucn.

And that the topic is now 13 plus years old.  Most people have moved on.

[Robittybob1]

If one can prove a claim to be true, is it then no longer libel. for the defense to libel is the truth of the statement.

But who going to accept that truth? 

Statement: "Amaral resigned from work to write a book and make money from the sales."  (Whatever it was)   

OK to me that seems like a logical plan, a no-brainer according to VS.

Who can ever determine the real reason GA resigned from work with the Police?  Do we have to believe GA's explanation?

[G-Unit]

If one can prove a claim to be true, is it then no longer libel. for the defense to libel is the truth of the statement.

But who going to accept that truth? 

Statement: "Amaral resigned from work to write a book and make money from the sales."  (Whatever it was)   

OK to me that seems like a logical plan, a no-brainer according to VS.

Who can ever determine the real reason GA resigned from work with the Police?  Do we have to believe GA's explanation?

You do indeed have to accept Amarals stated motive for his resignation unless you can prove otherwise. Lots of opinions have been offered as to his 'real' motive, but none of them proves he lied.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You do indeed have to accept Amarals stated motive for his resignation unless you can prove otherwise. Lots of opinions have been offered as to his 'real' motive, but none of them proves he lied.

I never said he lied, will you kindly stop making that accusation.  I fully accept that Amaral resigned so that he could speak freely about the case.  One of the ways he chose to do this was by cashing in on the case in the form of a book and TV appearances.  Glad that’s sorted now.

[John]

Let's get this straight right now, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE to post libellous comments on a thread discussing what is or what is not libellous.  I have removed several such posts from this thread which should have been done long ago.

Just for the record, Gonçalo Amaral DID NOT resign from the PJ so that he could 'cash in', as VS put it, on the disappearance of a little girl. He resigned after being removed from the investigation for publicly criticising the English police.

Just out of interest, there is another little word even shorter than libel which describes the same thing very nicely and that is the word "SLUR".  Look it up.

[Robittybob1]

What posts went west?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Let's get this straight right now, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE to post libellous comments on a thread discussing what is or what is not libellous.  I have removed several such posts from this thread which should have been done long ago.

Just for the record, Gonçalo Amaral DID NOT resign from the PJ so that he could 'cash in', as VS put it, on the disappearance of a little girl. He resigned after being removed from the investigation for publicly criticising the English police.

Just out of interest, there is another little word even shorter than libel which describes the same thing very nicely and that is the word "SLUR".  Look it up.

Glad you’ve joined the discussion John, is it acceptable to accuse a man of being paid for an interview and of giving false information in that interview without supplying any evidence that he did so?  The reason I ask is that the person who did so has claimed that they were told (by a moderator of this forum)it did not constitute libel and I’d like to know why not.

PS: according to Amaral himself he did not resign for the reason you have stated, so may be libel...?

[Robittybob1]

What posts went west?

I started reading the thread from the beginning but so many posts would need to be responded to, I gave up at the thought of the amount of work.

If the criteria of deletion of a post become "a slurr" then there isn't much point in considering the Carter-Ruck article.   I haven't looked at some general posts since but how many posts would need moderating if we tried to eliminate "all slurs".

[Vertigo Swirl]

I started reading the thread from the beginning but so many posts would need to be responded to, I gave up at the thought of the amount of work.

If the criteria of deletion of a post become "a slurr" then there isn't much point in considering the Carter-Ruck article.   I haven't looked at some general posts since but how many posts would need moderating if we tried to eliminate "all slurs".

It was always going to be risky starting s thread on this subject but what it has highlighted is the fact that everyone has their own interpretation of what constitutes libel and this leads to inconsistent moderating and in turn a sense that some people are allowed to express themselves more freely than others without needing to worry about punishment.

[Robittybob1]

It was always going to be risky starting s thread on this subject but what it has highlighted is the fact that everyone has their own interpretation of what constitutes libel and this leads to inconsistent moderating and in turn a sense that some people are allowed to express themselves more freely than others without needing to worry about punishment.

So far the thread has been allowed to remain, which then gives the members a vehicle to highlight their issues.  Without causing embarrassment and hopefully not promoting slurs on anyone.

Tomorrow is another lockdown day but it is time to quit down here in NZ.