Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Conspiracy Theories part 2

134 replies

Marinade · 23/12/2024 10:39

A follow on thread as the first thread is full. This message is directed towards @Corinthiana

A few negative newspaper headlines made Diana unpopular? Nonsense. She remained a figure of profound importance internationally. She died over the summer - August. So she was on holiday. She was divorced and they shared arrangements with the boys. So she was on a yacht? Did you run her personal schedule to know that this was a sign of her prioritising her relationship over her sons as this is what you appear to be implying? Do you honestly think that the public reaction in the immediate aftermath of her death was due to her sudden post death elevation to sainthood as opposed to her enduring popularity during her life? What an illogical statement.

She was indeed a very complex woman but the fascination with her was boundless. You sound reductive and agenda driven. Greed? She was from a true blue blooded family - she famously said to Prince Philip 'my family is older than your's'.

OP posts:
ThisCosyAquaHiker · 23/12/2024 21:03

Marinade · 23/12/2024 20:53

Ok that was an error on my part about the aguido status. What else did I get wrong factually in relation to the case? Please tell me why it is ok for the detective to write a book, you tubers to present shows about it, but not for me to refer to the same facts and issues in this thread? How is it speculation when it is based on the facts uncovered in the investigation? Did you go and tell off Netflix also when they broadcast their documentary? Go take your faux outrage somewhere else.

Show quote history

I'm allowed to think something disgusting without sending written notice to everyone that has ever partaken in it, you know.

Personally I think the Michelle Obama accusations are disgusting, too (and, as mentioned by others in the last thread, have an air of racism to them).

I do think that most conspiracy theorists are either unpleasant people, intellectually lacking, or both.

Original poster
Marinade · 23/12/2024 20:53

ThisCosyAquaHiker · 23/12/2024 20:51

You can think speculating on something is disgusting even if it is not libelous.

And I also think that, if someone does wish to speculate on something as sensistive as whether two parents murdered their own child, they should at least try to get their facts right (as the detective did).

What on Earth did you mean by "You do know that their aguido status was never revoked in Portugal"?

Show quote history

Ok that was an error on my part about the aguido status. What else did I get wrong factually in relation to the case? Please tell me why it is ok for the detective to write a book, you tubers to present shows about it, but not for me to refer to the same facts and issues in this thread? How is it speculation when it is based on the facts uncovered in the investigation? Did you go and tell off Netflix also when they broadcast their documentary? Go take your faux outrage somewhere else.

OP posts:
TouchoftheTism · 23/12/2024 20:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ThisCosyAquaHiker · 23/12/2024 20:51

Marinade · 23/12/2024 20:43

Because it demonstrates a sound factual basis to the claims made by the detective that they may have been involved in the disappearance of MMc. You said you could not countenance or comment on the case as it was too disgusting.... Weird thing to say when the assertions have survived a public libel trial.

Show quote history

You can think speculating on something is disgusting even if it is not libelous.

And I also think that, if someone does wish to speculate on something as sensistive as whether two parents murdered their own child, they should at least try to get their facts right (as the detective did).

What on Earth did you mean by "You do know that their aguido status was never revoked in Portugal"?

Original poster
Marinade · 23/12/2024 20:50

cakeorwine · 23/12/2024 20:48

I think it's awful writing conspiracy theories about a missing child and her parents.

Maybe you don't. That's your opinion.

Show quote history

It is widely debated and discussed on many crime channels, newspaper publication as well as true crime forums. For consistency purposes, do you also try and police them since you are so outraged here?

OP posts:
cakeorwine · 23/12/2024 20:48

Marinade · 23/12/2024 20:45

It is a matter of legitimate public interest. You do know that the McCanns wrote a book and have been involved in much publicity about the case? That the detective wrote a book about it. Why are you trying to police this? This thread is not dedicated to the McCanns and it is also a follow up to a previous thread where the case was discussed. Are you going to blast every single you tuber and true crime forum as well? Ridiculous comment.

Show quote history

I think it's awful writing conspiracy theories about a missing child and her parents.

Maybe you don't. That's your opinion.

Original poster
Marinade · 23/12/2024 20:45

cakeorwine · 23/12/2024 20:43

I honestly believe that posting conspiracy theories about the parents of a missing girl is awful.

I can't understand why someone would choose to do that - maybe the OP would like to explain why she thinks it's ok to do that.

It is a matter of legitimate public interest. You do know that the McCanns wrote a book and have been involved in much publicity about the case? That the detective wrote a book about it. Why are you trying to police this? This thread is not dedicated to the McCanns and it is also a follow up to a previous thread where the case was discussed. Are you going to blast every single you tuber and true crime forum as well? Ridiculous comment.

OP posts:
Original poster
Marinade · 23/12/2024 20:43

ThisCosyAquaHiker · 23/12/2024 20:38

I don't need the link, thanks, I am familiar with defamation law.

I don't know what you think your above post added to what I had said in my previous.

Successfully maintaining a defence of "honest opinion" does not mean that you were correct. Your opinion could even be shown to be 100% wrong but, as long as it was an honest opinion based on facts, then you're not liable for defamation.

I don't know why you think them losing the defamation case, on the basis they did, is of particular relevance.

Show quote history

Because it demonstrates a sound factual basis to the claims made by the detective that they may have been involved in the disappearance of MMc. You said you could not countenance or comment on the case as it was too disgusting.... Weird thing to say when the assertions have survived a public libel trial.

OP posts:
SqueakyDoor · 23/12/2024 20:43

You know why I'm fully Conspiracy Theory on both Diana and Madeline?

  1. Diana - why no "wear a seat belt" campaign?
  2. Madeline - why no "keep an eye on your kids" campaign?
cakeorwine · 23/12/2024 20:43

I honestly believe that posting conspiracy theories about the parents of a missing girl is awful.

I can't understand why someone would choose to do that - maybe the OP would like to explain why she thinks it's ok to do that.

ThisCosyAquaHiker · 23/12/2024 20:38

Marinade · 23/12/2024 20:30

I refer you to key extracts from the linked article below which essentially says an honestly held opinion based on true facts is a key defence. This is precisely what happened here. They were not just opinions in the book - they were opinions based on good, true facts and such were reasonably held. Again, key to the defence was the notion that the assertions by the detective were backed up by true and objective evidence.

https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/madeline-mccann-defamation/

Recently, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously ruled against the parents of the missing Madeline McCann in their challenge against Portugal in relation to the conduct of their libel case.
Background

Comment
Secondly, the Court will balance individual rights against freedom of expression, especially when public figures are involved. English defamation law provides a defence of an honest opinion. Proof by the defendant that the statement made is one of opinion honestly held, based on true facts, is a good defence. The defendant does not have to prove the truth of every fact relied on by the opinion, as long as the opinion was fair in relation to those facts and an honest person could have had that opinion based on those facts. This means that even if someone utters statements that may damage a person’s reputation, as long as it falls within the honest opinion defence, there is no sustainable claim in defamation.

Show quote history

I don't need the link, thanks, I am familiar with defamation law.

I don't know what you think your above post added to what I had said in my previous.

Successfully maintaining a defence of "honest opinion" does not mean that you were correct. Your opinion could even be shown to be 100% wrong but, as long as it was an honest opinion based on facts, then you're not liable for defamation.

I don't know why you think them losing the defamation case, on the basis they did, is of particular relevance.

Original poster
Marinade · 23/12/2024 20:30

ThisCosyAquaHiker · 23/12/2024 20:23

The book contained opinons, made on the basis of publicly-known facts, and was in the public interest (the story being a big one) and, even if false, could not have resulted in reputational damage (as that arose when they were named as suspects).

That it didn't amount to libel, for a number of reasons, doesn't mean that the author's opinions were true. There is a large gulf between an opinion (on factual matters) being "true" and simply being "not libelous". That the McCanns lost their libel case is not really here nor there.

Show quote history

I refer you to key extracts from the linked article below which essentially says an honestly held opinion based on true facts is a key defence. This is precisely what happened here. They were not just opinions in the book - they were opinions based on good, true facts and such were reasonably held. Again, key to the defence was the notion that the assertions by the detective were backed up by true and objective evidence.

https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/madeline-mccann-defamation/

Recently, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously ruled against the parents of the missing Madeline McCann in their challenge against Portugal in relation to the conduct of their libel case.
Background

Comment
Secondly, the Court will balance individual rights against freedom of expression, especially when public figures are involved. English defamation law provides a defence of an honest opinion. Proof by the defendant that the statement made is one of opinion honestly held, based on true facts, is a good defence. The defendant does not have to prove the truth of every fact relied on by the opinion, as long as the opinion was fair in relation to those facts and an honest person could have had that opinion based on those facts. This means that even if someone utters statements that may damage a person’s reputation, as long as it falls within the honest opinion defence, there is no sustainable claim in defamation.

European Court Of Human Rights l Madeline McCann l Defamation

Nelsons report on the European Court of Human Rights ruling against the parents of Madeline McCann and the complexity of defamation law.

https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/madeline-mccann-defamation

OP posts:
ThisCosyAquaHiker · 23/12/2024 20:23

Marinade · 23/12/2024 20:04

The evidence to show their suspect status had a valid basis to it was key to the ruling because it was shown that it was not an unfounded assertion - i.e. you cant claim a statement is libellous if it is fact, true. The evidence from the dogs was a supporting fact alongside the plethora of other details. This was not technical reasons this was the basic crux of the case.

Show quote history

The book contained opinons, made on the basis of publicly-known facts, and was in the public interest (the story being a big one) and, even if false, could not have resulted in reputational damage (as that arose when they were named as suspects).

That it didn't amount to libel, for a number of reasons, doesn't mean that the author's opinions were true. There is a large gulf between an opinion (on factual matters) being "true" and simply being "not libelous". That the McCanns lost their libel case is not really here nor there.

Original poster
Marinade · 23/12/2024 20:04

ThisCosyAquaHiker · 23/12/2024 19:59

Their arguido status was lifted in 2008.

They lost their libel case for technical reasons (to prove libel, you have to show damage to your reputation - the court ruled that any damage to their reputation would be due to them initially being name as suspects, not due to the much later publication of the detective's book).

Show quote history

The evidence to show their suspect status had a valid basis to it was key to the ruling because it was shown that it was not an unfounded assertion - i.e. you cant claim a statement is libellous if it is fact, true. The evidence from the dogs was a supporting fact alongside the plethora of other details. This was not technical reasons this was the basic crux of the case.

OP posts:
ThisCosyAquaHiker · 23/12/2024 19:59

Marinade · 23/12/2024 19:45

Perhaps you should educate yourself about the McCanns before you announce your disgust. You do know that their aguido status was never revoked in Portugal and they lost a libel case against the detective that went to the highest court in the European Union?

Show quote history

Their arguido status was lifted in 2008.

They lost their libel case for technical reasons (to prove libel, you have to show damage to your reputation - the court ruled that any damage to their reputation would be due to them initially being name as suspects, not due to the much later publication of the detective's book).

Original poster
Marinade · 23/12/2024 19:48

RoamingGnome · 23/12/2024 19:35

Regarding Diana - the British press were ripping her to shreds until she died, then did a huge uturn and suddenly made her out to be a saint. Private Eye had a long running section printing what a journalist wrote the week before (hate hate hate) and after she died (lovey dovey sainted Diana).

Her dying did way more damage to the Royal Family than any of the marital scandals in her life, and of course was devastating for her sons. What's the motive from the royal family or government?

And don't forget the accident happened in a known accident black spot, the driver was drunk and not qualified to drive the heavy vehicle they were in, and Diana was not wearing a seatbelt (and might have survived if she had been)

Private Eye does not represent the populus of the UK. I went to Kensington Palace after she died and watched her funeral in Hyde Park. The intensity of grief was like nothing else. She was incredibly popular and that is why the press rebuked the Queen for not returning and lowering her flag - they tapped into the grief of the British public. I saw the video of the driver and he did not appear to be drunk. Why was she not wearing her seatbelt when she had a bodyguard and was known to be safety aware about it?

OP posts:
Original poster
Marinade · 23/12/2024 19:45

ThisCosyAquaHiker · 23/12/2024 19:37

Re. the Obama stuff, no, not least because I don't see how they could successfully hide it. I think its a really stupid theory, tbh.

I won't indulge in the McCann ones because I find them really quite disgusting.

Show quote history

Perhaps you should educate yourself about the McCanns before you announce your disgust. You do know that their aguido status was never revoked in Portugal and they lost a libel case against the detective that went to the highest court in the European Union?

OP posts:
TouchoftheTism · 23/12/2024 19:44

ThisCosyAquaHiker · 23/12/2024 19:37

Re. the Obama stuff, no, not least because I don't see how they could successfully hide it. I think its a really stupid theory, tbh.

I won't indulge in the McCann ones because I find them really quite disgusting.

Show quote history

Jez and Kate McCann burying their daughter is really quite disgusting.

ThisCosyAquaHiker · 23/12/2024 19:37

Marinade · 23/12/2024 19:16

Do you not think it is possible that he would try and hide in plain sight so that you could live the life most aligned to your sexuality?

The same could be said of the McCanns - why have they kept up public scrutiny when so many people think they were involved? It is counter intuitive but that does not necessarily refute the theory.

Show quote history

Re. the Obama stuff, no, not least because I don't see how they could successfully hide it. I think its a really stupid theory, tbh.

I won't indulge in the McCann ones because I find them really quite disgusting.

RoamingGnome · 23/12/2024 19:35

Regarding Diana - the British press were ripping her to shreds until she died, then did a huge uturn and suddenly made her out to be a saint. Private Eye had a long running section printing what a journalist wrote the week before (hate hate hate) and after she died (lovey dovey sainted Diana).

Her dying did way more damage to the Royal Family than any of the marital scandals in her life, and of course was devastating for her sons. What's the motive from the royal family or government?

And don't forget the accident happened in a known accident black spot, the driver was drunk and not qualified to drive the heavy vehicle they were in, and Diana was not wearing a seatbelt (and might have survived if she had been)

Original poster
Marinade · 23/12/2024 19:28

RosesAndHellebores · 23/12/2024 19:26

Perhaps it wasn't Diana they wanted to take out but Dodi? There were significant concerns about the Al Fayeds and Diana's involvement with them was wholly inappropriate.

Al Fayed was furious he did not get British citizenship due to some possibly nefarious things in his past. So they were definitely a concern.

OP posts:
TouchoftheTism · 23/12/2024 19:28

RosesAndHellebores · 23/12/2024 19:26

Perhaps it wasn't Diana they wanted to take out but Dodi? There were significant concerns about the Al Fayeds and Diana's involvement with them was wholly inappropriate.

Bit risky to flip a car with Di in it though. Could have just used a sniper.

Original poster
Marinade · 23/12/2024 19:27

SleepingStandingUp · 23/12/2024 19:25

And the Obamas paying off a Dr to kill her during surgery because she libeled Michelle wouldn't be?

Show quote history

The whole notion of a 'conspiracy theory' is that it is not readily explainable but intriguing nonetheless due to relevant contextual factors, timing and other strange anomolies.

OP posts:
RosesAndHellebores · 23/12/2024 19:26

Perhaps it wasn't Diana they wanted to take out but Dodi? There were significant concerns about the Al Fayeds and Diana's involvement with them was wholly inappropriate.