Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?

[G-Unit]

I think it applies outside court......protection of reputation

We're discussing whether someone can be described as 'innocent on the eyes of the law'. We're not discussing the 'presumption of innocence' except in so far as it's the only legal term which mentions innocence..

[Angelo222]

Surely that is the purpose of defending one's actions in court.  To sort out the grey areas.

The McCanns have avoided going to civil trial in the UK as no doubt they would be asked some difficult questions.  I bet they were relieved when the newspapers who libelled them rolled over.

[Mr Gray]

The McCanns have avoided going to civil trial in the UK as no doubt they would be asked some difficult questions.  I bet they were relieved when the newspapers who libelled them rolled over.

The McCann's have avoided nothing...they took Bennett to court...if the papers settle they don't have a choice but not to go to court

[Brietta]

The McCanns have avoided going to civil trial in the UK as no doubt they would be asked some difficult questions.  I bet they were relieved when the newspapers who libelled them rolled over.

Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City University London, said the apology was unprecedented and that it was significant that the newspapers had settled out of court.

"It shows just how culpable they were that they didn't even try to fight the action in court," he told BBC radio.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582175/Papers-apologise-to-Madeleine-McCann-parents.html

[faithlilly]

Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City University London, said the apology was unprecedented and that it was significant that the newspapers had settled out of court.

"It shows just how culpable they were that they didn't even try to fight the action in court," he told BBC radio.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582175/Papers-apologise-to-Madeleine-McCann-parents.html

I think Roy Greenslade is correct. Some of the newspaper articles were horrendous and those publications certainly deserved to be called to account.  This whoever has no bearing on the wider question of the McCanns guilt or innocence.

[Brietta]

I think Roy Greenslade is correct. Some of the newspaper articles were horrendous and those publications certainly deserved to be called to account.  This whoever has no bearing on the wider question of the McCanns guilt or innocence.

Not forgetting those other beneficiaries of enforced press largess who according to your post must also be deprived of the right to presumption of innocence ... Murat ~ Murat's wife ~ Murat's business associate.

[Robittybob1]

I think Roy Greenslade is correct. Some of the newspaper articles were horrendous and those publications certainly deserved to be called to account.  This whoever has no bearing on the wider question of the McCanns guilt or innocence.

Guilty of what?

[jassi]

Guilty of what?

Possible guilt of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance, I imagine.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Not forgetting those other beneficiaries of enforced press largess who according to your post must also be deprived of the right to presumption of innocence ... Murat ~ Murat's wife ~ Murat's business associate.

This is another bad example of trying to make a comparison. The McCanns- whom we are discussing, not Murat, were suspected by police with regards to their statements and behaviour and some [although not enough ] evidence to charge with a crime.
 
The police did not suspect Murat. Someone pointed the finger at him,and he was investigated. He has not been charged or been to court to have his guilt or innocence tested.

[Angelo222]

Both.  Any.  I wasn’t aware the police operated by different laws to the courts.  Either the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law or they’re not.  There can be no grey area so which is it?

The Portuguese Supreme Court appears to hold a particularly strong view on that particular point.  They went out of their way to reject the McCann's claim that they had been cleared of any involvement in Maddie's disappearance.

[Brietta]

This is another bad example of trying to make a comparison. The McCanns- whom we are discussing, not Murat, were suspected by police with regards to their statements and behaviour and some [although not enough ] evidence to charge with a crime.
 
The police did not suspect Murat. Someone pointed the finger at him,and he was investigated. He has not been charged or been to court to have his guilt or innocence tested.

As I said ... "Presumption of Innocence" ... that good old universal Human Right enjoyed by all but denied exclusively to the McCanns by a small rump who don't like them.

I recommend you reread your post on the subject ... it did give me a bit of a laugh, might cheer you up too 

[Miss Taken Identity]

As I said ... "Presumption of Innocence" ... that good old universal Human Right enjoyed by all but denied exclusively to the McCanns by a small rump who don't like them.

I recommend you reread your post on the subject ... it did give me a bit of a laugh, might cheer you up too 

Well, can you be more specific if what 'crime' they to be 'presumed innocent' of.

and can you cite the small rump denying their right to this  "Presumption of Innocence"?

No , didn't think so. Gives me reason to sneer that you can't- I must say.   

[Brietta]

Well, can you be more specific if what 'crime' they to be 'presumed innocent' of.

and can you cite the small rump denying their right to this  "Presumption of Innocence"?

No , didn't think so. Gives me reason to sneer that you can't- I must say.   

The presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

  ... it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

[Robittybob1]

Possible guilt of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance, I imagine.

Exactly - the crime needs to be specified.

[Miss Taken Identity]

The presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

  ... it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

I do know what it means.

 

 IT Means they have NOT been declared innocent by anyone, .. just presumed. As much as you and other supporters constantly claim they 'are innocent' And With you being pedant about words and grammar, it may be useful for you to use that terminology when mentioning the McCanns and  mentioning innocence. Then we will be convinced you are really very clever knowing the difference!.