Libel - How is libel defined by the forum?

[Robittybob1]

Can we get the real definition of libel and then how it applies to this forum, for I am supposed to be able to judge what is libellous and what is not.
What can we say about the McCanns and the Tapas 7?  Are we allowed to report quotes from articles in newspapers?  Transcripts from videos, quotes from books, etc even quotes from the PJ file where one witness is describing what another person did is potentially libellous, for it could be wrong in fact.

Te classic would be Gerry's statement on the 4th  "At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open."

We believe that is incorrect as to do that she would have had to pass by the open shutters before she got to the door to open it.  It appear Gerry is telling a lie here.  Am I allowed to say "he lied"?  Am I allowed to quote this lie for he appears to be libelling Kate for her statement the same day states she came in through the sliding door not needing a key.
Dictionary Google definition of Libel:
"libel

noun
1.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
"he was found guilty of a libel on a Liverpool inspector of taxes"
synonyms:   defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; More
2.
(in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration.
verb
1.
LAW
defame (someone) by publishing a libel.
"the jury found that he was libelled by a newspaper"
synonyms:   defame, malign, slander, give someone a bad name, blacken someone's name, sully someone's reputation, speak ill/evil of, write false reports about, traduce, smear, cast aspersions on, fling mud at, drag someone's name through the mud/mire, besmirch, tarnish, taint, do a hatchet job on, tell lies about, spread tales about, spread scandal about, stain, vilify, calumniate, denigrate, disparage, run down, derogate, stigmatize, discredit, slight; "

Consider:
"a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation."  So does that mean we can say something good about a person knowing or unknowingly it was incorrect, for it can't damage his reputation?  I suppose that still falls under "write false reports about". 

Imagine if someone said "I'm going to sue you for you said something nice about me and I want to portray my evil reputation"!

But how is libel defined by the forum?

[jassi]

Is it true that claims of libel are only made by supporters? Do sceptics make claims that things are libelous?

[Robittybob1]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8979.msg441289#msg441289

I was concerned about libel when I wrote that post.

Quote: "A Mark Warner guest, a man, out on the streets just prior to 10:00 PM that knows Madeleine by name must be within rather a limited number of people.

Note:  I'm not suggesting this person has done anything wrong or illegal."

For that subset must be such a limited number of people one could claim that is libel, but I'm saying "he wasn't doing anything wrong", but in the end he doesn't come forward either, and that could be damaging his reputation. But I didn't mention that aspect.

[Robittybob1]

Is it true that claims of libel are only made by supporters? Do sceptics make claims that things are libelous?

I thought it was the other way around! 
"Is it true that claims of libel are only made by sceptics? Do supporters make claims that things are libellous?"

Is our judgement of libel tainted by our own perception of the case?

[Mr Gray]

I thought it was the other way around! 
"Is it true that claims of libel are only made by sceptics? Do supporters make claims that things are libellous?"

Is our judgement of libel tainted by our own perception of the case?

Libel in uk law is extremely  simple

[jassi]

I thought it was the other way around! 
"Is it true that claims of libel are only made by sceptics? Do supporters make claims that things are libellous?"

Is our judgement of libel tainted by our own perception of the case?

I don't know.  I've never claimed that anything is libel  (as far as I can remember), as it's not something I get all het up and excited about.

[Robittybob1]

Libel in uk law is extremely  simple

So are you implying, without actually saying it, that the forum is applying the definition of libel as per the UK law?
And declaring it is simple?

[Robittybob1]

Uk libel law is, simple.. Have the mods here applied it fairly.... No.. Imo

Tell me about it then and let's see if we can get some consensus as to how to define libel for it confused me today.
is taking quotes from the following article libel?  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3428088/kate-mccann-scream-night-madeleine-went-missing/

especially the quote by Mr Paul Moyes as to what Kate was screaming.  The quote was ""She was screaming 'the f***ing b******s have taken her'." 

When that was claimed as libel I was wondering if the person/s who took her was being libelled?  Was he really a f***ing b******s?  Was that damaging his/their reputation/s?

[Wonderfulspam]

Tell me about it then and let's see if we can get some consensus as to how to define libel for it confused me today.
is taking quotes from the following article libel?  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3428088/kate-mccann-scream-night-madeleine-went-missing/

especially the quote by Mr Paul Moyes as to what Kate was screaming.  The quote was ""She was screaming 'the f***ing b******s have taken her'." 

When that was claimed as libel I was wondering if the person/s who took her was being libelled?  Was he really a f***ing b******s?  Was that damaging his/their reputation/s?

An unnamed, unspecified person has no reputation to damage.

[Robittybob1]

An unnamed, unspecified person has no reputation to damage.

I have seen the word "insinuation" being used.  The person might not be named but the circumstance mean there is only one person who fits that role, do the rules apply then as if you had named him?  How narrow can it become, 1, 2 , 3 ?  If it was a group of 3 unnamed people can one those claim libel by insinuation?

[Alice Purjorick]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/2/enacted

[slartibartfast]

Fairly striaght forward. You can say someone may have been mistaken or misremembered but not lied, you can point out anomalies and discrepancies to your hearts content. You can’t make accusations against a limited group of known people without evidence. To use spent convictions to damage someone’s reputation is defamation.

[Robittybob1]

Fairly striaght forward. You can say someone may have been mistaken or misremembered but not lied, you can point out anomalies and discrepancies to your hearts content. You can’t make accusations against a limited group of known people without evidence. To use spent convictions to damage someone’s reputation is defamation.

So going back to the OP I would have to say Gerry was mistaken when he said Kate entered through the front door and used the key.
"The classic would be Gerry's statement on the 4th  "At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open."

We believe that is incorrect as to do that she would have had to pass by the open shutters before she got to the door to open it.  It appear Gerry is telling a lie here.  Am I allowed to say "he lied"?  Am I allowed to quote this lie for he appears to be libelling Kate for her statement the same day states she came in through the sliding door not needing a key.

[slartibartfast]

So going back to the OP I would have to say Gerry was mistaken when he said Kate entered through the front door and used the key.
"The classic would be Gerry's statement on the 4th  "At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open."

We believe that is incorrect as to do that she would have had to pass by the open shutters before she got to the door to open it.  It appear Gerry is telling a lie here.  Am I allowed to say "he lied"?  Am I allowed to quote this lie for he appears to be libelling Kate for her statement the same day states she came in through the sliding door not needing a key.

To say someone is lying is suggesting they made a conscious decision to say something that they knew wasn’t true and is very difficult to prove unless you have other evidence of them believing the opposite.

[Carana]

So going back to the OP I would have to say Gerry was mistaken when he said Kate entered through the front door and used the key.
"The classic would be Gerry's statement on the 4th  "At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open."

We believe that is incorrect as to do that she would have had to pass by the open shutters before she got to the door to open it.  It appear Gerry is telling a lie here.  Am I allowed to say "he lied"?  Am I allowed to quote this lie for he appears to be libelling Kate for her statement the same day states she came in through the sliding door not needing a key.

Rob, you don't know if he was lying, nor even if he was mistaken. Or, if he was mistaken - in which way (that he actually forgot which door he used) or if he contributed to a general confusion over which was the front or back door). He may not have even made a mistake - the officer or the interpreter could have misunderstood.

It probably wouldn't be libellous to state that he was mistaken (as opposed to lying), but I still don't see how you can state even that as fact.

The only thing that's fact is that the 4 May statement says he entered via a key. If there had been an audio recording of him actually saying that during that interview, then that would be a different matter. IMO.