Mitchell: McCanns move funds from Madeleine Fund to another account.

[Alfred R Jones]

The point of your post being?

Well it made me laugh!

[ferryman]

That is very altruistic of you, but do you really believe that your posts on here will make any difference in the general scheme of things?
To whom are you exposing the lies? less than 100 people?

Do you believe yours will?

[Lyall]

It interested one fanatic enough to start a new thread about it on here didn't it?!  I'm not repeat NOT suggesting that the Mirror invented anything, simply that they rather carelessly in the rush to post stories put their own interpretation on what Clarence actually said.  I fully acknowledge that I may be wrong, but either way it really matters not a jot, unless (like the fanatic who started this thread) you think there is something wrong or deeply worrying about them putting money aside in a separate account?

The thing is, just like with the Sunday Times article, Mitchell could simply ask one of his journalist mates - and he has many of course - to write another article sharpish in which he could be quoted correctly.

But that's not the way he works is it. The Press Gazette stated action was taken against the Sunday Times because they did not print everything Mitchell and McCanns wanted them to. Ok, so they go and ask a friend-journalist somewhere else to explain just what the heck went on with those efits and 'private investigator' report.

But they didn't. And that's how they create their own problems. Just as they did in 2007/8.

[Brietta]

The thing is, just like with the Sunday Times article, Mitchell could simply ask one of his journalist mates - and he has many of course - to write another article sharpish in which he could be quoted correctly.

But that's not the way he works is it. The Press Gazette stated action was taken against the Sunday Times because they did not print everything Mitchell and McCanns wanted them to. Ok, so they go and ask a friend-journalist somewhere else to explain just what the heck went on with those efits and 'private investigator' report.

But they didn't. And that's how they create their own problems. Just as they did in 2007/8.

Actually the Sunday Times libelled the Drs McCann ... which is why they had to fork out fifty grand to them and pay the court expenses.

However sceptics present it it does not obliterate the fact that Madeleine McCann's parents were libelled ... and that is the fact of the matter.

[Lyall]

Actually the Sunday Times libelled the Drs McCann ... which is why they had to fork out fifty grand to them and pay the court expenses.

However sceptics present it it does not obliterate the fact that Madeleine McCann's parents were libelled ... and that is the fact of the matter.

That's just a word, though it's one you do love so much. If it doesn't get to a court nobody can state what a judge would have finally ruled or not can they.

Here's what the Press Gazette said, which is as far as I know the only information we have on that action:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police

There's accuracy (assuming the Press Gazette were accurate). Saying it was "libel!" isn't accurate.

[Brietta]

That's just a word, though it's one you do love so much. If it doesn't get to a court nobody can state what a judge would have finally ruled or not can they.

Here's what the Press Gazette said, which is as far as I know the only information we have on that action:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police

There's accuracy (assuming the Press Gazette were accurate). Saying it was "libel!" isn't accurate.

   The Sunday Times has agreed to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages
   http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF

[Alfred R Jones]

The thing is, just like with the Sunday Times article, Mitchell could simply ask one of his journalist mates - and he has many of course - to write another article sharpish in which he could be quoted correctly.

But that's not the way he works is it. The Press Gazette stated action was taken against the Sunday Times because they did not print everything Mitchell and McCanns wanted them to. Ok, so they go and ask a friend-journalist somewhere else to explain just what the heck went on with those efits and 'private investigator' report.

But they didn't. And that's how they create their own problems. Just as they did in 2007/8.

As you've already pointed out, only a barmy fanatic would get their knickers in a twist about the Mirror article so, as no libel was commited and as no one normal would raise an eyebrow about what was said in the article, why would Clarence seek a re-write or raise an objection?  It's not worth the price of a phone call. 

[Lyall]

   The Sunday Times has agreed to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages
   http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF

They're press releases

[Alice Purjorick]

Do you believe yours will?

I never did.
That's not why I am here old stick.

[Alice Purjorick]

Well it made me laugh!

I would expect nothing less; it being the bagman's duty to laugh at the honchos jokes 

[Alfred R Jones]

I would expect nothing less; it being the bagman's duty to laugh at the honchos jokes 

Respect for right conduct is felt by everybody, ORLY?

[Brietta]

They're press releases

Sigh ... so when one launches an action for libel due to damaging misrepresentation of facts ... precipitating a payout and payment of legal costs and an apology  ... the payout, payment of legal fees and apology has ~ in your opinion ~ nothing whatsoever to do with ... paying damages for ... libel.

                      What an extraordinary interpretation of events ... quite bizarre in fact.

[Brietta]

I would expect nothing less; it being the bagman's duty to laugh at the honchos jokes 

                                                    What a rude comment.  &%&£(+

[Alfred R Jones]

I never did.
That's not why I am here old stick.

No, you've made it clear you are here to wind up and insult, see post above.  How mature.

[Lyall]

Sigh ... so when one launches an action for libel due to damaging misrepresentation of facts ... precipitating a payout and payment of legal costs and an apology  ... the payout, payment of legal fees and apology has ~ in your opinion ~ nothing whatsoever to do with ... paying damages for ... libel.

                      What an extraordinary interpretation of events ... quite bizarre in fact.

CR aren't CR for no reason you know. Notice how the costs figure aid isn't mentioned, because it was probably nominal. But prior to settlement they intimidate with costs (just as they did with you know who over at a certain forum), and if a newspaper perhaps has no real interest in taking the issue to the court anyway why wouldn't they settle for £55k plus nominal costs? The correction to the article changed a date. It didn't change the question posed by the article, and that's clear for everyone to see.

There was no apology printed after the settlement. There was only the correction printed the previous year.