Have the Press behaved honourably in the Madeleine case?

[Estuarine]

The Express Group papers made more money with those unprecedented apologies edition and the following ones with comments.

It escapes the attention of some that newspapers are in business to make money. Provided revenue from increased sales > the sum settled out of court they are quids in and that is all they care about.

[Benice]

It escapes the attention of some that newspapers are in business to make money. Provided revenue from increased sales > the sum settled out of court they are quids in and that is all they care about.

I thought everyone knew that.   

In the McCanns case, they just wanted the libel to stop - otherwise they would have gone directly to court - where they could  have received a much higher settlement.   

It would appear that after that settlement and apology -  the Press were in no hurry to repeat their libel.    Libel which incidentally featured extensively in the Leveson enquiry - just in case you still think there is a question mark over whether libel occurred at all. 

[AnneGuedes]

It escapes the attention of some that newspapers are in business to make money. Provided revenue from increased sales > the sum settled out of court they are quids in and that is all they care about.

The McCanns didn't alert the PPC, they clearly wanted to make money out of it and the Express Group previewed they would brush their image by admitting they were wrong. It was therefore a win win operation.

[Estuarine]

I thought everyone knew that.   

In the McCanns case, they just wanted the libel to stop - otherwise they would have gone directly to court - where they could  have received a much higher settlement.   

It would appear that after that settlement and apology -  the Press were in no hurry to repeat their libel.    Libel which incidentally featured extensively in the Leveson enquiry - just in case you still think there is a question mark over whether libel occurred at all.

Pure speculation on your part without a shred of evidence to back it up.
What I said was "it wasn't tested in court". Show me where a court found in the McCanns favour with respect to libel?

[Benice]

Pure speculation on your part without a shred of evidence to back it up.
What I said was "it wasn't tested in court". Show me where a court found in the McCanns favour with respect to libel?

If you really think the McCanns were not libelled in the press on the grounds that it was an out of court settlement  - then I really dont follow your logic.        A big fat cheque and a front page apology saying 'sorry' should have told you everything you need to know about whether libel occurred or not.   

The fact that it never went to court is irrelevant - unless you're on a nitpicking exercise.


 

[Mr Gray]

The point I originally made which both you and Davel are ducking is that the Dr Amaral trial is the first time libel will have been TESTED IN COURT in front of  a judge. Now tell me that isn't true. Also the McCanns have been in court three times with respect to Dr Amaral's book and lost 2:1 now tell me that isn't true.

It isn't true

[Estuarine]

If you really think the McCanns were not libelled in the press on the grounds that it was an out of court settlement  - then I really dont follow your logic.        A big fat cheque and a front page apology saying 'sorry' should have told you everything you need to know about whether libel occurred or not.   

The fact that it never went to court is irrelevant - unless you're on a nitpicking exercise.

Gosh perish the thought I should nit pick on here.

The point I originally made which both you and Davel are ducking is that the Dr Amaral trial is the first time libel will have been TESTED IN COURT in front of  a judge. Now tell me that isn't true. Also the McCanns have been in court three times with respect to Dr Amaral's book and lost 2:1 now tell me that isn't true.

That's what I asked.
In return I get a load of of blx about how much more the McCanns would have made out of the press had they gone into court and you saying your comment about that wasn't pure speculation on your part. I presume your bobbing and weaving is because you have no convincing argument against the original question?

[Estuarine]

It isn't true

So what is? With examples please.

[stephen25000]

So what is? With examples please.

Indeed, good point.

For some however, fantasy is better than reality.

[Estuarine]

Indeed, good point.

For some however, fantasy is better than reality.

Davel is Ricardo Montalban in disguise!

[Mr Gray]

The point I originally made which both you and Davel are ducking is that the Dr Amaral trial is the first time libel will have been TESTED IN COURT in front of  a judge. Now tell me that isn't true. Also the McCanns have been in court three times with respect to Dr Amaral's book and lost 2:1 now tell me that isn't true.

the last court case that returned the books to amaral...the MccANNS nor their representatives were in court...it was an exparte judgement..it was not contested..so to state that the McCanns have been in court three times is untrue

[Estuarine]

the last court case that returned the books to amaral...the MccANNS nor their representatives were in court...it was an exparte judgement..it was not contested..so to state that the McCanns have been in court three times is untrue

.
Back to normal I see. Ignore the basic principle and bob and weave over syntax. I thought you could do better than that; clearly not. So the McCanns didn't go down 2:1 on the book issue? Were you once a Moonie?

[Mr Gray]

.
Back to normal I see. Ignore the basic principle and bob and weave over syntax. I thought you could do better than that; clearly not. So the McCanns didn't go down 2:1 on the book issue? Were you once a Moonie?

Now you are changing your statement because what you originally claimed to be true...is not true...having been proved wrong you want to ignore your mistake and try and score points with insults

[Mr Gray]

The point I originally made which both you and Davel are ducking is that the Dr Amaral trial is the first time libel will have been TESTED IN COURT in front of  a judge. Now tell me that isn't true. Also the McCanns have been in court three times with respect to Dr Amaral's book and lost 2:1 now tell me that isn't true.

What is true is that the McCanns have twice taken out action for libel in the uk and succeeded in both...now you try and tell me that isn't true

[icabodcrane]

IMO the whole idea that the McCanns are behind these newspapers articles is ludicrous.  What about the articles which emanate from the PT press - are they behind those too?

Most of the articles are nothing more than rehashed old stuff - worded differently -  and if the McCanns did want to make a comment - we would be seeing Clarence Mitchell's name in the articles  - not some unnamed  'source close to' or some anonymous 'spokesman' - who are invariably figments of some reporters imagination  - being used to milk the Madeleine McCann name down to the last tiny drop - because it's a money spinner.

IMO both SY and the McCanns will be increasingly concerned and frustrated that the press have ignored their requests for restraint as  they are in danger of destroying the good relationships they have tried so hard to buld up with the PT team.

IMO After all their efforts to get the case re-opened - to suggest the McCanns are actually now 'sabotaging' this via the press - is so far-fetched as to be completely off the credibility scale.  IOW it's just plain daft.

IIRC SY are keeping the McCanns updated anyway.

I  don't think British newspapers would dare  include quotes and say they came from a   McCann spokesperson,  or sources close to them,   unless they really did  ...  not  post Leveson,  and certainly not with Carter Ruck champing at the bit

And what would be the point of paying media monitoring Clarence Mitchell 30K a year  if he isn't even issuing denials when false  quotes are attribributed to him and others   ?   ( whilst simultaneously  getting Carter Ruck to send one of their polite reminders that such  false representation will not be tolerated  )

No,  if  'sources close to the McCanns'  are quoted in the ludicrous articles you speak of,  then the logical assumption must be that 'sources close to the McCanns'  actually  gave    those quotes