So, are we done with McCann threads now then?
Discussion
fesuvious said:
Just asking......
I wanted to ask rover if they had ever been asked in interview about the shutters? I wondered if a response had ever been given?
Rover did answer this on the original thread, in fact it took up quite a few pages where the discussion related to:I wanted to ask rover if they had ever been asked in interview about the shutters? I wondered if a response had ever been given?
- They have taken her, the shutters were broken
- Umm we think they took her through the window
- actually it´s been proved that no-one touched the shutters
Hopefully the thread will come back as when the debates on the individual points happened, it was an excellent thread
Dimbo said:
Breadvan will be along shortly to tell us how offended he is, the poor little lamb.
Your username suits your post.Breadvan pointed out to PH management that the content of the thread left PH open to action, should any party chose to take it. They took that free legal advice and decided to remove the thread.
In short, the thread was removed because of the postings made; if anyone should be blamed for the thread's removal, it's the posters making libellous comments.
longblackcoat said:
In short, the thread was removed because of the postings made; if anyone should be blamed for the thread's removal, it's the posters making libellous comments.
I agree. There are certainly a lot of questions that can justifiably be asked, but actually accusing people of wrongdoing is going too far.longblackcoat said:
Your username suits your post.
Breadvan pointed out to PH management that the content of the thread left PH open to action, should any party chose to take it. They took that free legal advice and decided to remove the thread.
In short, the thread was removed because of the postings made; if anyone should be blamed for the thread's removal, it's the posters making libellous comments.
And the madness starts again... Whereas I appreciate why Breadvan took the action he did and may well be qualified to do so, it's clear (via some PMs exchanged) that he has a very one-sided view of the whole affair and this, in my opinion, led him to take the action rather than the stated "just protecting PH" reason. I may, of course, be completely wrong; I'm just stating an opinion.Breadvan pointed out to PH management that the content of the thread left PH open to action, should any party chose to take it. They took that free legal advice and decided to remove the thread.
In short, the thread was removed because of the postings made; if anyone should be blamed for the thread's removal, it's the posters making libellous comments.
So, who decides what is libellous then? I imagine if we asked our resident lawyer he'd say that anything that contradicts the McCanns' version of events falls into that category. There are two pending legal cases that will hopefully settle that argument once and for all. I suggest that we self-police this thread and flag up immediately whenever some idiot comes in with something that's obviously derogatory. (Note to McCann supporters: questioning their version of events does not automatically make a post derogatory, place the poster under a tinfoil hat or mean they are a "vile hater" which is, I believe, the popular epithet among the in crowd).
I note from browsing through some of the standard McCann forums over the past few days that the old chestnut of the last photo has arisen with many lunatics claiming it has been photoshopped. I'm no expert but I do work with digital media from time to time and I cannot see anything wrong with the image (large version here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/site... )
According to some of the bizarre posts I've read over the past few days, it must be photoshopped as some particular shrub or other in the background is in bloom and this can't possibly happen in early May... well, that sounds like case solved then! I'd have thought shrubs in warm places (particularly shielded by a wall) would be capable of blooming earlier sometimes and it hardly seems like a cast iron case for tampering to me. Also the mistaken belief seems to be that you only need the background and can then paste in anyone! Enlarging that picture I linked to shows a certain amount of overlay of flyaway hairs that would be nigh on impossible to photoshop to me.
frobisher said:
Whereas I appreciate why Breadvan took the action he did and may well be qualified to do so, it's clear (via some PMs exchanged) that he has a very one-sided view of the whole affair and this, in my opinion, led him to take the action rather than the stated "just protecting PH" reason. I may, of course, be completely wrong; I'm just stating an opinion.
Suggesting that he has a one-sided view and complained in order to silence opposing views? Could be that your opinion is libellous 
frobisher said:
And the madness starts again... Whereas I appreciate why Breadvan took the action he did and may well be qualified to do so, it's clear (via some PMs exchanged) that he has a very one-sided view of the whole affair and this, in my opinion, led him to take the action rather than the stated "just protecting PH" reason. I may, of course, be completely wrong; I'm just stating an opinion.
You may well be right, and that BV found the thread not to his taste. At the same time, he wasn't wrong to point out the potential dangers to PH, and ultimately it was PH management who pulled the thread, based on (as I understand it) the continued potentially libellous comments being posted. In short, they could have pruned the thread, but the amount of time it would have taken to keep it on the straight and narrow would have made it impossible.Which brings me right back to the posters - if people post stuff that's actionable, then they can't be surprised when it's removed.
The McCann thread here was pretty much the only one on the UK internet not infested with nutters and infighting sock-puppets. There were occasional ad-hom spats, the odd tinfoil loon (well, just the one really), and a few wildly extreme comments. Pretty much the norm for an online debate on any controversial topic, in other words.
However I can't even begin to see how that debate opened up Pistonheads to any sort of libel action. Let's not forget that the McCanns and their legal advisors last month quietly suspended defamation court proceedings against Goncalo Amaral, the former lead detective on the case who published a book detailing his belief that Madeleine suffered a fatal accident while unattended in her family's apartment, and that to avoid the catastrophic consequences of admitting liability for this her parents concealed the body and staged an abduction.
Let's also not forget that at a previous related hearing, Amaral's former boss, Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, said under oath that Amaral's opinion of what happened was shared 'by all the detectives who worked on the case, both British and Portuguese'.
The McCanns are certainly litigious, but they're not stupid. They'd never have sued the Express if the paper had merely printed articles outlining the above version of events, or speculation on why senior policemen had come to these conclusions. As it was, Express Group Newspapers came out with some truly ridiculous lies, most notably a headline that read: 'FIND THE BODY & PROVE WE KILLED HER', which the McCanns had never said and the police had never alleged. As a result they were taken to court and had to cough up £550,000 in damages.
However I can't even begin to see how that debate opened up Pistonheads to any sort of libel action. Let's not forget that the McCanns and their legal advisors last month quietly suspended defamation court proceedings against Goncalo Amaral, the former lead detective on the case who published a book detailing his belief that Madeleine suffered a fatal accident while unattended in her family's apartment, and that to avoid the catastrophic consequences of admitting liability for this her parents concealed the body and staged an abduction.
Let's also not forget that at a previous related hearing, Amaral's former boss, Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, said under oath that Amaral's opinion of what happened was shared 'by all the detectives who worked on the case, both British and Portuguese'.
The McCanns are certainly litigious, but they're not stupid. They'd never have sued the Express if the paper had merely printed articles outlining the above version of events, or speculation on why senior policemen had come to these conclusions. As it was, Express Group Newspapers came out with some truly ridiculous lies, most notably a headline that read: 'FIND THE BODY & PROVE WE KILLED HER', which the McCanns had never said and the police had never alleged. As a result they were taken to court and had to cough up £550,000 in damages.
singlecoil said:
Suggesting that he has a one-sided view and complained in order to silence opposing views? Could be that your opinion is libellous
Quick, report me!Joking aside, I already explained my point to Breadvan and he disagrees, which is unsurprising. I don't think it's particularly libellous for me to suggest that if he held the same doubts over the McCanns that I and many others do, he wouldn't have taken the steps he did. I'm sure he'll be along in due course to put me right if he disagrees. He did use some very disparaging terms in his PMs to me that, whilst not apparently specifically directed at me, could certainly be interpreted as tarring me with the same brush as those he was otherwise addressing!
Any photoshop experts on here care to take a look at the picture linked to in my post above? I'd be interested to hear their opinions on whether any/all of the people in that shot have been overlaid on a background. Seems impossible to me due to the intricacies of the border between hair/background but I'm no expert.
, and the answer is (and will remain for a long time) negative 
.frobisher said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
FarnstonDrells said:
The McCann thread here was pretty much the only one on the UK internet not infested with nutters...
... and dealt with accordingly.singlecoil said:
I agree. There are certainly a lot of questions that can justifiably be asked, but actually accusing people of wrongdoing is going too far.
The thread still exists and is being steadily edited to remove bits that old leave us (as publishers) open to a libel suit. Unfortunately it can cost tens of thousands of pounds just fending off a case that is ultimately unsuccessful, and there's the obvious risk that it goes to court and we lose.So please be patient as we intend to return it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff