What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[Robittybob1]

This post raised some hackles.   http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg640999#msg640999

"I think anyone can be influenced. In my opinion Justice Hogg demonstrated a definite pro-McCann bias during the case they brought to try to see evidence held by Leicestershire Constabulary.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/ward-of-court-information-t3472.html"

Society has changed over the centuries and that is why these rules are put into place.  What aren't we allowed to do today that may have been common practice years ago?

I'm sure this is why the concept of the presumption of innocence was started.  No trials by media.  No bribing judges.  No buying witnesses. 

I'll park it here for later research.  I'm not up to date with the situation sorry.

[Vertigo Swirl]

This post raised some hackles.   http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg640999#msg640999

"I think anyone can be influenced. In my opinion Justice Hogg demonstrated a definite pro-McCann bias during the case they brought to try to see evidence held by Leicestershire Constabulary.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/ward-of-court-information-t3472.html"

Society has changed over the centuries and that is why these rules are put into place.  What aren't we allowed to do today that may have been common practice years ago?

I'm sure this is why the concept of the presumption of innocence was started.  No trials by media.  No bribing judges.  No buying witnesses. 

I'll park it here for later research.  I'm not up to date with the situation sorry.

I think the accusation was unfounded as the author of said accusation provided no evidence to back up her claim that Justice Hogg was unduly influenced by pro-McCann activity.

[Robittybob1]

I think the accusation was unfounded as the author of said accusation provided no evidence to back up her claim that Justice Hogg was unduly influenced by pro-McCann activity.

I noticed you took this stance but I was wondering if you had read too much into it as I couldn't quite see where G-unit had claimed: "that Justice Hogg was unduly influenced by pro-McCann activity".

[Vertigo Swirl]

I noticed you took this stance but I was wondering if you had read too much into it as I couldn't quite see where G-unit had claimed: "that Justice Hogg was unduly influenced by pro-McCann activity".

What does this mean then?
“In my opinion Justice Hogg demonstrated a definite pro-McCann bias during the case they brought to try to see evidence held by Leicestershire Constabulary”. 
She wrote this in response  to a discussion concerning whether or not CB would get a fair trial because of the amount of information and pronouncements about him in the public domain.  Clearly the inference is that even judges can be unduly swayed one way or the other by such material.  So I wanted to know how and by what she felt Justice Hogg had been unduly influenced to find in favour of the McCanns.  I mean, by the same argument I could  claim the Portuguese Supreme Court Judge demonstrated a definite anti-McCann bias.  I wonder if I’d get away with saying so without providing proof or at least some explanation as to why I had come to this conclusion ?  I doubt it.

[Robittybob1]

What does this mean then?
“In my opinion Justice Hogg demonstrated a definite pro-McCann bias during the case they brought to try to see evidence held by Leicestershire Constabulary”. 
She wrote this in response  to a discussion concerning whether or not CB would get a fair trial because of the amount of information and pronouncements about him in the public domain.  Clearly the inference is that even judges can be unduly swayed one way or the other by such material.  So I wanted to know how and by what she felt Justice Hogg had been unduly influenced to find in favour of the McCanns.  I mean, by the same argument I could  claim the Portuguese Supreme Court Judge demonstrated a definite anti-McCann bias.  I wonder if I’d get away with saying so without providing proof or at least some explanation as to why I had come to this conclusion ?  I doubt it.

I don't know and I don't know.  I think given a bit more time G-unit will explain her stance.  Then we'll both know.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't know and I don't know.  I think given a bit more time G-unit will explain her stance.  Then we'll both know.

I wouldn’t count on it.

[Robittybob1]

I wouldn’t count on it.

I spread the post around a bit, so I hope I'll get a response.    I'm feeling tired ATM so I'm not tackling research into the actual situation.  Are you aware of the situation G-unit is commenting on?  I'm knackered TBH.  Could you help me out a bit, find a reference or something, please. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

I spread the post around a bit, so I hope I'll get a response.    I'm feeling tired ATM so I'm not tackling research into the actual situation.  Are you aware of the situation G-unit is commenting on?  I'm knackered TBH.  Could you help me out a bit, find a reference or something, please.

she provided a cite, but really it’s not worth worrying about.  Have a rest and look after yourself.

[John]

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.

It was a slur so rightly removed.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It was a slur so rightly removed.

Slur = libel, thanks for confirming, but perhaps you can explain why the author of the slur was told it was not libellous and had her points rescinded?

[Robittybob1]

Slur = libel, thanks for confirming, but perhaps you can explain why the author of the slur was told it was not libellous and had her points rescinded?

You might have to quote the actual post you are referring to.  Was it one of Faithlilly's posts?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You might have to quote the actual post you are referring to.  Was it one of Faithlilly's posts?

Yes but John has confirmed it was removed for being a slur, while Faithlilly tells us it was not considered libellous after she appealed.  All very mysterious.

[Eleanor]

Sounds like we are all in trouble if you ask me.

[Robittybob1]

Yes but John has confirmed it was removed for being a slur, while Faithlilly tells us it was not considered libellous after she appealed.  All very mysterious.

I was thinking there is some confusion as to whether John is talking about your post or Faithlilly's post hence if possible find Faithlilly's post and run it past john for his opinion.
Can you remember any specific word in the post, was it "Sillence"?  Some spell it incorrectly as "Silence"  or search for "Tasmin" in Faith's posts.

[Robittybob1]

I was thinking there is some confusion as to whether John is talking about your post or Faithlilly's post hence if possible find Faithlilly's post and run it past john for his opinion.
Can you remember any specific word in the post, was it "Sillence"?  Some spell it incorrectly as "Silence"  or search for "Tasmin" in Faith's posts.

VS could you name the member who posted the post that you thought was libellous.  I might be talking about the wrong person.

You clearly identify Faithlilly here: "Faithlilly tells us it was not considered libellous after she appealed".

I presume she would only appeal her own posts.


Was it this one?  "http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11884.msg638773#msg638773

Last edit by John so John definitely read that one.

I have read it several times and there is no libel (slurs) there IMO.