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!


McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by uppatoffee on 26.03.12 7:22

You couldn't make it up could you?! big grin
avatar
uppatoffee

Posts : 626
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by tiny on 26.03.12 7:23

And who gives a fly*** fu** what this pair of child neglecters(or worse) think.
avatar
tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by PeterMac on 26.03.12 7:56

Fascinating.
Kate and Gerry McCann accepted damages of £550,000 and a high court apology from Express Newspapers over "utterly false and defamatory" stories published about the disappearance of their daughter in 2007. The letter argues that newspaper corporations with big legal departments will be able to intimidate victims of false stories because they would face millions of pounds in costs if they lose.

So obviously they want the system to continue.

But now consider their position in McC -v- TB.
In this case they are in the position of a corporation with a big legal department and unlimited funds, and so are doing to TB exactly what they complained about when it happened to them.

____________________

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: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by aiyoyo on 26.03.12 8:08

Dont forget their fund is low, and they still have a few cases to fight and to pay.
So in this change of events situation, the no win no fee is better for them.
The mccanns are selfish people - and everything they do is for self serving and selfish reason.

It would be interesting if it comes a day when no lawyer in the land would represent them because they run out of money.
That is why they continue to promote kate's bewk as far as Norway and Sweden.

avatar
aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by anil39200 on 26.03.12 10:22

Selfish, greedy and his HOW is this supposed to help the search for a missing child?

anil39200

Posts : 388
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by PeterMac on 26.03.12 11:22

@anil39200 wrote:Selfish, greedy and.. HOW is this supposed to help the search for a missing child?
It isn't.
It is designed to stop people asking penetrating questions about the search for a missing child.

____________________

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: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by Guest on 26.03.12 16:07

Dear David Cameron: Full text of the open letter on legal aid bill The Guardian

'Parliament on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases'

Monday 26 March 2012



Dear Prime Minister

The legal aid sentencing and punishment of offenders bill will have its third and final reading on Tuesday in the House of Lords. Parliament is therefore on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases, without even any saving to the public purse. We strongly object to the passing of this unjust measure and urge you to amend it before it is too late.

Of course we are the first to recognise that legal costs in many cases are too high and also that some reforms are justified, but the bill includes changes to conditional fee ("no-win, no-fee") agreements and to after-the-event ("no-win, no-premium") insurance schemes which will effectively make them non-viable in libel and privacy cases, where financial damages to a successful claimant are far too small to cover these costs as the bill currently proposes they should. So only the rich could take on a big newspaper group. A successful libel defendant obviously does not get any damages so these reforms will prevent all but the rich from being able to defend their right to free speech against wealthy or corporate libel claimants. Although the aim of reducing costs is very laudable, the position of lower and middle income claimants and defendants in these types of cases has simply been ignored.

Even if a lawyer will take a high-profile case without a "success fee" that compensates for the risk of losing some cases, or even does the case pro-bono, there is still the enormous risk to defendants and claimants that if they lose, they will have to pay the other side's costs. A person of ordinary means in that position basically has the choice of living with injustice or risk losing their home.

Lord Justice Jackson recognised this problem when he proposed an alternative to insurance in his review but the government – without explanation – has not accepted his recommendations in these cases.

In practice this means that in future ordinary defendants, like Peter Wilmshurst, Hardeep Singh and Heather Brooke will also be unable to get support for legal action taken against them, often by large institutions with deep pockets trying to silence them. That would be bad news for science and medicine, for free religious debate and for transparency in the public interest. And victims of the tabloid press like Christopher Jefferies, Bob and Sally Dowler, Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat will not be able to take legal action against the tabloids for hacking into their phones, for false accusations and for gross misrepresentation. Newspaper corporations with big legal departments and their own insurance would scare people off by the prospect of facing a million pounds worth of costs if they lose. This is obviously both wrong and unfair to the ordinary citizen with a good case.

The bill simply fails to consider people like us. Unless a change is made on Tuesday, the government will have succeeded only in uniting both claimants and defendants from modest backgrounds – together with their supporters – against the government and much of the good will generated by the setting up of the Leveson inquiry and promising a libel reform bill will be lost.

We urge you to take action now to amend the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill to specifically remove libel and privacy cases, or you will stand accused of being unfair to ordinary people and giving yet more power to large media corporations and corporate libel bullies.

Christopher Jefferies

Gerry and Kate McCann

Peter Wilmshurst

Robert Murat

Hardeep Singh

Nigel Short

Zoe Margolis

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by Cristobell on 26.03.12 17:30

As I understand it, the new libel reforms are to curb vexatious litigants, and with 14(?) libel actions on the go, they may well fall into that category.

I don't think the Levenson enquiry did them any favours, and their hopes of winning against Tony and Goncalo are fading fast.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Our man?

Post by Guest on 26.03.12 20:55

candyfloss wrote:Dear David Cameron: Full text of the open letter on legal aid bill The Guardian

'Parliament on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases'

Monday 26 March 2012



Dear Prime Minister

The legal aid sentencing and punishment of offenders bill will have its third and final reading on Tuesday in the House of Lords. Parliament is therefore on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases, without even any saving to the public purse. We strongly object to the passing of this unjust measure and urge you to amend it before it is too late.

Of course we are the first to recognise that legal costs in many cases are too high and also that some reforms are justified, but the bill includes changes to conditional fee ("no-win, no-fee") agreements and to after-the-event ("no-win, no-premium") insurance schemes which will effectively make them non-viable in libel and privacy cases, where financial damages to a successful claimant are far too small to cover these costs as the bill currently proposes they should. So only the rich could take on a big newspaper group. A successful libel defendant obviously does not get any damages so these reforms will prevent all but the rich from being able to defend their right to free speech against wealthy or corporate libel claimants. Although the aim of reducing costs is very laudable, the position of lower and middle income claimants and defendants in these types of cases has simply been ignored.

Even if a lawyer will take a high-profile case without a "success fee" that compensates for the risk of losing some cases, or even does the case pro-bono, there is still the enormous risk to defendants and claimants that if they lose, they will have to pay the other side's costs. A person of ordinary means in that position basically has the choice of living with injustice or risk losing their home.

Lord Justice Jackson recognised this problem when he proposed an alternative to insurance in his review but the government – without explanation – has not accepted his recommendations in these cases.

In practice this means that in future ordinary defendants, like Peter Wilmshurst, Hardeep Singh and Heather Brooke will also be unable to get support for legal action taken against them, often by large institutions with deep pockets trying to silence them. That would be bad news for science and medicine, for free religious debate and for transparency in the public interest. And victims of the tabloid press like Christopher Jefferies, Bob and Sally Dowler, Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat will not be able to take legal action against the tabloids for hacking into their phones, for false accusations and for gross misrepresentation. Newspaper corporations with big legal departments and their own insurance would scare people off by the prospect of facing a million pounds worth of costs if they lose. This is obviously both wrong and unfair to the ordinary citizen with a good case.

The bill simply fails to consider people like us. Unless a change is made on Tuesday, the government will have succeeded only in uniting both claimants and defendants from modest backgrounds – together with their supporters – against the government and much of the good will generated by the setting up of the Leveson inquiry and promising a libel reform bill will be lost.

We urge you to take action now to amend the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill to specifically remove libel and privacy cases, or you will stand accused of being unfair to ordinary people and giving yet more power to large media corporations and corporate libel bullies.

Christopher Jefferies

Gerry and Kate McCann

Peter Wilmshurst

Robert Murat

Hardeep Singh

Nigel Short

Zoe Margolis

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html


Robert Murat?

Not 'our' Robert Murat, or is it?

In view of recent events, why did these good people, instead of taking a typewriter and publish a letter to the PM, not simply throw some money together to buy a seat near the man at his next self-cooked breakfast/lunch/dinner event? Premier league perhaps? Sure to do the trick, apparently.

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by aiyoyo on 27.03.12 3:04

Good grief! I wonder if its the same Murat?

Is he expecting to file litigations in the near future I wonder?

How come he's so in tune with the campaign in UK when he lives in PdL?

Odd. I didnt think Murat is a common name.
avatar
aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by Gillyspot on 27.03.12 7:11

I am sure it is the same Murat.

I wonder if he is planning to sue the McCann couple for defamation. Kate was very keen on his being the "abductor" from the very start despite no evidence of this of course.

Will those (like Tony Bennett) who make allegations against people (and can back them up using evidence) also receive no win no fee agreements or legal aid so they can hire the MOST EXPENSIVE UK lawyers in their defense. Sadly no chance

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"
avatar
Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by uppatoffee on 27.03.12 7:53

I'm sure it is this Robert Murat. He got a large payout back in July 2008 from the Newspapers, he was awarded costs as well as the £600,000 settlement.

"Using conditional fee agreements we pursued these 11 national newspapers for numerous articles which carried false and defamatory claims about Robert and his family. The record settlement, in the sum of £600,000 in damages for Robert Murat will help him and is family rebuild their lives."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/17/medialaw.pressandpublishing
avatar
uppatoffee

Posts : 626
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by aiyoyo on 27.03.12 10:46

it's odd to see the mccanns name as if they were hapless and harmless down and out village victims needing legal aids against big bully corporations or rich powerful oppressive individuals when they known to bully people with the money they amassed.

If they are worried about the financial disparity in libel cases they should have empathy for those less fortunate than them. But, the mccanns will have it their ways regardless.

Bloody hell, I have heard it all.

It's just so strange to see mccanns and murat names listed on the same page as if they were in touch and have a shared goal. Did they know about each other's signature? Were they in communication ?

avatar
aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by ShuBob on 27.03.12 11:17

When the campaign to oppose the legal reforms started last year, the names of Robert Murat and Christopher Jefferies were already linked to the campaign. It is only NOW the McCanns have decided to join in- as noted by the Guardian- and hijack it. The obvious question is why now?

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Knock-for-knock.

Post by Guest on 27.03.12 11:56

@ShuBob wrote:When the campaign to oppose the legal reforms started last year, the names of Robert Murat and Christopher Jefferies were already linked to the campaign. It is only NOW the McCanns have decided to join in- as noted by the Guardian- and hijack it. The obvious question is why now?

Maybe because they are now on a contingency fee for CR. We do remember GM sporting a CR necktag to some official gathering, don't we?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Contagion

Post by Guest on 27.03.12 12:09

Ask yourselves one single question:

Would you subscribe to a campaign supported by the man you consider to have abducted and abused your three year old daughter?
Would you join your name to his?

Oh?

Why not, pray? Is it, because you know he had nothing to do with her?

But how come you are so sure about that, as your four best friends have more or less identified him as a possible abductor?
And still you do not shrink of joining him in public and putting your name next to his for all to see?

Could it be -farfetched, I know, I know- that you know he had nothing to do with it, as IT simply did not happen?

But still, what a monumentally wrong step to link your name to his at all! What utter lack of judgement and common decency. He may be as guiltless, as free from sin as driven snow. I grant you that. But do you not understand that you have just cut away the grass from beneath these four best friends feet?

Not many on this forum would do as the McCs did here. Not even for money.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by Newintown on 27.03.12 12:14

@Gillyspot wrote:I am sure it is the same Murat.

I wonder if he is planning to sue the McCann couple for defamation. Kate was very keen on his being the "abductor" from the very start despite no evidence of this of course.

Will those (like Tony Bennett) who make allegations against people (and can back them up using evidence) also receive no win no fee agreements or legal aid so they can hire the MOST EXPENSIVE UK lawyers in their defense. Sadly no chance

Didn't K McCann say about Murat that "she wanted to kill him" when he was being interviewed about Madeleine's disappearance. I haven't read her "book of fairytales" so it may be mentioned in that, but surely that would be defamation on Murat's character, especially if it's in print.
avatar
Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by PeterMac on 27.03.12 13:22

p. 276 "I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back."
Not specifically about Murat.
But did she not also say she prayed for the person who had done it ?


____________________

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: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by ShuBob on 27.03.12 13:25

Kate has now "clarified" her position re Murat in her account of the truth book. Apparently, she no longer suspects him so he can breathe easy now. Phew roll

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by ShuBob on 27.03.12 13:28

@PeterMac wrote:p. 276 "I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back."
Not specifically about Murat.
But did she not also say she prayed for the person who had done it ?


In her diary published in CdM, she said she wanted to kill Murat specifically. I suspect she added that bit above into her account of the truth book by way of trying to explain why she wanted to kill him.

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by ShuBob on 27.03.12 13:49

What Kate has failed to explain is what evidence she had to believe Murat was more likely a suspect than, say, Oldfield and O'Brien who had access to Maddie that night and were away from the dinner table for long periods of time.

Hopefully, one day she'll be made to answer this question.

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by Newintown on 27.03.12 14:05

@ShuBob wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:p. 276 "I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back."
Not specifically about Murat.
But did she not also say she prayed for the person who had done it ?


In her diary published in CdM, she said she wanted to kill Murat specifically. I suspect she added that bit above into her account of the truth book by way of trying to explain why she wanted to kill him.

Thanks ShuBob. I knew I'd seen it somewhere and that I hadn't dreamt it.
avatar
Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by Guest on 27.03.12 16:53

@Newintown wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:p. 276 "I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back."
Not specifically about Murat.
But did she not also say she prayed for the person who had done it ?


In her diary published in CdM, she said she wanted to kill Murat specifically. I suspect she added that bit above into her account of the truth book by way of trying to explain why she wanted to kill him.

Thanks ShuBob. I knew I'd seen it somewhere and that I hadn't dreamt it.

What is she saying: "Additional problems" "for me and the man I loved"?

As in: added to all our other existing problems? Being which, exactly?

How else to explain a sentence like that?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!

Post by PeterMac on 27.03.12 17:37

Portia. Good point, whatever can it mean.
And to add that Madeleine was being 'terrified" also makes no sense.
She was allegedly asleep or unconscious at the time of the alleged abduction, and the parents insist she has come to no harm.
(Apparently being denied access to your own parents and siblings from the age of 4 to the age of 8 does not count as harm !)
Like so much, it makes no sense.
But the book was proof-read and passed by everyone, so it must be correct, and very truthful.


____________________

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

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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