Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

UK paedophile probed over Madeleine

576 replies

loopylou6 · 22/05/2009 08:22

here
thoughts?

OP posts:
jofeb04 · 27/05/2009 18:49

I don't think anything on here is libel, alot of it is repeated from the papers. But, surely what it is happening to the bloke is libel. Can he sue them?

noddyholder · 27/05/2009 18:51

I wonder if he can.I think their PR team will spin it tbh as there is endless footage of their cops saying he is not a suspect they just want to interview him.They didn't supply the photos and all the stories are from sources

jofeb04 · 27/05/2009 18:53

Surely suggesting that they want to interview him is enough though.

Ummm....I wonder if he could.

MrsGuyOfGisbourne · 27/05/2009 18:53

Jofeb - even if he wanted to - he doesn't have the backing of a Fund, contributed by little old ladies from their pensions, and schoolchildren selling toys on ebay... By pciking on an eile 'paedo' they chose a soft target - clever, and cynical.

jofeb04 · 27/05/2009 18:54

Very true MrsG.

izyboy · 27/05/2009 18:57

lol at MrsG and her 'spitting feathers'... you simply dont know who or what to accuse next do you? Oh well let's do a little more assuming then... Tell you what the truth is nobody has been found guilty of this 'crime' and therefore we should assume all are innocent until proven guilty.

Longtall....it takes more than a few 'gossiping housewives' to get me down.

NationalFlight · 27/05/2009 18:59

Blimey.

Thanks Rhubarb for being so nice about my post

Josie, thanks for the link - I wonder if you might be able to explain the definitions a bit further for us, as I find it really hard to figure out exactly what would constitute defamation in this case, and on't want to be party to it.

Izyboy I can't really grasp all this assuming and presuming lark. I don't think I have assumed or rpesumed anything regarding the case - please, if I have, show it to me so I can ask for it to be removed - or something.

By izyboy on Wed 27-May-09 16:58:09
Whose accusing, Noddyholder? I shall point out every instance where a 'wondering' or 'assuming' tries to parade itself as 'detail' or 'fact'.

YES! Please can you do that only in reference to my posts. I don't think there will be much.

izyboy · 27/05/2009 19:02

I have already pointed out examples NF do read my posts properly. Indeed I shall point out where 'assuming' and 'presuming' tries to parade itself as 'fact'.... when I can be arsed and when I feel it is appropriate.

noddyholder · 27/05/2009 19:03

this back firing on them in a spectacular fashion they will need to have a new suspect waiting in the wings to detract from this farce.I think by the weekend we will have a new one

izyboy · 27/05/2009 19:04

...the law of the land is innocent until proven guilty.

Longtalljosie · 27/05/2009 19:06

OK, if you're interested in the answers to this...

  1. JoFeb - the paedophile cannot sue. Firstly, it's been made clear they're not accusing him of anything, just eliminating his from enquiries. But even if they did (which they haven't...) - defamation depends on lowering someone's status in society by what you say. The man's a convicted paedophile. In law, he hasn't got any social standing to lose.
  1. Every repeated libel is a fresh libel. Repeating something you've read somewhere else is not a defence.
izyboy · 27/05/2009 19:07

In fact NF you will find I 'pop up' with quite monotonous regularity throughout this thread to point out where people are assuming and presuming..

noddyholder · 27/05/2009 19:08

I can't understand how they think she is with a paedophile or even ever has been when they insist there is no evidence she has come to harm.If thats not harm.......

NationalFlight · 27/05/2009 19:10

By izyboy on Wed 27-May-09 16:55:32
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.

Is this what you are on about?

How does trying to put positive angles on other people's suggestions, or imagining whether people might have been acting in a certain way, equate to presuming such?

To presume means to take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof.

I have certainly not taken it to be true that the things I mentioned happened. I was questioning whether it is possible or plausible that they took place. This is totally different.
I truly have no idea what actually happened, and it would be stupid of me to say I did.

Unless you have a better definition of 'presume' of course.

noddyholder · 27/05/2009 19:13

NF you are right.We are just discussing possible scenarios in a case where there is no definitive story.If there was a concrete set of answers as to what went on that night then there would be no debate.

izyboy · 27/05/2009 19:23

NF I have repeatedly used the words 'assume' presume' and 'wonder' these are descriptions that posters have used themselves.

I am questioning whether it is indeed libelous/ immoral to 'mention' whether people have lied to 'cover up' accidental or unplanned circumstances surrounding a little girl's murder. See I am not sure you can put a 'positive angle' on such a suggestion. Also why even suggest in the first place if you are not 'presuming' it to be true?

jofeb04 · 27/05/2009 19:25

Longtall...thanks for explaining the sueing issue.

NationalFlight · 27/05/2009 19:26

I'm not sure I can answer that, because it's not a proper question and doesn't make sense.

Sorry Izy, maybe we ought just to agree to disagree or something.

izyboy · 27/05/2009 19:29

And Noddy I am sure it is the case(because they have said in interview) that Mr and Mrs Mccann are hoping against hope that their little daughter is somewhere being looked after, even if paedophiles are being 'interviewed.'

And of course I must ammend myself... 'possible' murder as indeed we do not know what has happened to Maddie.

izyboy · 27/05/2009 19:30

My question makes absolute sense NF you are chosing not to answer, that is your perogative of course.

izyboy · 27/05/2009 19:31

choosing

NationalFlight · 27/05/2009 19:31

No it doesn't, and it's 'prerogative' if you're interested.

Longtalljosie · 27/05/2009 19:32

pleasure jofeb

noddyholder · 27/05/2009 19:33

the first person to mention muder was kate's mum.'the portuguese don't want a murder enquiry on their soil'

izyboy · 27/05/2009 19:39

Ok NF I'll agree on the 'prerogative' if it makes you feel better, but my question is still clear. Fine if you dont want to answer.