Wandering Off Topic

[Brietta]

Ah yes. The UK newspapers who admitted their wrongdoing and paid compensation without being ordered to do so by the courts....unlike Amaral who fought back and paid them nothing.

Please, please do read the information I posted and note that yet again your opinion is remarkably ill informed and unrealistic.

Newspaper groups do not voluntarily "donate" money to those they libel because they have been asked nicely - they do so on the advice of high powered lawyers who realise that a court case based on the evidence would have opened the door to an award which would have made the amount of agreed damages a mere pittance.

But you know that already, don't you.  I have already provided the link which unequivocally gives the information about which you are in the denial which you uphold unashamedly in your posts.



The libel action related to more than 100 stories across the four titles, including 42 printed in the Daily Express.

Which gives the lie to your initial post contending that in effect the McCanns had an easy ride from a sycophantic and compliant British press; they MOST DEFINNITLY did not.

All four titles are published by the Express Newspapers group, which has agreed to all the McCanns' requests. It is also paying all their costs.

A spokesman for the company said: "We have nothing to add to what will be said in court and in our titles."

The McCanns' lawyers said that some of the newspapers' articles were "grossly defamatory".

'Trust and credibility'

Richard Bilton, BBC News special correspondent, said one of the couple's representatives had said the response of the newspaper group was "much more responsible than they were perhaps initially with these articles".

Media commentator Roy Greenslade said that for two national newspapers to carry front-page apologies at the same time was "unprecedented".

"I think this is an amazing stand-down, U-turn, by the Express newspapers," he said.

Front page apologies for the lies printed by the publications were quite obviously demanded as per the COURT AGREEMENT reached by both parties.
Nota Bene - that is UNPRECEDENTED.

"I think when people realise that more than 100 stories have been complained about as being grossly defamatory, it will annihilate the Express' readers sense of trust and credibility in their newspaper."

Media lawyer Paul Gilbert, from Finers Stephens Innocent, said the courts encourage early settlement of defamation cases.

"Clearly the Express' lawyers felt this was a case they should settle without a high-profile trial - which it would be - and as a result have saved considerable costs," he said.

"It certainly is a warning sign to newspapers in the future - if they're going to speculate, they've got to be very careful about what they speculate about."

Be in no mistake about it.

The damages award for numerous defamations made about the McCanns was made in court.  Please bear that in mind for future reference before pressing the "post" button on sceptic disinformation.

In a statement read out on behalf of the McCanns at the High Court on Wednesday, they said they were pleased that Express Newspapers had admitted the "utter falsity" of the numerous stories written about them over many months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7303801.stm

[Brietta]

Oh, I think the case against Amaral is definitely over. The McCanns took it to the Portuguese Supreme Court and ended up out of pocket themselves. Well, not personally, they used Madeleine's Fund.

Did they?

I wonder if you would be so kind as to provide an unbiased link to that information.

[Brietta]

Oh, I think the case against Amaral is definitely over. The McCanns took it to the Portuguese Supreme Court and ended up out of pocket themselves. Well, not personally, they used Madeleine's Fund.

Actually ~ who cares about Amaral ... ... ... for the moment. 

Although when one thinks about it very carefully - that may not always be so in the future.

[G-Unit]

So the UK papers "admitted" their wrongdoing, their 'wrongdoing' being promoting what Amaral was claiming... yet you say "unlike Amaral"... who presumably didn't admit his wrongdoing...? What are you claiming exactly?

The UK newspapers were, like Amaral, accused of libelling the McCanns. They decided to pay up without attempting to defend themselves in court. Therefore no-one knows if they were actually guilty in law or not. Amaral defended himself in court, and the McCanns were ultimately unable to prove their case. Perhaps the McCanns would have failed to prove their case against the newspapers in the courts too.

[G-Unit]

Please, please do read the information I posted and note that yet again your opinion is remarkably ill informed and unrealistic.

Newspaper groups do not voluntarily "donate" money to those they libel because they have been asked nicely - they do so on the advice of high powered lawyers who realise that a court case based on the evidence would have opened the door to an award which would have made the amount of agreed damages a mere pittance.

But you know that already, don't you.  I have already provided the link which unequivocally gives the information about which you are in the denial which you uphold unashamedly in your posts.



The libel action related to more than 100 stories across the four titles, including 42 printed in the Daily Express.

Which gives the lie to your initial post contending that in effect the McCanns had an easy ride from a sycophantic and compliant British press; they MOST DEFINNITLY did not.

All four titles are published by the Express Newspapers group, which has agreed to all the McCanns' requests. It is also paying all their costs.

A spokesman for the company said: "We have nothing to add to what will be said in court and in our titles."

The McCanns' lawyers said that some of the newspapers' articles were "grossly defamatory".

'Trust and credibility'

Richard Bilton, BBC News special correspondent, said one of the couple's representatives had said the response of the newspaper group was "much more responsible than they were perhaps initially with these articles".

Media commentator Roy Greenslade said that for two national newspapers to carry front-page apologies at the same time was "unprecedented".

"I think this is an amazing stand-down, U-turn, by the Express newspapers," he said.

Front page apologies for the lies printed by the publications were quite obviously demanded as per the COURT AGREEMENT reached by both parties.
Nota Bene - that is UNPRECEDENTED.

"I think when people realise that more than 100 stories have been complained about as being grossly defamatory, it will annihilate the Express' readers sense of trust and credibility in their newspaper."

Media lawyer Paul Gilbert, from Finers Stephens Innocent, said the courts encourage early settlement of defamation cases.

"Clearly the Express' lawyers felt this was a case they should settle without a high-profile trial - which it would be - and as a result have saved considerable costs," he said.

"It certainly is a warning sign to newspapers in the future - if they're going to speculate, they've got to be very careful about what they speculate about."

Be in no mistake about it.

The damages award for numerous defamations made about the McCanns was made in court.  Please bear that in mind for future reference before pressing the "post" button on sceptic disinformation.

In a statement read out on behalf of the McCanns at the High Court on Wednesday, they said they were pleased that Express Newspapers had admitted the "utter falsity" of the numerous stories written about them over many months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7303801.stm

There was no trial, so the case wasn't proved in a court of law.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The UK newspapers were, like Amaral, accused of libelling the McCanns. They decided to pay up without attempting to defend themselves in court. Therefore no-one knows if they were actually guilty in law or not. Amaral defended himself in court, and the McCanns were ultimately unable to prove their case. Perhaps the McCanns would have failed to prove their case against the newspapers in the courts too.

LOL at "no one knows if they were guilty or not" - except maybe the newspapers' lawyers who suggested to their clients that they didn't have a cat's chance in hell of successfully defending a libel action perhaps...

Have you read the Leveson report btw?

[The General]

I thought you had more sense than that... Do you think he would use this as a defense at any future trial... Can't be me because I've never been caught for murder before. I'm surprised he didn't use it at the rape trial.. Can't be me I'm a paedo. The.frightening thing is people like you can vote and sit on juries...

No.

[The General]

There was no trial, so the case wasn't proved in a court of law.

Approximately 90% of all civil action never see the inside of a court room. Many defendants prefer the ambiguity of the term 'settled out of court' for a reason.

[Brietta]

There was no trial, so the case wasn't proved in a court of law.

The case was proven by the full acceptance of the newspaper group that they had printed lies about the McCanns.

But not before the McCanns did bring the Express Group to the High Court where they were on a very solid legal footing.

[Brietta]

LOL at "no one knows if they were guilty or not" - except maybe the newspapers' lawyers who suggested to their clients that they didn't have a cat's chance in hell of successfully defending a libel action perhaps...

Have you read the Leveson report btw?

I'm a bit incredulous that this non "argument" is still ongoing.

I've read a good bit of the Leveson report and watched televised evidence too.  Quite a bit of the evidence given under oath was quite startling and thought provoking.

[Brietta]

The UK newspapers were, like Amaral, accused of libelling the McCanns. They decided to pay up without attempting to defend themselves in court. Therefore no-one knows if they were actually guilty in law or not. Amaral defended himself in court, and the McCanns were ultimately unable to prove their case. Perhaps the McCanns would have failed to prove their case against the newspapers in the courts too.

I think the McCanns have proved their case where it now matters.  The BKA -SY - and the PJ investigations are all in their own particular ways proof positive of that.

It is now the Portuguese State which is in the European sticky wicket at the moment - and the result of that judgement is likely to be an interesting one.

[barrier]

I wonder if it was a case of once bitten twice shy for Express newspapers, Archer took them on and won, mind it later transpired what they printed was right and Archer had to pay back with interest.

[barrier]

I thought you had more sense than that... Do you think he would use this as a defense at any future trial... Can't be me because I've never been caught for murder before. I'm surprised he didn't use it at the rape trial.. Can't be me I'm a paedo. The.frightening thing is people like you can vote and sit on juries...

Its more frightening that you can also, future trial, in your dreams.

[barrier]

CB hasn't proved his innocence yet.. It seems in sceptic world if you are a suspect this is what you have to do then you are cleared

Remind us what charges are laid at CB's door to prove his innocence, his guilt is assured on here and in your mind maybe, in the real world ?

[G-Unit]

The case was proven by the full acceptance of the newspaper group that they had printed lies about the McCanns.

But not before the McCanns did bring the Express Group to the High Court where they were on a very solid legal footing.

What was proved was Express Group's reluctance to go to court. No doubt their lawyers told them they would lose the case. I expect Isobel Duarte told the McCanns they would win the case in Portugal against Amaral. My conclusion? Lawyers aren't always right.