UK paedophile probed over Madeleine

[loopylou6]

here
thoughts?

off track and possible libelous

possibly libelous

Why is it libellous to say I can only imagine there was deceit etc...I didn't say it happened. I was trying to put a more positive angle if anything to what has alreayd been suggested.

What exactly are we allowed to say, does anyone know? I am happy for my posts to be deleted if they are considered anything more than ignorant, speculative comment.

As I said there is alot of 'imagine' 'wondering' and 'speculation' on this thread. It is possibly libelous because you are suggesting something without conclusive evidence. By all means check with MNHQ re what you are allowed to say.

I think there is a line drawn somewhere between suggesting what could have happened and stating what actually happened.

I'm not sure why it is bothering you so much what a few eejits on this thread are idly supposing.

We all know we're unlikely to be correct. It is bothering us. I'd love it if someone came along and disproved all the suggestions being made. But nobody has.

It's horrible and probably pointless but when something is so hard to escape due to inordinate amounts of press coverage, it can and does aunt a lot of people mentally, and can be very hard to stop thinking about.

Which of course says more about the vulnerability of some posters, and less about the people truly involved.

But MN is good for getting things down, rather than having them going round in ones head all day. I apologise if anything I've said has offended you personally.

haunt, not aunt..I have yet to be aunted mentally.

I mostly post what I am thinking just based on what they have said in their interviews and how they conduct themselves.No one really knows what happened although a couple of things that I do know for sure came from someone working out there at the time who was sent home pretty fast when he raised an eyebrow and he wasn't alone!

Have I said I am offended? Again you are assuming. Have I said this thread is bothering me? Again you are presuming.

Yes, yes I am.

What I am doing is making clear that many of these posts are based on speculation and attempts to put 'angles' on snippets and news stories. What we do know is that these people should be considered innocent until proven guilty in this country. There is not enough evidence to even bring them to court.

...but I haven't assumed or presumed anything to do with the case. Only to do with you.

I take that point, that's true. Of course it is.

There was plenty of evidence of neglect and abandonment.They had a lot of outside'influence' working for them and some how they weren't pressured to answer many questions being suspects suited them well as it meant they could use the old 'can't discuss an ongoing case' loophole.Yet some of these questions are still unanswered.We are allowed to debate without accusing if you don't like it don't read it

You have talked about trying to put 'positive angles' on the situation and 'imagining'. This is exactly what I am talking about, you are presuming and assuming. All are innocent until proven guilty.

Mmm - but you're speculating about whether or not a person harmed their child and /or lied to the police.

A lot of people assume that once something's in the "public domain" - that normal rules don't apply. They do, of course. You can find them here:

www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/thelaw/defamation.shtml

Whose accusing, Noddyholder? I shall point out every instance where a 'wondering' or 'assuming' tries to parade itself as 'detail' or 'fact'.

I think NF's post of 16.42 was very good, eloquent and sensitive.

...you may consider it 'eloquent' and 'sensitive' Rhubarb (that is of course your perogative) but when read in context ie that NF had just been speculating about whether or not a person harmed their child and/or lied to the police-some may beg to differ re its sensitivity.

NF - lol @ being aunted mentally!
Some posters are trying to cause disruption by crying 'libel' at every point. Utter rubbish, no-one has said anything remotely libellous on this thread. Unlike the insinuations of the McCs attack poodle, Clarrie, and smearing of the bloke in Germany who has no connection to the case, and whose wife and children do not have the luxury of a 'spokesman'.

MrsG why is it so difficult for you to accept that what you are suggesting may be libelous? Me thinks the 'lady' doth protest too much. If that causes you 'disruption' well...

"No evidence was discovered of any crime committed by the suspects," - Attorney-General Fernando Pinto Monteiro.

For posters to say or insinuate otherwise is surely in extreme bad taste at best..

Should also remember that Goncalo Amaral, who headed up the original investigation, has recently been convicted of falsifying evidence in another missing child case, has he not?

..and another presumption of intent from MrsG ... those of us suggesting these speculative 'comments' are libelous may well be doing so out of concern for MN and its participants. Not necessarily to cause 'disruption'.

MrsGuy - are you the same as Someguy? Same writing style...

All we know for sure is that a little girl has disappeared.

We don't know who is responsible. It might be some stray paedophile, it might be the parents, who knows? I don't and nor do any of the posters.