Re: Sunday Times apology

by Over The Hill 30.12.13 21:03

canada12 wrote:The UK media could have reported on the libel trial in Portugal. That would have been factual, and not libellous. Simply reporting on who had said what during the various sessions of the trial.

I have answered this point before, canada12. This is a court hearing in Portugal, not the UK, and the alleged libels may be assumed to be not widely known in the UK because the book hasn't been published here. Therefore, unless permission has been expressly granted by the two legal teams and the judge, any media outlet reporting the information may be guilty of defamation itself under English (not Portuguese) Law - ie damaging the reputation of the plaintiffs with claims that can't be proved

by Over The Hill 30.12.13 21:07

candyfloss wrote:ETA.......after that it all sort of went quiet!

Yes indeed, one report and that was it. I wonder why...
I'm surprised it's still online

by juliet 30.12.13 21:17

How ludicrous to claim the British media us simply waiting for the facts to spill the McCann story. The Gaspar statemenr is fact. The dog findings of dead body scent is fact (falsely described as "the dogs found DNA" in the most recent TV "investigation"). The McCann pursuing Tony Bennett to shut him up was fact. The endless court cases against Amaral are fact. The Halligen court case and the massive losss to the McCann Fund....all ignored by our press. If the news editors aren't scared of the McCanns (as it is suggested) then they are lazy or dim beyond imagining. Any normal person will say there is simething dodgy about the McCann tale. Our media rolls over and licks their shoes even though they are at the very least guilty of appalling neglect.

by Guest 30.12.13 21:20

But, OTH, there has been reporting on British TV - of the McCanns and their witnesses outside the court. Why is that not libellous if similar reporting of the defence witnesses is? Would you consider my questions on the previous page (repeated below) as I genuinely do not understand the differences you describe?

Dee Coy wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:
Besides, there have been so many contradictions that the media has no idea what is true and what isn't, so I don't blame them for not reporting what witnesses have said. None of their accounts can be trusted.

Which timeline is correct? Who knows? When was the alarm raised? Who knows? Was the patio door locked? Who knows? Did the checks take place when they were said to have taken place? Who knows? Crecheman and Smithman? Who knows?

What are you talking about? The BBC have reported extensively on the timelines created by the Tapas 9 and has given great credence to Tanner's 'sighting'. For 6 and a half years the version of events presented by witnesses supporting the McCanns has been presented by the Beeb et al as the gospel truth.

You're not making any sense.

And how is showing live interviews and statements from the McCanns and their witnesses outside the libel trial not potentially libellous, but screening statements from witnesses for the defence is? Because the former certainly has been done on British TV in the last few months but the latter hasn't.

by Over The Hill 30.12.13 21:24

juliet wrote:How ludicrous to claim the British media us simply waiting for the facts to spill the McCann story. The Gaspar statemenr is fact. The dog findings of dead body scent is fact (falsely described as "the dogs found DNA" in the most recent TV "investigation"). The McCann pursuing Tony Bennett to shut him up was fact. The endless court cases against Amaral are fact. The Halligen court case and the massive losss to the McCann Fund....all ignored by our press. If the news editors aren't scared of the McCanns (as it is suggested) then they are lazy or dim beyond imagining. Any normal person will say there is simething dodgy about the McCann tale. Our media rolls over and licks their shoes even though they are at the very least guilty of appalling neglect.

The Gaspar statement is someone's interpretation of someone else's behaviour. That isn't fact.
It was the Sun newspaper that uploaded a video of the dogs for everyone in the world to see
TB libelled the McCanns under English Law, and it was reported
I've already answered all the rest

by Over The Hill 30.12.13 21:26

Dee Coy wrote:But, OTH, there has been reporting on British TV - of the McCanns and their witnesses outside the court. Why is that not libellous if similar reporting of the defence witnesses is? Would you consider my questions on the previous page (repeated below) as I genuinely do not understand the differences you describe?

If you choose to comment publicly, in front of a TV camera, on a defamation against you, it's obvious you are expecting the media to report it. So to sue them when they do report what you've said would be pointless

by Guest 30.12.13 21:31

Over The Hill wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:But, OTH, there has been reporting on British TV - of the McCanns and their witnesses outside the court. Why is that not libellous if similar reporting of the defence witnesses is? Would you consider my questions on the previous page (repeated below) as I genuinely do not understand the differences you describe?
If you choose to comment publicly, in front of a TV camera, on a defamation against you, you are expecting the media to report it

Well, quite. And Portuguese TV duly transmitted footage of defence witnesses giving statements outside the court. Why didn't UK TV, who concentrated solely on the McCanns and their witnesses speeches?

by Over The Hill 30.12.13 21:33

Dee Coy wrote:Well, quite. And Portuguese TV duly transmitted footage of defence witnesses giving statements outside the court. Why didn't UK TV, who concentrated solely on the McCanns and their witnesses speeches?

I've already explained this - repeating (or broadcasting) a libel is a libel under English law because it further damages the plaintiff's reputation. Because of that, it would have been more equitable not to give either side any airtime

by juliet 30.12.13 21:36

It didn't help that the bbc used that vain patsy Richard Bilson to front their programmes. His main aim is to have his face reflected in interviewees' glasses/spoons/wing mirrors and to smack his lips together. He couldn't investigate a wet fish.

by Guest 30.12.13 21:41

Over The Hill wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:Well, quite. And Portuguese TV duly transmitted footage of defence witnesses giving statements outside the court. Why didn't UK TV, who concentrated solely on the McCanns and their witnesses speeches?
I've already explained this - repeating a libel is a libel under English law

But we don't know what was contained in the defence witnesses speeches filmed outside the courthouse, except to say they would certainly not be repeating anything said within the courthouse. So it could not possibly relate to any alleged libel in the book, or questions put to witnesses as part of the proceedings.

If it's ok to film the McCanns' generic thoughts and emotions on what's happening inside, why not the defence repsresentatives merely doing similar? Starting to sound a bit like censorship to me.

by Over The Hill 30.12.13 21:48

My view would be that all matters like this should be balanced, and if one side can't be heard for legal reasons, it's best not to broadcast it all. That presents certain problems, and different editors would find different ways of getting round them, not all satisfactory in my opinion

by Guest 30.12.13 22:06

Over The Hill wrote:My view would be that all matters like this should be balanced, and if one side can't be heard for legal reasons, it's best not to broadcast it all. That presents certain problems, and different editors would find different ways of getting round them, not all satisfactory in my opinion

Thank you for your replies. It's screamingly obvious to me that British media editors find ways to get round problems allowing the McCanns to have their say far more easily - all the time, in fact - than they trouble to find ways around granting the McCanns' challengers the same privilege.

The McCanns' side of the story is ubiquitous. Since the suing of the Express, it seems to me, all other theories are debunked in totality. Even if that means the libelling of the McCanns' opponents, for example, the potential defamation of the Portuguese police. Perhaps they've decided to cross that particular potentially libellous bridge when they come to it, in the meantime, let's speculate and be damned. Just my theory.

Working within the industry, I bet it's hard to see what's glaringly obvious to the rest of us. I like to think the best of the company I work for, although outsiders often have a different view. I think you're brave to admit your occupation on here. Thank you for that.

by Over The Hill 30.12.13 22:15

Personally and professionally, I have been surprised and often disappointed at the way this story has been reported. Many of the basic rules of journalism have been ignored and I do believe that it were to start all over again, the media would tackle it in a different way. But do remember that the laws of defamation do (rightly imo) impose many restrictions. In all probability it has been one of the biggest stories of our lifetime, and yes I do believe it will be solved - but by the police, not the media. Thanks for all your interest and challenging questions, I will continue to post when I feel I can make a contribution

by RIPM 30.12.13 22:20

Over The Hill wrote:
juliet wrote:How ludicrous to claim the British media us simply waiting for the facts to spill the McCann story. The Gaspar statemenr is fact. The dog findings of dead body scent is fact (falsely described as "the dogs found DNA" in the most recent TV "investigation"). The McCann pursuing Tony Bennett to shut him up was fact. The endless court cases against Amaral are fact. The Halligen court case and the massive losss to the McCann Fund....all ignored by our press. If the news editors aren't scared of the McCanns (as it is suggested) then they are lazy or dim beyond imagining. Any normal person will say there is simething dodgy about the McCann tale. Our media rolls over and licks their shoes even though they are at the very least guilty of appalling neglect.
The Gaspar statement is someone's interpretation of someone else's behaviour. That isn't fact.
It was the Sun newspaper that uploaded a video of the dogs for everyone in the world to see
TB libelled the McCanns under English Law, and it was reported
I've already answered all the rest

The Gaspar's statement is a statement by a witness of events they witnessed.

That is a fact, whether they are telling the truth, that as in any witness statement, in any legal case, is open to scrutiny but the fact the statement was given is a fact.

But you do give me a good laugh, you working in the media for 20 years and believing all you see on the TV news is true.

Slightly off topic, why did the BBC pay Lord McAlpine £185,000 if they checked their facts so carefully?

Your arguments do not hold water. This one sided reporting by the MSM goes back long before the libel case in Portugal.

Some of us do not forget the first media organisation to be involved in this mystery was the BBC.

by Okeydokey 30.12.13 22:26

Over The Hill wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:So this is the new proud bannerline: "When the cops crack it, the media will tell you the whole story..."
Yes, the media's job is to report. That's what media means. Occasionally they will drive a case, but there's no need here because the PJ and Scotland Yard are already doing it. Let the experts get on with what they are paid to do, and let the media stick to reporting it

You skipped over my previous post, probably because you had no answer - having erroneously claimed TV news is unable to report on foreign libel trials.
Please don't make assumptions about me. Making assumption is dangerous, as this case has frequently shown. I do have an answer, and it is obvious. The Tom Cruise case bears no similarity to the Amaral situation

You keep - desperately - trying to claim that people here are criticising the UK media for not accusing the McCanns of a crime. But that is also nonsense. Nearly everyone here is simply asking the UK Media to report on facts.
And that's what the broadcast media do when it they believe it to be relevant. Check the archive material on BBC, ITN and Sky. Facts. You can't expect them to do a McCann update every day. And please don't accuse me of posting nonsense

The Daily Mail did in fact include some reporting of the case including what Amaral's defence witnesses were saying
Yes that was a good report, but the Mail is an independent newspaper and can do what it likes. And Candyfloss has recently pointed out that the DM did one report and then stopped! I wonder why?

So that shows you are not right about what the UK Media can do. There is nothing to stop a TV broadcaster reporting in similar terms.
I have answered this point several times. Repeating a libel is a libel. Fact. You keep talking of the legal right to report a court case but it is a Portuguese court hearing, which isn't covered by English law. The Mail chanced its arm and (presumably) got away with it. But legal action against the media in this case has been sporadic and inconsistent. I wouldn't risk it unless it was agreed with the lawyers and judge overseeing the case

BUt what does the law say?

This from the Carter-Ruck (!) site.

Reports of proceedings listed in Schedule 1 Defamation Act 1996
The Defamation Act 1996 lists a number of publications which are covered by qualified privilege. These include fair and accurate reports of public proceedings in legislatures, courts, and international conferences anywhere in the world. The report does not have to be contemporaneous.

The above shows you are completely wrong to assert that the UK Media cannot report on public libel trials in foreign courts.

You seem to be all over the place:

1. You can't expect them to do a McCann update every day. They did a McCann update every day for about a year! I don't think people are expecting updates every day now. BUt they expect the trial to be reported properly, not just focussing on the libellous comments against Amaral.

2. You appear to be admitting that the UK Media is being prevented from reporting on court proceedings in a fellow EU state by legal intimidation, and yet you seem quite at ease with this state of affairs. You don't sound like a journalist to me. You connection with the media must be in some other department.

3. You were laying down a broad legal principle, that UK media cannot report on foreign libel trials for fear of repeating libels. As soon as I point to an exception to your rule, you start bleating that is "different".

4. You haven't indicated if you are aware of any of the secret injunctions applying in this case and whether you approve them. We know of one that was revealed in the case of McCanns v Leics Police - the court order had required all official agencies to co-opreate with the McCanns even while they were still Arguidos! You haven't commented on that - whether you think that fair practice or an outrageous abuse by the judiciary.

5.

by Hongkong Phooey 30.12.13 23:00

Over The Hill wrote:Personally and professionally, I have been surprised and often disappointed at the way this story has been reported. Many of the basic rules of journalism have been ignored and I do believe that it were to start all over again, the media would tackle it in a different way. But do remember that the laws of defamation do (rightly imo) impose many restrictions. In all probability it has been one of the biggest stories of our lifetime, and yes I do believe it will be solved - but by the police, not the media. Thanks for all your interest and challenging questions, I will continue to post when I feel I can make a contribution

Brave decision to out yourself as being in the media however I very much doubt you have any say in what or what does not get transmitted. You've therefore left yourself open to questioning and interrogation on something you have no control over and you've had to go into defensive mode. Perhaps it would have been better for you to have given something better than ‘working in the media‘ assuming your not at the forefront of the News.

by **PeterMac** 30.12.13 23:15

Over The Hill wrote:TB libelled the McCanns under English Law, and it was reported
I've already answered all the rest

HANG ON A MINUTE

Tony BENNETT has never been found 'guilty" of libel in an English Court of Law. NEVER.
to say, or even to imply so may itself be defamatory of him. .

The twisting and turning of the legal procedures which led to his being sentenced to a term of imprisonment do not depend on his having defamed anyone. Ever.
That was never put to the test, never argued, and never proved.

They relate purely to his breach of an undertaking to the Court.

I know that some people find the machinations of firms like C-R, and of the High Court, and indeed English Law generally, difficult to understand
but let us say it again,so that it shall be understood
TB HAS NOT BEEN FOUND 'GUILTY' OF LIBEL
For that matter nor has Dr Gonçalo Amaral.
Nor anyone else who has had views different from those expounded and promulgated and proselytised by the McCanns and their accolytes.

by Smokeandmirrors 30.12.13 23:23

by jeanmonroe 30.12.13 23:26

WHOA!
HOLD ON OTH!

TB did not libel the McCanns.

He was found to be guilty of contempt of court. (relating purely to a breach of an undertaking to the Court).

You may find yourself at risk of stating a libellous statement.

And you being an expert on libel and defamation?

Hmmm.

SS, for reference.

by aiyoyo 30.12.13 23:41

And, Kate & Gerry Mccanns have never dare step into the Witness Stand, under Oath to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the TRUTH, to be cross examined,

We may soon find out how they will disintegrate under cross examination if ever the Libel Court Judge grant them their wish to speak.
I suspect their wish to speak is just a narrow issue of reading out a legally-censored-pre-prepared-script, and once that's done they will refuse to answer questions.

by jeanmonroe 30.12.13 23:51

aiyoyo wrote:And, Kate & Gerry Mccanns have never dare step into the Witness Stand to be cross-examined, under Oath to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the TRUTH.

We may soon find out how they will disintegrate under cross examination if ever the Libel Court Judge grant them their wish to speak.
I suspect their wish to speak is just a narrow issue of reading out a legally-censored-pre-prepared-script, and once that's done they will refuse to answer questions.

They did put on 'another great performance', under oath, at Leveson but did not dare utter the 'A' words (abduction/abducted) in relation to their daughter Madeleine having been placed 'under oath' to give true evidence.

Even their very expensive lawyer at CR will NEVER again state that Madeleine 'was abducted'

Or even their Portuguese lawyer, at their current libel trial, who only ever refers to the 'abduction' as 'the McCann couple's THESIS'

by aiyoyo 31.12.13 0:16

jeanmonroe wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:And, Kate & Gerry Mccanns have never dare step into the Witness Stand to be cross-examined, under Oath to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the TRUTH.

We may soon find out how they will disintegrate under cross examination if ever the Libel Court Judge grant them their wish to speak.
I suspect their wish to speak is just a narrow issue of reading out a legally-censored-pre-prepared-script, and once that's done they will refuse to answer questions.

They did put on 'another great performance', under oath, at Leveson but did not dare utter the 'A' words (abduction/abducted) in relation to their daughter Madeleine having been placed 'under oath' to give true evidence.

Even their very expensive lawyer at CR will NEVER again state that Madeleine 'was abducted'

Or even their Portuguese lawyer, at their current libel trial, who only ever refers to the 'abduction' as 'the McCann couple's THESIS'

The Leveson Inquiry isn't a Court per se, and they were not in the Witness Stand, even though under oath.
When they are in Court facing the Judge and Opposing Party lawyers then it's a different ball game and they would be very wary.

by Okeydokey 31.12.13 0:20

Over the Hill has been claiming all along that you can't report on foreign libel proceedings in case you libel someone inadvertently. He claims that, contrary to the position regarding English courts, there is no protection for reporting proceedings in foreign courts regarding libel cases. Really? How does he/she explain this then (from the Carter-Ruck site):

"Reports of proceedings listed in Schedule 1 Defamation Act 1996
The Defamation Act 1996 lists a number of publications which are covered by qualified privilege. These include fair and accurate reports of public proceedings in legislatures, courts, and international conferences anywhere in the world. The report does not have to be contemporaneous."

The above shows OTH is completely wrong to assert that the UK Media cannot report on public libel trials in foreign courts.

The question though is why OTH is spreading such disinformation, given he claims to know all about UK libel law.

by Cristobell 31.12.13 0:23

aiyoyo wrote:And, Kate & Gerry Mccanns have never dare step into the Witness Stand, under Oath to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the TRUTH, to be cross examined,

We may soon find out how they will disintegrate under cross examination if ever the Libel Court Judge grant them their wish to speak.
I suspect their wish to speak is just a narrow issue of reading out a legally-censored-pre-prepared-script, and once that's done they will refuse to answer questions.

Do you think they will still turn up Aiyoyo? I am just wondering how much damage the suppression story has done to their claim. The recent Mirror article may have been some form of damage limitation exercise in preparation for that final day in Court, but I wouldn't like to say. They must be under a huge amount of stress at the moment, and wondering if it would be wise for both of them to step foot on Portuguese soil at the same time.

by marconi 31.12.13 0:37

When will this finally be solved? I am deadly tired of it. I hoped that we would start 2014 already knowing what happened to Madeleine. Don't tell me that it will take 2.5 years longer.

Log in for more topics