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

[jassi]

Yes, much better if the media had ignored the McCanns altogether and just reported news updates about the case as and when they happened. IMO

[Robittybob1]

Yes, much better if the media had ignored the McCanns altogether and just reported news updates about the case as and when they happened. IMO

But what about Lord Bell's boast of being paid 500,000 pounds to keep the McCanns in the headlines.    Was that the McCanns doing?

[jassi]

But what about Lord Bell's boast of being paid 500,000 pounds to keep the McCanns in the headlines.    Was that the McCanns doing?

Done on behalf of the McCanns, though not necessarily directly by them.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Yes, much better if the media had ignored the McCanns altogether and just reported news updates about the case as and when they happened. IMO

I agree.

Investigative journalism is all but dead in this country! whitewash can be bought. The McCanns used the newspapers as their pet mouthpieces to do their bidding of portraying 'loving caring family-victims of mad child stealing monster'

We never heard the whole story until the files were released. So the newspapers should have held back, also to ensure the McCanns got a fair trial if they were going to be charged with anything in this country.
They involved very powerful  people to promote themselves with the ' do you know who we are' syndrome. (We are un touchable) now known as the Jimmy Seville syndrome. (people suspect something, but do and say, nothing) these include The pope. the UK Government, Oprah  (who is a powerful voice in the USA), and even the Royal Family got  approached via website...not to mention football players and a football team and celebrities galore.

Amaral  saw things differently and wrote about them... oh dear.. then they lost that case,  oh dear again...

[Venturi Swirl]

I agree.

Investigative journalism is all but dead in this country! whitewash can be bought. The McCanns used the newspapers as their pet mouthpieces to do their bidding of portraying 'loving caring family-victims of mad child stealing monster'

We never heard the whole story until the files were released. So the newspapers should have held back, also to ensure the McCanns got a fair trial if they were going to be charged with anything in this country.
They involved very powerful  people to promote themselves with the ' do you know who we are' syndrome. (We are un touchable) now known as the Jimmy Seville syndrome. (people suspect something, but do and say, nothing) these include The pope. the UK Government, Oprah  (who is a powerful voice in the USA), and even the Royal Family got  approached via website...not to mention football players and a football team and celebrities galore.

Amaral  saw things differently and wrote about them... oh dear.. then they lost that case,  oh dear again...

The McCanns
Leveson devotes almost 12 pages to the McCann family. Some of the reporting of the disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz in Portugal in May 2007 was, Leveson says, "outrageous". A number of newspapers were "guilty of gross libels", with the Daily Star singled out for its headline claiming the McCanns sold their child: "Maddie sold by hard up McCanns".

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/29/leveson-report-key-points

[Miss Taken Identity]

IMO the McCanns did align themselves to the 'elite'  for the purpose of deluding themselves  as 'untouchables' (the- do you know who I am-syndrome) Only in my opinion.

 Mingling with those I have mentioned heads of states etc, Someone with access to these people ensured they would they find time to attend to these working class ordinary doctors who went out for a drink and left their babies alone?

The picture of Gerry as a statesman posing with the white house USA behind him is hilarious...

[Brietta]

That is rather a unique view.

I don't think so ... why would you think otherwise?

[Mr Gray]

You have to remember, he was describing the investigation.

Again... Nowhere in the investigation  does it state there is proof maddie died in the apartment... As amaral has claimed

[Alice Purjorick]

But could of course silence amaral in the future

Maybe so but nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread.
Lest ye forget; a settlement out of court does not reflect guilt of either party.
Libel in the UK press was never tested, the plaintiffs and defendants preferring to enter into a different sort of contract as it were. What would be interesting to know is whether the settlement were reached pre or post actual court proceedings.
I doubt we know that for sure, carefully choreographed and posed for photos on the steps of the court in The Strand notwithstanding.

[slartibartfast]

Again... Nowhere in the investigation  does it state there is proof maddie died in the apartment... As amaral has claimed

Again, where you there?

[Mr Gray]

Maybe so but nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread.
Lest ye forget; a settlement out of court does not reflect guilt of either party.
Libel in the UK press was never tested, the plaintiffs and defendants preferring to enter into a different sort of contract as it were. What would be interesting to know is whether the settlement were reached pre or post actual court proceedings.
I doubt we know that for sure, carefully choreographed and posed for photos on the steps of the court in The Strand notwithstanding.

so did the newsaper have a defence for libel..angelo who started the thread suggested they had resonable suspicion...which is not a defence...without a defence they had to settle

[Robittybob1]

I know.
The fact remains that there was no supporting evidence to justify Christopher Jefferie's arrest for which he received a police apology; just as there was no supporting evidence to justify making the McCanns arguidos.

But what about  Angelo's "In the Joanna Yeates case it was the murderer who initially pointed the finger at Mr Jefferies so as to deflect attention from himself."   Could that have happened in the McCann case?  i.e the person responsible pointing the finger back at the McCanns?

[Alice Purjorick]

so did the newsaper have a defence for libel..angelo who started the thread suggested they had resonable suspicion...which is not a defence...without a defence they had to settle

That is totally irrelevant now. As neither side wished to put it to the test in front of a judge, preferring instead to settle under certain conditions,we can only speculate whether there was any viable defence.

[Robittybob1]

Again, where you there?

If he was we could ask "Did Davel have a hand in it?"  Reasonable suspicion and all.

[Mr Gray]

That is totally irrelevant now. As neither side wished to put it to the test in front of a judge, preferring instead to settle under certain conditions,we can only speculate whether there was a viable defence.

As regards your claim of the mccanns not wanting to go to court... Opinion not fact... Or speculation