Can we judge a person's character by their stance on the case?

[jassi]

But why attempt to silence your critics if you've nothing to hide?  Not everyone who read Amaral's book was going to buy into his theories etc.  In fact it may have assisted the McCanns.  Imo nothing good can come out of this litigation. I think it would be better if they just kept their heads down battling away with the campaign.

You may well be right, but that's not the route they have chosen to take.

[Eleanor]

But why attempt to silence your critics if you've nothing to hide?  Not everyone who read Amaral's book was going to buy into his theories etc.  In fact it may have assisted the McCanns.  Imo nothing good can come out of this litigation.  I think it would be better if they just kept their heads down battling away with the campaign.

You think?  Bennett and crew were handing out leaflets and booklets in the street, and even delivered to neighbours in The McCann's village and their immediate neighbours.



How would you like someone doing this to you in your own road?

[Mr Gray]

But why attempt to silence your critics if you've nothing to hide?  Not everyone who read Amaral's book was going to buy into his theories etc.  In fact it may have assisted the McCanns.  Imo nothing good can come out of this litigation.  I think it would be better if they just kept their heads down battling away with the campaign.

And I think you are wrong. Amaral you may notice has gone very quiet...if he says anything now and the mccanns are successful in europe he cold find himself back in court. was Cliff richard wrong to sue...of course he wasnt. You have your opinion but the McCanns have done what they think is right and its their choice. I know people who still think maddies blood was found in the car

[jassi]

You think?  Bennett and crew were handing out leaflets and booklets in the street, and even delivered to neighbours in The McCann's village and their immediate neighbours.



How would you like someone doing this to you in your own road?

Bennett et al problems were that they didn't stick to telling the truth. Had they done so, the case against them might have been dismissed.

[Eleanor]

Bennett et al problems were that they didn't stick to telling the truth. Had they done so, the case against them might have been dismissed.

Precisely.  They said things that they couldn't prove.  And even Innuendo was Ruled as Libel.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Bennett et al problems were that they didn't stick to telling the truth. Had they done so, the case against them might have been dismissed.

You think they would have been motivated to go around handing out leaflets stating there is no evidence that the McCanns hid Madeleine’s body?  I very much doubt it!

[Holly Goodhead]

You cannot accuse someone of a crime they have not been found guilty of in a newspaper in this country without breaking libel laws.  I’m amazed you are unaware of this?

 
I think editors and journalists are a bit more savvy than you give them credit for.  It was perfectly acceptable for papers to report on the McCanns when they were made aguidos and to explain the reasons why. 

There's not a one size fits all.  It would depend on the case against the individual(s) and what approach editors and journalists take.

The Daily Mail was very vocal in naming and shaming those involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence long before any trial took place. 

[jassi]

You think they would have been motivated to go around handing out leaflets stating there is no evidence that the McCanns hid Madeleine’s body?  I very much doubt it!

They may well still have been motivated to hand out leaflets stating the true events of the case and if they had restricted themselves to that, all that might have happened  would have been an injunction halting their activities.

Bennett had legal training and should have been wise to the pitfalls that ultimately befell him.

[Mr Gray]

 
I think editors and journalists are a bit more savvy than you give them credit for.  It was perfectly acceptable for papers to report on the McCanns when they were made aguidos and to explain the reasons why. 

There's not a one size fits all.  It would depend on the case against the individual(s) and what approach editors and journalists take.

The Daily Mail was very vocal in naming and shaming those involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence long before any trial took place.

the mail is a good example...the mail knew it was committing libel...I remember the case at the time. The mail wanted to be sued...they wanted to force the alleged killers into court ...they knew they would not be sued


uk libel law is very simple ....you dont need to be  apawyer to understand it. no one on theis forum can accuse the mccanns of being involved...that would be libel...check with John

[Eleanor]

 
I think editors and journalists are a bit more savvy than you give them credit for.  It was perfectly acceptable for papers to report on the McCanns when they were made aguidos and to explain the reasons why. 

There's not a one size fits all.  It would depend on the case against the individual(s) and what approach editors and journalists take.

The Daily Mail was very vocal in naming and shaming those involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence long before any trial took place.

The Daily Mail isn't quite so keen now.

[Holly Goodhead]

And I think you are wrong. Amaral you may notice has gone very quiet...if he says anything now and the mccanns are successful in europe he cold find himself back in court. was Cliff richard wrong to sue...of course he wasnt. You have your opinion but the McCanns have done what they think is right and its their choice. I know people who still think maddies blood was found in the car

The McCanns also appear to have gone very quiet.

[Mr Gray]

The McCanns also appear to have gone very quiet.

why do you think thta is...but Im glad you agree amaral has

[jassi]

the mail is a good example...the mail knew it was committing libel...I remember the case at the time. The mail wanted to be sued...they wanted to force the alleged killers into court ...they knew they would not be sued


uk libel law is very simple ....you dont need to be  apawyer to understand it. no one on theis forum can accuse the mccanns of being involved...that would be libel...check with John

Of course they can. It just wouldn't last as a post for very long   

[Vertigo Swirl]

 
I think editors and journalists are a bit more savvy than you give them credit for.  It was perfectly acceptable for papers to report on the McCanns when they were made aguidos and to explain the reasons why. 

There's not a one size fits all.  It would depend on the case against the individual(s) and what approach editors and journalists take.

The Daily Mail was very vocal in naming and shaming those involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence long before any trial took place.

I have sad it wasn’t acceptable for papers to report on the McCanns nor to explain the reasons why.  Of course that is acceptable.  There were however dozens of salacious and completely fabricated stories that appeared on the front page of the tabs - do you consider those acceptable too?   As for naming and shaming the murderers of Stephen Lawrence - that was a very risky strategy, and those named could well have sued if they’d had the brazen balls to do so. 

[Mr Gray]

The mail article and the challenge they put out..

www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jan/04/stephen-lawrence-parents-daily-mail