Re: Libel Trial 7th Jan Postponed - confirmed

by ultimaThule 23.03.14 21:02

Miraflores wrote:Is it possible for the McCanns to just 'quietly withdraw' at this stage? Perhaps someone who knows Portuguese law could advise.

From my study of the Portuguese Civil Code, except in that the Portuguese justice system is inquisitorial whereas that of the UK is adversarial, it would appear that in cases of libel it does not differ greatly from the civil (common) law of England/Wales,

As I understand it, the McCanns are free to decide not to pursue their plaint but any such decision will result in those named on the plaint bearing the costs of the 4 defendants as well as their own.

If the McCanns' plaint is thrown out of court due to issues arising from the Wardship, I will think it entirely fitting as I am at loss to understand why a plaint of this nature has been allowed to proceed when it would appear that 3 of the named plaintiffs are minors.

Without having seen the plaint, which I understand runs to some 38 pages, it is not possible to determine what part or parts of it allege injury to the 3 minors caused by publication of the book and distribution of the associated documentary, nor what specific injuries are alleged, neverthless it seems to me extraordinary that they have been named on it.

FWIW, it would seem probable that the issue of Wardship which the presiding Judge of the libel trial has been asked to evaulate is that one those minors is a Ward of the High Court of England/Wales and, as such, no important steps can be taken in that child's life, or in her name, without the consent of Mrs Justice Hogg who, again as I understand it, reserved the Wardship to herself in July 2008.

The issue may become further complicated by the fact that child is now approaching the age of 11 when it can be reasonably expected the Court will take into account her wishes when decisions relating to important steps in her life are made, but even a writ of habeas corpus is unlikely to produce the child in order that her wishes can be heard.

Having given this matter some consideration, I am not all surprised that the trial has not resumed since the defence made their request as it raises a number of issues for which there appears to be little or no precedent in the law of England/Wales and I suspect that the same is true in the lawbooks of Portugal.

by Guest 23.03.14 22:13

ultimaThule wrote:
Miraflores wrote:Is it possible for the McCanns to just 'quietly withdraw' at this stage? Perhaps someone who knows Portuguese law could advise.
From my study of the Portuguese Civil Code, except in that the Portuguese justice system is inquisitorial whereas that of the UK is adversarial, it would appear that in cases of libel it does not differ greatly from the civil (common) law of England/Wales,

As I understand it, the McCanns are free to decide not to pursue their plaint but any such decision will result in those named on the plaint bearing the costs of the 4 defendants as well as their own.

If the McCanns' plaint is thrown out of court due to issues arising from the Wardship, I will think it entirely fitting as I am at loss to understand why a plaint of this nature has been allowed to proceed when it would appear that 3 of the named plaintiffs are minors.

Without having seen the plaint, which I understand runs to some 38 pages, it is not possible to determine what part or parts of it allege injury to the 3 minors caused by publication of the book and distribution of the associated documentary, nor what specific injuries are alleged, neverthless it seems to me extraordinary that they have been named on it.

FWIW, it would seem probable that the issue of Wardship which the presiding Judge of the libel trial has been asked to evaulate is that one those minors is a Ward of the High Court of England/Wales and, as such, no important steps can be taken in that child's life, or in her name, without the consent of Mrs Justice Hogg who, again as I understand it, reserved the Wardship to herself in July 2008.

The issue may become further complicated by the fact that child is now approaching the age of 11 when it can be reasonably expected the Court will take into account her wishes when decisions relating to important steps in her life are made, but even a writ of habeas corpus is unlikely to produce the child in order that her wishes can be heard.

Having given this matter some consideration, I am not all surprised that the trial has not resumed since the defence made their request as it raises a number of issues for which there appears to be little or no precedent in the law of England/Wales and I suspect that the same is true in the lawbooks of Portugal.

Hello UT

To a certain extent I agree with you.

It has always surprised me that the four defendants allowed the proceedings to commence at all on behalf of Madeleine Beth McCann, who is not a party to the proceedings herself, nor is she legally represented in the court. She simply is not there, so she cannot ask for compensation, damages etc etc.

The parents can represent the twins; no problem there.

But the odd thing is, the above appears not to have hindered the proceedings from commencing at all, whereas normally they should only have commenced after these issues were cleared up in the highest instance (maybe even the Portuguese Supreme Court)

Why has it not come up?

Maybe now, just now, at five to twelve so to speak, the PJ found evidenced of the childs demise, which was used by the four defendants to stay the proceedings even now at the very last minute.

Time will tell.

It dawned upon me today, that no one in this tragedy will ever be free from its consequences, and neither will we, the untold concerned onlookers

It is not a case anyone will be able to forget

And bear in mind, that the release of the finale reports of AR/SY and the PJ, the final decisions in the libel trial, and the possible criminal litigation are yet to come

by Bishop Brennan 24.03.14 1:06

russiandoll wrote:
Have bolded this from your post, BB, because I have not heard anyone from SY talk about these being strong leads, just an appeal for info. Isn't it the media putting words into AR's mouth ?

Good point russiandoll, I did somewhat overstate that. I guess we could say that with BHH backing the '3 burglars' story on radio and claiming to 'have names' that this is probably one of their main leads. But 'smellyman' does seem to be a theory at this stage with information being sought. Not that you'd think that from the media furore that it has created! So yes - strong leads would be the press view rather than reality. I must be reading too much of it!

In terms of the libel trial, the "may not have been alive" quote from AR came out on the back of smellyman - although may well have been in response to Amaral's claim on TV that SY now believe she is dead. Both statements were unchallenged and surely can only weaken the libel claim. Although as others have said here, it may well founder on legal issues around the WOC and stay in limbo for ever.

by **PeterMac** 24.03.14 7:28

Portia wrote:
It dawned upon me today, that no one in this tragedy will ever be free from its consequences, and neither will we, the untold concerned onlookers
It is not a case anyone will be able to forget
And bear in mind, that the release of the finale reports of AR/SY and the PJ, the final decisions in the libel trial, and the possible criminal litigation are yet to come

Exactly.
The McCanns have it within their power to stop the whole ghastly thing, by telling the truth, whatever that is.
And just ONE version please ! (And that version must be credible, and ideally be supported by some evidence )
The Tapas7 have the same power
But failing that, this will become as long running as Hilsborough, or any of the cases TB is involved with.
Until the truth be known, or until justice is done this is not going to go away.

And the McCanns had better understand that.
A real tragedy is what this is gong to do to their remaining children.

by Liz Eagles 24.03.14 7:46

Well it's all go in BHH's office. I wonder how he finds the time to run a police service.

Truth over corruption files police shredded: Secret memo said officers trafficked drugs, faked evidence and took bribes

[size=18.2]Memo says shredded files had details of crimes by Met police officers
[/size]
[size=18.2]The 'lorry load' of destroyed information relates to a corruption probe[/size]
[size=18.2]The information could have shed light on Stephen Lawrence's murder[/size]
[size=18.2]Met commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe will face MPs to explain shredding[/size]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587531/Truth-corruption-files-police-shredded-Secret-memo-officers-trafficked-drugs-faked-evidence-took-bribes.html#ixzz2wrdW4dyg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

by Clocker 24.03.14 10:16

When we last saw GA which I think was around New Year, he looked shocking. He had lost so much weight, he was drawn and literally looked like he had the weight of the world on his shoulders. In this recent interview he gave he looked like all his worries had been removed, he had gained weight and looked healthy.
Iirc Philomena i think it was, during her witness evidence said the book left no other theory except that MM had died and therefore he had harmed the search for her as people would stop looking for her, yet last week he spoke openly of his belief that MM died on 3/5/2007. Would he do that in the middle of a trial that is suing him for exactly that? That alone makes me feel this libel trial is over. Whether it is due to the Mccanns withdrawing or it being ended on some legality I do not know but I do believe any person only has so much emotional strength to keep fighting libel trials.
As for how these trials effect the twins emotionally, even if not now but when they are older and looking back, then I would have thought that they'd had enough to deal with regarding their sister going missing and living day to day with that and the private and the police investigations going on around them, without the extra stresses and strains the libel trials put on their parents lives and indeed everyone else's around them which in turn affects their lives no matter how much anybody says that they're being protected from it.
Just my opinion of course.

by Woofer 24.03.14 10:28

Clocker wrote:When we last saw GA which I think was around New Year, he looked shocking. He had lost so much weight, he was drawn and literally looked like he had the weight of the world on his shoulders. In this recent interview he gave he looked like all the weight had been removed, he had gained weight and looked healthy.
Iirc Philomena i think it was, during her witness evidence said the book left no other theory except that MM had died and therefore he had harmed the search for her as people would stop looking for her, yet last week he spoke openly of his belief that MM died on 3/5/2007. Would he do that in the middle of a trial that is suing him for exactly that? That alone makes me feel this libel trial is over. Whether it is due to the Mccanns withdrawing or it being ended on some legality I do not know but I do believe any person only has so much emotional strength to keep fighting libel trials.
As for how these trials effect the twins emotionally, even if not now but when they are older and looking back, then I would have thought that they'd had enough to deal with regarding their sister going missing and living day to day with that and the private and the police investigations going on around them, without the extra stresses and strains the libel trials put on their parents lives and indeed everyone else's around them which in turn affects their lives no matter how much anybody says that they're being protected from it.
Just my opinion of course.

Good point. I would have thought it was illegal to do so.

by Cristobell 24.03.14 10:58

The McCanns are on the edge of the precipice, one look at former high profile libel claimants shows that a big loss can poleaxe them, bankruptcy, loss of career, loss of reputation.

In addition, the Mcanns are the subject of two intensive police investigations, both of which point to the child being dead, making the McCanns' claim that people wouldn't search for a live Madeleine moot.

They really are between the devil and the deep blue sea.

by ultimaThule 24.03.14 12:11

Cristobell wrote:The McCanns are on the edge of the precipice, one look at former high profile libel claimants shows that a big loss can poleaxe them, bankruptcy, loss of career, loss of reputation.

In addition, the Mcanns are the subject of two intensive police investigations, both of which point to the child being dead, making the McCanns' claim that people wouldn't search for a live Madeleine moot.

They really are between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Can you please give examples of those high profile claimants you've looked at who have been ruined by losing libel trials, Cristobell?

Fwiw, and for the benefit of those may find themselves on the brink of financial meltdown for want of a better term, bankruptcy does not automatically lead to the loss of career/employment or loss of reputation other than with lenders/creditors.

With regard to the two police investigations, as far as I'm aware the PJ are yet to indicate whether their current investigation points to the child being dead, nor has there been any such confirmation from NSY.

As the McCanns have claimed that people wouldn't search for a dead Madeleine, you may wish to edit your post by substituting 'dead' for 'alive'.

by Cristobell 24.03.14 12:33

ultimaThule wrote:
Cristobell wrote:The McCanns are on the edge of the precipice, one look at former high profile libel claimants shows that a big loss can poleaxe them, bankruptcy, loss of career, loss of reputation.

In addition, the Mcanns are the subject of two intensive police investigations, both of which point to the child being dead, making the McCanns' claim that people wouldn't search for a live Madeleine moot.

They really are between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Can you please give examples of those high profile claimants you've looked at who have been ruined by losing libel trials, Cristobell?

Fwiw, and for the benefit of those may find themselves on the brink of financial meltdown for want of a better term, bankruptcy does not automatically lead to the loss of career/employment or loss of reputation other than with lenders/creditors.

With regard to the two police investigations, as far as I'm aware the PJ are yet to indicate whether their current investigation points to the child being dead, nor has there been any such confirmation from NSY.

As the McCanns have claimed that people wouldn't search for a dead Madeleine, you may wish to edit your post by substituting 'dead' for 'alive'.

Albeit my wording may have been clumsy, but live, is what I meant. The McCann Campaign is to convince people Madeleine is alive, it keeps the Fund going.

Herewith a link to David Irving's ruination.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/irving

Herewith link to Jonathan Aitkin's ruination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Aitken#Libel_action

I was not suggesting bankruptcy leads to loss of career etc, I was clearly discussing ill conceived libel actions not bankruptcy in general. In the two cases I have cited, the claimants were exposed as liars and despicable people, and indeed Jonathan Aitkin went on to receive a prison sentence.

Going slightly off topic, I am confused as to your use of the word 'plaint'. It's many years since I worked as a legal secretary, but it is not a word I am familiar with. In a High Court action, a Writ is issued which incorporates a Statement of Claim, that is a list of the damages incurred by the Plaintiff (it used to be Plaintiff .v. Defendant, though it may now have changed to Claimant .v. Defendant, maybe someone can clarify?).

by **PeterMac** 24.03.14 14:23

As did Archer.

by Cristobell 24.03.14 14:37

PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.

Exactly! And I'm sure there are plenty of others. They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?

by Liz Eagles 24.03.14 14:49

PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.

He's still a Lord though.

Commit perjury, go to prison, do half the sentence, write more books and continue to be a peer of the realm!

Sorry, I can't help but edit to add this from wiki

Prison
Archer was sent to Belmarsh Prison, a Category "A" prison, but was moved to Wayland Prison, a Category "C" prison in Norfolk, on 9 August 2001. Despite automatically qualifying as a category "D" prisoner given it was a first conviction and he did not pose serious risk of harm to the public, his status as such was suspended pending a police investigation into allegations about his Kurdish charity. He was then transferred to HM Prison North Sea Camp, an open prison, in October 2001. From there he was let out to work at the Theatre Royal in Lincoln, and allowed occasional home visits. Media reports claimed he had been abusing this privilege by attending lunches with friends, including former Education Secretary Gillian Shephard. In September 2002 he was transferred to a Category "B" prison, Lincoln, for a month, before returning to the Category "D" HM Prison Hollesley Bay in Suffolk.

by Cristobell 25.03.14 14:43

ultimaThule wrote:
Miraflores wrote:Is it possible for the McCanns to just 'quietly withdraw' at this stage? Perhaps someone who knows Portuguese law could advise.
From my study of the Portuguese Civil Code, except in that the Portuguese justice system is inquisitorial whereas that of the UK is adversarial, it would appear that in cases of libel it does not differ greatly from the civil (common) law of England/Wales,

As I understand it, the McCanns are free to decide not to pursue their plaint but any such decision will result in those named on the plaint bearing the costs of the 4 defendants as well as their own.

If the McCanns' plaint is thrown out of court due to issues arising from the Wardship, I will think it entirely fitting as I am at loss to understand why a plaint of this nature has been allowed to proceed when it would appear that 3 of the named plaintiffs are minors.

Without having seen the plaint, which I understand runs to some 38 pages, it is not possible to determine what part or parts of it allege injury to the 3 minors caused by publication of the book and distribution of the associated documentary, nor what specific injuries are alleged, neverthless it seems to me extraordinary that they have been named on it.

FWIW, it would seem probable that the issue of Wardship which the presiding Judge of the libel trial has been asked to evaulate is that one those minors is a Ward of the High Court of England/Wales and, as such, no important steps can be taken in that child's life, or in her name, without the consent of Mrs Justice Hogg who, again as I understand it, reserved the Wardship to herself in July 2008.

The issue may become further complicated by the fact that child is now approaching the age of 11 when it can be reasonably expected the Court will take into account her wishes when decisions relating to important steps in her life are made, but even a writ of habeas corpus is unlikely to produce the child in order that her wishes can be heard.

Having given this matter some consideration, I am not all surprised that the trial has not resumed since the defence made their request as it raises a number of issues for which there appears to be little or no precedent in the law of England/Wales and I suspect that the same is true in the lawbooks of Portugal.

What is a plaint?

by **PeterMac** 25.03.14 15:51

Law. a statement of grievance made to a court for the purpose of asking redress.

by Cristobell 25.03.14 15:54

PeterMac wrote:Law. a statement of grievance made to a court for the purpose of asking redress.

It must be one of those oldy worldy words that no-one uses anymore, because in 20+ years as a legal secretary working in and around Royal Courts of Justice and working for lawyers and barristers, I never heard it once, though I vaguely remember it from David Copperfield.

by noddy100 25.03.14 16:08

Cristobell wrote:
PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.
Exactly! And I'm sure there are plenty of others. They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?

I am wondering if SY are gearing up to say maybe MM fell in the apartment and someone took her out and her parents didn't know and assumed she had been taken alive. This could explain the dogs findings and exonerate them

by Cristobell 25.03.14 16:30

noddy100 wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.
Exactly! And I'm sure there are plenty of others. They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?
I am wondering if SY are gearing up to say maybe MM fell in the apartment and someone took her out and her parents didn't know and assumed she had been taken alive. This could explain the dogs findings and exonerate them

It couldn't Noddy. Cadaverine takes approx 2 hours to develop, and there were strong dog alerts in two places, behind the sofa, and in the wardrobe. It was also detected on 'Cuddle Cat' the toy Kate carried with her as a prop for months on end. They must then find an explanation for the cadaver alerts in the car the McCanns hired 28 days after Madeleine disappeared. That there was an odour in the car is beyond doubt, a neighbour saw the boot open day and night, and the helpful John Wright who also used the car, mentioned the rotting garbage, full nappies and blood dripping meat they regularly carried in the boot.

Not only does death in the apartment implicate the McCanns, it implicates their friends too, Matt especially, who said he did the 9.30 check and all was well. He specifically mentioned that he did not see Maddie, but he also did not see a murder that must have been taking place at the time he made the check. Which could actually put him in the frame for murder, but he only had 5 minutes in which to do it and return to the table, but in fairness, it was 3 minutes longer than an abductor had.

by mysterion 25.03.14 16:51

Garbage, nappies and blood dripping meat regularly in the car so frequently that it stunk the car out for a long time. Are there any parents on this forum who can relate to this because I can`t? In Portugal, there are plenty of those huge rubbish bins and I`m sure butchers wrap up meat. In any case why are they buying raw meat on holiday?

by noddy100 25.03.14 16:59

Cristobell wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.
Exactly! And I'm sure there are plenty of others. They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?
I am wondering if SY are gearing up to say maybe MM fell in the apartment and someone took her out and her parents didn't know and assumed she had been taken alive. This could explain the dogs findings and exonerate them
It couldn't Noddy. Cadaverine takes approx 2 hours to develop, and there were strong dog alerts in two places, behind the sofa, and in the wardrobe. It was also detected on 'Cuddle Cat' the toy Kate carried with her as a prop for months on end. They must then find an explanation for the cadaver alerts in the car the McCanns hired 28 days after Madeleine disappeared. That there was an odour in the car is beyond doubt, a neighbour saw the boot open day and night, and the helpful John Wright who also used the car, mentioned the rotting garbage, full nappies and blood dripping meat they regularly carried in the boot.

Not only does death in the apartment implicate the McCanns, it implicates their friends too, Matt especially, who said he did the 9.30 check and all was well. He specifically mentioned that he did not see Maddie, but he also did not see a murder that must have been taking place at the time he made the check. Which could actually put him in the frame for murder, but he only had 5 minutes in which to do it and return to the table, but in fairness, it was 3 minutes longer than an abductor had.

I don't mean a murder I mean they may say she could have fallen behind the sofa and someone else took her No one seems to have actually 'seen' her and I don't think they would go into detail about the development of cadaverine etc in order to white wash it They would just hold it up as a theory.

by Miraflores 25.03.14 17:54

I assumed by murder you meant that MO would have seen burglar/spottyman/tractorman/UncleTomCobbleyAndAll, accidentally killing her.

by aiyoyo 25.03.14 22:04

aquila wrote:
PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.
He's still a Lord though.

Commit perjury, go to prison, do half the sentence, write more books and continue to be a peer of the realm!

Sorry, I can't help but edit to add this from wiki

Prison
Archer was sent to Belmarsh Prison, a Category "A" prison, but was moved to Wayland Prison, a Category "C" prison in Norfolk, on 9 August 2001. Despite automatically qualifying as a category "D" prisoner given it was a first conviction and he did not pose serious risk of harm to the public, his status as such was suspended pending a police investigation into allegations about his Kurdish charity. He was then transferred to HM Prison North Sea Camp, an open prison, in October 2001. From there he was let out to work at the Theatre Royal in Lincoln, and allowed occasional home visits. Media reports claimed he had been abusing this privilege by attending lunches with friends, including former Education Secretary Gillian Shephard. In September 2002 he was transferred to a Category "B" prison, Lincoln, for a month, before returning to the Category "D" HM Prison Hollesley Bay in Suffolk.

Lord or no Lord he was imprisoned nonetheless albeit given special privilege.

His name is forever stained by the criminal record, so title or not it matters little.

by aiyoyo 25.03.14 22:06

noddy100 wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.
Exactly! And I'm sure there are plenty of others. They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?
I am wondering if SY are gearing up to say maybe MM fell in the apartment and someone took her out and her parents didn't know and assumed she had been taken alive. This could explain the dogs findings and exonerate them

Impossible ! What about the cadaverine on the pants of Ganga ?
How to explain that ?

by canada12 25.03.14 23:04

aiyoyo wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
PeterMac wrote:As did Archer.
Exactly! And I'm sure there are plenty of others. They probably expected Goncalo Amaral and the other Defendants to pay up, instead they have reaffirmed how flimsy the abduction story is and now it has been revealed that even SY are following the line that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment.

I noticed with the other cases they usually say the 'libel trial collapsed' - whatever 'collapsed' means, and I wonder if the same has happened in this casse?
I am wondering if SY are gearing up to say maybe MM fell in the apartment and someone took her out and her parents didn't know and assumed she had been taken alive. This could explain the dogs findings and exonerate them

Impossible ! What about the cadaverine on the pants of Ganga ?
How to explain that ?

Quite obviously whoever took her stopped to try on Kate's Pants of Ganga before they left 5A... :-)

by **tigger** 26.03.14 6:41

Cristobell wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Law. a statement of grievance made to a court for the purpose of asking redress.
It must be one of those oldy worldy words that no-one uses anymore, because in 20+ years as a legal secretary working in and around Royal Courts of Justice and working for lawyers and barristers, I never heard it once, though I vaguely remember it from David Copperfield.

Despite being 'foreign' i do know what 'plaint' means and some 15 years ago found the term ' seisin' in my conveyance contract. This mediaeval word pleased me no end and I happened to know the meaning of it.

These terms are no doubt also in use in Portuguese law.

SEISIN

A legal concept from early English property law that continues to influence certain concepts in the modern law of real property and is thus helpful and, at times, essential to understanding this area of the law. In brief, the term refers to the possession of land. However, the nature of this possession is a complex matter deserving a full academic explanation. In early English property law, a landholder was considered "seised of" his estate- an idea which somewhat overlaps with the modern meaning of ownership- but differs in a number of respects. Seisin was passed through a ceremony known as "livery of seisin".

Log in for more topics