and instead wait for the police to do there jobs?
In most countries we are presumed innocent untill proven guilty, but for some reason alot of people find it amusing to subject this family - who dont forget have already lost a child - to accusations which have no foundations. What really annoys me the most are that these accusers hide behind a pseudonym on the net, do not allow emails and generally feel above it all.
When will Yahoo stop letting people use its site to libel others?
2007-08-09
06:50:13
·
32 answers
·
asked by
Hotnbothered
3
in
News & Events
➔ Current Events
No beanie, its called a false accusation.
2007-08-09
06:55:10 ·
update #1
anne, a court is there to prove someones guilt not their innocence.
2007-08-09
06:59:44 ·
update #2
dave, the same thing applies to Murat, the only difference being that the police have identified him as a suspect. Once again though I reserve judgement untill it goes to court and a guilty verdict is pronounced.
2007-08-09
07:10:08 ·
update #3
Please understand that I am not entering into the pro or anti Mccan discussion. We can all agree or disagree on whether their actions on the night or since were sincere or silly. What I cannot accept is when people start accusing the family of being party to the dissapearance or worse, the murder of their daughter. One, I think that morally it's wrong and two, Ithink that Yahoo should be prosecuted for allowing those accusations to stand on their website. All the rest is just gossip and has no interest to me ok.
2007-08-09
08:24:53 ·
update #4
WELL SAID!!!!! THE ANSWER IS YES YES YES. A thousand thumbs up to you. These perfect people who criticise them have never made a mistake in their lives and are never going to!!! The McCanns are keeping up their search because they know of the incredibly painful silence that awaits them back home when it hits them full force that Maddie is not there.
2007-08-09 08:09:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
3⤋
I have never accused the McCann's of anything more than neglect. I stand by this accusation, as I fail to see any justification for leaving three small children, all aged under 4 in an unlocked hotel room in a foreign country EVERY night.
Of course, the other suspicions voiced are (as yet) unfounded, however, the behaviour of the McCann's has not done a lot to endear them to those members of the General Public who disagree with their definition of "reasonable parenting". As much as I detest their neglect, I actually HOPE that they are not involved in anything more sinister, as I don't want to think about what may have happened.
In answer to the points raised in your question:
I have never found this situation amusing.
Yes, the McCann's have lost a child, but my sympathy is reserved for Madeleine, not two people who ignored their parental responsibilities.
My profile is private, simply because of the sheer amount of abuse I got from some so-called "Pro-McCanner's" for not agreeing with their opinion.
The libel question has been gone over a hundred times here already. The McCann's would have to prove that anything said here is libellous, and they don't seem too keen on answering awkward questions, do they?
If you want to believe in the McCann's, please do so, but don't try and silence those of us who don't believe in them. As long as Madeleine is missing, I will keep asking the unanswered questions, she would never have been missing if her parents had put their childrens safety and welfare above their need for a night out.
2007-08-09 08:11:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by lululaluau 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
Yes it is. Thank you for a thoroughly sensible post.
edit:
lululaluau - if this site were covered by libel laws, it would NOT be up to the McCanns to prove that they were innocent of the accusations. The person accused of libel would have to prove that the accusations they made were well-founded. Do you think that the principal McCann bashers would be able to do that? I don't think so
silver tongue - it is not a murder inquiry and there is, as yet, no evidence (in public, anyway) that Madeleine is dead. You might think she is but that does not change the FACTS.
2007-08-09 08:33:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
"Wow" someone I believe is talking sense about the McCanns now that does make a change...... Keep up the good work. Have a star.......
#### does'nt look like the anti Mccanns stand much of a chance with this question #########
**********************************************************************
In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.
The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.
"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, internet blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.
2007-08-09 07:14:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
I can only compare the circus ring world tour antics of the McCanns with the quiet dignity shown by the parents of Holly and Jessica when they were murdered by that sick evil bastard Huntley.
The McCanns, guilty or totally innocent, have brought all this invective and suspicion on themselves. They have behaved throughout as people who see this not as a trauma or a tragedy but as an opportunity for self promotion.
2007-08-09 08:47:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by boojumuk 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
"they are being accused as they are greedy neglecting arrogant people "
Anne S has got it right, but I suspect can't see how ridiculous it is to accuse people of killing their own child and disposing of her body for this reason
If they had something in their past that might point to their guilt, I might agree with them, but as far as I am aware there is nothing. Yet these people have no problem believing it because Gerry has got angry (like no one else does) he can strike his child so hard as to kill her, and then discuss with his wife a suitable place to dump the body , do it and then not just try acting normal, but keep themselves forever in the public eye. It would be incredible if they could keep this up without breaking down if they were guilty.
well said peroxide pixie!
2007-08-09 07:30:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
I dont mind people having different views on the matter but I dislike the way people get so vicious and callous towards not only the family involved but also to members that dont agree with them on here. I think everyone is entitled to an opinion but it gets a little out of proportion when people start getting threats and start calling one another names. I refuse to get dragged into the whole 'anti' and 'pro' battle, all the back patting that goes on and the complacent nature of some people that wont accept other possibilities makes me wonder why they come on here-not everyone has to agree.
2007-08-09 07:12:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by peroxide.pixie 5
·
5⤊
2⤋
I have not accused them of anything other than annoying me by their cold, unfeeling manner and their addiction to celebrity. Their attitude is unique in comparison to other such cases. They have taken the tiger by the tail and are now paying the price.
Edit: I have to say that the circumstances surrounding this case are confusing to say the least.
2007-08-09 07:53:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by Beau Brummell 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Look in a lot of cases like this there is a good chance that the parents / other close family member are involved.
Also WHY LEAVE 3 KIDS UNDER THE AGE OF 3 ALONE WHEN YOU GO OUT ??? That is odd behaviour, which a lot of people cannot get their heads round.
As for people not allowing e-mails / using pseudonyms - basic internet security.
2007-08-09 07:01:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by David 5
·
8⤊
4⤋
I agree with you Hotnbothered, ok so they screwed up big time leaving the kids but they are sure paying for it now.
To all of you who are so sure that the McCanns did this, how about for one second considering that they didn't, how about the fact that all this bitching about them is not helping Maddie and if it was not them then all the bitching could actually hinder the investigation, if you guys are SO sure that it was the McCanns and tomorrow you see a girl that could be Maddie, the chances are you'd be blind to it because you are so damn sure that its a done deal, she's dead and the parents did it..... Wake up and realise that sitting bitching at the computer is not going to help either Maddie get home or even your own sanity!!
2007-08-09 07:13:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by shadow 2
·
6⤊
4⤋