McCanns are suing the Times (no confirmation yet)

That retraction will form part of the court case. I hope the Judge throws it out and makes them pay all costs.

margaret wrote:They must be absolutely DESPERATE for money.

Murdoch is going to wipe the floor with them.

So they are now suing Snr.Amaral for his investigation and believing the dogs in that Maddie died.

And they are suing The Times for (possibly) releasing the efits to help find their daughter.

Unbelievable.

OMG!! You mean they are prepared to take on Murdoch? If so, this is great news in my opinion anyway. Can't way for the entire Murdoch empire to expose these evil parents.

If they are suing the Times, it seems to me this would only come after requests/negotiating for a further retraction and the Murdoch organization (and lawyers) absolutely refused. Surely, before commencing this action the McCanns' lawyers would have tried to reach an agreement before resorting to a lawsuit against such a powerful organization.

I know the McCanns have shown just how litigious they are but I've lost track of just how many people/organizations they have sued in the past seven years. Is anyone keeping score?

This has got nothing to do with a further retraction.


If that was so, why wait neally a year.


No, this has to do soley with money.


They have sued most off the papers and don't forget Murdoch owns the sun, he could off done what he wanted with the mccanns long ago...wiped the floor with the pair off them.


My opinion is ....they've gone through some papers and the times article was as good as any...



They are desperate for money and need it to pay mr amaral when they lose

Now the Mccanns realise that they are going to lose they will need money to fight mr amaral against HIS libel case .

Karen wrote:Application for summons – Gerald and Kate McCann



After careful consideration, the request to issue a summons against Gerald and Kate McCann for alleged offences contrary to section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has been refused as it is clear that this court does not have the necessary jurisdiction.

All applications are considered in two stages. The first stage is whether the court has the jurisdiction to issue a summons the second is if there is sufficient evidence. As with this application, if the first stage is not passed the second stage is not considered.

Note for Editors


1.For further enquiry please contact Darren Horsman on 020 7073 4852.



http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/private_pros/

Am I right in reading this article, as if someone recently made an application to issue a summons against the McCanns and it has been refused?

kathybelle wrote:

Karen wrote:Application for summons – Gerald and Kate McCann



After careful consideration, the request to issue a summons against Gerald and Kate McCann for alleged offences contrary to section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has been refused as it is clear that this court does not have the necessary jurisdiction.

All applications are considered in two stages. The first stage is whether the court has the jurisdiction to issue a summons the second is if there is sufficient evidence. As with this application, if the first stage is not passed the second stage is not considered.

Note for Editors


1.For further enquiry please contact Darren Horsman on 020 7073 4852.



http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/private_pros/

Am I right in reading  this article, as if someone  recently made an application to issue a summons against the McCanns and it has been refused?  

Thanks for asking kathybelle, l would like to know too.

I find this intriguing - I wonder who and when?
The link suggests something fairly recently, but there is no indication of the date of the statement.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-495201/McCanns-face-private-prosecution-neglecting-madeleine.html

I think that it might have something to do with Tony Bennett.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-495201/McCanns-face-private-prosecution-neglecting-madeleine.html

I wonder if it could have anything to do with Tony Bennett?

Hi N.B.Y.

I've Just pressed the link, the headlines of the article, which is dated 11/07, states that the McCanns will not face prosecution for neglecting Madeleine.

That's right, it is from 2007. I think that the judgement relates to the decision made then.

As you will have seen, the article states that the case was thrown out, because a British Court does not have jurisdiction, over something that happened in Portugal. Andy Redwood should remember this, the next time he tries to interview Portuguese suspects, who have already been interviewed and cleared by the PJ.

i think they use the rules to suit themselves. hasn't it been mooted that the CPS went to Portugal amidst theories that a British person in the UK could face charges against a criminal act that they did in Portugal.

By the way NBY, the reason why I stated what the headlines in the link were, was because the link made it seem to me, like the McCanns were facing a new private prosecution. I was sick as a parrot, when I discovered the link was old.    

If the 'Teflon' duo fell in a heap of pig muck, I'm sure they'd come up smelling of roses.   

Only to the blinkered brigade - to the rest of us, they would smell like exactly what they'd fallen into!

kathybelle wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-495201/McCanns-face-private-prosecution-neglecting-madeleine.html

I wonder if it could have anything to do with Tony Bennett?

Hi N.B.Y.

I've Just pressed the link, the headlines of the article, which is dated 11/07, states that the McCanns will not face prosecution for neglecting Madeleine.

Yes, that's the date of the newspaper article, but why is it appearing on the Justice website at this time?

I don't know the answer to that but would hazard a guess that someone there has only just come across it and thinks that it relates to something recent.

Apart from that i think its great news the mccanns trying to sue the Times.

Let them fester in a lifetime of litigation at the mercy of the lawyers who will skin them for every last penny then dump them just as quick when the trough runs dry.

What kind of life to look forward to is that ?

Lets hope it gets to Court this time.

Yes, I do hope that the Times don't cave in like the Express. Presumably the stuff they printed had already been cleared by their lawyers.

Lioned wrote:Apart from that i think its great news the mccanns trying to sue the Times.

Let them fester in a lifetime of litigation at the mercy of the lawyers who will skin them for every last penny then dump them just as quick when the trough runs dry.

What kind of life to look forward to is that ?

Lets hope it gets to Court this time.

I second that. Its very unsatisfactory when there is an out of court settlement.

Iris wrote:Yes, I do hope that the Times don't cave in like the Express.  Presumably the stuff they printed had already been cleared by their lawyers.

I've been reading a book written by David Walsh Sports Journalist with the Times, about Lance Armstrong. It is very difficult not to draw comparisons throughout the whole book between his (Walshs) search for the truth about Armstrong and the McCann case.

Interestingly, in part of the book he talks about the hoops he had to jump through to get his employers to go to print with his story, they very quickly had legal advice, sought sworn affidavits from the witnesses quoted in the article etc. in short the were very cautious before going to print, but print it they did, albeit a watered down version.

They were sued anyway, they settled with Armstrong but are now seeking return of their money, following his more recent confession.

I've found great hope in reading it, as it really is a story of how money and connections shielded Armstrong for years, how many honest people looking to tell the truth were destroyed by him along the way, but eventually the truth won out, all because of a series of small events that eventually led to him being caught.

So I don't believe the Times printed anything they could not stand over about the McCanns. Maybe this time they won't be too quick to settle out of court and go all the way. I hope they do.

Mossman, I think that all of the papers have been very wary of anything McCann related after Desmond caved in.  That's why it's very, very rare to have comments sections anymore, and a number of pages have been erased from their websites.  I'm quite sure that the Times lawyers would have been through this with a nit comb before publication.  Interesting that it's one of the Digger's papers, and it will be even more interesting to see who blinks first - Carter Ruck or the mighty News International. As you have rightly pointed out, even the seemingly bullet-proof Lance Armstrong was brought down so there's hope for us all yet.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Only to the blinkered brigade - to the rest of us, they would smell like exactly what they'd fallen into!

Or more likely the pig muck would reek nauseatingly of them.

malena stool wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Only to the blinkered brigade - to the rest of us, they would smell like exactly what they'd fallen into!

Or more likely the pig muck would reek nauseatingly of them.

Poor pigs, imagine having that stench in your sty. And I'm Jewish!   

tanszi wrote:i think they use the rules to suit themselves.  hasn't it been mooted that the CPS went to Portugal amidst theories that a British person in the UK could face charges against a criminal act that they did in Portugal.

The UK courts do have jurisdiction for a limited range of crimes committed abroad which are set out in legislation. Child neglect isn't one of them and it isn't a matter of selective treatment.