Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?

[Mr Gray]

It doesn't need to be.  They were suspects and remain so imo, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that the lifting of the arguida status did not imply they were cleared contrary to the McCann's claims.

None of that affects libel action in the uk which is the title of this thread

[Mr Gray]

That is where the files come in.  I think it's called reasonable suspicion?

There is no such term as reasonable suspicion applying  to UK libel law

[Mr Gray]

Oh there's lots of evidence, how it is interpreted is another issue.  The case is very much undetermined and will remain so until such time as it is known categorically what happened to Madeleine McCann.  I believe there is sufficient material within the files to justify fair comment.

If you feel fair comment is justified... Why are those comments not allowed on the forum

[slartibartfast]

If you feel fair comment is justified... Why are those comments not allowed on the forum

Comments are allowed as long as they are properly worded.

[Robittybob1]

There is no such term as reasonable suspicion applying  to UK libel law

As listed on the previous page "Defences to libel action include proving the statements are substantially true or are "fair comment" - meaning they are honest opinion based on true facts".
 Honest opinion based on facts would come close to "reasonable suspicion".

[John]

If you feel fair comment is justified... Why are those comments not allowed on the forum

Fair comment is permitted, defamatory comment is expunged.

[Mr Gray]

It doesn't need to be.  They were suspects and remain so imo, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that the lifting of the arguida status did not imply they were cleared contrary to the McCann's claims.

Angelo has said the mccanns are still suspects.....that is defamatory....he has supplied no evidence to support it...in fact all the evidence shows they are not suspects

[Angelo222]

Angelo has said the mccanns are still suspects.....that is defamatory....he has supplied no evidence to support it...in fact all the evidence shows they are not suspects

Excuse me but I was repeating what the Portuguese Supreme Court has stated.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/

[Mr Gray]

Excuse me but I was repeating what the Portuguese Supreme Court has stated.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/

which is basically meaningless....no court rules anyone innocent...its not in their power...The SC did not say they are still suspects

[John]

I would say that the parents right to be considered innocent is important in the continued fight for justice for madeleine

They are not mutually exclusive.

[Mr Gray]

They are not mutually exclusive.

justice for madeleine depends on finding out exactly what happened to her and who is responsible...claiming the mccanns are by misrepresenting the evidence is counter productive

[Mr Gray]

?

If amaral claims...by misrepresenting the evidence...that maddie died in teh aprtment and her death was covered up by her parents...how does that help in acheiving justice for madde

[Mr Gray]

Can we get back to the thread theme please.

The papers had to settle the claim because they had no defence

[Brietta]

In my opinion the McCanns should never have had to take court action against the media in the first instance.

There is no excuse for the media feeding frenzy in what I consider to be the propaganda war fuelled by leaks to the press by printing headlines and articles to which the McCanns and their friends were unable to respond without falling foul of Portuguese secrecy laws.
As these are mirrored by our own contempt of court laws there is little or no justification for that.

Therefore in my opinion they got off very lightly indeed by being allowed to settle out of court ... which is very likely the advice given to them by their very expensive lawyers,

[Robittybob1]

In my opinion the McCanns should never have had to take court action against the media in the first instance.

There is no excuse for the media feeding frenzy in what I consider to be the propaganda war fuelled by leaks to the press by printing headlines and articles to which the McCanns and their friends were unable to respond without falling foul of Portuguese secrecy laws.
As these are mirrored by our own contempt of court laws there is little or no justification for that.

Therefore in my opinion they got off very lightly indeed by being allowed to settle out of court ... which is very likely the advice given to them by their very expensive lawyers,

That is rather a unique view.