Robert Murat receives damages

Dudess

Poor guy. Even though he's been vindicated and apologised to by several newspapers, mud sticks. There'll always be some sh1t-for-brains yearning to blame someone and their imaginations will find something that makes Murat guilty in their eyes.

http://www.the-news.net/cgi-bin/google.pl?id=968-1

The social worker at the centre of the Victoria Climbié case had to deal with a similar nightmare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Climbi%C3%A9
When the little girl died as a result of physical abuse, it was the social worker who had to field the blame. And she was even sacked by the local authority she worked for, for "gross misconduct". She was the bottom of the hierarchy and could only do what she was instructed to do. She has since been vindicated too though, but she'll always be so tormented by that little girl's death.
http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/content/haringey/tottenhamjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=HCEJOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newstwgj&itemid=WeED25%20Jun%202008%2009%3A43%3A46%3A767
People's need for a scapegoat is just disgusting...

javaboy

I saw this in the Irish Times yesterday or the day before. He got a good chunk of change all the same. There will always be some mud after the McCann case but I'm sure he can find some far flung destination where he can be happy and anonymous with his money.

I wonder how many people would trade their good name for that kind of money given the choice?

Dudess

Definitely not me. I know it might sound all self righteous and stuff, but I'm being genuine when I say money wouldn't compensate for the tarnishing of my good name - particularly if the tarnish in question is the harming of a child...

Venom

Glad the guy won his case but he should of gotten a hell of a lot more. Those rags need to be sent a clear message that printing lies about people that will seriously destroy their lives is not on.

1 million quid is not that big an amount anymore and mere pocket change to rags like the Sun,Mirror and Star.

debby08

no i wudnt ,mud sticks as they say and money isnt everything and dosent last 4 eva,its nice all d same but not worth it if ur reputation was at stake

MIN2511

Before the Madeline Mc cann story he was an ordinary man, now the world knows his dirty laundry... Not anyone's cuppa not mine anyways
saw it yesterday, fair play to yer man 600k sterling is a lot

javaboy

I wouldn't take the money either although if it was upped to something like 5 million I'd have to have a serious think.

There are plenty of exotic far flung destinations where that kind of change would get you a seriously good life.

Dudess

debby08 wrote: »

no i wudnt ,mud sticks as they say and money isnt everything and dosent last 4 eva,its nice all d same but not worth it if ur reputation was at stake

Debby, text-speak is against the After Hours charter. Thanks

Same As

The mans' could name has been completely tarnished,any monetary compensation would not relieve the lasting pain of being referred to as the leading suspect in the Madeleine McCann case.

javaboy

Hmmm.... needs a poll. I'd say more people would take the money than would admit to it publicly.

mike65

The papers got off lightly, 600k between them is peanuts. they should be deined a months revenue.

Mike,

Dudess

That's what I was thinking too - a fairly low sum when so many rags were involved...

Considering the amount of advertising and circulation revenue they would have clocked up thanks to the lurid headlines with Murat's name in them alone...

javaboy

Dudess wrote: »

That's what I was thinking too - a fairly low sum when so many rags were involved...

Considering the amount of advertising and circulation revenue they would have clocked up thanks to the lurid headlines with Murat's name in them alone...

The disgusting thing is that they take that into account when calculating whether to print the story or not. It was probably discussed and considered more profitable to print a potentially libellous story than to not print it.

I don't know why they can't be punished more effectively for this kind of stuff.

Sherifu

I thought he didn't get that much when I heard the amount, dunno how you can decide the figure tbh.

seamus

A far better award would be to pay the man the proceeds from every newspaper sold where his name was mentioned.

That'd hit the scumbags where it hurts.

No it's not very much money considering that it probably wouldn't be enough to move house or whatever. Though people are surprisingly flexible about this kind of stuff. There are only a handful of morons who'd actually still belive in it, and you can ignore them/punch them in the face.

I really hope we finish with this child hysteria fad soon. It's wrecking my head.

Dudess

javaboy wrote: »

The disgusting thing is that they take that into account when calculating whether to print the story or not. It was probably discussed and considered more profitable to print a potentially libellous story than to not print it.

Yeah that's true. And it looks like they were right - it seems to have been very much in their interests financially to publish that filth. I'd really love if the Daily Express was charged enough damages to shut it down...

javaboy

seamus wrote: »

A far better award would be to pay the man the proceeds from every newspaper sold where his name was mentioned.

That'd hit the scumbags where it hurts.

Well that wouldn't really be fair on all the other people libelled in those newspapers would it?

No it's not very much money considering that it probably wouldn't be enough to move house or whatever. Though people are surprisingly flexible about this kind of stuff. There are only a handful of morons who'd actually still belive in it, and you can ignore them/punch them in the face.

Six hundred thousand (£600,000) sterling is more than enough to move house imo. He'll probably get more money out of subsequent chat show appearances/book deals (not that I really agree with this crap but then he has every right).

[QUOTEI really hope we finish with this child hysteria fad soon. It's wrecking my head.[/QUOTE]

lol. That sheep shagger story will probably shift the focus for a while.

seamus

javaboy wrote: »

Well that wouldn't really be fair on all the other people libelled in those newspapers would it?

Don't know what you mean. Everyone who is libelled gets money that equals the papers' take for those editions.

It makes sense to me - the papers got X amount of money by damaging the man's reputation, therefore restoring his reputation will cost them X.

Six hundred thousand (£600,000) sterling is more than enough to move house imo. He'll probably get more money out of subsequent chat show appearances/book deals (not that I really agree with this crap but then he has every right).

Well, what I really meant was that it's not enough to move your entire life and spend a couple years living as a hermit and saying "**** you" to anyone who still remembers. This is in reality what such people have to do before they can move on.

javaboy

seamus wrote: »

Don't know what you mean. Everyone who is libelled gets money that equals the papers' take for those editions.

I was just joking that there wouldn't be enough money to go around since these rags will typically libel more than a few people in each edition.

Your suggestion would put them out of business in no time and nobody wants that.

Well, what I really meant was that it's not enough to move your entire life and spend a couple years living as a hermit and saying "**** you" to anyone who still remembers. This is in reality what such people have to do before they can move on.

I agree but if you had a thick enough skin, that kind of money could be a very positive life changing amount.

seamus

javaboy wrote: »

Your suggestion would put them out of business in no time and nobody wants that.

I do. Scumbags.

I just don't understand why the judiciary of a foreign country won't listen to the suggestions of a random nobody on a foreign forum with no legal education :mad:

Dudess

Me too. Those rags are grotesque.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Dudess

That kinda implies it would be worth a heinous rumour going round about oneself in relation to the harming of a child (maybe even subtly aiding and abetting the spreading of such a rumour?) for the compo at the end.

It implies Robert Murat was almost lucky to have been the chief suspect... due to the reward he got in the end.

Do you think if Murat could turn back the clock and change events to stop him from being the suspect he wouldn't do so, cuz that would mean no £600K?

javaboy

seamus wrote: »

I just don't understand why the judiciary of a foreign country won't listen to the suggestions of a random nobody on a foreign forum with no legal education :mad:

Dudess wrote: »

Do you think if Murat could turn back the clock and change events to stop him from being the suspect he wouldn't do so, cuz that would mean no £600K?

We'll never know. I'm sure he would say no but I can guarantee there's plenty of people who would be happy to take the money.

It's like those eejits who deliberately break their leg on wet floors so they can claim compensation but on a much grander scale.*


*I don't mean to say the Murat did this but there are those who would.

BaZmO*

seamus wrote: »

A far better award would be to pay the man the proceeds from every newspaper sold where his name was mentioned.

Actually, that's a good point. It'd be similar to what happens when a musician rips off another musician's work without getting copyright clearance.
(It happened to the Fun Lovin Criminals on their song "Scooby Snacks". It samples some spoken word from Pulp Fiction and they didn't clear the sample and as a result Quentin Tarrantino gets all the royalties for the song.)

I think if a system like that was introduced it'd make Editors wary about printing lies or half truths.

Cool_CM

That's bullsh*t tbh, the rags should have had to submit their sales numbers for each of the papers on each of the days in which the false allegations were printed and repeated and he should have been awarded at least a percentage of this. In fairness they have just ruined the rest of his life, if anybody recognises his name, they'll remember it as "that guy who did..... but got away with it".
Also full front page apologies would have been nice to see.

javaboy

Cool_CM wrote: »

Also full front page apologies would have been nice to see.

It would probably sell a lot of papers too funnily enough.

ejmaztec

I bet that the press, in its usual vindictive manner, will conduct its own sleazy investigation into Murat and look for some dirt for future payback. Didn't the Russian guy get something as well, or is he next in the queue?

Cool_CM

javaboy wrote: »

It would probably sell a lot of papers too funnily enough.

Yeah actually, how many times in your life are you going to see the sun print:
"We are brainless twats who ruined an innocent mans life; Sorry about that"
on their front cover. I'd have it framed!

Steve_o

Dudess wrote: »

Me too. Those rags are grotesque.

+1 They will destroy anyone too get a "Story" regardless of how false or far fetched said "story" is... They make me sick tbh.

Cool_CM

Steve_o wrote: »

+1 They will destroy anyone too get a "Story" regardless of how false or far fetched said "story" is... They make me sick tbh.

Yup, like the "Weekly World News" did to Bat Boy, why couldn't they just let him live in peace, bastards!

Steve_o

Cool_CM wrote: »

Yup, like the "Weekly World News" did to Bat Boy, why couldn't they just let him live in peace, bastards!

Lol:D They make Bigfoots life a misery aswell!!!

Dave!

I'm glad he got compo, wish he'd get more though.

whiskeyman

I think we should shift attack away from the tabloid here... the real focus should be on the libel laws and 'freedom' they have.
Would they have printed all those allegation if they knew laws and possible massive fines (enough to potentially shut them down) existed?
The tabloids are always going to print what they want in order to feed the rumour loving masses.
Restrictions on the press / media is always going to be a huge conflicting debate though.

And don't think they'll adopt a 'moral ground' either... morals don't stand when there's profit to be made in the tabloid world.

Dun laoire

Cool_CM wrote: »

Yup, like the "Weekly World News" did to Bat Boy, why couldn't they just let him live in peace, bastards!

Haha. Good lad

pickarooney

I've no idea who this Murat person is, but if he's been given money he's obviously guilty of something.

javaboy

pickarooney wrote: »

I've no idea who this Murat person is, but if he's been given money he's obviously guilty of something.

You don't know who Robert Murat is? FFS he's only been in the news for ages now. Rigged the elections in Zimbabwe among other things. :pac:

Dave!

javaboy wrote: »

You don't know who Robert Murat is? FFS he's only been in the news for ages now. Rigged the elections in Zimbabwe among other things. :pac:

*thumbs up*

Nice

Dudess

LOL

Daithi McGee

I still think he engineered all of this for the purpose of taking the papers to court.

Dudess

Engineered what? What part of it could he have engineered?

What are you basing this on?

Daithi McGee

Dudess wrote: »

Engineered what? What part of it could he have engineered?

What are you basing this on?

I won't even pretend to know how. I do not think he engineered the whole maddie thing but I think he did take advantage of every thing that followed knowing he would have a good day in court. I'd say he has got clean away with it too. Just something I noticed and thought at the time. It is merely my thoughts on the matter.

javaboy

Daithi McGee wrote: »

I won't even pretend to know how. I do not think he engineered the whole maddie thing but I think he did take advantage of every thing that followed knowing he would have a good day in court. I'd say he has got clean away with it too. Just something I noticed and thought at the time. It is merely my thoughts on the matter.

That's possible all right. It wouldn't be hard to get the tabloids worked up into a feeding frenzy if you wanted to.

If he did do something along those lines, the only victims are the McCanns because of the distress it would cause. The tabloids know the risks of printing unsubstantiated rubbish and deserve to be scammed out of their money.

taidghbaby

whiskeyman wrote: »

I think we should shift attack away from the tabloid here... the real focus should be on the libel laws and 'freedom' they have.
Would they have printed all those allegation if they knew laws and possible massive fines (enough to potentially shut them down) existed?
The tabloids are always going to print what they want in order to feed the rumour loving masses.
Restrictions on the press / media is always going to be a huge conflicting debate though.

And don't think they'll adopt a 'moral ground' either... morals don't stand when there's profit to be made in the tabloid world.

i concur with you sir

however the amount they would make in sales on printing baseless sensational stories will dwarf any fine they will ever get!!