Robert Murat New Details

[saggymoon]

try the bbc. websites set up by anonymous people can not be considered reliable. For instance if I was taken to court by the mccanns for libel I could use the fact that something was written on the bbc as a defence, but I could not use the fact it was a site like the mccannfiles or any of the blogspots etc that have been put up anonymously on the internet.
Can I just point out that this is the position I take with any internet research. Sites must be reliable, use reliable sources that can be backed up as anyone can put anything on the internet. I remember reading that teachers were having problems with this as students were going onto the internet and just googling and assuming any website they found with information counted as a source. there was a particular problem with students finding holocaust denial sites and treating them as just as reliable as proper sites.

you avoided the points and questions in my previous post, why is that? and for the record none of the three websites in the discussion are from anonymous people. even if they were anonymous what is crucial is that the info contained therein is correct, which it is, unless you know different and can post it

as for the bcc, they are not bastions of truth, witness for example one of their reporters saying that mr amaral said *advertiser censored*** the mccans which he certainly did not and after complaints they retracted this and ruled the reporter was wrong and were willing to offer a public apology