Missing Madeleine
Come join us...there's more inside you cannot see as a guest!

Somebody had better explain this!

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  AnnaEsse on Thu 7 Feb - 19:11

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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18416
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  ProfessorPlum on Thu 7 Feb - 19:13

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

ProfessorPlum
Rookie
Rookie

Female
Number of posts : 139
Age : 59
Location : The wild side of life.
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-02-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  Guest on Thu 7 Feb - 19:16

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.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  AnnaEsse on Thu 7 Feb - 19:17

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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18416
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  Lillyofthevalley on Thu 7 Feb - 20:17

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.


Lillyofthevalley
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1552
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  dazedandconfused on Thu 7 Feb - 21:27

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.

dazedandconfused
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 2101
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  mossman on Thu 7 Feb - 21:50

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.

mossman
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1639
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  Loopdaloop on Fri 8 Feb - 1:36

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!!!


Loopdaloop
Golden Poster
Golden Poster

Number of posts : 815
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-02-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  weissnicht on Fri 8 Feb - 4:04

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
Golden Poster
Golden Poster

Number of posts : 810
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  AnnaEsse on Fri 8 Feb - 7:24

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."

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18416
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  tigger on Fri 8 Feb - 7:39

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.



tigger
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 1740
Age : 50
Location : The Hague
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-07-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  Not Born Yesterday on Fri 8 Feb - 9:21

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.

Not Born Yesterday
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 6695
Age : 103
Location : Over the hills and far away
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-10-09

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  dazedandconfused on Fri 8 Feb - 9:40

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
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 2101
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  Karen on Fri 8 Feb - 9:57

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

Karen
Golden Poster
Golden Poster

Female
Number of posts : 635
Location : The Netherlands
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  Not Born Yesterday on Fri 8 Feb - 10:03

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


Not Born Yesterday
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 6695
Age : 103
Location : Over the hills and far away
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-10-09

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  xtina on Fri 8 Feb - 11:46

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

xtina
Elite Member
Elite Member

Female
Number of posts : 313
Location : yorkshire
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-02-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 14:27

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.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  ProfessorPlum on Fri 8 Feb - 15:52

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

ProfessorPlum
Rookie
Rookie

Female
Number of posts : 139
Age : 59
Location : The wild side of life.
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-02-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  jeanmonroe on Fri 8 Feb - 15:59

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?

jeanmonroe
Golden Poster
Golden Poster

Number of posts : 996
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  Claudia79 on Fri 8 Feb - 16:03

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.

Claudia79
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 7004
Age : 37
Location : Portugal
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  matthew on Fri 8 Feb - 16:05

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
Golden Poster
Golden Poster

Male
Number of posts : 967
Age : 43
Location : holywell
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-03-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  Guest on Fri 8 Feb - 16:07

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.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  dazedandconfused on Fri 8 Feb - 17:04

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
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 2101
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  Claudia79 on Fri 8 Feb - 17:42

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.

Claudia79
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 7004
Age : 37
Location : Portugal
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  almostgothic on Fri 8 Feb - 18:03

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.

almostgothic
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 2945
Location : Lost in the barrio
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-03-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Somebody had better explain this!

Post  Sponsored content Today at 4:17


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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