Re: Possible Action Against The Times

by Dutchgirl 01.08.14 22:30

ShuBob wrote:
Dutchgirl wrote:Application for summons – Gerald and Kate McCann

After careful consideration, the request to issue a summons against Gerald and Kate McCann for alleged offences contrary to section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has been refused as it is clear that this court does not have the necessary jurisdiction.

All applications are considered in two stages. The first stage is whether the court has the jurisdiction to issue a summons the second is if there is sufficient evidence. As with this application, if the first stage is not passed the second stage is not considered.

Note for Editors

Unfortunately not, link was directed to me from a friend

For further enquiry please contact Darren Horsman on 020 7073 4852.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/private_pros/

Oh dear!

Thanks for the info Duchie.

Any idea who made the original application?

Unfortunately not, link was directed to me from a friend winkwink

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 22:49

Cristobell wrote:
Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, to petty shoplifter? Doesn't ring true to me.

@Cristobell

Because you haven't read up enough about Henri Exton, Cristobell winkwink

ShuBob and Gillyspot have helped you out with most of the details, here's the core of three of the main articles about Exton, with acknowledgement once again to Nigel of McCannfiles for the first two; Exton details highlighted in red:

Madeleine fund in chaos as private eyes are axed after draining £500,000 Daily Mail (no longer available online)

Among the main players working on the McCann contract were Mr Halligen and Henri Exton, 57, who headed the Greater Manchester Police undercover unit until 1993. He then worked for the Government before moving into the private sector.

One day after a crisis meeting last week with the Madeleine fund administrators, Mr Halligen resigned as a director of RDI.

Mr Exton, of Bury, Lancashire, has the Queen’s Police Medal and an OBE. During the Seventies and Eighties his work included uncovering organised crime rings and recruiting supergrasses.

He also infiltrated football gangs, at one stage becoming a leader of the Young Guvnors, who followed Manchester City, and was forced to take part in organised incidents to preserve his cover.

+++++

The McCann files ES magazine (London Evening Standard - paper edition only) By Mark Hollingsworth
Issue: Friday 28 August 2009 (Note: This article has already been removed from the online version of ES magazine and replaced by the message: 'Content has been suppressed for editorial and/or legal reasons')

Born in Belgium in 1951, Exton had been a highly effective undercover officer for the Manchester police. A maverick and dynamic figure, he successfully infiltrated gangs of football hooligans in the 1980's. While not popular among his colleagues, in 1991 he was seconded to work on MI5 undercover operations against drug dealers, gangsters and terrorists, and was later awarded the Queen's Police Medal for 'outstanding bravery'. By all accounts, the charismatic Exton was a dedicated officer. But in November 2002, the stress appeared to have overcome his judgement when he was arrested for shoplifting.

While working on an MI5 surveillance, Exton was caught leaving a tax-free shopping area at Manchester airport with a bottle of perfume he had not paid for. The police were called and he was given the option of the offence being dealt with under caution or to face prosecution. He chose a police caution and so in effect admitted his guilt. Exton was sacked, but was furious about the way he had been treated and threatened to sue MI5. He later set up his own consulting company and moved to Bury in Lancashire.

++++++

Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years
Sunday Times, 27 October 2013

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.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Geography corner

Henri Exton lives in Bury, Lancashire, just a stone's throw from the McCanns' co-ordinating lawyer, Freemason Edward Smethurst, who moved over the border from Rochdale to Bury three years ago

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 01.08.14 23:03

How do two mediocre child neglecting doctors manage to get all these ex coppers working for them and none of them seem to sense anything wrong with this case? $i don\'t know$

by Guest 01.08.14 23:16

Tony Bennett wrote:
Claire25 wrote:Where did the press get hold of the report from anyway though? The only thing I can think of is SY showed them? Am I missing something?
I doubt very much whether DCI Redwood or any of his near-retirees in Grange gave this report [Operation Omega] to the Times.

Most likely Henri Exton retained a copy of his report and gave it to the Times.

But knowing Exton's past record and possible motive in this case, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he could have fabricated parts of his report.

My thoughts exactly, revenge is sweet. I'm not at all convinced about the concealment of e-fits, I'm not even convinced that Oakley International were any more genuine than the other shady private investigators (for the want of a better term) appointed by the Mccanns and/or the fund. Why would the McCann's engage an organisation to investigate themselves, after all at the end of the day that's what it amounts to.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 23:20

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:How did the McCanns...manage to get all these ex-coppers working for them and none of them seem to sense anything wrong with this case?

'Ex-coppers', GGS?

Have some respect, please!

According to the ever-present 'source close to the McCanns', the three musketeers of Oakley International - Kevin Halligen, Henri Exton and Tim Craig-Harvey - were all top ex-MI5 men, 'hand-picked', 'crack', 'the big boys of international private detection' etc. etc.

This theme continued when Matthew Amroliwala on the CrimeWatch McCann Show on 14 October described DCI Redwood and his band of near-retirees as 'The Elite' (!!).

Exton's main contribution to the case appears to have been...

1. To manufacture two e-fits, clearly of two different men, and pretend they were the same man, seen by the Smiths

2. Hand these e-fits to the McCanns and the Directors of the Find Madeleine Fund

3. Who it appears did nothing with them until sometime in 2009, when they let Leicestershire Police and the PJ have a look at them

4. The McCanns then handed them to DCI Redwood, back in August 2011

5. Again Redwood did nothing with these efits until 'Crecheman' came along, confirming that 6 years ago, it was he who was Tannerman (with apologies for taking so long to realise it was him, the wally)

6. Then Redwood had a 'revelation moment' and thought: 'There's only one sighting left now - the Smiths'

7. And then told an expectant 6.7 million audience on CrimeWatch on 14 October 2013 that these two efits (clearly of two different people) were 'the main suspect'

8. And so, after five-and-a-half years of gathering dust in the McCann Team's offices, the efits finally saw the bright light of day...

by ShuBob 01.08.14 23:21

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:How do two mediocre child neglecting doctors manage to get all these ex coppers working for them and none of them seem to sense anything wrong with this case? $i don\'t know$

By all accounts, Exton DID sense something was wrong hence the reason his report was allegedly suppressed. Apparently, it was "hypercritical" of the couple and would have been unhelpful if it saw the light of day.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 23:24

ShuBob wrote:
By all accounts, Exton...

@ ShuBob

That should read: 'By Exton's account..."

by ShuBob 01.08.14 23:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
By all accounts, Exton...
@ ShuBob

That should read: 'By Exton's account..."

I'll stick to my original version thanks smilie

by Cristobell 01.08.14 23:30

Some would say Henri Exton has a very impressive CV Tony, so I'm really not sure what you are getting at by listing his accomplishments.

The truth of the matter is, we are looking at Henri Exton from totally different perspectives. You don't believe the Smith family, ergo the investigator who followed this lead and helped in the compilation of the efits is bound to be suspicious to you. You are judging him from the perspective of a decision you made about the Smith family, before the Crimewatch program and the suppressed report article in the Sunday Times.

I too believed Oakley International were another bunch of shysters, but the Sunday Times article showed that Exton did indeed carry out a proper investigation and the McCanns didn't like it one bit! They took legal action to ensure Exton never released his report (complete with Smithman efits).

This is the polar opposite to what you are stating as fact Tony. The McCanns did NOT promote Smithman, they suppressed him. The Smith family efits have been around since 2009, yet Smithman was introduced on Crimewatch as a
revelation moment. And it was a revelation moment. Those efits were new to the great British public, and they were even new to those of us who have been following this case from the start.

by Woofer 01.08.14 23:33

I`ve said before that K&G are like 2 ostriches with their heads in the sand and don`t realise that everyone can see their backsides. Typically narcissistic. If they do go ahead with sueing The Sunday Times, they are pure and simple fools - not even realising how it will bring even more attention to their backsides. Never mind, let them go ahead I say. And here`s hoping Murdoch does not agree to settle beforehand and takes it all the way so Exton can produce his report and the letter warning him off.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.14 23:42

Cristobell wrote: The McCanns did NOT promote Smithman, they suppressed him.

REPLY: For the very very last time, after many repetitions: Smithman was USED in the Channel 4 Mockumentary 2009, PROMOTED on the McCanns' website 2009 to today, and FEATURED on 6 pages of Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'. I cannot take any more responsibility for your beliefs on this matter which fly in the face of the above evidence

The Smith family efits have been around since 2009...

REPLY: Well, since spring 2008 if you check your facts. So you seriously believe that these two e-fits are of the same man - Yes? And you really believe that the Smiths produced these e-fits from a bloke

* they saw for a second or two
* in the dark
* with 'weak' street lighting
* whose face was hidden because he was 'looking down' and/or the child was covering his face
* added to which none of the Smiths said they would he able to reocgnise him again if they saw him.

And you trust Henri Exton? - and DCI Andy Redwood?

I suggest once again that the evidence is against you

by Cristobell 02.08.14 0:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote: The McCanns did NOT promote Smithman, they suppressed him.

REPLY: For the very very last time, after many repetitions: Smithman was USED in the Channel 4 Mockumentary 2009, PROMOTED on the McCanns' website 2009 to today, and FEATURED on 6 pages of Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'. I cannot take any more responsibility for yuor beliefs on this matter flying in the face of the above evidence

The Smith family efits have been around since 2009...

REPLY: Well, since spring 2008 if you check your facts. So you seriously believe that these two e-fits are of the same man - Yes? And you really believe that the Smiths produced these e-fits from a bloke

* they saw for a second or two
* in the dark
* with 'weak' street lighting
* whose face was hidden because he was 'looking down' and/or the child was covering his face
* added to which none of the Smiths said they would he able to reocgnise him again if they saw him.

And you trust Henri Exton? - and DCI Andy Redwood?

I suggest once again that the evidence is against you

Have you ever seen the two Smithman e-fits prior to Crimewatch in October last year?

The answer is No Tony, because no-one outside the investigation had seen them, it was a revelation moment.

Did you know that Henri Exton had produced a report that was hypercritical of the McCanns and had been suppressed when you concluded that the Smith family were lying?

A case does not remain static. We know more about this case now, than we did 5 years ago, and tomorrow we might even know a bit more. Who knew that Oakley were preparing a real report, the public didn't we never saw it.

You keep repeating the same facts and suppositions over and over, as if it makes your theory stronger. I haven't been convinced by them thus far, and repetition ain't helping.

I have replied to all of the points you have raised, yet you have replied to none of mine. Why would the Smith family lie? Ok, you have suggested it was to assist RM with an alibi, but RM didn't need an alibi, he was in the clear. Therefore, why would a nice family enjoying an early summer break in the Algarve, pervert the course of justice in a major crime?

The same applies to RM. He was made an arguido on the flimsiest of evidence (computer porn?) and a nod and wink from the Sun newspaper. Not forgetting of course a tip off from an anonymous caller on 8th May and positive identification by Jane Tanner and two more of the tapas chums. All of which turned out to be a big mistake when his alibis checked out and he threatened to prosecute them. It is my opinion that he was being used as a fall guy, and his profile could be adapted to fit whatever they wanted. The dodgy eye probably helped too.

I rest my case.

by coati mundi 02.08.14 0:54

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote: The McCanns did NOT promote Smithman, they suppressed him.

REPLY: For the very very last time, after many repetitions: Smithman was USED in the Channel 4 Mockumentary 2009, PROMOTED on the McCanns' website 2009 to today, and FEATURED on 6 pages of Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'. I cannot take any more responsibility for your beliefs on this matter which fly in the face of the above evidence

The Smith family efits have been around since 2009...

REPLY: Well, since spring 2008 if you check your facts. So you seriously believe that these two e-fits are of the same man - Yes? And you really believe that the Smiths produced these e-fits from a bloke

* they saw for a second or two
* in the dark
* with 'weak' street lighting
* whose face was hidden because he was 'looking down' and/or the child was covering his face
* added to which none of the Smiths said they would he able to reocgnise him again if they saw him.

And you trust Henri Exton? - and DCI Andy Redwood?

I suggest once again that the evidence is against you

Tony,

I messed up an earlier post, so it may appear in a garbled form somewhere in this forum.

What I would like to know, though, is what it is that you discern from the various shennanigans with the supposed sightings,

I have a few questions I would like you to answer about this whole matter 0f the "sightings" and your attitude toward them:

1) Was the Jill Tanner "sighting" a complete fabrication and, if so, what was the purpose in fabricating it?

2) What would be the purpose of using the "Smithman" sighting by SY, other than for the sole purpose of expanding the timeline? If it does work to do that, why didn't the McCs jump on it and use it as soon as they had it? And whatever you say about the provenance of the e-fits and the dissimilarities between the two, one of them does bear a marked resemblance to a certain person with the initials GM.

3) Why would there be any "sightings" apart from the need to support the abdcution "thesis" and if so why would two fake sightings emerge?

4) I don't think you can answer this question, but it appears that many people on this forum believe that MM was no longer alive on May 3rd; some have even wilder ideas about her having had a much earlier demise. Goncalo Amaral seems to be convinced that the death took place on the night of May 3rd. Is your scepticism about the "Smithman " informed by an opinion about the date of "disappearance"?

I assure you that I am a genuine McCann sceptic - I have been from the very first reports, but have looked into it more deeply only in the last year. I am just puzzled as to what the logical outcome of some of your positions might be.

by sonic72 02.08.14 2:05

8 pages in this thread thus far, and no proof of any lawsuit against The Times, other then one tweet from an unknown person!

by fred c dobbs 02.08.14 3:46

Tony Bennett wrote:

REPLY: Well, since spring 2008 if you check your facts. So you seriously believe that these two e-fits are of the same man - Yes? And you really believe that the Smiths produced these e-fits from a bloke

* they saw for a second or two
* in the dark
* with 'weak' street lighting
* whose face was hidden because he was 'looking down' and/or the child was covering his face
* added to which none of the Smiths said they would he able to reocgnise him again if they saw him.
The Smith family saw this bloke for longer than 2 seconds the daughter was even able to give a description of his shorts with the three buttons on the side just like a pair owned by the scotsman himself.The Smith family said they would not be able to reocgnise (your spelling) him again but it reasonable to suppose they could say as they did that Mr.Smith thought that the man they encountered walked and carried the child the same way he saw GM carrying his son off the plane

by SixMillionQuid 02.08.14 6:52

fred c dobbs wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

REPLY: Well, since spring 2008 if you check your facts. So you seriously believe that these two e-fits are of the same man - Yes? And you really believe that the Smiths produced these e-fits from a bloke

* they saw for a second or two
* in the dark
* with 'weak' street lighting
* whose face was hidden because he was 'looking down' and/or the child was covering his face
* added to which none of the Smiths said they would he able to reocgnise him again if they saw him.
The Smith family saw this bloke for longer than 2 seconds the daughter was even able to give a description of his shorts with the three buttons on the side just like a pair owned by the scotsman himself.The Smith family said they would not be able to reocgnise (your spelling) him again but it reasonable to suppose they could say as they did that Mr.Smith thought that the man they encountered walked and carried the child the same way he saw GM carrying his son off the plane

But he was 80% sure it was GM and not anyone else. Given that no one could describe the face what made Mr Smith so sure it was GM and not a person he has never seen before? He's retracted the claim, whether he was nobbled or or not I dont know.

by nglfi 02.08.14 7:10

Woofer wrote:I`ve said before that K&G are like 2 ostriches with their heads in the sand and don`t realise that everyone can see their backsides. Typically narcissistic. If they do go ahead with sueing The Sunday Times, they are pure and simple fools - not even realising how it will bring even more attention to their backsides. Never mind, let them go ahead I say. And here`s hoping Murdoch does not agree to settle beforehand and takes it all the way so Exton can produce his report and the letter warning him off.

I read an interesting article on the BBC website yesterday about the 'Barbara Streisand effect', which refers to pictures of the actress' home that she tried to get removed from a website and sue the owner. Very few people were interested in or had heard about these pictures until she announced she was suing, and the website hits promptly increased ten fold. There are many many more examples of celebrities making a big deal out of supposed libellous comments, and by doing so they get much much more exposure. This is what I believe will happen to the McCanns if they proceed with this ridiculous action. Opinion is already turning against them, people are fed up with it and don't want to hear any more about a pair of neglectful idiots. This action will just give them more and more negative attention and criticism. They are true over litigious sociopaths. They really do have no idea when to shut up and go away.

Ps could this action possibly be about the 'murder' comment rather than the other article? I don't understand how they could sue when an apology has been issued and retraction made. However AFAIK there was no retraction over the 'murder' article.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.08.14 8:28

coati mundi wrote:
What I would like to know, though, is what it is that you discern from the various shennanigans with the supposed sightings,

I have a few questions I would like you to answer about this whole matter 0f the "sightings" and your attitude toward them:

1) Was the Jill Tanner "sighting" a complete fabrication

REPLY: IMO Yes

and, if so, what was the purpose in fabricating it?

REPLY: I think that is obvious, isn't it?

2) What would be the purpose of using the "Smithman" sighting by SY, other than for the sole purpose of expanding the timeline?

REPLY: Clearly the effect of BBC CrimeWatch and DCI Andy Redwood promoting the Smithman sighting so strongly includes perpetuating in the minds of the public that there really was an abduction

If it does work to do that, why didn't the McCs jump on it and use it as soon as they had it?

REPLY: That's a good question. My answer is that it would seem improbable in the highest degree to suggest that the abductor was seen carrying a child by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm, and then seen by the Smiths 45 minutes later, still wandering around carrying a child, about 600 to 700 yards away from Apartment G5A. When the McCann Team floated this ridiculous idea on the Channel 4/Mentorn Media 'Mockumentary' back in 2009, I was dumbfounded, and expressed my views on another forum at the time about how absurd this suggestion was.

When the McCanns at the same time started promoting the Smithman sighting on their website, being one of their featured suspects [which Cristobell btw continues to deny], I continued to post about the extreme unlikelihood of the abductor walking around Praia da Luz for 45 minutes. I recall McCann-supporters at the time countering this by suggesting e.g. that the abductor might have stopped in a deserted house along the way for half-an-hour or so, and other such daft suggestions.

And then of course Dr Kate McCann in her book 'madeleine', published in 2011, devoted SIX pages to Smithman, devoting THREE of them to a detailed comparison of the two sightings, referring to the 'striking similarities' between the two - Tannerman and Smithman. Thus the McCann Team were promoting, through a book which has been bought and read by hundreds of thousands, the idea that the abductor was indeed wandering around Praia da Luz for 45 minutes carrying a child. Once again, I challenged this claim.

Of course one of DCI Redwood's triumphs was to remove this absurdity by 'finding' Crecheman, and thus ruling out Tannerman as the abductor.

And whatever you say about the provenance of the e-fits and the dissimilarities between the two, one of them does bear a marked resemblance to a certain person with the initials GM.

REPLY: The efit you refers to bears a superficial resemblance to tens of thousands of men in this country. Even on this forum, several named individuals have been suggested for this efit, Jez Wilkins being one of them. I disagree strongly with your claim that one of the efits 'bears a marked resemblance' to Gerry McCann. I think you concede my point that the two efits do not look like the same person.

3) Why would there be any "sightings" apart from the need to support the abdcution "thesis" and if so why would two fake sightings emerge?

REPLY: Clearly the Tannerman 'sighting' promoted the abduction claim. I suggest that the main purpose of the Smithman 'sighting' ws to try and clear Martin Smith's friend Robert Murat, who had been made a suspect the day before Martin Smith suddenly 'remembered' having seen a man carrying a child 13 days ago - but only after his son Peter 'phoned him up amd said: "Dad, am I dreaming, but did we see a man carrying a child in Praia da Luz 13 days ago?"

4) I don't think you can answer this question, but it appears that many people on this forum believe that MM was no longer alive on May 3rd; some have even wilder ideas about her having had a much earlier demise. Goncalo Amaral seems to be convinced that the death took place on the night of May 3rd. Is your scepticism about the "Smithman" informed by an opinion about the date of "disappearance"?

REPLY: No it isn't. My scepticism about Smithman flows entirely from an exhaustive analysis of all that the Smiths have ever said or done or not said and not done. But as a matter of record I have said in the past that with the greatest respect to Goncalo Amaral I part company with him when he claims, in his book, that he is satisfied on the basis of claims by one of the creche staff that Madeleine was at a 'high tea' at around 5.30pm on 3 May. I find that claim very doubtful. That's as far as I can go I think in answering that question.

I assure you that I am a genuine McCann sceptic - I have been from the very first reports, but have looked into it more deeply only in the last year. I am just puzzled as to what the logical outcome of some of your positions might be.

REPLY: Does that assist? Please feel free to ask supplementary questions if you wish.

by Sam S 02.08.14 9:04

I imagine the fund is running low so if K and G do have powerful friends then maybe they have been "allowed" to sue and it will be settled out of court, to help them fill up the bank account again in a "legitimate" way. Or as a powerful wee man once said, "never interupt your enemies when they are making a mistake".Lets hope it goes to court and watch the cockroaches skuttle when the light is shone on them :) Just my saturday morning thoughts. spin

by Doug D 02.08.14 9:20

Sonic72:

‘8 pages in this thread thus far, and no proof of any lawsuit against The Times, other then one tweet from an unknown person!’

I think the reference number given on the second tweet, which TB seems to suggest looks to be correctly formatted means that a least something has been filed.

Dan Douglas checks out as genuine from his homelessness tweets and articles published in The Guardian on his ‘speciality’ subject, although the McC’s does seem to fall outside his normal remit. Possibly he was looking for something else & just chanced upon the filing?

It is interesting to see Dan Douglas’ twitter profile which shows:

Reporter for ‪@InsideHousing. Recent work: Guardian, BBC, Private Eye, Birmingham Mail ‪@cityjournalism alumnus

although there is no Linked-In profile which jumped out at me (doesn’t mean there isn’t one), which seems strange for a media person.

Looking back to the original Sunday Times article and subsequent ‘apology’, it was felt at the time to be fairly half hearted and addressed errors relating more to timescale rather than changing significantly the underlying story.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8821-sunday-times-apology?highlight=sunday+times

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8395-wow-a-must-read-madeleine-clues-hidden-for-five-years-sunday-times-full-article-now-on-page-1?highlight=sunday+times

by **Tony Bennett** 02.08.14 9:28

Doug D wrote:Sonic72:

‘8 pages in this thread thus far, and no proof of any lawsuit against The Times, other then one tweet from an unknown person!’

I think the reference number given on the second tweet, which TB seems to suggest looks to be correctly formatted means that a least something has been filed.

Why doesn't a forum member simply ring up the proverbial 'source close to the McCanns' and ask him to confirm or deny the story?

And ask him - if there is a claim, as seems likely - what the claim is about and how much they are claiming?

by aiyoyo 02.08.14 9:37

I disagree that they have powerful friends. They'd supporters from influential quarters at the height of it and never since then.

In fact they don't seem to have any friends at all, not even of the common folks kind.
No one has come out to speak about Kate or Gerry or even Madeleine.
It's as if they'd no past or they lived in total isolation.

Continuing to sue people is just to keep up the charade. They'd no choice they can't get off the tiger, partly to do with needing money for future legal fees, and party to do with their narcissistic personalities.
They must live in constant terror of being counter-sued or a knock on their door at dawn.
Their fund is low. Get more payout or risk bankruptcy.

by aiyoyo 02.08.14 9:47

Doug D wrote:

Looking back to the original Sunday Times article and subsequent ‘apology’, it was felt at the time to be fairly half hearted and addressed errors relating more to timescale rather than changing significantly the underlying story.

Remember mcs admitted in Libel court 'Kevin' and others monitor forum for them.

by Claire25 02.08.14 10:04

Sam S wrote:I imagine the fund is running low so if K and G do have powerful friends then maybe they have been "allowed" to sue and it will be settled out of court, to help them fill up the bank account again in a "legitimate" way. Or as a powerful wee man once said, "never interupt your enemies when they are making a mistake".Lets hope it goes to court and watch the cockroaches skuttle when the light is shone on them :) Just my saturday morning thoughts.

If someone like Murdoch wanted to help 'top up' their fund I think it would have just been done without the publicity of them suing him as that would just be counterproductive.

If someone more powerful that RM had told them to sue him I think he would be very disgruntled and fight it, again drawing unwanted attention.

No, I don't think they have high up protection anymore, if they ever did. I think they were opportunists and practically everyone has abandoned them now. They've seen the gist of news articles about them recently and realised that Brooks and Murdoch sold them out asking for the review and there's nothing to be lost now by suing, may as well get some cash out of it.

IMO anyway.

And if it's even true. Yes could well be about the M word article. I'm sure both would have been checked by the Times lawyers though, although it did seem a very risky thing to write?!

by canada12 02.08.14 10:16

I wonder if C-R are on a retainer for Team McCann, or whether they're paid by the number of lawsuits they launch :-)

by Woofer 02.08.14 10:32

Dan Douglas tweeted that it was McCanns -v- The Times, so I`m wondering if it is The Sunday Times article. The Times and the Sunday Times are separate editorial departments under the umbrella of News Corp. Just wondering if the lawsuit is against an article that The Times published, not The Sunday Times.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.08.14 10:35

Woofer wrote:Dan Douglas tweeted that it was McCanns -v- The Times, so I`m wondering if it is The Sunday Times article. The Times and the Sunday Times are separate editorial departments under the umbrella of News Corp. Just wondering if the lawsuit is against an article that The Times published, not The Sunday Times.

Already answered up the thread, Woofer, both the Times and the Sunday Times are owned by Times Newpapers Ltd

by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED 02.08.14 10:41

aiyoyo wrote:
In fact they don't seem to have any friends at all, not even of the common folks kind.
No one has come out to speak about Kate or Gerry or even Madeleine.
It's as if they'd no past or they lived in total isolation.

A very, very relevant point.

by Liz Eagles 02.08.14 10:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
Woofer wrote:Dan Douglas tweeted that it was McCanns -v- The Times, so I`m wondering if it is The Sunday Times article. The Times and the Sunday Times are separate editorial departments under the umbrella of News Corp. Just wondering if the lawsuit is against an article that The Times published, not The Sunday Times.
Already answered up the thread, Woofer, both the Times and the Sunday Times are owned by Times Newpapers Ltd

I don't do Twitter. I've just had a look at Dan Douglas' tweet of 19hours ago. I'm typing it in as I'm unable to copy and paste - perhaps someone else can.

Quote

Lots of interest in earlier tweet on Kate, Gerry McCann v @thetimes in High Court. Filed recently. Ref: HQ14D02886. No details yet.

by Woofer 02.08.14 10:50

Tony Bennett wrote:
Woofer wrote:Dan Douglas tweeted that it was McCanns -v- The Times, so I`m wondering if it is The Sunday Times article. The Times and the Sunday Times are separate editorial departments under the umbrella of News Corp. Just wondering if the lawsuit is against an article that The Times published, not The Sunday Times.
Already answered up the thread, Woofer, both the Times and the Sunday Times are owned by Times Newpapers Ltd

Aw sorry - missed that. Thanks for clarifying.