Comments on: Baroness Buscombe Explains How The McCanns Failed The Press

By: June

June — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:15:37 +0000

Cool

I definitely think its to do with Judicial matters and not personalities, this case has so choreaed out of control, with whoever wants to claim anything, just doing so without proof to substantiate it.

The Mccanns being able to sue the UK media won’t affect any sensitive matters in Portugal,because all the witnesses had given statements before the ‘event’ hit the media, and it won’t be an English jury anyway. If a jury is used????

But as to the book and dvd ban other Portuguese channels can show it/discuss it.

There is another book , also by a Portuguese national about the case, published before Amaral’s, and that hasn’t been banned, it also, by all accounts isn’t a good seller.

By: Rockhopper

Rockhopper — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:00:48 +0000

Cool,
Have a look at the following:
“TVI channel cannot comment on GAmaral thesis, but other tv channels can… ”
http://twitter.com/KeirSimmonsITV

I understood that the defendants are prevented from discussing/commenting but others are not.

By: coolandcalm

coolandcalm — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:50:32 +0000

I thought the ban was worldwide June? and all editions and formats?

I think sometimes we under-estimate the workings of the Portugese legal system.
This case was nothing to do with the McCanns themselves or Amaral himself… it was a legal case with judgements based on legal findings not on personalities. To infer otherwise is to undermine the Portugese Judiciary.

By: Rockhopper

Rockhopper — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:33:25 +0000

It was interesting to see (Crimewatch UK) that with regard to the Claudia Lawrence case, “Police believe that it is likely she has come to harm and are now treating her case as a suspected murder investigation”.
The police have formed this opinion about a 35 year old adult who has been missing for one year.
Madeleine was not quite 3 years old when she disappeared and has been missing for over three years now.

By: Rockhopper

Rockhopper — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:16:03 +0000

June,
I think you are correct on all counts.
Add to that my own thoughts: The injunction may have been maintained because if the McCanns had lost that case they may have withdrawn their other application, Portugal might not want that because they want more evidence to be aired in court.
Amaral produced one surprise at the last hearing. Is it possible he has held back other ‘cards’ to play at the main event?

By: June

June — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:02:27 +0000

Rockhopper

I think so, in fact I wasn’t too surprised the ban remained, and it is still a temporary ban; and not worldwide either, is that true?

By: Rockhopper

Rockhopper — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:58:31 +0000

June,
I read a comment posted elsewhere which suggested that the maintaining of the injunction re Amaral’s book may have been the judge’s way of trying to prevent any future hearings being prejudiced.
Sounds feasable?

By: June

June — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:34:56 +0000

The real Stig

At the time the McCanns were still in Portugal they were still being courted by and courting the media, it only stopped when they were made arguidos.
So how do you mean ‘doing the PCC’s job’ for them?
Meanwhile the treatment of Robert Murat was beyond the pale. The Portuguese Ambassador came under flack as did the PJ and anything Portuguese. If you read the whole report (in the forums as well as above) you’ll find the media may have damaged any future trial that may occur, and that could be very damaging for Madeleine

By: Paul, Leicestershire

Paul, Leicestershire — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:48:21 +0000

So the PCC is as one-sided and pro-McCann as the majority… Despite a battery of complaints over the sardine-munching article insulting the Portuguese Ambassador! I know, I wrote one, and I know several others who did.
I despair.

By: scotfree

scotfree — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:56:47 +0000

Sorry that should have read appropriate channels!

By: scotfree

scotfree — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:56:04 +0000

Come on! why use the appropriate canells to get where you want! Like not involving the PCC just go for the mother lode… Why stop the publication of a book … wait a year until it’s made some profit… Is there a pattern here?

By: The Real Stig

The Real Stig — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:02:46 +0000

“We just think it’s regrettable in some ways that the McCann family didn’t actually come to us for us to be able to act on their behalf.“

Their daughter had gone missing, they believed she had been abducted, they were in a foreign country and did not speak the language and they had the local plod trying to get them to confess.

This is a long shot, I know, but maybe, just maybe, they had more important things on their minds and plate than doing the PCCs job for them.

By: Rockhopper

Rockhopper — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:51:39 +0000

“The McCanns aside, the treatment of Robert Murat was horrendous from the off.”

They didn’t show much restraint when it came to the ‘boozed up sardine munchers’ either!

By: Rockhopper

Rockhopper — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:48:17 +0000

If you are going to sue the press or others you may as well wait a year or two, give ‘em more rope, let the libels stack up!

By: dairy

dairy — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:12:22 +0000

…and what exactly could the toothless tiger which passes itself off as the PCC have done in any case….??