Thursday, 15 September 2022

McCann ECHR Decision - September 20, 2022

 







Note how the Daily Mail gives these news.

By reading the link, one is lead to believe the McCanns won:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11215227/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-finally-Tuesday-won-14-YEAR-libel-battle.html

Or basically: “Madeleine McCann parents finally Tuesday won 14 YEAR libel battle”

One, on reading this, would be certain that the McCanns won, Portugal (not Amaral) has lost and that it was all about libel!

It doesn’t say which Tuesday and it doesn’t say “if they have won”. It just says, WON, past tense. On a Tuesday, misleading readers into thinking it was last Tuesday.

But opening up the article, this is what Nick Pisa has to say:

EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann’s parents will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won 14-YEAR libel battle against cop who suggested they were to blame for the girl’s disappearance

- A 2008 book suggested the McCanns were responsible for the disappearance

- The Portuguese officer was taken off the investigation after a 27-year career

- The McCanns fought back against the initial ruling on an appeal in Portugal

By NICK PISA FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 12:05 BST, 15 September 2022 | UPDATED: 12:25 BST, 15 September 2022




“Will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won”



British Journalism at its best. And isn’t the Daily Mail the British paper with the largest readership? 

 

About Nick Pisa, an image speaks for a million words:

https://jonworth.eu/nick-pisa-daily-mail-journalist-lazy-fkwit/




 

2 comments:

  1. The 'lazy fu** wit comment is hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The McCanns fought back against the initial ruling on an appeal in Portugal"


    Could have swore it was Amaral who fought back and successfully appealed the initial ruling, but hey oh such is the british press.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa