MAP Forum

I'm curious because the libelous claims against the victims of Savile are still up. Or have you decided to change the rules to allow for breaking the law?

To be libel, the comments would have to be personal in nature and be making a particular claim about a person and their behavior that is provably false.

You could be said to be libeling the estate of Savile.

In all seriousness, it is within the scope of reasonable debate to critique present or historical topics with a degree of scepticism, as was done at the time and retrospectively with various cases such as the satanic abuse scandals, even by members of the establishment.

Jim Burton wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:09 pm To be libel, the comments would have to be personal in nature and be making a particular claim about a person and their behavior that is provably false.

You could be said to be libeling the estate of Savile.

Well, if you want to remove my statements in addition to Strato's, I feel like that's a fair compromise.

I removed the bickering on both sides, but Strato's post questioning the official story remains.

I think a certain level of skepticism towards reporting on MAPs is important. Strato's comments are hardly pizzagate level conspiracy.