Anything and everything

[Anna]

you don't think its because express newspaers were sued for libel 5 yrs ago

All I am saying is......People who depended on the newspapers wanted more information than the media could legally supply, so started dong their own checking ie PJ files or any other source that might lead them to the truth and this I believe is the time that the Myths increased......(Reading between the lines) I admit that these files are very convincing

[Kazcutt]

I puzzled over him for yonks.  Couldn't understand a thing and anyway being technical I didn't really believe such airy fairy things.  I decided he was  "just a psychic".

But gad as my findings in the case have unfolded have I ever been amazed at what I now understand about his cards .... and how right he is

He is spot ion in several areas.  Maybe spot on in others too.  Areas that I haven't unfurled yet.



I say "Well done Matt".  Dont know how you do it.

He thinks it was Madeleine in Morocco and Belgium
I think madeleines face was put on that piggy back pic . Her cows lick was same as madeleines same side
Bushras was other side

[AnneGuedes]

Of course not.
 I believe that because there was no news, people checked the PJ files and made their own conclusions and not that the news had a right to defamation This was an answer to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You have to consider why the problem still remains when not a single myth or rumour about Madeleine's parents has been printed by a UK newspaper in over five years.

This is certainly an interesting phenomenon. What could explain that no UK newspaper questions the fact that the abduction is amazingly presented as going without saying ?

[Aiofe]

Of course not.
 I believe that because there was no news, people checked the PJ files and made their own conclusions and not that the news had a right to defamation This was an answer to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You have to consider why the problem still remains when not a single myth or rumour about Madeleine's parents has been printed by a UK newspaper in over five years.

It is not a problem. It is a matter of avoiding actions for defamation.

[Aiofe]

This is certainly an interesting phenomenon. What could explain that no UK newspaper questions the fact that the abduction is amazingly presented as going without saying ?

If a British Newspaper raised a case for parental involvement, they would be expressing of defamation and be liable for libel damages. this is becasue there is no supportable case for such a suggestion. If there was a case then the papers could rely on justification as a defence- they cannot as there is none.

[Aiofe]

This is certainly an interesting phenomenon. What could explain that no UK newspaper questions the fact that the abduction is amazingly presented as going without saying ?

Myths and rumours are also defamation.

[Aiofe]

You should give more attention to your own signature.

As you question it, I do not think you understand what it means. What do you think it means? I know that the nuances of English sometimes pass you by.

[Wonderfulspam]

You post some wonderful Spam.

It is not a question of increasing the chances of finding her- that is the police job. It is a matter of their right to reputation and liberty.

How do you defend breaking British Law in pursuit of ones obsession. Is that noble?

In pursuit of peoples right to freedom of opinion & freedom of speech, I don't have a problem with it.
They might, I don't because..........

We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.

We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.

In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

[AnneGuedes]

Myths and rumours are also defamation.

So-called "myths" (I prefer collective belief) and rumours are very often defamatory but, as they have no identified origin, aren't carterruckable.

[Aiofe]

In pursuit of peoples right to freedom of opinion & freedom of speech, I don't have a problem with it.
They might, I don't because..........

We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.

We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.

In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

Again, that is Portuguese Law. Do you live in Portugal?

[Aiofe]

So-called "myths" (I prefer collective belief) and rumours are very often defamatory but, as they have no identified origin, aren't carterruckable.

Oh yes they are!

Cite "Why is Lord McAlpine trending now ;)"

That was libel- based on rumour and myth. Cost Sally Bercow £50,000 plus costs.

[Benita]

They surrendered their right to reputation when they confessed to the abandonment of their daughter !

Definition of abandonment - In the case of children, abandonment is the willful forsaking or forgoing of parental duties.

confessed to the abandonment .... who to ? ...so all those parents who use baby listening service's are a abandoning their children  8-)(--)

[Aiofe]

They surrendered their right to reputation when they confessed to the abandonment of their daughter !

Definition of abandonment - In the case of children, abandonment is the willful forsaking or forgoing of parental duties.

You may think that. The law disagrees as has been proved by the actions against Tony Bennett and the Express Group.

People should really try to separate personal (often erroneous) belief from FACT.

Under Portuguese Law they did not abandon their children. There is no such law in the UK.

[AnneGuedes]

That explains your English skills and inability to reason then.

Could you evaluate your credit concerning the defence of private rights ?

[Mr Gray]

I haven't mentioned the law at any stage but seeing as you've introduced the subject it is actually unlawful under British law - The law doesn’t say an age when you can leave a child on their own, but it’s an offence to leave a child alone if it places them at risk.

https://www.gov.uk/law-on-leaving-your-child-home-alone

 This has come up time and time again..what is the definition of "at risk" . it is an extremely grey area