That endless McCann thread - a question for the Moderators
Discussion
I don't know if any the sane members of PH ever look in to that humongous McCann thread (and if you spend more than a few minutes reading it, you tend to go nuts), but is it, I wonder, the single most nutty and libellous thread on all of PH? Do the Mods just put up with it because it's plainly bonkers, and allows the random haters of people whom they've never met to carry on with their theorising as a form of therapy for them? Speech is, of course, free, but every forum has its rules, and libelling people is usually against them. The net is so awash with loony McCann diatribes that the family could never sue them all, even if they wanted to, but it seems odd that this sort of conspiracy nonsense finds a home on PH.
The haters have loads of dedicated fora on which they can play out their spiteful fantasies, and trash the reputations of two parents who suffered a grievous loss and against whom no police force has found any evidence of criminal conduct, as well as waging the typical internecine warfare of one conspiracy nutter against another.
We had a discussion closed a few weeks ago that concerned damage to a classic sports racer, a subject of direct relevance to PH, because the Mods thought that the thread was becoming libellous of one or both parties to the dispute, but the far more libellous McCann stuff goes on and on.
Of course, it's PH's site, and PH's rules, but it does seem odd.
We had a discussion closed a few weeks ago that concerned damage to a classic sports racer, a subject of direct relevance to PH, because the Mods thought that the thread was becoming libellous of one or both parties to the dispute, but the far more libellous McCann stuff goes on and on.
Of course, it's PH's site, and PH's rules, but it does seem odd.
Gaz. said:
No one (including yourself) has reported a post on that thread for months, PH uses peer moderation and there is a report button on the right hand side of each post.
Where to start? Almost every post breaks the PH rules. Most of us don't go there, I suspect. Occasionally, a perverse curiosity makes me look in there. I don't work for Carter Ruck, and am generally in favour of free expression and open debate. I merely observe that it's odd that PH puts up with such a plainly defamatory thread.
Gaz. said:
I never said peer moderation was the only method so do not put words in my mouth. I am not passing any buck, if a thread is not reported then there is a good chance that we will not follow or act upon it.
OK, please take this as a report of the entire thread on the ground that it is manifestly defamatory. It exposes PH to litigation risk. It might be that the McCanns won't sue PH, because they have much else on their plate, but they might, just possibly, decide to make an example of a mainstream publisher such as Haymarket that provides a forum for the loons, as they did with the tabloid press. If they did, Haymarket would have to roll over quickly, as no defence of justification, comment, Reynolds or whatever would apply. Free legal advice, there you are. I have (no doubt foolishly) ventured into the thread itself, but I shan't stay long, as I prefer my tinfoilerey to involve at least one lot of Space Aliens.
BTW, I came across a loony site run by a member of my profession the other week, who maintains that Madeleine McCann was taken away in a U Boat (yes, I did say a U Boat) on the orders of some Nazi spy organisation, to be provided to a paedo group of EU bosses in Brussels. Well, that clears that one up then.
BTW, I came across a loony site run by a member of my profession the other week, who maintains that Madeleine McCann was taken away in a U Boat (yes, I did say a U Boat) on the orders of some Nazi spy organisation, to be provided to a paedo group of EU bosses in Brussels. Well, that clears that one up then.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
sorry 
i did start off my posts on the subject the other day that there didn't seem to be much in the way of evidence on the mccanns but i have been pointed in the right direction by PH for further reading on the topic.
it is very interesting however & i feel that questioning discrepancies in evidence that has been widely published is not litigious.
Free legal advice - suggesting that people murdered their child, sold her off, or killed her by accident and lied to investigators about it is defamatory. i did start off my posts on the subject the other day that there didn't seem to be much in the way of evidence on the mccanns but i have been pointed in the right direction by PH for further reading on the topic.
it is very interesting however & i feel that questioning discrepancies in evidence that has been widely published is not litigious.
Saying "allegedly", "no offence", or adding smileys doesn't get anyone off.
The loons have probably referred you to some other loon sites, written by loons. Almost everything on the internet requires to be diluted in a solution of 4000% scepticism.
Gene Vincent said:
...
Perhaps PH needs a 'Nutters Theories' section, using the McCann thread to kick-start such a place gives it nine-league boots from the get go.
Yay that! Can we have David Icke as Guest Moderator? Perhaps PH needs a 'Nutters Theories' section, using the McCann thread to kick-start such a place gives it nine-league boots from the get go.
My first thread there will be "Space Aliens stole my keys, and it took me ten minutes to find them".
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff