Sunday Times sued by McCanns

[Eleanor]

So printing lies for which various news rags have been forced to pay damages is Investigative Journalism, is it?

Methinks that some of you don't understand what the term means.

I hope none of you feel free to repeat any of it because Repeated Libel is still Libel.

[Brietta]

You are not really keen on investigative journalism are you.

I for one am very keen on investigative journalism and am unfortunately old enough to remember the work of the pre Murdoch Sunday Times Insight Team of renown.

It should be understood there are investigative journalists who are worthy of the name; then there are people who think they may have the skills but who quite patently have not done their homework … so what is investigative about that?

[Alice Purjorick]

Gerry McCann attacks ‘disgraceful’ Sunday Times after £55k libel payout

Payout follows allegations that couple deliberately hindered search for daughter Madeleine

Gerry McCann, the father of missing Madeleine, has accused the Sunday Times of behaving “disgracefully”, after winning a libel payout from the newspaper in a case he believes proves how little the industry has changed following the phone-hacking scandal.

McCann and his wife Kate were handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter, who went missing in Portugal seven years ago.

The McCanns said in a statement: “The Sunday Times has behaved disgracefully. There is no sign of any post-Leveson improvement in the behaviour of newspapers like this.”

Writing in the Guardian, Gerry McCann repeated calls he made to the public inquiry into press intrusion, conducted by Lord Justice Leveson, for a “quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers” and called on the next government to implement the proposals set out by Leveson but rejected by much of the industry.

After an 11-month battle for redress, the McCanns said the Sunday Times had failed to give them a proper opportunity to comment on what they called “grotesque and utterly false” allegations, failed to publish the full response they made and offered a “half-baked, inadequate response”. Even when the paper agreed to retract the allegations and apologise two months after publication, this was “tucked away” on an inside page. After this, the couple hired libel lawyers Carter-Ruck to sue for damages, they said.

The revelation of the libel damages comes as the Metropolitan police are investigating an 80-page dossier of abusive tweets, Facebook posts and messages on online forums aimed at the McCanns. A spokesman for the couple said newspaper articles helped feed into the abuse from trolls, who felt “vindicated” by them.

In the statement, the McCanns said: “Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers – and even to start court proceedings – before it behaved reasonably. But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back and enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse.

“This is exactly why parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective independent self-regulation of newspapers – to protect ordinary members of the public from this sort of abuse. The fact is that most families could not take the financial and legal risk of going to the high court and facing down a big press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed Leveson’s reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it.”

Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.

The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”

Much of the industry, with the exception of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, has set up its own regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started life three weeks ago. In the statement, McCann calls Ipso the “latest industry poodle”. The McCanns have been involved in the Hacked Off campaign to tighten press regulation.

His latest experience underlined the need for change, said McCann. “The cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there. Nothing will be done to ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to some other unfortunate family, who will probably not have our hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology.

“So what has changed in the newspaper industry since the Leveson report two years ago? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.”

A dossier of online abuse directed at the family is being examined by police. The material is said to include suggestions that the couple should be tortured or killed. One comment reportedly said: “These 2 should burn in hell.”

Scotland Yard said: “We can confirm we received a letter and documentation on 9 September which was passed to officers from Operation Grange. They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout?CMP=twt_gu

???????
There is no such thing as "no win no fee". The relevant law changed earlier this year to prevent lawyers from screwing outrageous "success fees" out of losing parties. Before you shriek I should point out that this element of CFAs  was instrumental in the jacking up of insurance costs to everyone.
Sorry to nit pick but if the article cannot be right on that what else is incorrect or is it intended to lead the populace up the garden path?

[Mr Gray]

???????
There is no such thing as "no win no fee". The relevant law changed earlier this year to prevent lawyers from screwing outrageous "success fees" out of losing parties. Before you shriek I should point out that this element of CFAs  was instrumental in the jacking up of insurance costs to everyone.
Sorry to nit pick but if the article cannot be right on that what else is incorrect or is it intended to lead the populace up the garden path?

Are you sure it is not you that is wrong and are attempting to lead posters up the garden path. Was this action started before the law change....there was a massive increase in claims as lawyers tried to beat the deadline

[Alice Purjorick]

Are you sure it is not you that is wrong and are attempting to lead posters up the garden path. Was this action started before the law change....there was a massive increase in claims as lawyers tried to beat the deadline

Picking the salient points.
There is no such thing as "no win no fee" (refer to linked article)
The law Changed in April 2013
Any case commenced before April 2013 was not subject to the new laws. (November comes after April in my calendar).
The old CFA system led to increases in insurance premiums generally (refer to linked article and ombudsman's comments)
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jan/06/lawyers-no-win-no-fee-disputes
If you give us chapter and and verse where what I said is incorrect in principle then maybe we will believe you.

[slartibartfast]

So printing lies for which various news rags have been forced to pay damages is Investigative Journalism, is it?

Methinks that some of you don't understand what the term means.

I hope none of you feel free to repeat any of it because Repeated Libel is still Libel.

We still don't know what the "libel" in the article was. Maybe it couldn't be proved that the McCann's knew what their PIs were doing?

[Mr Gray]

Picking the salient points.
There is no such thing as "no win no fee" (refer to linked article)
The law Changed in April 2013
Any case commenced before April 2013 was not subject to the new laws. (November comes after April in my calendar).
The old CFA system led to increases in insurance premiums generally (refer to linked article and ombudsman's comments)
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jan/06/lawyers-no-win-no-fee-disputes
If you give us chapter and and verse where what I said is incorrect in principle then maybe we will believe you.

There is such a thing as no win no fee...Carter Ruck can take any case they like on a no win no fee basis...the new law does not stop them...what the new law does stop is the excessive legal claims for fees when the case is won....the success fee

[Alice Purjorick]

There is such a thing as no win no fee...Carter Ruck can take any case they like on a no win no fee basis...the new law does not stop them...what the new law does stop is the excessive legal claims for fees when the case is won....the success fee

That is about the worst answer you have yet posted.
They can take the job provided they don't expect to be paid?
You didn't read the link either. Better brains than mine or yours say that in this instance your talking bollocks.

[Eleanor]

That is about the worst answer you have yet posted.
They can take the job provided they don't expect to be paid?
You didn't read the link either. Better brains than mine or yours say that in this instance your talking bollocks.

You obviously missed the word, "Excessive."

[Alice Purjorick]

You obviously missed the word, "Excessive."

Yeah what ever; and davel didn't respond to most of my post because he was left in a position where he could only nit pick.
Hey ho says Rowley.

[Mr Gray]

That is about the worst answer you have yet posted.
They can take the job provided they don't expect to be paid?
You didn't read the link either. Better brains than mine or yours say that in this instance your talking bollocks.

no...no win no fee is alive and well..what has changed is who pays the success fee...this does not stop any solicitor acting pro bono and recouping reasonable fees from the other side should they be successful.

If you read the history of the case...Gerry himself wrote to the ST and got no response...the court would see he had made his own reasonable attempts to settle the case without any legal fees...the court would then award any reasonable legal cost incurred by Gerry if he was successful. Carter Ruck would understand all this and take the case on a no win no fee basis...there is more to law than what you  read in the telegraph

[stephen25000]

no...no win no fee is alive and well..what has changed is who pays the success fee...this does not stop any solicitor acting pro bono and recouping reasonable fees from the other side should they be successful.

If you read the history of the case...Gerry himself wrote to the ST and got no response...the court would see he had made his own reasonable attempts to settle the case without any legal fees...the court would then award any reasonable legal cost incurred by Gerry if he was successful. Carter Ruck would understand all this and take the case on a no win no fee basis...there is more to law than what you  read in the telegraph

All the case reveals it seems is the need for more money for the mccanns.

Now as it stands the fund is redundant, with the 'investigation'.

So where is the money going ?

[Alice Purjorick]

no...no win no fee is alive and well..what has changed is who pays the success fee...this does not stop any solicitor acting pro bono and recouping reasonable fees from the other side should they be successful.

If you read the history of the case...Gerry himself wrote to the ST and got no response...the court would see he had made his own reasonable attempts to settle the case without any legal fees...the court would then award any reasonable legal cost incurred by Gerry if he was successful. Carter Ruck would understand all this and take the case on a no win no fee basis...there is more to law than what you  read in the telegraph

I was looking at C-Rs website!

[Alice Purjorick]

All the case reveals it seems is the need for more money for the mccanns.

Now as it stands the fund is redundant, with the 'investigation'.

So where is the money going ?

According the press (which is notoriously unreliable we hear today on here and elsewhere) it is going to two charities.
As the fund is not a charity ipso fatso it ain't going there. With the caveat in parentheses above.

[Benice]

All the case reveals it seems is the need for more money for the mccanns.

Now as it stands the fund is redundant, with the 'investigation'.

So where is the money going ?

The McCanns are donating the £50,000 to charity Stephen - but I'm sure that won't stop you finding fault with them for doing that.