The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


Possible Action Against The Times

Page 15 of 16 Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by noddy100 on 21.09.14 8:28

Surely it is obvious that they were avoiding releasing the image just by looking at Kate's book?
She mentions and inc pics of all of the potential abductors bar this one

noddy100

Posts : 701
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2013-05-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by BlueBag on 21.09.14 8:32

@noddy100 wrote:Surely it is obvious that they were avoiding releasing the image just by looking at Kate's book?
She mentions and inc pics of all of the potential abductors bar this one

Yes it's strange that The Sunday Times backed down on this one. 

But who knows what mind games are going on here.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4578
Reputation : 2376
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aiyoyo on 21.09.14 8:37

@aquila wrote:I might be really dim but I've seen no proof of McCanns v The Times other than something on Twitter and a subsequent report from a non-newspaper which claims 'settlement' has been reached.

I await enlightenment with fact.

Exactly.

Settlement could mean anything.  Could also mean a withdrawal by Plaintiffs, and Defendant's legal costs paid by plaintiffs.  It may not necessary involve pay out by Defendant.

Next year's Fund Accounts should tell us whether there has been a settlement by the Times.  Legal costs figure should be one to look out for.

If Times has caved in -  why no public apology? Why no public statement from the Pink Spokescreature?
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 324
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by nglfi on 21.09.14 8:49

@aiyoyo wrote:
@aquila wrote:I might be really dim but I've seen no proof of McCanns v The Times other than something on Twitter and a subsequent report from a non-newspaper which claims 'settlement' has been reached.

I await enlightenment with fact.

Exactly.

Settlement could mean anything.  Could also mean a withdrawal by Plaintiffs, not necessary a pay out by Defendant.


Next year's Fund Accounts should tell us whether there has been a settlement by the Times.  Legal costs figure should be one to look out for.
But damages are also mentioned, for an unspecified amount. Perhaps the Times said you can have a token £1 or bring it on, and they accepted it? Either way it can't be a massive victory for the McCanns otherwise Clarence would have mentioned it. Imagine if it had been splashed over the front pages, it would raise a lot of questions,  particularly since it is clear they did suppress, or let's say 'fail to publicise' the e fits. The look on Gerry's face when they showed up on the Crimewatch edition suggests it was indeed handed over in amongst piles of dross in the hope it would ve ignored. Given their upcoming decision against Amaral, it is in fact incredibly bizarre this has not made it to the front pages, if indeed it was a 'victory'. Perhaps it's coming in the next few days

nglfi

Posts : 525
Reputation : 249
Join date : 2014-01-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aquila on 21.09.14 9:03

I can but hope that if any token offer of financial settlement has been made The Times have made the proviso that their cheque is made payable to a forensic dog-training institute.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8792
Reputation : 1760
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aiyoyo on 21.09.14 9:18

@nglfi wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@aquila wrote:I might be really dim but I've seen no proof of McCanns v The Times other than something on Twitter and a subsequent report from a non-newspaper which claims 'settlement' has been reached.

I await enlightenment with fact.

Exactly.

Settlement could mean anything.  Could also mean a withdrawal by Plaintiffs, not necessary a pay out by Defendant.


Next year's Fund Accounts should tell us whether there has been a settlement by the Times.  Legal costs figure should be one to look out for.
But damages are also mentioned, for an unspecified amount. Perhaps the Times said you can have a token £1 or bring it on, and they accepted it? Either way it can't be a massive victory for the McCanns otherwise Clarence would have mentioned it. Imagine if it had been splashed over the front pages, it would raise a lot of questions,  particularly since it is clear they did suppress, or let's say 'fail to publicise' the e fits. The look on Gerry's face when they showed up on the Crimewatch edition suggests it was indeed handed over in amongst piles of dross in the hope it would ve ignored. Given their upcoming decision against Amaral, it is in fact incredibly bizarre this has not made it to the front pages, if indeed it was a 'victory'. Perhaps it's coming in the next few days


Any pay out would have been at least 5-digit figure minimum.  It will be interesting to see whether this will get accounted for in the Fund accounts next year.

Where's the public apology?
Where's the clarification in the MSM that the Times got it wrong and has accounted for it?
Surely they want the public to know they did not hamper investigation?

How does a suit taken out in secrecy and settled in secrecy vindicate their reputation damage claim?
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 324
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by PeterMac on 21.09.14 9:22

@aiyoyo wrote:
Where's the public apology?
Where's the clarification in the MSM that the Times got it wrong and has accounted for it?
Surely they want the public to know they did not hamper investigation?
How does a suit taken out in secrecy and settled in secrecy vindicate their reputation damage claim?
But they are in a trap, because the small apology they got had to repeat the allegation !

They can hardly ask for a full one, because that would have to spell out the whole thing, and might say
for example
"when we said five years we accept this was incorrect and we should have said TWO !"

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 177
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by The Rooster on 21.09.14 9:24

Aiyoyo, you are quite correct. The McCanns would surely want a written apology in full in the published paper. I'm certain the original article was a missile put across HMS McCann as a warning to keep them in check. They managed to get a small retraction on what appeared to be minor detail.

____________________
F J Leghorn
"DOO-Dah! DOO-Dah-Day!"
avatar
The Rooster

Posts : 421
Reputation : 88
Join date : 2011-04-12
Age : 71
Location : Virginia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by sami on 21.09.14 9:27

Didn't the Times "settle" with Lance Armstrong too and quickly sought to recoup the money when the truth was revealed.

sami

Posts : 965
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aiyoyo on 21.09.14 9:41

@aquila wrote:I can but hope that if any token offer of financial settlement has been made The Times have made the proviso that their cheque is made payable to a forensic dog-training institute.

It's not like the Mcs to accept token financial settlement without demanding public apology, otherwise the purpose of the suit (claw back damage reputation) would not have been met.  There is no justification for the wasted time and effort in suing someone only to accept a token sum when the objective of the suit is not met.

Usually if the objective of the suit isn't about money, a token sum may be acceptable on provision defendant agreed to do a public retraction and apology.  If money is their objective for suing the Times, they would not have accepted a token sum.
Then they would have shown themselves up as being money greedy, which would  be more damaging for their reputation.  Imagine if the cheques were made out to them instead of the Fund? How would that look?
 Even if made out to the Fund, it is after all a private ltd company, still won't look good for them.
Not when their contention in the claim is "damaged reputation".
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 324
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Tony Bennett on 21.09.14 9:50

@noddy100 wrote:Surely it is obvious that they were avoiding releasing the image just by looking at Kate's book?
She mentions and includes pics of all of the potential abductors bar this one
No, noddy100, that's incorrect.

Smithman WAS mentioned several times in Dr Kate McCann's book, indeed a detailed description of the Smith sighting appeared across three pages in an Appendix to the book, along with a blow-by-blow account of how 'strikingly similar' he was to 'Tannerman'.

According to the McCanns - via the Sunday Times correction/apology of December 2013 - we were told that the two controversial e-fits were shown (a) to Leicestershire Police and (b) to the PJ but that neither force recommended that the e-fits be used.

We then have a further puzzle to explain.

Why (again according to the above Sunday Times apology/correction) did DCI Andy Redwood receive these images from the McCanns in August 2011 - but do NOTHING with them for 2 years and 2 months?

Why was it right to show them to 6.7 million people on CrimeWatch on 14 October 2013, but refuse to show them to anyone for the previous two years and two  months?

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14899
Reputation : 2991
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by BlueBag on 21.09.14 12:22

I don't think it said "shown" I think it said passed to them... not quite the same thing. The circumstances would be very interesting. I smell semantics.

"Neither force recommended that the e-fits be used"... but did either force say they couldn't? Did either force even comment on them?

Why would they say "don't use them"?

We had eggman, cooperman, striding man and all the other ridiculous stuff (eggman is my favourite, how did CM keep a straight face?).
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4578
Reputation : 2376
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by palm tree on 21.09.14 12:39

Soon (hopefully) there will come a time when OG will have left no wriggle room for k&g, then we will see the pj were right all along, and the right people brought to justice.
IMO

____________________
Fight for Madeleine
avatar
palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by jozi on 21.09.14 15:33

@palm tree wrote:Soon (hopefully) there will come a time when OG will have left no wriggle room for k&g, then we will see the pj were right all along, and the right people brought to justice.
IMO
Do you think so.....I don't !!! Just been watching Soham 10 yrs on and an interview with Maxine Carr early on into the investigation. The sky news team was speaking to Maxine and she stated about a card sent to her by the two girls at the end of term and she was speaking about the girls in the past tense and they picked up on this ??? How many times have the Mcs spoken of Maddie in the past tense and nobody has picked it up ?

Only us nutters ???
avatar
jozi

Posts : 710
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2012-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by aquila on 21.09.14 15:38

@jozi wrote:
@palm tree wrote:Soon (hopefully) there will come a time when OG will have left no wriggle room for k&g, then we will see the pj were right all along, and the right people brought to justice.
IMO
Do you think so.....I don't !!! Just been watching Soham 10 yrs on and an interview with Maxine Carr early on into the investigation. The sky news team was speaking to Maxine and she stated about a card sent to her by the two girls at the end of term and she was speaking about the girls in the past tense and they picked up on this ??? How many times have the Mcs spoken of Maddie in the past tense and nobody has picked it up ?

Only us nutters ???
@jozi - in the interests of accuracy, according to Summers & Swann the term is 'haters' laughat
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8792
Reputation : 1760
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by jozi on 21.09.14 15:41

@aquila wrote:
@jozi wrote:
@palm tree wrote:Soon (hopefully) there will come a time when OG will have left no wriggle room for k&g, then we will see the pj were right all along, and the right people brought to justice.
IMO
Do you think so.....I don't !!! Just been watching Soham 10 yrs on and an interview with Maxine Carr early on into the investigation. The sky news team was speaking to Maxine and she stated about a card sent to her by the two girls at the end of term and she was speaking about the girls in the past tense and they picked up on this ??? How many times have the Mcs spoken of Maddie in the past tense and nobody has picked it up ?

Only us nutters ???
@jozi - in the interests of accuracy, according to Summers & Swann the term is 'haters' laughat
Oh ok....nutters/ haters......same difference according to some ! LOL
avatar
jozi

Posts : 710
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2012-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by palm tree on 21.09.14 15:53

I don't class myself as a nutter or even a hater, I just want justice for Maddie, the right way. 
If the pj had been left alone to do their job, we proberly wouldn't be here.
IMO

____________________
Fight for Madeleine
avatar
palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Guest on 21.09.14 16:53

It puzzles me why none of the MSM seems willing to go to court over any supposed libel,just what is the hold on them,the only one prepared to stand up to the TM is Amaral,they tried to silence him with an out of court settlement.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by garfy on 21.09.14 17:23

wonder what the out come of this was ....


This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.
One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.
Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.
An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.


Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”
He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.
A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.
avatar
garfy

Posts : 160
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2010-07-08
Location : humberside

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Doug D on 21.09.14 17:46

Can’t help but wonder how much people’s hands are tied by the super-inaudible.
 
Going back a few months, Craig Murray, author, broadcaster and human rights activist and former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, posted up on his blog:
 
A Day Off Politics
by craig on May 23, 2014 5:31 pm
 
No politics tomorrow.
Instead there will be a short post entitled – Amanda Knox, Oscar Pistorius and the McCanns.
Guilty as hell.
 
However this post never arrived.
 
There were 93 comments posted to the above, which he happily responded to as appropriate, including making a comment about John Buck:
 
‘I know John Buck fairly well. A nice man, but the chances of him ever doing anything without a direct instruction are nil’
 
and then suddenly – nothing.
 
When asked what had happened to the post, by several people, all of a sudden he stopped responding, the article never arrived and there was never any explanation as far as I am aware, so he certainly seemed to have been ‘got at’.
 
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/05/a-day-off-politics/
 
How would things stand if the only defence to a libel suit involved submitting evidence that was banned under a super-injunction and therefore couldn’t be revealed and your hands were completely tied as you were also therefore precluded from even stating that there was evidence that you weren’t able to disclose existed?

Doug D

Posts : 2575
Reputation : 911
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by Brian Griffin on 21.09.14 18:30

Good grief!

Doesn't hold back, does he?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/05/oprah_winfreys/

Except on that last occasion, of course.

____________________
"Looking for Madeleine"? - Lying for the McCanns! (In my opinion)
avatar
Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by BlueBag on 21.09.14 18:35

Super-injunctions are rich-elite-evil.

I sometimes wonder did we ever move on from "the enlightenment".
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4578
Reputation : 2376
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by XTC on 21.09.14 22:55

@BlueBag wrote:I don't think it said "shown" I think it said passed to them... not quite the same thing. The circumstances would be very interesting. I smell semantics.

"Neither force recommended that the e-fits be used"... but did either force say they couldn't? Did either force even comment on them?

Why would they say "don't use them"?

We had eggman, cooperman, striding man and all the other ridiculous stuff (eggman is my favourite, how did CM keep a straight face?).
I'm a bit baffled here I'm afraid.

As far as I am aware these Smithman e-fits emerged due to SY demanding/ receiving all the Private Investigators files from the PI's.

All of them I think.

Am I correct in assuming that the reason why these e-fits emerged on Crimewatch Oct 13 was that SY were the investigation team that discovered them and in their wisdom ( not the PJ or LP ) decided that these were worth showing to the British public re: Smithman' sighting.?

Basically did the PJ and LP think that these were of no use despite knowing about the Smith family's declarations to the Gardai and the PJ for many years? As well as the lead investigator wanting to bring the Mr and Mrs Smith back to Portugal.

One things for sure is that in the search for Madeleine the Great British public didn't know about these e-fits for around seven years.

Whether they were suppressed is open to question and only the settlement with the Times will tell anyone the outcome of that particular battle. If it was settled in private then we will not get to know I think.

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Action Against The Times

Post by petunia on 21.09.14 23:29

The McCann's don't do Private when it involves letting the world know they have sued a Newspaper cos they are the poor,poor victims,Imo the Times have told them to Fcuk off we will see you in court. Imo the McCann's have settled with an outcome of bugger all from the Times'spin, spin from TM otherwise it would be all over the MSM thanks to the Pink ponce all in my own opinion of course.

petunia

Posts : 520
Reputation : 86
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Times payout just £55,0000

Post by TMH on 02.10.14 19:50

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/gerry-mccann-madeleine-sunday-times-libel-payout

Gerry McCann, the father of missing Madeleine, has accused the Sunday Times of behaving “disgracefully”, after winning a libel payout from the newspaper in a case he believes proves how little the industry has changed following the phone-hacking scandal.
McCann and his wife Kate were handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter, who went missing in Portugal seven years ago.
The McCanns said in a statement: “The Sunday Times has behaved disgracefully. There is no sign of any post-Leveson improvement in the behaviour of newspapers like this.”
Writing in the Guardian, Gerry McCann repeats calls he made to the public inquiry into press intrusion, conducted by Lord Justice Leveson, for a “quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers” and called on the next government to implement the proposals set out by Leveson but rejected by much of the industry.
After an 11-month battle for redress, the McCanns said the Sunday Times had failed to give them a proper opportunity to comment on what they called “grotesque and utterly false” allegations, failed to publish the full response they made and offered a “half-baked, inadequate response”. Even when the paper agreed to retract the allegations and apologise two months after publication, this was “tucked away” on an inside page. After this, the couple hired libel lawyers Carter-Ruck to sue for damages, they said.
The revelation of the libel damages comes as the Metropolitan police are investigating an 80-page dossier  of abusive tweets, Facebook posts and messages on online forums aimed at the McCanns. A spokesman for the couple said newspaper articles helped feed into the abuse from trolls, who felt “vindicated” by them.
In the statement, the McCanns said: “Despite the history of admitted libels in respect of my family by so many newspapers, the Sunday Times still felt able to print an indefensible front page story last year and then force us to instruct lawyers – and even to start court proceedings – before it behaved reasonably. But the damage to reputation and to feelings has been done and the Sunday Times can sit back and enjoy its sales boost based on lies and abuse.
“This is exactly why parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective independent self-regulation of newspapers – to protect ordinary members of the public from this sort of abuse. The fact is that most families could not take the financial and legal risk of going to the high court and facing down a big press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed Leveson’s reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it.”
Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.
The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”
Much of the industry, with the exception of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, has set up its own regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started life three weeks ago.
In the statement, McCann calls Ipso the “latest industry poodle”. The McCanns have been involved in the Hacked Off campaign to tighten press regulation.
His latest experience underlined the need for change, said McCann. “The cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there. Nothing will be done to ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to some other unfortunate family, who will probably not have our hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology.
“So what has changed in the newspaper industry since the Leveson report two years ago? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.”
A dossier of online abuse directed at the family is being examined by police. Members of the public have handed Scotland Yard a file stretching to more than 80 pages of tweets, Facebook posts and forum messages, according to Sky News.
The material is said to include suggestions that the couple should be tortured or killed. One comment reportedly said: “These 2 should burn in hell.”
Scotland Yard said: “We can confirm we received a letter and documentation on 9 September which was passed to officers from Operation Grange [the Met’s involvement in the search for Madeleine]. They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family.”
avatar
TMH

Posts : 196
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2013-02-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 15 of 16 Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum