Gerry McCann attacks 'disgraceful' Sunday Times after 55 Thousand Pound libel payout - Guardian

This Guardian article (with comments) by The Guardian, Thursday, October 2, 2014 at 19:22 BST.

McCann and his wife Kate were handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter, who went missing in Portugal seven years ago.



So they didn't actually go to court then....

it seems not.

Madeleine the cash cow, the gift that keeps on giving.

this time the money is being split between Missing People charity and a sick children s charity. I wonder if this was decided by the McCs or the Times. I am allowed to wonder aren't I.

55 thousand really is a shut up and go away figure.  Hardly full compensation for terrible lies and untruths.  Of course, if they really are giving it to charity, then they would not be bothered holding out for more, nothing in it for them.   No, they will sit tight and hope for a big pay day courtesy of Snr Amaral and pocket all of that for themselves.  In the meantime, the poor Kate and Gerry and the lying Sunday Times story is run and those fine upstanding citizens give 55k to the most of whom are not Missing People Charity.

Pity the comments which did not abide by "community standards" have been removed. Possibly someone was able to capture them before they were whooshed.

mossman wrote:55 thousand really is a shut up and go away figure.  Hardly full compensation for terrible lies and untruths.  Of course, if they really are giving it to charity, then they would not be bothered holding out for more, nothing in it for them.   No, they will sit tight and hope for a big pay day courtesy of Snr Amaral and pocket all of that for themselves.  In the meantime, the poor Kate and Gerry and the lying Sunday Times story is run and those fine upstanding citizens give 55k to the most of whom are not Missing People Charity.

Gone are days when mccann whined, and got 'in agreement' £550K asap.

Have you noticed the guardian kept saying 'mccann' lol...bet it's really stuck in the papers craw and my bet is, the times agreed the sum and payed it straight to the charity NOT the mccanns.

So let me get this straight. Murdoch is worth billions, but they settle out of court with him for a paltry £55k. Amaral is worth next to nothing but they take him to court for £1million. Not sure I'm following the logic here.....

maybe part of the deal was for Sky to show how awfully the McCs are treated by the trolls.

tanszi wrote:maybe part of the deal was for Sky to show how awfully the McCs are treated by the trolls.  

So how's that working out, then?

I know, lol. I just wondered if it was so that's all lol.

tanszi wrote:maybe part of the deal was for Sky to show how awfully the McCs are treated by the trolls.  

Or ...... maybe part of the deal was for Sky to make a big splash over the Mills & Boon S & S book, and when that backfired they resorted to the tactics you describe?

I'm not a member of Twitter or Facebook. Is there anywhere I can access the 'ask Brunty' business.

thank you almostgothic I m not on twitter so reading them all together saved me trolling from one website to another. lol

Thanks from me too.

and people are still making comments.

You're welcome, tanszi and comperedna.

tanszi wrote:and people are still making comments.

This isn't going to go away.
There are so many issues involved here.

And people need to know what their Sky subscriptions are paying for.

Eventually, two months after the article was published, a correction was printed, retracting all the allegations and apologising. But even then – and despite the grotesque nature of what it had falsely alleged on its front page – the apology was on an inside page and the word “apology” was absent from the headline. Since then, it has taken 11 months and the filing of a legal claim to get the Sunday Times to AGREE to damages, all of which we are donating to charity, and to get our right to tell the public that WE HAD WON THE CASE. But the cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there.


Obviously Gerry though 55,000 was not enough but accepted it anyway...you see, it is peanuts to them.

It obviously is peanuts to them kitti.  I am sure that they would have gone for more if they could but somebody must have told them not to push it.   They decided not to take the Sunday Times on any further, obviously they were  advised not to.  They had to settle for peanuts which to me was a ' get off our backs if you know what's good for you' settlement from the Sunday Times

Why were they so adamant about getting it across that they WON the case when it didn't go to court...oh yes.....their supporters.

kitti wrote:Why were they so adamant about getting it across that they WON the case when it didn't go to court...oh yes.....their supporters.

They were kitti which is nonsense. They are very frightened now about taking things to court. Too much information gets made public. That is the last thing they want.