MORALS

[Redblossom]

Carter Ruck

It is important to bear in mind that a person can sue for the repetition of a defamatory statement made by somebody else. However if it is made absolutely clear, when the words are read as a whole, that there is no truth in a rumour then this may be sufficient to remove the defamatory 'sting'. Be aware however that it is often considered that there is 'no smoke without fire' and it is possible that the publication even of rumour can be defamatory. Simply to make an allegation and add 'allegedly' or 'it has been alleged' will not in itself protect someone from a libel complaint, as readers will usually still understand there to be some truth in the allegation being made.

Welcome Shiela and thanks for copyng and pasting something off the carter ruck site

http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Questions_And_Answers.asp


Did you have a specific point  to make? And about anythng in particular? Apart from copyng and pasting this? In generalum and nonspecificadum? Forgive the harry potteresque language just came to me lol for some reason

Just wondering without wading back ten pages of this thread to see what it might refer to

[AnneGuedes]

He has sold misinformation and has libelled the McCanns in the material he sold.

 the rights of others in Portuguese law is not seen as important or carries more weight than the right of freedom of expression.

You forgot to add "allegedly" to a "sold misinformation" for which there's no evidence whatsoever. Could you please provide a source about the right to freedom of speech overruling the right to good name ?

[Rachel Granada]

Posters must not make claims that Gonçalo Amaral libelled anyone until such time as the issue has been determined in court.  Please add the word 'allegedly' when posting such comments.

Can we have a statement from Admin affording Kate and Gerry McCann the same thing please?

[Redblossom]

Can we have a statement from Admin affording Kate and Gerry McCann the same thing please?

Who have they libelled then?

Oh I know....

Eta remove  the THEY to ONE

[AnneGuedes]

Carter Ruck's intimidations are 'has been' as we say in French.
But it seems that as long as you can prove your claims you're safe, if
you're not too subtle grammatically, the average reader isn't.
you're subtle in choosing your words, especially adjectives.
you take care past events don't suggest future ones.
instead of contradicting rumours, which would be repeating it, you limit to facts.
you forget "allege" and the conditional mode, old tricks.
you avoid being objective presenting all aspects of an argument, it's no defence.

Ah What a marvellous world !
 

[Redblossom]

Carter Ruck's intimidations are 'has been' as we say in French.
But it seems that as long as you can prove your claims you're safe, if
you're not too subtle grammatically, the average reader isn't.
you're subtle in choosing your words, especially adjectives.
you take care past events don't suggest future ones.
instead of contradicting rumours, which would be repeating it, you limit to facts.
you forget "allege" and the conditional mode, old tricks.
you avoid being objective presenting all aspects of an argument, it's no defence.

Ah What a marvellous world !

For a company who charges hundreds of pounds an hour they sure are very unprofessional when it comes to it..at best.....bullyies and liars at worst..... their bullying pamalam site and saying judgement in portugal to ban mr amarals book was enough to ask her to take her site down.....

http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/gmb/Carter-Ruck.htm


planks

[AnneGuedes]

For a company who charges hundreds of pounds an hour they sure are very unprofessional when it comes to it..at best.....bullyies and liars at worst..... their bullying pamalam site and saying judgement in portugal to ban mr amarals book was enough to ask her to take her site down.....

http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/gmb/Carter-Ruck.htm


planks

Is it why Pamalam's site is in the US ?

[Redblossom]

Is it why Pamalam's site is in the US ?

No
Its always been in the usa

[Jazzy]

Can we have a statement from Admin affording Kate and Gerry McCann the same thing please?

Or an explanation as to why the courtesy extends only to a disgraced incompetent ex police officer.

[sadie]

Jazzy quote
Or an explanation as to why the courtesy extends only to a disgraced incompetent ex police officer.


I endorse that.  A level playing field, please.

[John]

Can we have the libels and smears against Kate and Gerry McCann on this site treated in the same way then?

The claim which admin refers to is specific in that someone posted that Dr Amaral libelled the McCanns. What he or she should have posted was that he allegedly libelled the McCanns since this allegation is currently the subject of a defamation trial in Lisbon.

If the McCanns win the case it will then be in order to state that he libelled them.  Its as simple as that.

[Jazzy]

But it's still alright to say the Mccanns killed their daughter then, or sold her to a sex ring?

[John]

But it's still alright to say the Mccanns killed their daughter then, or sold her to a sex ring?

Indeed it isn't alright Jazzy and furthermore never has been. Such claims do not exist on this forum to my knowledge but feel free to report any you may find.

[Redblossom]

But it's still alright to say the Mccanns killed their daughter then, or sold her to a sex ring?

Why do you bring stuff from other places here? NO ONE HERE has said either of those two things, definitely not the first by any stretch and disgusting of you to SUGGEST the second, so why dont you challenge those people on what they say WHERE they say it??? And seeing as you have made an accusation perhaps you can quote the relevant posts here where either was said, if you can, wont hold my breath,  obviously


I wonder! I wonder!

Need a *rolley eyes* smiley on this board pleae.

[Luz]

But it's still alright to say the Mccanns killed their daughter then, or sold her to a sex ring?

I wonder if this is how Mr. Wright got the idea that his allegations were the object of discussion in Forae.
Considering the quality of research of the journalists that published the last articles about the case, if they came in here, they could easily get a wrong idea from the quoted post. Is this a strategy or mere carelessness?