General discussion about the latest news (not search related)

[Gertrude]

What do you think it means?

It means they're not afraid of showing a video of cadaver dogs alerting to McCann property.

[Venturi Swirl]

It means they're not afraid of showing a video of cadaver dogs alerting to McCann property.

Why should they be afraid? 

[Mr Gray]

I think someones having a bit of fun.... Very odd

[Gertrude]

Why should they be afraid?

You really have to ask? 

   How often has that video been put up with stories about the McCanns in the last 11 years?  I'd hazard a guess and say not at all since they started suing Goncalo Amaral and many other people at the end of 2007. So you could say it's pretty unusual to plonk it next to a story about the McCanns.

[Venturi Swirl]

You really have to ask? 

   How often has that video been put up with stories about the McCanns in the last 11 years?  I'd hazard a guess and say not at all since they started suing Goncalo Amaral and many other people at the end of 2007. So you could say it's pretty unusual to plonk it next to a story about the McCanns.

Yes I really have to ask what the paper would be afraid of, you failed to answer the question.

[Gertrude]

Yes I really have to ask what the paper would be afraid of, you failed to answer the question.

I think I was pretty clear. The McCanns have a record of suing people.

[jassi]

Yeah, back in the day there'd have been a call from Mitchell or a letter from Carter Ruck.
How times change

[Mr Gray]

I think I was pretty clear. The McCanns have a record of suing people.

so on what grounds could they sue....please tell

[Gertrude]

so on what grounds could they sue....please tell

Probably on very shaky ground since 2017, that's the point IMO.

[Venturi Swirl]

Probably on very shaky ground since 2017, that's the point IMO.

Unless the videos were faked or made a specific untrue allegation they would have no grounds to sue.  Have they ever sued any media outlet that has shown this video in the past?

[Mr Gray]

Probably on very shaky ground since 2017, that's the point IMO.

I dont think you have a point...showing a dog video is not libellous and never has been libellous...you're mistaken...what difference do you think 2017 has made..its made none

[G-Unit]

Unless the videos were faked or made a specific untrue allegation they would have no grounds to sue.  Have they ever sued any media outlet that has shown this video in the past?

Has any media outlet ever shown that video previously?

[Gertrude]

I dont think you have a point...showing a dog video is not libellous and never has been libellous...you're mistaken

  I didn't say the video was libellous. Why has it never been shown under a McCann story in the last 10 years by UK MSM?   As far as I can see it hasn't.   

  If a person or organisation has a lot of money and legal clout behind them many papers won't even take the chance of airing something that could be seen as libel.  The UK media has been very careful over the last 10 years, now it would seem they aren't as bothered IMO.

   

[Mr Gray]

  I didn't say the video was libellous. Why has it never been shown under a McCann story in the last 10 years by UK MSM?   As far as I can see it hasn't.   

  If a person or organisation has a lot of money and legal clout behind them many papers won't even take the chance of airing something that could be seen as libel.  The UK media has been very careful over the last 10 years, now it would seem they aren't as bothered IMO.

 

it couldnt be seen as libel imo...as i said...I think someones having a bit of fun...and again...2017 has made no difference....amarals book would still be libellous in the uk

[Venturi Swirl]

Has any media outlet ever shown that video previously?

Short memory haven’t you?  Or did you not watch last year’s Panorama which shows a clip of Eddie alerting in the McCanns apartment?