Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Update: You can't miss this

Hi, guys. Going on holiday in around 36 hours. This blog will be closed while I'm away because I won't be anywhere near a computer (thank God!). I'll be away at least one week, two weeks if I'm really lucky. :-) I'll miss you all. In between the great fun, that is! :-)

Guys, this can't be missed.


Zodiac said...


Thanks for the link to The Herald. What I find shocking, imo, regarding that article is, that woman gets paid for writing that tripe!

I read last nights posts on the other thread. Joe, I mentioned on the DE the exact same comment you have made. How would they prove who wrote the posts. We live in an age where computers are hacked all the time. We have a PC and several laptops being used where I post from. I could use any of the laptops here when the PC is not on (that is where the thingy that allows all the laptops access to the Internet is attached) and still get access to the Internet. I could park my car outside someones house or just sit out side in my garden and still get access to the Interenet via some other persons Internet access if they have it on and do not have any security to stop other people using it. I believe this is not against the Law unless there is security to access and some one hacks it. I am in no way computer literate and I know that. When I log on to this blog I click on watch in real time, it is not the location I am from that I see and not the location of my IP address either.

My defence will be:

When I go out I always leave my doors unlocked and sometimes the windows are also left open. I enjoy wining and dining with my friends in another friends back garden approx 100 mts from my house, in fact it is just like sitting in my own back garden I can see the top of the roof of my house from my friend Stu Pidder's garden therefore I believe it is within the bounds of responsible home safety especially as we take it in turn to check on each others homes every 30 mins or so.
I am sure my Insurance Company would have no quibble with that when I need to make a claim if it were ever burgled. Every home owner does it! Although the chances of it being burgled in such circumstances are very rare hence the no need to lock up, imo.

Although there was one incident regarding a laptop in my home, I had gone to do my usual check and discovered my laptop had been moved, used and then replaced. I just knew as soon I entered the house that someone had been using it, the study door was half open, not the way I had left it, the small window to the rear was open, it was closed when I left. I looked at the desk and I could tell from the way the the mouse was sitting on the mat that it had been taken at some point in the evening and then replaced. I went back to Stu Pidder's and finished my wine and Tapas although this did kinda bother me I decided not to let it interfere with my dinner and my social life, my friends are important to me and it was the kind of night we were all into each other so why spoil it.

However with the art of hindsight I think this has been happening over a long period of time, maybe 14-16 months. I decided to mention it to my mates cos it was starting to annoy me that someone could just go into my unlocked home and use my laptop, I mean you do not expect that where we live it is very safe, very quiet and I really did not think for a minute something like that would happen, if I did think that I would never have left the doors unlocked.

Anyway, I was telling my friends my sad news when my closest mate in the whole world, Dolly Dimple said that when she was checking her home (a few months ago, FFS some friend!) she saw a guy walking past my house. She knew he was a local, he had bright orange hair, he was peally whally white, wore a kilt, sipped Whisky from a small flask, was humming 'Donald where's your troosers' and carried bag pipes under his right arm. She thought he was a bit odd because he had something under his left arm wrapped in a blanket with a mouse hanging out, she watched him walk up the street and he hid in a neighbours front garden. She said she walked up and peeped over the hedge to see what he was doing. He was sitting with what she now knows was my laptop, it had my name on it 'Amya Moron' but at the time she just thought someone shared the same name as me. She said he was sitting in the neighbours garden, she could see him clearly as the Streetlamp gave her a clear view, he was laughing like a hyena she could only see some of the words on the screen...3.. and... A...and...rows of pictures, then he was typing a word...Zodi....that was all she could see.
She said she would definately be able to recognize him again as he has a distinctive walk, it looks like he is doing the highland fling, she would recognize him any where despite not being able to see his face.

My witnesses for all the occassions that my laptop was used without my permission are:

Stu Pidder and his partner Ida Nyit.
Patty O'Furniture and her partner Pop Sickle.
Xavier Breath and his partner Sue Cherself.
Dolly Dimple and her partner Hyman Idiot.
And of course not forgetting my PR rep should I need one Boabie Puller.

29 de Julho de 2008 18:04


docmac said...

Excellent post Zodiac!

I see Rosie has recently stopped referring to Dr Amaral in the rather libellous way she has done in the past. Unfortunately for her those posts have already been passed on. Too little too late methinks.

I see Nigel is still lapping it up though. He and his mate Ade are campers IMO.


With regards to myself, she may wish to read LGC's excellent post on libel on the 3As. Perhaps you should also make a note of that article amiga. We could have been rich if she were not some penniless nobody from the south-east of England. Still, Mum professes to be fairly well-off...

Cláudia said...

Hey, Doc.
Really brilliant, uh?
Yep, a little too late.
Send it here and I'll publish it, Doc. :-) Please. :-)

Joe said...

Well said Zodiac,

Thats the point I was trying to make last night but you put it much more eloquently and wittily. They would have an impossible case to identify any net users and sue them for defamation. Not everyone is going to roll over like the Express and admit defamation.If a Police force suspects a net user of using a computer for illegal purposes, it is that very computer that is seized as evidence by the Police. As far as I know the Police do not act for citizens in cases of alleged defamation so how could anybody then seize evidence. An IP address is not proof as it can be used by many users with or without permission, as Zodiac illustrates. Maybe the Governments will change the Laws to suit the McCanns and erode peoples liberty? Because thats the only way that they will be able to sue anybody. ALL IMO.

Cláudia said...

Joe, I'm still laughing here. :-)

docmac said...

What, this? With thanks to LGC

How to avoid libel and defamation

This page was created by the BBC.

* Updated: 23 Apr 2004
* Created 11 Sep 2003

By BBC Action Network team

1. What are defamation and libel?
2. Get your facts right
3. Three tips for writing
4. Common mistakes and assumptions
5. Defences against libel
6. If a complaint is made
7. Feedback and comments

1. What are defamation and libel?

Defamation is any published material that damages the reputation of an individual or an organisation. This covers material on the internet as well as radio and television broadcasts - so even drama and fiction can be defamatory if they damage someone’s reputation. You can only publish defamatory material if it comes within one of the recognised legal defences. If it doesn’t, the publication will amount to libel and you may have to pay substantial damages.

Libel online

Slander is 'defamation by word of mouth'
Slander is 'defamation by word of mouth'
Internet sites are not exempt from any libel laws. If you are publishing on the internet you are bound by the same libel laws as print publishers.

In a significant ruling in 2002, the Australian high court ruled that mining magnate Joseph Gutnick could sue publisher Dow Jones under Australian law for alleged libel online. The judge deemed that the web was no different from newspapers or television.

In the UK, internet service providers are coming under increasing pressure to close sites containing defamatory allegations. You also have to be careful about the comments others post on your site. There have been cases where individuals have sued online publishers for libel over customer book reviews published on their sites.

Such developments have implications for freedom of expression.

The purpose of libel law

Libel law protects individuals or organisations from unwarranted, mistaken or untruthful attacks on their reputation. A person is libelled if a publication:

* Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt

* Causes them to be shunned or avoided

* Discredits them in their trade, business or profession

* Generally lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society

For example, MORAL rights campaigner Victoria Gillick recently won a £5,000 settlement and an apology after taking libel action against the Brook Advisory Centre, a charity which gives sex advice to young people, over allegations that Brook had suggested Mrs Gillick "bore a moral responsibility" for an increase in pregnancies among teenagers. A fact sheet published by Brook contained the heading "What caused the teenage conception rate to rise in the 1980s?", and listed a legal action brought by Mrs Gillick against the Department of Health over contraception guidelines as one of the causes.

2. Get your facts right

The most important point is to make absolutely sure that what you are printing or writing is true. Do not make claims or accusations that you cannot prove. Even if you think you can do this, be cautious. Proving things in court can be very difficult.

And the test of what the words mean is what a reasonable reader is likely to take as their natural and ordinary meaning, in their full context - what you intended as the author or publisher is irrelevant.

If you write something that cannot be substantiated the credibility of your site, organisation or cause may be questioned. It can also land you with an expensive lawsuit and there is no legal aid for libel cases.

The burden of proof lies with the defendant
Almost uniquely in English law, in libel cases the burden of proof lies with the author / publisher and not the complainant. In other words, you have to prove that what you write is true. The person you’ve targeted does not have to prove that you’re wrong.


In 1990 McDonalds served a libel writ on several members of a campaigning organisation over the production and distribution of the ‘What’s Wrong with McDonalds?’ leaflet. The legal battle between Helen Steel and David Morris, a gardener and a postman, and the McDonalds corporation became one of the most famous cases in British legal history, not least because it became the longest running British trial.

To win the case, the pair would have to prove from primary sources the truth of their allegations about McDonalds. After hearing all the evidence, the judge (who did find that some of the allegations were true) ruled that the pair had libelled McDonalds because the evidence they called was not enough to prove the majority of their statements. They were ordered to pay damages of £60, 000. The trial was estimated to have cost millions of pounds in legal fees.

3. Three tips for writing

Libel is 'defamation in a permanent form'

Don’t rely on the literal meaning

You cannot solely rely on proving that your statements were literally true if, when they’re taken as a whole, they have an extended, more damaging meaning. Also, for example, if somebody was guilty of fraud once, calling him a fraudster in a way which might suggest he’s still doing the same may well give rise to a libel which can’t be defended. Be especially wary when referring to events in the past.

Don’t exaggerate in your claims or language

For example, a company may run a factory which produces certain chemicals. For you to suggest that babies will be born deformed as a result may get you into libel trouble.

Innuendo can catch you out

Your comments may not appear particularly defamatory taken at face value, but greater knowledge of a person or situation may make it problematic because of the innuendo. To say Mr Jones doesn’t recycle his waste paper may sound harmless enough. But to people who know that Mr Jones is a Green Party activist, the innuendo of the statement is that he is hypocritical in his politics.

4. Common mistakes and assumptions

Repeating rumours

It is inadvisable to repeat a defamatory rumour unless you are in a position to prove it’s true. Even if you are contradicting the rumour you should not repeat it. And adding ‘allegedly’ is not enough to get you out of libel difficulties.

Quoting others

If you publish defamatory remarks about people or organisations made by other people you will be just as liable to be sued as they are. So if you can’t prove the truth of their statements, don’t repeat them.

Drawing unprovable conclusions

It is a common mistake to draw unverifiable conclusions from the basic facts. For example, if Mr Brown is seen going into a hotel room with a call-girl, this does not necessarily mean he enjoyed a ‘night of passion’, and will certainly not prove that he did.

Irresponsible adjectives

Be very careful about the adjectives you use. A misplaced word can result in costly action. If you are campaigning about a factory that releases chemicals into the atmosphere, referring to the factory as ‘poisoning the atmosphere’ is inadvisable!

Representing all sides

Presenting all sides of an argument is often good practice, but is not a defence against publishing defamatory remarks made by or about those involved.

5. Defences against libel

The law lays down a number of ways in which defamatory publications may be defended. If the defences succeed, the publisher wins. But if they don’t succeed, the publisher loses: the complainant will have been libelled and will therefore be entitled to be paid damages and their legal costs. The defences are listed below.


The most usual defence against libel is to prove that the information published is true. But this can be a dangerous route because an unsuccessful plea could increase the damages against you because you will have increased the harm to the complainant. And remember, you must be able to deal with every libellous possibility, such as inference and innuendo. If your statement infers something greater, it is not enough to prove that the statement is just literally true. Merely asserting something will not be sufficient to prove that it’s true - you will need witnesses and documents to back up assertions (whether they’re yours or someone you’re quoting).

Fair comment

Fair comment covers content, mainly opinion, that cannot by its very nature be true or false. To be properly defensible, these comments must be:

* Based on fact

* Made in good faith

* Published without malice

* On a matter of public interest

In 2001, the Daily Mail lost a libel action brought by the former Tottenham Hotspur chairman Alan Sugar over the remark that he was a "miser" when he ran the club because he didn’t give his manager enough money to buy top class players. The jury were not sufficiently persuaded that there was any factual basis for making this comment. They didn’t deem it fair comment. He was awarded £100,000.


Privilege is the defence where the law recognises that individuals should be free to speak their minds (and others to report what they say) without fear of being sued even if they get their facts wrong. It allows people to speak freely in court proceedings and debates in Parliament, and allows for such proceedings to be reported, so long as the reports are both fair and accurate.

6. If a complaint is made

Remember the burden of proof lies with the author
What follows does not constitute legal advice, but if a complaint is made against you or your campaign, you could consider one or more of the following steps, depending on how serious the complaint is or how far you wish to pursue your case:

* Take legal advice as soon as possible and before responding to the claimant

* Check the original statement and any associated investigative work collected before it was written

* Consider withdrawing the original statement if, after checking, you think your words were mistaken

* Perhaps do further investigative work to help explain your position

* Keep all drafts and supplementary documentary evidence

* Ensure all those involved in the writing and research of the statement are aware of the situation and aware they may have to provide evidence or statements

* Inform your insurers, if you have libel insurance, and comply with their requests

If you have had material on Action Network rejected because it was potentially libellous, check through this guide to see why it might have been rejected. You will probably have to rewrite your original contribution, removing anything which cannot be proved in a court of law.

Cláudia said...

Thanks, Doc.
Zodiac's version was funnier! ;-)

docmac said...

BTW Claudia

Did you read the link I posted earlier? It concerned something very disturbing written by GA. So disturbing that anyone who has read it will know how disturbing it is. Problem is, whatever is so disturbing is a big secret. :-)))))))))))

Cláudia said...

Tell me, Doc, can it be a secret when at least 40 000 people know it? LOLOL

docmac said...

You are right amiga

But if I can find Rosiepoops, Christahell, Blandy, Bum and that woman who just had a liver transplant they are going to kak themselves sister. I've had enough of their pretentious nonsense. If I track them down it's open season. And may the best man win. Oh, sorry - I'm the only man in it. OK, no problem then.

Cláudia said...

You should start looking in swamps. :-)

docmac said...

Rosieslookingfortrouble says:

"I am intrigued to learn that there is another child, a sibling of Joana, that is not in contact with he family and wonder if this is an older sibling? I wonder where she is and if she has been traced? I say this because how do we know that Joana is not quite simply living with this fourth child?

I agree, it is totally bizarre that two very different families with very different backgrounds could have children disappear with 7 miles of each other and lengthening the odds even more, one family is just visiting the area on holiday, yet there is all these amazing similarities in these two cases and even more coincidental, the same detective is in charge of both cases?"

Wow, imagine that! The guy who is the 'main oke' in the area is in charge of both cases. Amazing, unbelievable!!!

And this man is disturbing me with the constant references to poor Joana. No respect, no decency, no brains.

Cláudia said...

Doc, I hope God punishes that disgusting creature for the times she has said this poor dead girl's name in the middle of her disgusting filth.

docmac said...

Claudia I am not religious but I agree with you completely. If Maddie had been Portuguese can you just imagine the hatred that this b*tch would have had for her parents? That's if the British press would have reported on it, mind.

Rosie McGoon, candidate for the Ihateforeigners Party.

Cláudia said...

Joana is safe now and cannot be hurt anymore. Not even by that specimen of the scum of the earth.

Zodiac said...


Aw shucks I'm blushing! If I had even a tiny thought that you would have done what you have with this, I would have spent more time on it. I was just so p'd of with all the libel threats that I thought, there were 9 people on that holiday what exactly have they done to try and help with the investigation of the child missing from their party. They all had access to that apt, yet they expect us just to accept that they had no involvement with the disappearance just because they say so. Also it appears they think that they can have access to the public's private details and threaten them with sueing. LP only gave them access to 80 or 81 of 11,000 files, what exactly makes them think that is possible. By the way I am at my friend Stu Pidder's tonight so who the feck is using this laptop I have no fecking clue.

Cláudia said...

Zodiac, there is no way this could be better. No way. I laughed to teard. Honestly. And I'm not the only. You have fans now! :-) Thank you. Brilliant and hilarious. :-)))))

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but in my opinion, more than enough has been said on BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE about this tragic ordeal. It's time to let go of these blog wars. In the end, pros and antis all want to find Madeleine - alive and well - and if that is not possible, at least allow for her to have a proper burial and provide some closure for all involved.

At this point in time, anyone with any sense at all, will just let it go. Because now, none of you have an excuse to say you are doing it for Madeleine.

Go live your lives and honour Madeleine in the best way possible: by loving and caring for your children/grandchildren or any child that needs love and a good role model.

pampita said...

JA JA JA, brillante!!Voy a tratar de traducirlo al español y colgarlo en mi blog.

Un abrazo

Cláudia said...

Anon, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. As you know, I'm all for free speech. But nobody tells me waht to do or when to do it. And by the way, saying what you said and then posting it here makes you a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Cláudia said...

Pampita, brilhante e hilariante.
Um abrazo! :-)

josiepublic said...

Hi Claudia;
Zodiac you are brilliant and Stu Pidder is wonderful. Best laugh Ive had in ages.

Claudia Hun hope you and your family are well.

Hi Docmac,Hi ICTOAN; hope you are both well also.

Love to all of you. Plainwaters.

Cláudia said...

Hi, Plainwaters.
I'm great, thank you. Hope you're goo too. Going on holiday really, really soon. Countdown is on. :-)
Zodiac was brilliant and I'm still laughing. :-)
See you in one or two weeks, Plainwaters.

Anonymous said...


diverte-te e aproveita bem!

Eu só vou na 2ª quinzena por isso cá estarei atenta às noticias.
Vou sentir falta do teu blog porque vinha ca sempre ler as novidades e por vezes "roubar" artigos.



Zodiac said...


Have a lovely holiday. Enjoy reading your new book to the full enjoyment whilst you relax. Just do not go reading it out loud in all the languages that you can speak and do not even think about discussing it with the friends you are on holiday with!

We will miss you.

Zodiac x

Cláudia said...

Paula, THANK YOU. I'll miss you too.
I really need to rest. September is near and I'll be back to work. But I'll be back soon. Unfortunately! LOL

Zodiac, I'll be extremely careful. I will not discuss THE BOOK with anyone, I will not read THE BOOK in public and I will avoid any thoughts about THE BOOK.
I'll miss you too, Zodiac. I'm still laughing with your post yesterday. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. THANK YOU. :-)

ICantThinkOfAName said...


Bon voyage!

Don't lose anything!

Cláudia said...


thank you, my friend. I'll try but I can't promise I won't make a small mistake. It happens all the time, you know?

docmac said...

Happy holidays Claudia.
Hi Plainwaters!

Just one thing before you go Claudia. Today's interview with Amaral on TVI. Any thoughts?

OK, two things. What is 'abrazo'? Is that like 'abraco' but when the guy is getting closer to home base? Or is it just an 'abraco' with a guy who has a beard?

Cláudia said...

Hi, Doc.
Have had some problems with accessing the blog today. And haven't been around much too. Packing and other last minute things.
Unfortunately I did not watch the programm. When I come back I'm sure it will be on youtube or on TVI website.
Abrazo is abraço in Spanish. :-)
Thank you, Doc.
If I don't read you before I leave, I'll miss you. :-)

Anonymous said...

What I normally do is leave my three tiny children at the bus stop and then go shopping for the day. So far, they have always been there when I come back to collect them, but one day I'm sure some heartless predator sick bastard will grab one (or all) of them, and boy .. will I be mad then!!

They've just got no RIGHT to grab your kids like that, and ultimately, that's what this is all about ... "rights". Oh sure, I could leave my children with a babysitter, or even take them with me to the shops (although that seems a little extreme) but why should I have to? It's predators that are the evil ones, so why should I change my routine for them? I could protect my children if I wanted to, but as I say - no predator has the right to take your child, so why should I?

No sir. If someone wants to steal one of my babies then I'm not going to get in their way. In fact, I'm going to help them. And then if one of my babies is raped, starved, burnt or killed, nobody better blame me. It's not my fault if there's sick, twisted sociopaths out there and if I don't have the right to double-park when I go to the shops, why do they have the right to abduct and brutalise my child? Honestly, some people are so mixed up!

Cláudia said...

Anon, your post would be hilarious if it didn't remind us all of poor Madeleine. Very well written and sadly true. Thank you.