Quote:
Originally Posted by c_r
That should probably read "should in no way mean that they have surrendered their rights to be treated fairly." because unfortunately, given the state of the media, it does. Once the prospect of either a tearful reunion or some evil pedophile to blame were gone it was inevitable that there was going to be a media backlash against them. It's not right, and most people would surely have used the press like they did as well, but it's what happens when you get into bed with the media. And, in fairness, they were treated ridiculously well to start with, any mention that they might have been negligent seemed to be a taboo subject amongst the tabloid press.
|
I stand by my original phrasing
It
does in no way mean they have surrendered their rights. It
doesn't mean that the newspapers will respect those rights, I agree with you that far. But those rights still exist. Which is why the Mail, Express and others paid out some undisclosed, but doubtless very handsome, wads of cash last week after admitting they treated the McCanns very unfairly indeed.
---------- Post added at 22:43 ---------- Previous post was at 22:41 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing
Not the same thing at all Chris and they did a lot more then ask for help and only became annoyed with the press when it started going against them. But people will still have their opinions and still believe what they want to believe can stop it on here but can never stop it fully. Doesn't really matter though does it baseless accusation, opinion or out and out fantasising is not going to do anything to get back the little girl.
|
I'm not the thought police Rizz, I can't tell people what to think, nor do I want to. I can tell them what they're allowed to say on here, though, if I believe they are exposing this website to the risk of a claim of defamation.