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

12 January 2012 Last updated at 17:28


Good video on this link below................................


.

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

Richard Desmond has told the Leveson Inquiry into press standards that the parents of Madeleine McCann waited four months before taking legal action about stories which suggested they may have been responsible for her disappearance.

The media mogul suggested that they seemed "quite happy" that the story was kept on the front page.

He claimed that the Daily Express had done everything it could to try to verify its reports about the child's disappearance in Portugal.

And he accused the Press Complaints Commission of scapegoating his paper.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16537536?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

From the Guardian,



6.41pm: Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for the McCanns, has said they would not be commenting personally, but added: "Mr Desmond's memory is apparently doing him a great disservice. For him to suggest that Kate and Gerry were happy with the Express Newspapers coverage, he must be living in a parallel universe."

Mitchell added that Desmond's portrayal of the McCanns' reaction to his papers' coverage of their daughter's disappearance was "grotesque in the extreme". He said that the coverage, some of which was just "lies", had added to the suffering they endured.

He also said Desmond was wrong to claim that the McCanns only took legal action after changing their legal team.

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". Mitchell said they also did not want to fall out with the media and only took legal action as a last resort.

"The scale of the coverage in Express Newspapers' titles was so great that they felt something had to be done," he added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/12/leveson-inquiry-richard-desmond-peter-hill-live?intcmp=239





Just been reading Clarence Mitchell has been on Channel 4 news.

They delayed because they had more important things to do like looking for their daughter! So why when they were in PDL after Madeleines disappearance did they spend so much time having pictures taken walking on the beach hand in hand (more appropriate for advertising a romantic holiday imo) as well as many other photo shoots, rather than looking for Madeleine?

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.


.
6:01PM GMT 12 Jan 2012


Mr Desmond told the Leveson Inquiry that his titles were "the only honest ones and straightforward ones" for the way they printed a front-page apology to the missing girl's parents and paid them £550,000 in a libel settlement.


He hit out at a former head of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) for criticising Daily Express editor Peter Hill over the paper's reporting of the case in more than 100 articles.


"Every paper was doing the same thing, which is why every paper or most papers paid money to the McCanns. Only we were scapegoated by the ex-chairman of the PCC," he told the hearing at the high court in London.

Mr Desmond, who bought Express Newspapers in 2000, apologised to Kate and Gerry McCann, adding: "Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to find Madeleine."


But he told the inquiry into press standards that other newspapers also printed negative stories about the couple.



Related Articles

Leveson Inquiry: Express used private eye after conviction
12 Jan 2012

Arrested detective asks to appear as Leveson Inquiry witness
12 Jan 2012


"At the end of the day all the others were doing the same, plus or minus, and basically I saw it as we were the only honest ones and straightforward ones," he said.

"We stood up and said 'Yes, we got it wrong, there's the money for the marketing fund, let's try and find Madeleine McCann, the poor little girl, let's put it on the front page and apologise properly'."

He added: "Yet the ex-chairman (of the PCC) and his cronies thought 'We'll hang out Peter Hill and the Daily Express'. They should have all stood up and said 'You know what, we've all wronged, let's all bung in £500,000 each'.

"If there were 102 articles on the McCanns, there were 38 bad ones but you could argue there were 65 or 70 good ones."

Mr Desmond suggested that the McCanns were content with his papers' extensive coverage of Madeleine's disappearance because it helped the search for the little girl.

"They were quite happy, as I understand, in articles being run about their poor daughter, because it kept it on the front page," he said.

Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, described this as a "grotesque" characterisation, adding: "Your paper was accusing the McCanns on occasion of having killed their daughter.

"Are you seriously saying that they were sitting there quite happy, rather than entirely anguished by your paper's bad behaviour?"

Mr Desmond replied: "I do apologise to the McCanns. I am very sorry for the thing and I am very sorry that we got it wrong."

Mr Hill told the inquiry the Daily Express ran stories suggesting the McCanns could be responsible for Madeleine's death because at the time "there was reason to believe" they might be true.

Asked about the decision to withdraw his titles from the PCC in January last year, Mr Desmond said the body was "a useless organisation" run by "people that hated our guts, that wanted us out of business".

But he again suggested that he could return to an industry regulator if it was composed of new PCC chairman Lord Hunt "surrounded by a couple of lawyers, surrounded by a couple of editorial grandees, not malicious people".

Mr Desmond described his friendship with Tony Blair and his feeling that he let down the former prime minister when Mr Hill switched the Daily Express's support to the Conservatives in 2005.

"I felt that I betrayed Tony as a mate. I felt he was a good bloke. I thought he was doing a good job, I liked him," he said.

The businessman was scathing about the phone-hacking scandal, telling the hearing: "It's ridiculous the amount of money, time, expense etc etc etc we're all putting in to look at this, that and the other, when these companies have committed criminal acts and should be prosecuted."

Mr Desmond said the only thing that attracted him to being a newspaper owner was the business opportunity and ruled out buying any other national titles.

Asked what interest he took in ethical constraints at his papers, he said: "Ethical? I don't quite know what the word means."





The media baron made a number of digs at his mid-market rival the Daily Mail, which he described as the "Daily Malicious" in a deliberate slip.

There was a moment of levity when Mr Jay accidentally called him "Mr Dacre" in a reference to the editor of the Daily Mail.

Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns' spokesman, said after the hearing: "The portrayal of his newspaper's coverage and the effect that it had on Kate and Gerry is not something that they or I recognise at all.

"The stories that we took issue with massively added to the stress and upset that Kate and Gerry were already suffering. They took the action they did reluctantly but in this case a line had to be drawn.

"The scale and weight of the inaccuracies and unfounded allegations meant that the Express group as a whole stood out as by far the worst offender and as a result the lawyers took a look at it and advised Kate and Gerry they had a very strong case and that's why the Express group settled as quickly as they did.

"For Mr Desmond to claim that Kate and Gerry were happy with the bulk of his newspaper's coverage, well, they weren't."

Prime Minister David Cameron set up the Leveson Inquiry last July in response to revelations that the News of the World commissioned a private detective to hack murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler's phone after she disappeared in 2002.

The first part of the inquiry, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, is looking at the culture, practices and ethics of the Press in general and is due to produce a report by September.

The second part, examining the extent of unlawful activities by journalists, will not begin until detectives have completed their investigation into alleged phone hacking and corrupt payments to police, and any prosecutions have been concluded.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9010870/Leveson-Inquiry-Express-was-scapegoated-over-Madeleine-McCann-case-says-owner-Richard-Desmond.html



[quote]


"Every paper was doing the same thing, which is why every paper or most papers paid money to the McCanns. Only we were scapegoated by the ex-chairman of the PCC," he told the hearing at the high court in London.




So every paper or most paid out to the McCanns, that was kept a bit

Better things to do....searching..when would that be?

I think he said as many erm's as the T9. The press can be a pack of wolves. The McCann's imo are being used by the inquiry, whether by their own design or the grander design of their PR machine and the boys' club of Britain. Isn't it amazing that the Mc's get centre stage at this inquiry? Seems to me they were invited for a reason and I don't believe they know how they are being used and manipulated.

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 ?

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 ?

No, searching for Madeleine doesn't pay, just look at the accounts for 2011. There's more money to be had suing and if KM is to be believed CR do it for nothing!

Searching for Madeleine might pay, if they remembered to include the enormous reward there is, or perhaps WAS, for any information leading to her recovery.
Why did they never play on that ?
Why did they never get the press to keep emphasising the amount ?
Why did their detective agency not follow up on any of the phone calls they receive and logged meticulously over a year or so ?
Why is the reward never mentioned by anyone, except us.

As a matter of law, is an offer of reward not a contract ? And if so, would it not need a formal statement of repudiation and withdrawal to rescind it ?
Do we know of any such statement from the persons involved ?

Express chief accused of misrepresentation over Madeleine McCann stories

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 10:39 PM on 12th January 2012


Owner of Express Group Newspapers, Richard Desmond, leaves The High Court after giving evidence to The Leveson Inquiry yesterday
Daily Express owner Richard Desmond was yesterday accused of a grotesque misrepresentation of his newspapers’ coverage of the Madeleine McCann case.

Mr Desmond told the Leveson Inquiry into press standards that he believed Kate and Gerry McCann were ‘quite happy’ with the coverage for the first four months, until a new legal team advised them to sue.

Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, described his comment as a ‘grotesque characterisation’ of the couple’s feelings, saying: ‘Your paper was accusing the McCanns, on occasion, of having killed their daughter.
‘Are you seriously saying they were sitting there quite happy, rather than entirely anguished by your paper’s bad behaviour?’
Mr and Mrs McCann, both 43, took legal action against Express Group Newspapers for 38 articles in the Daily Express and the Daily Star and their Sunday titles.

The group paid £550,000 in damages to the Find Madeleine Fund and published front page apologies.
Mr Desmond said he believed every national newspaper had written similar articles and insisted his titles were ‘scapegoated’ by the Press Complaints Commission.

‘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.’


In wide-ranging evidence, Mr Desmond described the Leveson Inquiry as ‘probably the worst thing that’s ever happened to newspapers’ because of its impact on sales.
‘Ethical, I don’t quite know what the word means’ Richard Desmond, owner of Express Group Newspapers
Asked if he was interested in ethical standards in his newspapers, he replied: ‘Ethical, I don’t quite know what the word means.’
In written evidence to the inquiry he said: ‘We are in a business to give readers/viewers what they want to read and watch and as long as it’s legal that is what we aim to do.
‘We don’t talk about ethics or morals because it is a very fine line and everybody’s ethics are different.’

Allegations: Kate and Gerry McCann arriving at the High Court, London, in November to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry
█ Express Newspapers continued using an enquiry agent for more than five years after he was convicted of illegally accessing personal data.

The group, publishers of the Daily Express, Daily Star and their Sunday sister titles, was commissioning Steve Whittamore’s company to carry out searches as recently as July 2010, the Leveson inquiry was told.

Whittamore received a conditional discharge in April 2005.

Nicole Patterson, head of legal at Express Newspapers, said she could not confirm whether the agent was still working for the Daily Express and Daily Star.

Asked by Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, why they continued to use him, Miss Patterson replied: ‘It’s a matter for the news editor and the editor. It’s not something that’s within my remit, I’m afraid, and I can’t speak for them.’
Mr Desmond said he was interested only in the media as a business, and was not seeking political influence.
He said he felt he had betrayed Tony Blair ‘as a mate’ when the Express’s then editor Peter Hill decided the paper should back the Conservative Party in 2005.
‘I felt he was a good bloke, I thought he was doing a good job, I liked him,’ said Mr Desmond.
‘You know, he came to my house, I went to his house or flat. So I felt bad on a personal level.’
Mr Desmond described the PCC, from which his group withdrew last year, as useless, saying it had failed to provide his editors with guidance on covering the McCann case.

Four other papers, including the Mail, made varying payments to the McCanns.

Last night, McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: ‘The scale and weight of the inaccuracies and unfounded allegations meant that the Express Group as a whole stood out as by far the worst offender.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085908/Express-chief-accused-misrepresentation-Madeleine-McCann-stories.html#ixzz1jHsTyxVz

PeterMac wrote:Searching for Madeleine might pay, if they remembered to include the enormous reward there is, or perhaps WAS, for any information leading to her recovery.
Why did they never play on that ?
Why did they never get the press to keep emphasising the amount ?
Why did their detective agency not follow up on any of the phone calls they receive and logged meticulously over a year or so ?
Why is the reward never mentioned by anyone, except us.

As a matter of law, is an offer of reward not a contract ? And if so, would it not need a formal statement of repudiation and withdrawal to rescind it ?
Do we know of any such statement from the persons involved ?

Strangely I was thinking of the reward today - £2.6m - I think.

The McCanns weren't concerned about advertising Madeleine's eye defect - a good marketing ploy - and when asked by the PJ not to go to the media as it could jeopardise Madeleine's safety they went ahead anyway. Very strange though that KM wrote in her bewk that she was concerned that offering the reward might have implications for Madeleine's safety. I don't think they wanted to advertise the reward too much, someone who knew something may have been tempted to speak out.

Wind back to this time last year.

Fascinating and highly relevant Radio 5 interview with Clarence Mitchell.

Full interview, credit Pamalan: http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/45jan11/5live_07_01_2011.htm

Mr Desmond's memory is apparently doing him a great disservice........"

Excuse me Mitchell you old rat, I think the mccanns and the T7 memory has done the biggest disservice to Maddie you utter creep...read the statements!!!!!!! pratt

And who DID NOT GO SEARCHING for Maddie on May 3rd 2007...kate mccann. Who kept silent and didn't speak to police to help them with the situation on May 3rd 2007...kate mccann. This was the mother on the night it allegedly happened, and mitchell has the audacity to try and out other people

The corruption in this country makes me so sick, I am so ashamed to be British and be of the same culture as these slimy rats

aquila wrote:I think he said as many erm's as the T9. The press can be a pack of wolves. The McCann's imo are being used by the inquiry, whether by their own design or the grander design of their PR machine and the boys' club of Britain. Isn't it amazing that the Mc's get centre stage at this inquiry? Seems to me they were invited for a reason and I don't believe they know how they are being used and manipulated.

Err...they invited themselves isn't it? They gatecrashed the Hack Inquiry (even though they were not hacked) hoping perhaps to get another pay out.

Desmond also said the suing happened in line with the instruction of new Solicitors. From this he is inferring that Carter Ruck only came on board 4 months after they were made suspects and the headlines started, which would be around January 2008. That cannot be correct surely, I thought CR had been working with them much longer than that.

Mr Desmond said he believed every national newspaper had written similar articles and insisted his titles were ‘scapegoated’ by the Press Complaints Commission.

‘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.’

So there we have it. Stated publicly and on the record forever.
By the Press !
There are still views on the McCanns of what happened.
This is not 'res judicata', whatever they may wish to urge to the contrary.
We can suppose that the papers already have their 18 page pull out supplements at the ready.

PeterMac wrote:

Mr Desmond said he believed every national newspaper had written similar articles and insisted his titles were ‘scapegoated’ by the Press Complaints Commission.

‘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.’

So there we have it. Stated publicly and on the record forever.
By the Press !
There are still views on the McCanns of what happened.
This is not 'res judicata', whatever they may wish to urge to the contrary.
We can suppose that the papers already have their 18 page pull out supplements at the ready.

Yes I am sure the press media have their views on the truth which would be the same as ours that we discuss on here. But after all the libels they are not saying anything...But as soon as new or more evidence comes to light then I believe they are just itching to get at the mccanns and their cronies. Hopefully February will give them the green light

From the Levenson transcript: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.txt


25 At the end of the day, the McCanns, you know, as


87

1 I understood it, although I've never met them, were

2 perfectly -- if we ran it for four months, you know, it

3 took them a long time to get involved in a legal dispute

4 with us. They were quite happy, as I understand, in

5 articles being run about their poor daughter, because it

6 kept it on the front page. I think it was only when new

7 lawyers came along, who I think were working on

8 a contingency, that the legal --

9 Q. I can't --

10 A. Well, that's the facts. I'm sorry, that is the facts.

11 Q. Mr Desmond I'm going to interrupt you.

12 A. I'm sorry, that is the facts.

13 Q. That must be a grotesque characterisation.

14 A. I'm sorry, that is the facts.

15 Q. Your paper was confusing the McCanns on occasion of

16 having killed their daughter. Are you seriously saying

17 that they were sitting there quite happy, rather than

18 entirely anguished by your paper's bad behaviour?

19 A. I'm sitting here --

20 Q. Just think about the question before you answer.

21 A. I'm going to answer your question, and I've already

22 answered it. We ran -- on your suggestion, we've run

23 102 -- your figure, 102 articles. For four months you

24 say we ran it, right? Nothing happened, to the best of

25 my knowledge, until a new firm of lawyers were


88

1 instructed, who were on a contingency, that then came in

2 to sue us. And, you know, I mean that's a fact. Up

3 until that stage, as I understand Mr Hill, they had a PR

4 company who were working alongside Peter Hill and the

5 team.

They were working WITH the Daily Express on what was printed.

“as I understand, Mr Hill..... they had a PR company who were working alongside Peter Hill (the editor of the Daily Express) and the team”.

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 !!

Here's to 2012

“it was only when new lawyers came along, who I think were working on a contingency”

From wiki:
A contingency plan is a plan devised for an exceptional risk which is impractical or impossible to avoid. Contingency plans are often devised by governments or businesses who want to be prepared for events which, while highly unlikely, may have catastrophic effects.

Governments

From the Law Society:
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/productsandservices/practicenotes/damagesbasedagreement/4526.article

Solicitors who undertake work before employment tribunals on behalf of clients, where professional fees for all or part of any claim is covered by a Damages Based Agreement (DBA) (also known as a "contingency fee agreement").

More on DBA's :

A Damages Based Agreement or DBA is a contract formed between a claimant and their legal representative (usually a Solicitor), the agreement sets out how the claimant will pay their legal representative for the service they provide when handling their case.
A Damages Based Agreement is a type of “No Win, No Fee” arrangement under which the legal representative is only paid if the case is successful and receives nothing if the case is lost.
A Damages Based Agreement binds the claimant to pay the legal representative a proportion of their damages if the case is successful, this is believed to be beneficial to the claimant as the Solicitor handling the case is financially motivated to achieve the maximum payout possible as this will directly affect the amount they get paid upon successful conclusion of the case.
Currently most claims for personal injury are made under a CFA (Contingency Fee Agreement), however Government proposals may see the introduction of Damages Based Agreements for personal injury claims in the later part of 2011.

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.