Anyone watching Madeleine McCann ten years on?

[spottysuperted]

They're framing it slightly differently now.. 😧 interesting from the bbc...

But sure, it's much more helpful to lambast those who look through and share the files.

Once again, you're not being lambasted simply for sharing. You're being lambasted for bullshitting and shit stirring. There is zero possibility that your opinions on when people should disclose nosebleeds and your armchair psychological analysis could be of any help. If this case is solved, it's not going to be because of you telling MN that they shouldn't have sent the twins to childcare the next day because of something something your niece.

Also, I said this on the deleted thread and got compliments, so I'm going to say it again. If all you've got to say in defence of your opinion is that you're entitled to have one, then the opinion itself is unlikely to be worth anything.

I said this on the deleted thread and got compliments

Congratulations.

As I've said numerous times to you now MissShitty, you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't see how we benefit from going around in circles. You keep reiterating my post about when to mention nosebleeds and sending the twins to the crèche, I take nothing back from what I said and you don't agree with what I've said. It's not the end of the world.

I'd respect your opinions if you were upfront and admitted that you do your "research" and come up with your conclusions because you enjoy doing so. It isn't because you're doing some kind of Woodward and Bernstein routine.

Funnily enough I don't concern myself with whether you respect my opinion or not.

If you don't want to keep going round in circles portcheese, you're going to have to stop saying things that aren't true. Every time you claim you're being criticised simply for information sharing, I'll correct that. For my benefit, yours and that of anyone reading.

^ will be deleted very soon I think

Agree Bonjour!

What nonsense, surely, portcheese. Where do you get that from?

I reckon that'll be deleted too.

Leads me to a question - is it a deletable offence to state that from the evidence they were presented with, the PJ came to that conclusion?

Not saying that is my view, btw.

That's not kind portcheese, you are of course entitled to your opinion and I know lots of people who may feel like you but they keep it to themselves. This type of theory causes hurt.

Sorry, I've been struggling to follow this thread. Is/was there a suggestion on that programme that the British police cadaver dogs gave the wrong evidence regarding their findings at the time of the disappearance? If so I seem to have missed it.

All Portcheese did in her last post was to paraphrase the theory held by Gonçalo Amaral (and pretty much all of the PJ). The Portuguese courts have decreed that Amaral has the right to hold that theory and to talk about and write about it (whether or not he is right or wrong) so it would seem churlish to delete this thread because of it. It is quite easy to find all the information online about why the PJ followed that theory.

Repeating someone else's libel is not a defence against libel. Repeating libels put up by others on the Internet doesn't remove the offence.

And no, I didn't report that unpleasant post. I would have preferred it to have remained up to demonstrate what the McCanns face in their dealings with conspiracy theorists.

MN are hardly likely to keep up something with such obvious potential to be defamatory even if it wasn't doing a shit all over their site rules. Calling it churlish seems rather silly. It's not like there's a shortage of places on the internet to accuse or speculate about the McCanns if you wish to do so.

Nauticant - it's not libel though is it?

Are you not aware that the McCanns lost their libel case against Amaral?

In Portugal maybe- Britain has tricky libel laws that Mumsnet has fallen foul of before.

Plus, HQ have repeatedly said such comments are not in the spirit of the site - and it's their site isn't it?

Indeed, it is their site and they can do whatever they see fit.

Did they lose their libel case in the UK? Do you think the verdict of a libel case in Portugal is binding worldwide?

Since anyone remotely sane on this thread has acknowledged that it is not generally known what happened in Portugal then posting hints about murder is pretty much heading into libel territory.

I think the Libel laws are different in the U.K

The verdict in Portugal is not binding in the UK but it sets a precedent, which is why the mainstream media have been much more open in their reporting since the verdict.

Amaral certainly doesn't believe that a murder took place, neither do I.

Since the legal frameworks of the two jurisdictions are very different of course a defamation decision in Portugal doesn't set a precedent for a UK court. Why post such made-up stuff?

I'm interested to hear that too. Do you actually think the verdict of the Portugese court would have any bearing on a libel decision in England and Wales, or are you just pretending to? Bear in mind that precedent has a particular meaning in legal terms: you would be saying you think the Portugese decision is something a court here would take into consideration.

This is a very interesting article regarding libel and defamation

www.ft.com/content/374299f0-295a-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca