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

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.

anil39200 wrote:Selfish, greedy and.. HOW is this supposed to help the search for a missing child?

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

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?

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

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 ?

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.

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.

Portia wrote:

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" "[b]for me and the man I loved"?p/b[

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

How else to explain a sentence like that?

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."

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 ?

candyfloss 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 ?

What does she mean these additional problems. ??

The couple, making their first public intervention in politics, are among a group of libel reform campaigners and well-known victims of tabloid newspapers who warn that plans to rewrite what are known as conditional fee agreements (CFAs) will ensure that only the rich have access to justice in future