Somebody had better explain this!

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

ProfessorPlum wrote:As it would be nigh on impossible to prove it was not done in error Bennett would get nowhere and I am quite sure he is probably sick to the back teeth of court cases.

Done by mistake or not its the fact TB has the prove it was put out out by the paper......the fact they say it was a mistake or not TB was discredited and his face put out on their report on the web connected to this disgusting story.......

Did the Express say that their reporting was a mistake about the McCanns stories they printed NO they paid out without a fight, because the Mcs had all the proof they needed, just like TB has now

Imagine if one of the papers printed in error a photo of the McCanns under the headline "Parents to be charged with murder." In error or not, Carter-Ruck would have a courier on the paper's doorstep within hours.

He would be suing a national newspaper though not the McCanns and the paper will have a lot of resources to pay for lawyers whereas TB doe not.Mistakes like this are made a lot in papers as I have seen before.Hard to prove malicious intent imo

No, but very easy indeed to prove Damage to his reputation owing to the scandalous public domain Tweets and other stuff from certain quarters (No prizes on offer).

Especially as kind supporters have captured every vile word.

ProfessorPlum wrote:He would be suing a national newspaper though not the McCanns and the paper will have a lot of resources to pay for lawyers whereas TB doe not.Mistakes like this are made a lot in papers as I have seen before.Hard to prove malicious intent imo

I don't think he will have to prove malicious intent. They printed that photo with details of a paedo. That action has brought him into disrepute, whether in error or not, there are consequences.

AnnaEsse wrote:

ProfessorPlum wrote:He would be suing a national newspaper though not the McCanns and the paper will have a lot of resources to pay for lawyers whereas TB doe not.Mistakes like this are made a lot in papers as I have seen before.Hard to prove malicious intent imo

I don't think he will have to prove malicious intent. They printed that photo with details of a paedo. That action has brought him into disrepute, whether in error or not, there are consequences.

Does anyone know if the paper printed an abject apology? Probably if they admitted their "mistake" (though I have my doubts that it was and not done deliberately) that would prevent further action being taken against them. Absolutely despicable that Mr Bennett's picture was there to give the impression, intentional or not, that he was a paedo. Seems everyone is out to break him but I hope they don't succeed.

I know I'm cynical but when it comes to this story, I do not believe in co-incidence. Bad reporting and inaccurate reporting are bad enough, but this goes far beyond that. It is disgusting. There are people in this world who have claimed they control what comes out in the media. I don't believe errors like this, in stories of that nature happen. Newspapers today are more than aware and afraid of litigation, school boy errors do not happen.

A sad day if things have sunk to this level. I hope I am wrong.

I don't buy that it was deliberate. They wrote quite a respectful article about him the other day so it would not make sense.

However if it was deliberate the intention would be to encourage tony to sue to make him equal in litigious twat territory as the mccanns. Tony has the high ground at the moment so should ignore it. They must remember leveson where Desmond let his feelings re the mccanns known. He does not like them.

Also when did the daily star start getting regular readership!!!

AnnaEsse wrote:

ProfessorPlum wrote:He would be suing a national newspaper though not the McCanns and the paper will have a lot of resources to pay for lawyers whereas TB doe not.Mistakes like this are made a lot in papers as I have seen before.Hard to prove malicious intent imo

I don't think he will have to prove malicious intent. They printed that photo with details of a paedo. That action has brought him into disrepute, whether in error or not, there are consequences.

Yes.

weissnicht wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

ProfessorPlum wrote:He would be suing a national newspaper though not the McCanns and the paper will have a lot of resources to pay for lawyers whereas TB doe not.Mistakes like this are made a lot in papers as I have seen before.Hard to prove malicious intent imo

I don't think he will have to prove malicious intent. They printed that photo with details of a paedo. That action has brought him into disrepute, whether in error or not, there are consequences.

Yes.

I'm not a legal expert, of course, but I'm sure that if a newspaper publishes something that is false and offensive it's not OK just to say, "Woops! Sorry, that was a mistake."

AnnaEsse wrote:

weissnicht wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

ProfessorPlum wrote:He would be suing a national newspaper though not the McCanns and the paper will have a lot of resources to pay for lawyers whereas TB doe not.Mistakes like this are made a lot in papers as I have seen before.Hard to prove malicious intent imo

I don't think he will have to prove malicious intent. They printed that photo with details of a paedo. That action has brought him into disrepute, whether in error or not, there are consequences.

Yes.

I'm not a legal expert, of course, but I'm sure that if a newspaper publishes something that is false and offensive it's not OK just to say, "Woops! Sorry, that was a mistake."

Lord McAlpine certainly thinks so. Imo and I'm sure in law it's up to the press to make sure what they print is accurate. This leaves no room for 'mistakes' that's why one has editors, sub-editors etc. Surely a front-page can't float past several editors without one of them realising that it was the wrong photo?

In this case the difference between the faces of Tony and Cyril Smith is so enormous that a plea of mistaken identity cannot be made.
Therefore I'm with Weisnich, it was deliberate.
It wasn't even a small snap but took up a lot of the page.

Front-page apology taking up at least a quarter of the page plus damages.

Would it be possible for someone with hacking skills - but with no connection to the Daily Star - to switch the photos?

If it is possible, we won't need to look far for the number one suspect.

I too go with the deliberate line. Surely something as sensitive as being named and shamed as a paedo really needs some serious proof reading first and I just can't see how it could have been a genuine mistake. Probably instigated by TM in the hopes that Mr Bennett sues and gets some money in the pot for them to get their hands on.

dazedandconfused wrote:I too go with the deliberate line. Surely something as sensitive as being named and shamed as a paedo really needs some serious proof reading first and I just can't see how it could have been a genuine mistake. Probably instigated by TM in the hopes that Mr Bennett sues and gets some money in the pot for them to get their hands on.

Took the words right out of my mouth - well said, would NOT put it past Lord and Lady McCann

Needless to say, I'm thinking of their right hand slug (can't use the word man) muratfan or possibly Mike Gunnill.

AnnaEsse wrote:

ProfessorPlum wrote:He would be suing a national newspaper though not the McCanns and the paper will have a lot of resources to pay for lawyers whereas TB doe not.Mistakes like this are made a lot in papers as I have seen before.Hard to prove malicious intent imo

I don't think he will have to prove malicious intent. They printed that photo with details of a paedo. That action has brought him into disrepute, whether in error or not, there are consequences.

yes i would think the same ........................look at what the consequence's was for tony...............for being defamatory

tigger wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

weissnicht wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

ProfessorPlum wrote:He would be suing a national newspaper though not the McCanns and the paper will have a lot of resources to pay for lawyers whereas TB doe not.Mistakes like this are made a lot in papers as I have seen before.Hard to prove malicious intent imo

I don't think he will have to prove malicious intent. They printed that photo with details of a paedo. That action has brought him into disrepute, whether in error or not, there are consequences.

Yes.

I'm not a legal expert, of course, but I'm sure that if a newspaper publishes something that is false and offensive it's not OK just to say, "Woops! Sorry, that was a mistake."

Lord McAlpine certainly thinks so. Imo and I'm sure in law it's up to the press to make sure what they print is accurate. This leaves no room for 'mistakes' that's why one has editors, sub-editors etc. Surely a front-page can't float past several editors without one of them realising that it was the wrong photo?

In this case the difference between the faces of Tony and Cyril Smith is so enormous that a plea of mistaken identity cannot be made.
Therefore I'm with Weisnich, it was deliberate.
It wasn't even a small snap but took up a lot of the page.

Front-page apology taking up at least a quarter of the page plus damages.

Quite. It's not as if nobody knows what Cyril Smith looks like.

Bennetts name wasn't under the photo though so who, apart from people like us, would know who he was?

ProfessorPlum wrote:Bennetts name wasn't under the photo though so who, apart from people like us, would know who he was?

ALL the PIE suppliers 'up north' who fed lard ass MP Smith?

ProfessorPlum wrote:Bennetts name wasn't under the photo though so who, apart from people like us, would know who he was?

So, you would have no problem having your face in an article about child abusers? After all, I assume you're not a public figure so no one would recognised your picture.

I think Mr Bennett has shown he is quite capable of sorting out his own legalities...
He has many who do a vast amount of work for him,without payment,most of it quietly, behind the scenes...

matthew wrote:I think Mr Bennett has shown he is quite capable of sorting out his own legalities...
He has many who do a vast amount of work for him,without payment,most of it quietly, behind the scenes...

He's also not likely to stand up and say that the only "proof" he has, is that he told himself so!
And he probably won't be charging himself £32k for the privilege, neither.

Claudia79 wrote:

ProfessorPlum wrote:Bennetts name wasn't under the photo though so who, apart from people like us, would know who he was?

So, you would have no problem having your face in an article about child abusers? After all, I assume you're not a public figure so no one would recognised your picture.

I was trying to find a way to say that Claudia but you've done a much better job than I could.

dazedandconfused wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

ProfessorPlum wrote:Bennetts name wasn't under the photo though so who, apart from people like us, would know who he was?

So, you would have no problem having your face in an article about child abusers? After all, I assume you're not a public figure so no one would recognised your picture.

I was trying to find a way to say that Claudia but you've done a much better job than I could.

Thanks, D&C. I'm no fan of Mr Bennett in the sense that I have criticised some of his actions in the past but this has nothing to do with TB. Any innocent citizen has every right to feel insulted and to ask for compensation if they are associated with the most disgusting of crimes. Mistake or not. The fact that someone isn't a public figure is no excuse. We all have family and friends.

We only have to recall how, in the past, groups of knuckle-dragging vigilantes thought it manly to pursue people who they thought were paedophiles, even when it was a case of mistaken identity.
(Remember the case of the female paediatrician whose house was trashed because said knuckle-draggers couldn't tell the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile).

It only takes one testosterone-overloaded neanderthal to skim quickly through that article + picture and decide that 2 + 2 = 5.

And then all hell breaks loose.