Aftermath of the Leveson Inquiry

[Gadfly1.3]

Well that week of attempted media manipulation went spectaculary wrong.  Come on - use your smarts Gerry. :)

[G-Unit]

Well that week of attempted media manipulation went spectaculary wrong.  Come on - use your smarts Gerry. :)

Sadly they don't appear to have enough funds to hire a media expert like Mr Mitchell.

[Alice Purjorick]

Hacked Off seems to have one aim only. To make it possible for those without funds to seek compensation from the media. Whether the fear of that will be enough to prevent the media from spreading lies is something else.

Viewed strictly as a business proposition:
Increase in revenue from increased copy sales and by extension advertising revenue = say £1MM
Cost of sales (lobbing out agreed damages and associated costs by way of out of court settlement) = say £600k
GP = £400k
What would you do?

[stephen25000]

Sadly they don't appear to have enough funds to hire a media expert like Mr Mitchell.

Mitchell, Blair's tool in the media.

[Mr Gray]

Sadly they don't appear to have enough funds to hire a media expert like Mr Mitchell.

The reason the McCanns have the money is a measure of their public support...

[stephen25000]

The reason the McCanns have the money is a measure of their public support...

What support would that be these days ?

Other than b....r all.

[Mr Gray]

What support would that be these days ?

Other than b....r all.

the reason the mccanns have had so much money is because of the amount of support they have had

[jassi]

Don't forget that a lot came from the book and a couple of out of court settlements.

[Benice]

Sadly they don't appear to have enough funds to hire a media expert like Mr Mitchell.

Why would 'Hacked Off' need a media expert merely to state the present position i.e.  the lack of action on implementing  something which had cross party agreement? 

If Gerry had the power to manipulate the media - he wouldn't be part of the Hacked Off campaign - as who in their right mind would want to change such a powerful position?

It's not that long ago that the Press had to pay £55,000 compensation for libelling the McCanns.  So much for the idea that the McCanns have the press in the palm of their hands.

I suspect there would have been no criticism of Christopher Jefferies if he had made the same statement.  His cruel treatment by the press was as equally disgraceful and unacceptable as their treatment of the McCanns  and Robert Murat.

It's nothing to do with stifling freedom of speech, it's an attempt to prevent other people having to go through what those victims went through at the hands of an irresponsible press who didn't care if what they printed could ruin someone's life - as long as the sales figures were up.

I can't believe anyone would want that situation to remain the same.     Although I'm not surprised to see the usual attempts to twist the subject into yet another stick to beat the McCanns with.    It's par for the course for some sceptics.

AIMO

[Brietta]

Don't forget that a lot came from the book and a couple of out of court settlements.

The book was written specifically to raise money for the fund and enabled the campaign on Madeleine's behalf to continue.

The out of court settlements to the McCanns and their friends were as a result of them being libelled in the press ... that is ... to say the press printed horrific lies about them.

[stephen25000]

the reason the mccanns have had so much money is because of the amount of support they have had

So how much has been donated in  recent years then by private people, not counting private backers at the start.

Is Brian Kennedy still giving them dosh, or has that well dried up ?

A cite would help.

With the last Official Find Madeleine Facebook page post on 8 th April 2016, which asked for "urgent help", received as of yesterday 76 likes.

I don't call that overwhelming support.

[Carana]

Viewed strictly as a business proposition:
Increase in revenue from increased copy sales and by extension advertising revenue = say £1MM
Cost of sales (lobbing out agreed damages and associated costs by way of out of court settlement) = say £600k
GP = £400k
What would you do?

That does appear to be more or less how the tabloids calculated the business risk.

An additional cost to factor in, though, is the amount of money flying around for "scoops", which was quite considerable in the early days of the case (see the Al Jazeera "McCanns v. the Media" documentary, for example).

The PT media may well have had less potential outlay to consider: their press laws are more liberal; the likelihood of foreign residents suing a foreign media outlet may have seemed less likely due to the hassle involved; and, based on a few successful cases that I've seen, successful plaintiffs were typically awarded damages of €10k, i.e., peanuts in terms of the damage done.

[G-Unit]

Why would 'Hacked Off' need a media expert merely to state the present position i.e.  the lack of action on implementing  something which had cross party agreement? 

If Gerry had the power to manipulate the media - he wouldn't be part of the Hacked Off campaign - as who in their right mind would want to change such a powerful position?

It's not that long ago that the Press had to pay £55,000 compensation for libelling the McCanns.  So much for the idea that the McCanns have the press in the palm of their hands.

I suspect there would have been no criticism of Christopher Jefferies if he had made the same statement.  His cruel treatment by the press was as equally disgraceful and unacceptable as their treatment of the McCanns  and Robert Murat.

It's nothing to do with stifling freedom of speech, it's an attempt to prevent other people having to go through what those victims went through at the hands of an irresponsible press who didn't care if what they printed could ruin someone's life - as long as the sales figures were up.

I can't believe anyone would want that situation to remain the same.     Although I'm not surprised to see the usual attempts to twist the subject into yet another stick to beat the McCanns with.    It's par for the course for some sceptics.

AIMO

The stories being commented on above are nothing to do with Gerry McCann in particular, just of the pressure group he is part of. I believe it was Brian Cathcart who said the press had 'an obligation' to publish the Wittingdale story. Judging by the reaction that was a bad move which may have been prevented had they used a media advisor.

[Carana]

I'm trying to catch up on this.

One side of the story:
I say story, but that's inaccurate. There is no story here. Between August 2013 and February 2014 a single man went out with a woman. The fact the man happened to be media secretary and that she happened to be a sex worker has somehow made this worthy of Hacked Off's attention.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/04/13/whittingdale-story-destroys-the-last-vestiges-of-hacked-off

The other side:

Hacked Off
‏@hackinginquiry

This is NOT about Whittingdale private life: it's about whether press had power over him & why he's blocking key access to justice reforms.
https://twitter.com/hackinginquiry/status/720150630392795136

Back on the other side: has it been established that he has been blocking access to reforms?

Not much appears to have happened, but who or what is at the root of it?

[jassi]

Although Whittingdale is a cabinet minister, he would not be able to block anything, if his boss (Cameron) wished it to proceed. One must look elsewhere than Whittingdale for a culprit. IMO