Madeleine McCann found?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
SapphireSteel said:
The examples you quoted were all to do with British subjects.

The rest of us are allowed to say what we like.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the man currently serving 11 years in a federal prison for making online threats to the creators of South Park after they depicted the Prophet Mohammed in one of their cartoons. I repeat - internet posts are not above the law of ANY country, including yours.

Besides, two of the cases I mentioned above involved not only prosecution of UK citizens, but also mass removal of posts from US and other foreign nationals from facebook, You Tube and twitter at the request of the UK attorney general. That's how it works - you want access to a British audience, try not to threaten the lives of British people, or poison the jury pool so badly its impossible to try somebody. That's not too much to ask, it it? Your print and television media have preserved those protocols for years when reporting on UK criminal cases, why do you think it should be different on the internet?
 
Cappuccino said:
Tell that to the man currently serving 11 years in a federal prison for making online threats to the creators of South Park after they depicted the Prophet Mohammed in one of their cartoons. I repeat - internet posts are not above the law of ANY country, including yours.

Besides, two of the cases I mentioned above involved not only prosecution of UK citizens, but also mass removal of posts from US and other foreign nationals from facebook, You Tube and twitter at the request of the UK attorney general. That's how it works - you want access to a British audience, try not to threaten the lives of British people, or poison the jury pool so badly its impossible to try somebody. That's not too much to ask, it it? Your print and television media have preserved those protocols for years when reporting on UK criminal cases, why do you think it should be different on the internet?
Click to expand...

I seem to have misunderstood.

Are we talking about direct "threats" being made, or opinions being shared?

Bit of a difference there. I thought we were talking about opinions, specifically, the opinions of non British subjects, not threats to life or terrorism, both of which are illegal just about anywhere.

Not quite sure how you ended up there...

As far as I know the great British Establishment can do eff all about what anyone posts *unless its illegal*, outside of the UK.

They have their libel laws, certainly, but its only "libellous" if it's false.

As far as Madeleine goes, no one knows what happened to her, so it follows that libel cannot be proven, per Goncalo Amaral.
 
Maybe I misunderstood, or we're just talking at cross purposes. I'll start again...

Libel is part of civil law, and would be no business of the UK attorney general or the Crown Prosecution Service to begin with. Libel is pretty irrelevant to the point I was making, so I probly shouldn't have bothered with the example of Sally Bercow.

The other examples I gave involved threats of rape and/or murder, and the Atlantic Wire was taken down briefly for contempt of court. Criminal threats and contempt of court are both, obviously, the business of the AG and the CPS. So when they arise on the internet those bodies will move to prosecute any UK citizen involved, and also remove such material posted by non-UK residents. or block the website.

So whoever was shouting about the demise of the British empire, or how its next stop North Korea, kinda missed the point.
 
Cappuccino said:
Maybe I misunderstood, or we're just talking at cross purposes. I'll start again...

Libel is part of civil law, and would be no business of the UK attorney general or the Crown Prosecution Service to begin with. Libel is pretty irrelevant to the point I was making, so I probly shouldn't have bothered with the example of Sally Bercow.

The other examples I gave involved threats of rape and/or murder, and the Atlantic Wire was taken down briefly for contempt of court. Criminal threats and contempt of court are both, obviously, the business of the AG and the CPS. So when they arise on the internet those bodies will move to prosecute any UK citizen involved, and also remove such material posted by non-UK residents. or block the website.

So whoever was shouting about the demise of the British empire, or how its next stop North Korea, kinda missed the point.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I think you totally missed the point... The point was never that anybody can say anything online without the danger of legal action. Please read the discussion again.

The point was that the courts of any country A generally cannot prosecute non-residents for things that were done in country B and are only considered illegal within the legal system of country A. Doing that requires that the officials of country B also agree that the courts of country A, e.g. the British or the North Koreans, have jurisdiction over the issue and that country B agrees to a deportation which is not a given.

Threats of rape and murder are irrelevant to this discussion since making these is illegal just about everywhere.

The British and the North Koreans and the authorities in all other countries can of course ask for IP addresses and post removal, block websites within their country and prosecute their own residents for anything they like; there was never any dispute about that.

What I was interested in was examples of the British (or the North Korean) government having the power of throwing people in jail for contempt of court and fining them for libel or otherwise enforcing their legal action against non-residents according to their own law if the relevant other country considers it legal to report about or to express opinions about ongoing crime cases or the political system.

As far as we know the McCann investigation is not even a British crime, it happened in Portugal, so it is extremely unclear to me why the British authorities should have the right to dictate what is and isn't legal for residents of other countries to say about the case.

As it happens, people can be sued for libel and things that they wrote online in many countries besides the UK but I think that you will find that usually you have a better chance of successfully suing people for things that they've done if you find out about the laws of the relevant country and sue them in the legal system that has jurisdiction over the alleged issue since the decisions of the courts in random third party countries that don't have anything to do with where the crime happened and in which the defendant does not live are a lot more difficult to enforce.

It would lead to an unholy mess if you could be sued for anything according to any legal system anywhere in the world even if you never stepped foot in the country. No two legal systems are the same so there would be a lot of conflict and if a lot of foreign countries were after you how would it ever be decided which random foreign legal systems should trump and decide your fate if not your own?
 
The whole thing is just silly.

Why are the McCanns so protected?

If we're talking about the almighty British Justice System, well they didn't see fit to charge these two with neglect, so anything else they have to say about it totally lacks credibility to me.

Especially Andy Redmond and his "we think she's alive! Because we don't have a body!"

Inept clown. :moo:
 
SapphireSteel said:
The whole thing is just silly.

Why are the McCanns so protected?

If we're talking about the almighty British Justice System, well they didn't see fit to charge these two with neglect, so anything else they have to say about it totally lacks credibility to me.

Especially Andy Redmond and his "we think she's alive! Because we don't have a body!"

Inept clown. :moo:
Click to expand...

no body has never stopped the uk police charging anyone....he is only sayng there is a POSSIBILITY she is alive.....and a POSSIBILITY she may have been abducted...thats all....diplomacy and nothing more
 
Clutchbag said:
no body has never stopped the uk police charging anyone....he is only sayng there is a POSSIBILITY she is alive.....and a POSSIBILITY she may have been abducted...thats all....diplomacy and nothing more
Click to expand...

All Redmond's statements confirm is that Scotland Yard think that the Great British Public are a bunch of low IQ oiks who believe everything The Establishment (and the media) tells them, as long as they see it on telly. :rolleyes:

For this investigation to have any credibility at all, one of the first things it should have triggered is the arrest and prosecution of the McCanns for gross neglect of their children.

Offence is the best defence, and these two have managed to cover up and deflect their own culpability by shouting about "abduction" and suing the pants off anyone who hints otherwise. :furious:

A charge of neglect would affect their ability to practise as doctors which sounds like an excellent motive for faking an abduction to me. :sick:

Unless this basic crime is acknowledged by SY and appropriately punished, (which Maddie deserves) SY are just blowing hot air, AFAIC.

:moo:
 
SapphireSteel said:
All Redmond's statements confirm is that Scotland Yard think that the Great British Public are a bunch of low IQ oiks who believe everything The Establishment (and the media) tells them, as long as they see it on telly. :rolleyes:

For this investigation to have any credibility at all, one of the first things it should have triggered is the arrest and prosecution of the McCanns for gross neglect of their children.

Offence is the best defence, and these two have managed to cover up and deflect their own culpability by shouting about "abduction" and suing the pants off anyone who hints otherwise. :furious:

A charge of neglect would affect their ability to practise as doctors which sounds like an excellent motive for faking an abduction to me. :sick:

Unless this basic crime is acknowledged by SY and appropriately punished, (which Maddie deserves) SY are just blowing hot air, AFAIC.

:moo:
Click to expand...


Who wants to charge them with neglect when they can get them for cncealing a death?


As for redwood, he is just talking walking on eggshells.....he has said NOTHING for definite......
 
New leads?
On Nancy Grace show on t.v. now.
 
If Maddie is alive, and I pray that she is, how ridiculous is it that this fact is being broadcasted for the world to hear, including the perpetrator(s), complete with some descriptions of the possible perps.

If Maddie is still alive, they are putting her life in jeopardy.

Why would LE do this. :banghead:

It's like the bank robber calling the bank giving them advance notice they are about to be robbed.:banghead:

IMO
 
You know is it just me but on here lately this fourm maddie mccann has been a buzz then outta the blue nancy grace is all over it ..I think nancy has been hiding under a secret screen name on websleuths in order to get some headlines for her ratings lol
 
WoW Just going back over a few pages brit N clutchbag are going at it like crazy and your both arguing over something that reminds me of that old saying, If a tree falls in the woods. Does it really make a noise . Some say YES and some say NO but the truth is in that scenario your not in the woods so your never gonna know if theres a noise or not and by those standards it would make you both technically right .. I hope you understand my point there .lol
 
CanManEh said:
WoW Just going back over a few pages brit N clutchbag are going at it like crazy and your both arguing over something that reminds me of that old saying, If a tree falls in the woods. Does it really make a noise . Some say YES and some say NO but the truth is in that scenario your not in the woods so your never gonna know if theres a noise or not and by those standards it would make you both technically right .. I hope you understand my point there .lol
Click to expand...

I understand.

Until there's an arrest, none of us really know.

Which is why the McCanns lost their libel suit in this case - libel has to be false.
 
I hope a child of mine never goes missing - there are people on here who would convict and euthanize me in a heart beat without any evidence one way or another.

I guess I have sympathy for the McCann's - mostly because their daughter is missing, partly because they were ignorant enough to leave Maddie alone so they could selfishly eat out instead of having room service, and because they have had to concentrate their efforts on proving their innocence rather than looking for Maddie. My point here is that there are no rules for how people behave. There are perceptions on how we should behave, but no hard and fast rules on how we all do behave.

I wonder what I would have done in their situation. First off, the situation wouldn't have occurred because I would never leave my children alone in a foreign hotel room - or ANY hotel room, or even my own home. But they did - and apparently this didn't seem out of the ordinary behavior to them. But, if I found my child missing, I THINK I would probably run around erratically looking in the most ridiculous places, not knowing what to do or who to call. I don't think most of us remain calm in these situations. So I don't feel I can be critical in the McCann case. (Casey Anthony was a totally different situation - 31 days is a tad bit on the excessive side and I thought she was guilty because of that from day 1. ....or is that day 32?...)

My point is - they may be guilty of a misguided sense of safety, or poor judgment, but there is no evidence that they harmed their child. So people on here who have railed at those proclaiming the McCann's innocence need to realize they are doing the same thing, but they are doing it from the perspective that the McCann's are guilty. And none of us know what happened, and may, unfortunately, never know. But I want to believe Maddie is okay and living happily with a couple who were so desperate to have children that they would stop at nothing to obtain a child, rather than that she is dead, or was kidnapped to satisfy some SO's sexual fantasies.

JMO
 
I don't think they look guilty. Not at all. I think at most they look like a couple that made a parenting decision that a lot of people feel they would never make and so they are judged for that first and then Madelienes disappearance seems like a natural progression to them.

I don't believe at all that they did anything to Madeleine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 214 more.
Total: 2,223 (members: 215, guests: 2,008)

Online statistics

Members online
215
Guests online
2,008
Total visitors
2,223
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,351
Messages
18,107,273
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top