Re: McCanns 'waited four months' to sue - Richard Desmond tells Leveson

by jd 13.01.12 13:12

I wonder that the claim that CR were giving their services for free to the mccanns, is in fact a twisted truth/spin of a DBA

by Guest 13.01.12 13:27

I would love to know what 4 months he is talking about.

by jd 13.01.12 13:40

A good comment from a reader of Metro:

David Pilditch, who wrote most of the McC*** stories for the Express, made an important point when he gave evidence in December, which has been totally glossed over in the usual skewed reporting we see when it comes to the McC****:- Because of Portuguese judicial secrecy routinely imposed on active police cases, it was impossible for the Express to prove the veracity of its stories (the onus in UK libel cases being on the defendant to prove truth rather than on the complainant to prove falsity), yet when the case was archived and the police files released, Pilditch says he felt vindicated with regard to anything he wrote between Sept 07 and Jan 08 as the stories turned out to be true. At least in the sense that he accurately reported what were legitimate lines of enquiry pursued by the police at the time.

Had the Express known that the files would be released a few months later, I suspect they may not have settled out of court so prematurely. This huge settlement and subsequent has allowed the McC***s, their PR team and the *cough* esteemed Carter Ruck to exert a stranglehold on the UK media which continues to this day. Even though editors and journos are now much more familiar with the available evidence - the dodgy and contradictory statements of them and their friends for starters - they daren't print anything which doesn't toe the "official" line.It has now become politically incorrect to criticise them or question their story.

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/887245-media-tycoon-richard-desmond-in-grotesque-madeleine-mccann-claim#ixzz1jLSyNeWy

by Gillyspot 13.01.12 13:43

candyfloss wrote:Leveson Inquiry: Express was 'scapegoated' over Madeleine McCann case, says owner Richard Desmond

Richard Desmond, owner of the Daily Express and Daily Star, said his newspapers were "scapegoated" for their coverage of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

"We stood up and said "Yes, we got it wrong, there's the money for the marketing fund , "

He got that right didn't he.

by jd 13.01.12 13:49

I think Mr Desmond has worded his defence very carefully and let the cat out of the bag thumbsup

by pennylane 13.01.12 14:38

Desmond made some frightfully astute comments, bless him.... not least when he added out of the blue that many people believed the royal family were behind Diana's death! Lordy, lordy, lordy McCanns 'waited four months' to sue - Richard Desmond tells Leveson - Page 2 110921

McCanns 'waited four months' to sue - Richard Desmond tells Leveson - Page 2 110921

by Daisy 13.01.12 14:54

Daily Mail's slant on Richard Desmond's evidence. Comments section closed for legal reasons.

Express chief Desmond accused of misrepresentation over Madeleine McCann stories

Quote RD: 'Once again I do apologise to the
McCanns, you know, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but there are views
on the McCanns. Of what happened. There are still views on the McCanns
of what happened.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085908/Leveson-Inquiry-Richard-Desmond-accused-misrepresentation-Madeleine-McCann-stories.html#ixzz1jLlwDxIC

by russiandoll 13.01.12 15:25

PeterMac wrote:Mitchell really is brilliant.
"Mitchell said they did not take legal action against Desmond's newspapers earlier "because they had more important things to do, like looking for their daughter".

And now... they don't ?

don't usually do these, but the above just begs for one.

McCanns 'waited four months' to sue - Richard Desmond tells Leveson - Page 2 181154

by pennylane 13.01.12 15:37

russiandoll wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Mitchell really is brilliant.
"Mitchell said they did not take legal action against Desmond's newspapers earlier "because they had more important things to do, like looking for their daughter".

And now... they don't ?

don't usually do these, but the above just begs for one.

Come now, sixteen weeks is ample time to devote on searching for Maddie, before switching their priorities!

by russiandoll 13.01.12 15:47

Stella wrote: Q. But the effect of the bad ones are really twofold. One,

25 the possible pragmatic effect, namely if people thought

84

1 that Madeleine had been killed, there would be less

2 interest in trying to find her. Do you follow that?

3 A. From my memory, and it was a long time ago and -- but

4 I mean it was just the story every day. It just went on

5 all the time, was she killed? Was she --

6 Q. You are not listening to my question and the, I would

7 suggest, inexorable logic behind it. If people thought

8 Madeleine might have been killed, particularly by her

9 parents -- it doesn't matter by whom actually -- there

10 would be less incentive to try and find her. Do you

11 agree with that proposition or not?

12 A. No.

Why did the lawyer not say he was going to reword his question, for that is what he did. The first q. showed anything but inexorable logic. If people thought Madeleine HAD been killed,[by whomever] there would have been NO incentive to try to find her. At least he had the sense to realise his first q made no sense.

as for the comment highlighted in red, in the context of what he was trying to say I get it, but really? that from a lawyer !!

Shocked

by Advocatus 14.01.12 6:56

PeterMac wrote:For once in my life I think Desmond may be an influence for good.
He has let it out. Put it into the public domain.
The Press may be silent at the moment, but they clearly do not believe the McCanns and are just itching to get their money back.
Pity it had to be Desmond, but I am equally sure that most of the others, including Private Eye have something ready.
Happy New Year everybody !!

I agree. I seem to have a knack of feeling out the general mood and the general public certainly smell a rat with all of TM - the politicos will pick up on it too, it is muck like wall street with • momentum • share buying, up or down, B Brown is mr nowhere man now, knives have been stuck in. Let's hope DC Cameron twists the knife good and proper, and dirty Des is just biding his time, there wil be shock and awe in Rothley, coming soon, very soon I think.

by aiyoyo 14.01.12 7:59

Desmond is bidding his time to let rip into the mccanns.

Has the mccanns taken out an injunction against publication of the released Process files.

If not, why didn't Desmond pay for professionals to get it translated and run a serialization of it?
Surely, if that is released into the public domain the judiciary secrecy is lifted. Also if it comes to a legal tug of war how can any judge argue it is not in the public interest to know when the public are expected to continue to give to a Fund to search for Maddie.

The public have a right to know about Madeleine's parents and friends inconsistent testimonies and about them not cooperating with the Police and a whole lot more in the files. The public should be allowed to make up their mind instead of having it imposed on them by team mccanns.

Desmond should seek legal advice on where his paper stands if his titles were to publish the released process files. If there is no legal issue with it then there is no reason why the UK public should be kept in the dark.

Maybe someone may want to write to Desmond posing him that question?

by jd 14.01.12 8:25

I seem to have a knack of feeling out the general mood and the general public certainly smell a rat with all of TM - the politicos will pick up on it too

I'm afraid the politicians call us 'Ghouls' for daring to question the mccanns version of events

I think it is a great idea for a paper to run a serialisation of the PJ Files, they after all "The Facts' and they are in the public domain for anyone to read. Considering the scam that is before us which is very much in the public interest because they are begging money, then the public have a right to know the 'facts' so they can make their own mind up to donate or not, from 'facts'...and not from covered up and spun out lies that the public are getting. Its called 'Fraud' and it is deceiving and it is lying

by Liz Eagles 14.01.12 9:44

[quote="jd"]

I seem to have a knack of feeling out the general mood and the general public certainly smell a rat with all of TM - the politicos will pick up on it too

I'm afraid the politicians call us 'Ghouls' for daring to question the mccanns version of events

All of the following post I'm making is my honest opinion and observation.

I think it is a great idea for a paper to run a serialisation of the PJ Files, they after all "The Facts' and they are in the public domain for anyone to read. Considering the scam that is before us which is very much in the public interest because they are begging money, then the public have a right to know the 'facts' so they can make their own mind up to donate or not, from 'facts'...and not from covered up and spun out lies that the public are getting. Its called 'Fraud' and it is deceiving and it is lying[/quote

All of the following post I'm making is my honest opinion and observation.

The search for Ben Needham is nicely timed. A bit low-key...no announcement of any sort of cost (i.e.3.5M) or what is going to be done. No. What we have is a little snippet to make the British public feel good that people in high places are doing something for the tragedy of Ben's disappearance. The powers that be wouldn't dare to announce any particular details of the search for Ben Needham as he has been so neglected by our government but hey he's remembered all of a sudden. What a co-incidence. There is no headlining material (Lord forbid Ben Needham could take up the front page and valuable column inches nowadays). The recent amendments to the McFund giving carte blanche to from what I understand, invest, loan, collaborate, offer services etc. It's toxic PR spin IMO (is there any other kind I ask myself and always come to the same answer so I don't know why I ask the bloody question - perhaps I still retain faith that not everyone in this sad case is untruthful). The minute something is heard of Ben Needham IMO it will be splashed over the papers in this drip feed fashion and there will be those other M folk who will steal the thunder, talk about their triumphant strategy and their need to bring awareness to all missing children. This will deflect the nastiness of the court cases and plump up the victim status. Do these people actually care for anyone? Ben Needham's mother cares and I'm worried that she'll become a pawn in this disgusting human game of chess.