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

[jassi]

Cite please.

No , you'll have to google if you don't believe me

[Robittybob1]

No , you'll have to google if you don't believe me

Have you proven your claim via a similar Google search or are you just guessing?

libel
noun
1.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation

[jassi]

Have you proven your claim via a similar Google search or are you just guessing?

libel
noun
1.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation

Yes but it is how different countries determine what is meant by that
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7939997/Celebrities-use-British-laws-regarded-as-toughest-in-the-world.html

[Robittybob1]

What did you mean by “under Portuguese law they didn’t”?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg476364#msg476364

It really should have been “under Portuguese law he didn’t”.  He (GA) ended up being allowed to because of his right to free speech exceeded the McCann's right to a good name.

[Alice Purjorick]

Have you proven your claim via a similar Google search or are you just guessing?

libel
noun
1.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation

Some LBTR
http://kellywarnerlaw.com/germany-defamation-laws/
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways?t=1533062602410
http://kellywarnerlaw.com/france-defamation-laws/
http://kellywarnerlaw.com/uk-defamation-laws/

Plenty more where that came from.

[G-Unit]

so where is Duarte;s argument...in the request to overturn the SC judgement ....the argument was that the McCanns should benefit from the presumption of innocence.....its there in the original portugues.....the Sc said no

Why do you, over and over and over, miss out the important bit?

The argument was that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN CLEARED BY THE ARCHIVING DISPATCH.

In other words; because they were cleared they were entitled to be presumed innocent. But! If they weren't cleared the argument falls down.

[Robittybob1]

Yes but it is how different countries determine what is meant by that
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7939997/Celebrities-use-British-laws-regarded-as-toughest-in-the-world.html

Once again it is the balance between free speech and private life. 
From the link:
"However, lawyers said the US courts would never have granted such an order. Critics claim that the rich and famous are using the injunctions frequently to curb freedom of speech."

Still whatever is said has to be the truth. 

[jassi]

Once again it is the balance between free speech and private life. 
From the link:
"However, lawyers said the US courts would never have granted such an order. Critics claim that the rich and famous are using the injunctions frequently to curb freedom of speech."

Still whatever is said has to be the truth.

Or at least believed to be the truth at the time  - see Jeffrey Archer.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334653/The-end-Archer-goes-to-jail.html

[Mr Gray]

Why do you, over and over and over, miss out the important bit?

The argument was that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN CLEARED BY THE ARCHIVING DISPATCH.

In other words; because they were cleared they were entitled to be presumed innocent. But! If they weren't cleared the argument falls down.

Do you have a cite for that precise statement....I think you may have it back to front..
The McCann's don't need to be cleared to be entitled to the presumption of innocence...I will have a look at the original Portuguese..it was the SC who said they weren't entitled to the POI because they had not been cleared..

[Vertigo Swirl]

Why do you, over and over and over, miss out the important bit?

The argument was that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN CLEARED BY THE ARCHIVING DISPATCH.

In other words; because they were cleared they were entitled to be presumed innocent. But! If they weren't cleared the argument falls down.

So because they weren’t charged, tried in court and cleared they cannot be presumed to be innocent?  What a crock. So anyone who has ever had the misfortune to be a police suspect but never gets charged can never be considered innocent of the crime they were originally suspected of.

[jassi]

So because they weren’t charged, tried in court and cleared they cannot be presumed to be innocent?  What a crock. So anyone who has ever had the misfortune to be a police suspect but never gets charged can never be considered innocent of the crime they were originally suspected of.

Obviously not the case if someone else is convicted.

[Mr Gray]

So because they weren’t charged, tried in court and cleared they cannot be presumed to be innocent?  What a crock. So anyone who has ever had the misfortune to be a police suspect but never gets charged can never be considered innocent of the crime they were originally suspected of.

it is wrong....Ive provided a cite tonight from the SC judgement that shows its wrong

In the Allen vs UK case, the ECHR emphasised the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection – the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving – the presumption of innocence would remain illusory or merely ideal.

[Mr Gray]

i think gunit is aso wrong re the claim to innocence and what the mccanns claimed they were entitled to was the presumption of innocence...which of course they are

[Mr Gray]

Why do you, over and over and over, miss out the important bit?

The argument was that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN CLEARED BY THE ARCHIVING DISPATCH.

In other words; because they were cleared they were entitled to be presumed innocent. But! If they weren't cleared the argument falls down.

your claim makes no sense at all...a suspect does NOT need to be cleared to be entitled to the POI

[G-Unit]

i think gunit is aso wrong re the claim to innocence and what the mccanns claimed they were entitled to was the presumption of innocence...which of course they are

In my opinion you're doomed to disappointment. In a criminal case the prosecution has to prove guilt. In a defamation case the claimant has to prove the guilt of the defendant(s). The McCanns failed. The various transcripts show why they failed. In my opinion you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what was said and why. I wonder if you'll criticise the ECHR judges too if they reject a claim by the McCanns? Or will you finally accept that you got it wrong?