Similar topics
Search
Latest topics
Affiliates
Guardian: McCanns say new law will harm right to justice
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
Guardian: McCanns say new law will harm right to justice
bb1 Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:32 pm
Just the cover so far:
bb1- Slayer of scums
- Location : watcher on the wall
Join date : 2011-06-24
Re: Guardian: McCanns say new law will harm right to justice
bb1 Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:21 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/mar/26/mccanns-cameron-media-libel-legal-aid?INTCMP=SRCH
Kate and Gerry McCann urge PM to save 'no win, no fee' for libel cases
Parents of missing Madeline join victims of tabloid excess and libel reformers in open letter to David Cameron
Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent
The Guardian, Monday 26 March 2012
Article history
Kate and Gerry McCann, the couple whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal, have written to the prime minister urging him to abandon his government's plans to alter no-win, no-fee legal agreements.
The couple, making their first public intervention in politics, are among a group of libel reform campaigners and well-known victims of tabloid newspapers who warn that plans to rewrite what are known as conditional fee agreements (CFAs) will ensure that only the rich have access to justice in future.
The letter, to be delivered to David Cameron on Monday, comes before Tuesday's third reading in the House of Lords of the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill (Laspo), which has already suffered nine defeats on different amendments at the hands of peers.
The letter is also signed by Christopher Jefferies, who won libel damages from eight newspapers over false allegations during the Joanna Yeates murder inquiry in Bristol, and a consultant cardiologist who had to defend himself against libel claims when he criticised medical research.
It is the first time the McCanns have voiced their concerns about the impact of the government's legal reforms.
The letter has been co-ordinated by Hacked Off, which campaigned for a public inquiry into phone hacking, and the Libel Reform Campaign.
As well as cutting £350m out of the Ministry of Justice's annual legal aid budget, the Laspo bill will reconfigure no-win, no fee agreements. It prevents claimants from recovering their expensive insurance premiums and lawyers' success fees from losing defendants. Instead, the costs will have to be paid out of any final award.
Martin Moore, of Hacked Off, said: "The government suggest they are going to deal with costs reform for privacy and libel cases in the forthcoming defamation bill, because they accept there is a problem. In that case they need to remove these sorts of cases from the scope of the current legal aid bill. That would also mean that the Leveson Inquiry can then be allowed to look at this issue as well without having been pre-empted by the government."
The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has condemned the current system of CFAs for encouraging a "compensation culture" under which claimants sue too readily without thinking much about the costs incurred. Those with good causes will always find lawyers to take on their cases, it is argued.
Opponents of the changes, such as the Law Society, which represents solicitors, warn that it will make it unattractive for lawyers to take up cases and will stop the less well-off from obtaining redress through the courts. The letter to the prime minister warns: "Parliament is on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases, without even any saving to the public purse. We strongly object to the passing of this unjust measure and urge you to amend it before it is too late.
A successful libel defendant obviously does not get any damages so these reforms will prevent all but the rich from being able to defend their right to free speech against wealthy or corporate libel claimants.
"In future ordinary defendants, like Peter Wilmshurst, Hardeep Singh and Heather Brooke, will also be unable to get support for legal action taken against them often by large institutions with deep pockets trying to silence them. That would be bad news for science and medicine, for free religious debate and for transparency in the public interest.
"And victims of the tabloid press like Christopher Jefferies, Bob and Sally Dowler, Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat will not be able to take legal action against the tabloids for hacking into their phones, for false accusations, and for gross misrepresentation."
Kate and Gerry McCann accepted damages of £550,000 and a high court apology from Express Newspapers over "utterly false and defamatory" stories published about the disappearance of their daughter in 2007. The letter argues that newspaper corporations with big legal departments will be able to intimidate victims of false stories because they would face millions of pounds in costs if they lose.
Wilmshurst, one of the signatories, is a consultant cardiologist who used a CFA to successfully defend himself in three libel actions brought by an American company. He said: "The government say they expect people to pay lawyers' success fees from their damages. But defendants in libel actions don't win damages, they only win their free speech rights.
"These reforms obviously don't work for innocent libel defendants and I am shocked the government has not yet listened to our plight. If this bill becomes law in its current state, people like me will not only have to risk their house for the other side's costs, but would not be able to find a lawyer. It is a terrible attack on free expression of doctors and scientists."
Dr Simon Singh, of the Libel Reform Campaign, said: "Although I did not wholly rely on a no-win, no-fee agreement when I successfully defended myself against the British Chiropractic Association, scientists, doctors and writers like me nearly always need some help in financing a defence against a wealthy libel claimant. Without proper provision, we will be unable to defend our freedom of expression. I know the government understands the importance of reforming libel law to make it fairer for all, so I am optimistic the problem will be solved."
Last year the parents of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler also wrote to Cameron asking him to reconsider the bill urging him to abandon legal reforms that will prevent victims suing for compensation. A Downing Street spokesman said on that occasion: "The government is absolutely committed to ensuring that people can access the justice system regardless of their financial situation, which is why we are committed to maintaining 'no win, no fee' arrangements.
"There are many deserving cases brought before the courts. But we have to stop the abuse of the system by others pursing excessive, costly and unnecessary cases. Under the current arrangements, innocent defendants can face enormous costs, which can discourage them from fighting cases. This simply isn't fair.
"By balancing the costs more fairly between the claimant and defendant, these changes will ensure that claimants will still be able to bring deserving claims, and receive damages where they are due, and most importantly they will make the no win, no fee"So in order to ensure that the no win, no fee cases continue to provide fair access to justice for all, we have to make changes.
system sustainable for the future."
The Dowlers' lawyer, Mark Lewis, said: "The reply we got from David Cameron simply said that their sort of high-profile case would always be able to get legal help, but said nothing about how they could protect themselves from Mr Murdoch's costs if they had lost, given the abolition of the insurance arrangements. And anyway, why should only so-called high-profile cases have access to justice? The law should not pick and choose in that way."
Kate and Gerry McCann urge PM to save 'no win, no fee' for libel cases
Parents of missing Madeline join victims of tabloid excess and libel reformers in open letter to David Cameron
Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent
The Guardian, Monday 26 March 2012
Article history
Kate and Gerry McCann, the couple whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal, have written to the prime minister urging him to abandon his government's plans to alter no-win, no-fee legal agreements.
The couple, making their first public intervention in politics, are among a group of libel reform campaigners and well-known victims of tabloid newspapers who warn that plans to rewrite what are known as conditional fee agreements (CFAs) will ensure that only the rich have access to justice in future.
The letter, to be delivered to David Cameron on Monday, comes before Tuesday's third reading in the House of Lords of the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill (Laspo), which has already suffered nine defeats on different amendments at the hands of peers.
The letter is also signed by Christopher Jefferies, who won libel damages from eight newspapers over false allegations during the Joanna Yeates murder inquiry in Bristol, and a consultant cardiologist who had to defend himself against libel claims when he criticised medical research.
It is the first time the McCanns have voiced their concerns about the impact of the government's legal reforms.
The letter has been co-ordinated by Hacked Off, which campaigned for a public inquiry into phone hacking, and the Libel Reform Campaign.
As well as cutting £350m out of the Ministry of Justice's annual legal aid budget, the Laspo bill will reconfigure no-win, no fee agreements. It prevents claimants from recovering their expensive insurance premiums and lawyers' success fees from losing defendants. Instead, the costs will have to be paid out of any final award.
Martin Moore, of Hacked Off, said: "The government suggest they are going to deal with costs reform for privacy and libel cases in the forthcoming defamation bill, because they accept there is a problem. In that case they need to remove these sorts of cases from the scope of the current legal aid bill. That would also mean that the Leveson Inquiry can then be allowed to look at this issue as well without having been pre-empted by the government."
The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has condemned the current system of CFAs for encouraging a "compensation culture" under which claimants sue too readily without thinking much about the costs incurred. Those with good causes will always find lawyers to take on their cases, it is argued.
Opponents of the changes, such as the Law Society, which represents solicitors, warn that it will make it unattractive for lawyers to take up cases and will stop the less well-off from obtaining redress through the courts. The letter to the prime minister warns: "Parliament is on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases, without even any saving to the public purse. We strongly object to the passing of this unjust measure and urge you to amend it before it is too late.
A successful libel defendant obviously does not get any damages so these reforms will prevent all but the rich from being able to defend their right to free speech against wealthy or corporate libel claimants.
"In future ordinary defendants, like Peter Wilmshurst, Hardeep Singh and Heather Brooke, will also be unable to get support for legal action taken against them often by large institutions with deep pockets trying to silence them. That would be bad news for science and medicine, for free religious debate and for transparency in the public interest.
"And victims of the tabloid press like Christopher Jefferies, Bob and Sally Dowler, Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat will not be able to take legal action against the tabloids for hacking into their phones, for false accusations, and for gross misrepresentation."
Kate and Gerry McCann accepted damages of £550,000 and a high court apology from Express Newspapers over "utterly false and defamatory" stories published about the disappearance of their daughter in 2007. The letter argues that newspaper corporations with big legal departments will be able to intimidate victims of false stories because they would face millions of pounds in costs if they lose.
Wilmshurst, one of the signatories, is a consultant cardiologist who used a CFA to successfully defend himself in three libel actions brought by an American company. He said: "The government say they expect people to pay lawyers' success fees from their damages. But defendants in libel actions don't win damages, they only win their free speech rights.
"These reforms obviously don't work for innocent libel defendants and I am shocked the government has not yet listened to our plight. If this bill becomes law in its current state, people like me will not only have to risk their house for the other side's costs, but would not be able to find a lawyer. It is a terrible attack on free expression of doctors and scientists."
Dr Simon Singh, of the Libel Reform Campaign, said: "Although I did not wholly rely on a no-win, no-fee agreement when I successfully defended myself against the British Chiropractic Association, scientists, doctors and writers like me nearly always need some help in financing a defence against a wealthy libel claimant. Without proper provision, we will be unable to defend our freedom of expression. I know the government understands the importance of reforming libel law to make it fairer for all, so I am optimistic the problem will be solved."
Last year the parents of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler also wrote to Cameron asking him to reconsider the bill urging him to abandon legal reforms that will prevent victims suing for compensation. A Downing Street spokesman said on that occasion: "The government is absolutely committed to ensuring that people can access the justice system regardless of their financial situation, which is why we are committed to maintaining 'no win, no fee' arrangements.
"There are many deserving cases brought before the courts. But we have to stop the abuse of the system by others pursing excessive, costly and unnecessary cases. Under the current arrangements, innocent defendants can face enormous costs, which can discourage them from fighting cases. This simply isn't fair.
"By balancing the costs more fairly between the claimant and defendant, these changes will ensure that claimants will still be able to bring deserving claims, and receive damages where they are due, and most importantly they will make the no win, no fee"So in order to ensure that the no win, no fee cases continue to provide fair access to justice for all, we have to make changes.
system sustainable for the future."
The Dowlers' lawyer, Mark Lewis, said: "The reply we got from David Cameron simply said that their sort of high-profile case would always be able to get legal help, but said nothing about how they could protect themselves from Mr Murdoch's costs if they had lost, given the abolition of the insurance arrangements. And anyway, why should only so-called high-profile cases have access to justice? The law should not pick and choose in that way."
bb1- Slayer of scums
- Location : watcher on the wall
Join date : 2011-06-24
Re: Guardian: McCanns say new law will harm right to justice
bb1 Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:23 am
I know how to stop this ridiculous bill - insult a few of Cameron's rich banker friends, publically and frequently.
He's bound to see reason then.
He's bound to see reason then.
bb1- Slayer of scums
- Location : watcher on the wall
Join date : 2011-06-24
Re: Guardian: McCanns say new law will harm right to justice
Pedro Silva Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:03 am
Kate and Gerry McCann urge PM to save 'no win, no fee' for libel cases
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/mar/26/mccanns-cameron-media-libel-legal-aid?intcmp=239
Dear David Cameron: Full text of the open letter on legal aid bill
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/mar/26/mccann-open-letter-david-cameron?intcmp=239
Pedro Silva- Slayer of scums
- Join date : 2011-06-26
Re: Guardian: McCanns say new law will harm right to justice
bb1 Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:18 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/mar/26/mccann-open-letter-david-cameron?newsfeed=true
Dear David Cameron: Full text of the open letter on legal aid bill
'Parliament on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases'
Share 23 reddit this
The Guardian, Monday 26 March 2012
Article history
Dear Prime Minister
The legal aid sentencing and punishment of offenders bill will have its third and final reading on Tuesday in the House of Lords. Parliament is therefore on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases, without even any saving to the public purse. We strongly object to the passing of this unjust measure and urge you to amend it before it is too late.
Of course we are the first to recognise that legal costs in many cases are too high and also that some reforms are justified, but the bill includes changes to conditional fee ("no-win, no-fee") agreements and to after-the-event ("no-win, no-premium") insurance schemes which will effectively make them non-viable in libel and privacy cases, where financial damages to a successful claimant are far too small to cover these costs as the bill currently proposes they should. So only the rich could take on a big newspaper group. A successful libel defendant obviously does not get any damages so these reforms will prevent all but the rich from being able to defend their right to free speech against wealthy or corporate libel claimants. Although the aim of reducing costs is very laudable, the position of lower and middle income claimants and defendants in these types of cases has simply been ignored.
Even if a lawyer will take a high-profile case without a "success fee" that compensates for the risk of losing some cases, or even does the case pro-bono, there is still the enormous risk to defendants and claimants that if they lose, they will have to pay the other side's costs. A person of ordinary means in that position basically has the choice of living with injustice or risk losing their home.
Lord Justice Jackson recognised this problem when he proposed an alternative to insurance in his review but the government – without explanation – has not accepted his recommendations in these cases.
In practice this means that in future ordinary defendants, like Peter Wilmshurst, Hardeep Singh and Heather Brooke will also be unable to get support for legal action taken against them, often by large institutions with deep pockets trying to silence them. That would be bad news for science and medicine, for free religious debate and for transparency in the public interest. And victims of the tabloid press like Christopher Jefferies, Bob and Sally Dowler, Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat will not be able to take legal action against the tabloids for hacking into their phones, for false accusations and for gross misrepresentation. Newspaper corporations with big legal departments and their own insurance would scare people off by the prospect of facing a million pounds worth of costs if they lose. This is obviously both wrong and unfair to the ordinary citizen with a good case.
The bill simply fails to consider people like us. Unless a change is made on Tuesday, the government will have succeeded only in uniting both claimants and defendants from modest backgrounds – together with their supporters – against the government and much of the good will generated by the setting up of the Leveson inquiry and promising a libel reform bill will be lost.
We urge you to take action now to amend the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill to specifically remove libel and privacy cases, or you will stand accused of being unfair to ordinary people and giving yet more power to large media corporations and corporate libel bullies.
Christopher Jefferies
Gerry and Kate McCann
Peter Wilmshurst
Robert Murat
Hardeep Singh
Nigel Short
Zoe Margolis
-----------------
I wonder why the forkers are trying to avoid mentioning the fact that Robert Murat has also signed it?
Dear David Cameron: Full text of the open letter on legal aid bill
'Parliament on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases'
Share 23 reddit this
The Guardian, Monday 26 March 2012
Article history
Dear Prime Minister
The legal aid sentencing and punishment of offenders bill will have its third and final reading on Tuesday in the House of Lords. Parliament is therefore on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases, without even any saving to the public purse. We strongly object to the passing of this unjust measure and urge you to amend it before it is too late.
Of course we are the first to recognise that legal costs in many cases are too high and also that some reforms are justified, but the bill includes changes to conditional fee ("no-win, no-fee") agreements and to after-the-event ("no-win, no-premium") insurance schemes which will effectively make them non-viable in libel and privacy cases, where financial damages to a successful claimant are far too small to cover these costs as the bill currently proposes they should. So only the rich could take on a big newspaper group. A successful libel defendant obviously does not get any damages so these reforms will prevent all but the rich from being able to defend their right to free speech against wealthy or corporate libel claimants. Although the aim of reducing costs is very laudable, the position of lower and middle income claimants and defendants in these types of cases has simply been ignored.
Even if a lawyer will take a high-profile case without a "success fee" that compensates for the risk of losing some cases, or even does the case pro-bono, there is still the enormous risk to defendants and claimants that if they lose, they will have to pay the other side's costs. A person of ordinary means in that position basically has the choice of living with injustice or risk losing their home.
Lord Justice Jackson recognised this problem when he proposed an alternative to insurance in his review but the government – without explanation – has not accepted his recommendations in these cases.
In practice this means that in future ordinary defendants, like Peter Wilmshurst, Hardeep Singh and Heather Brooke will also be unable to get support for legal action taken against them, often by large institutions with deep pockets trying to silence them. That would be bad news for science and medicine, for free religious debate and for transparency in the public interest. And victims of the tabloid press like Christopher Jefferies, Bob and Sally Dowler, Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat will not be able to take legal action against the tabloids for hacking into their phones, for false accusations and for gross misrepresentation. Newspaper corporations with big legal departments and their own insurance would scare people off by the prospect of facing a million pounds worth of costs if they lose. This is obviously both wrong and unfair to the ordinary citizen with a good case.
The bill simply fails to consider people like us. Unless a change is made on Tuesday, the government will have succeeded only in uniting both claimants and defendants from modest backgrounds – together with their supporters – against the government and much of the good will generated by the setting up of the Leveson inquiry and promising a libel reform bill will be lost.
We urge you to take action now to amend the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill to specifically remove libel and privacy cases, or you will stand accused of being unfair to ordinary people and giving yet more power to large media corporations and corporate libel bullies.
Christopher Jefferies
Gerry and Kate McCann
Peter Wilmshurst
Robert Murat
Hardeep Singh
Nigel Short
Zoe Margolis
-----------------
I wonder why the forkers are trying to avoid mentioning the fact that Robert Murat has also signed it?
bb1- Slayer of scums
- Location : watcher on the wall
Join date : 2011-06-24
Re: Guardian: McCanns say new law will harm right to justice
bb1 Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:08 am
And the hounders aren't happy....
Robert Murat?
Not 'our' Robert Murat, or is it?
============================
Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!
aiyoyo Today at 3:04 am
Good grief! I wonder if its the same Murat?
Is he expecting to file litigations in the near future I wonder?
How come he's so in tune with the campaign in UK when he lives in PdL?
Odd. I didnt think Murat is a common name.
---------------
Oh, it's a totally different Murat - don't they know there are dozens of them who have won huge damages for defamatory press stories?
And what is odd about him being 'in tune' with UK news?
Do these people think no-one is capable of reading online newspapers?
Or that the UK press isn't available in Portugal?
I never cease to be staggered by their narrow world-view.
Robert Murat?
Not 'our' Robert Murat, or is it?
============================
Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!
aiyoyo Today at 3:04 am
Good grief! I wonder if its the same Murat?
Is he expecting to file litigations in the near future I wonder?
How come he's so in tune with the campaign in UK when he lives in PdL?
Odd. I didnt think Murat is a common name.
---------------
Oh, it's a totally different Murat - don't they know there are dozens of them who have won huge damages for defamatory press stories?
And what is odd about him being 'in tune' with UK news?
Do these people think no-one is capable of reading online newspapers?
Or that the UK press isn't available in Portugal?
I never cease to be staggered by their narrow world-view.
Last edited by bb1 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:00 am; edited 1 time in total
bb1- Slayer of scums
- Location : watcher on the wall
Join date : 2011-06-24
Re: Guardian: McCanns say new law will harm right to justice
bb1 Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:59 am
More nonsense from yoyo:
It's just so strange to see mccanns and murat names listed on the same page as if they were in touch and have a shared goal. Did they know about each other's signature? Were they in communication ?
What's odd about it? They were all wrongly accused and smeared by Gonc - it was Gonc who first started on Murat, and Gonc who spread truly dreadful stories about him everywhere.
Why shouldn't they know about each other's signature? They aren't deadly enemies or anything - all three of them were victims of Gonc's malice.
It's just so strange to see mccanns and murat names listed on the same page as if they were in touch and have a shared goal. Did they know about each other's signature? Were they in communication ?
What's odd about it? They were all wrongly accused and smeared by Gonc - it was Gonc who first started on Murat, and Gonc who spread truly dreadful stories about him everywhere.
Why shouldn't they know about each other's signature? They aren't deadly enemies or anything - all three of them were victims of Gonc's malice.
bb1- Slayer of scums
- Location : watcher on the wall
Join date : 2011-06-24
Re: Guardian: McCanns say new law will harm right to justice
bb1 Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:23 pm
Here's another one:
Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!
Gillyspot Today at 7:11 am
I am sure it is the same Murat.
I wonder if he is planning to sue the McCann couple*** for defamation. Kate was very keen on his being the "abductor" from the very start despite no evidence of this of course.
Will those (like Tony Bennett) who make allegations against people (and can back them up using evidence) also receive no win no fee agreements or legal aid so they can hire the MOST EXPENSIVE UK lawyers in their defense. Sadly no chance
What on earth would he sue the McCanns for? It is scarcely their fault if they reacted to malicious information being fed to them by Gonc and co.
It was Gonc who spread the 'bestiality' story about Murat, not the McCanns.
If he is suing anyone, it will be Gonc.
***Note deliberate and dehumanising use of this phrase, as mentioned elsewhere in discussion about Fascism.
Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!
Gillyspot Today at 7:11 am
I am sure it is the same Murat.
I wonder if he is planning to sue the McCann couple*** for defamation. Kate was very keen on his being the "abductor" from the very start despite no evidence of this of course.
Will those (like Tony Bennett) who make allegations against people (and can back them up using evidence) also receive no win no fee agreements or legal aid so they can hire the MOST EXPENSIVE UK lawyers in their defense. Sadly no chance
What on earth would he sue the McCanns for? It is scarcely their fault if they reacted to malicious information being fed to them by Gonc and co.
It was Gonc who spread the 'bestiality' story about Murat, not the McCanns.
If he is suing anyone, it will be Gonc.
***Note deliberate and dehumanising use of this phrase, as mentioned elsewhere in discussion about Fascism.
bb1- Slayer of scums
- Location : watcher on the wall
Join date : 2011-06-24
Re: Guardian: McCanns say new law will harm right to justice
Pedro Silva Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:46 pm
Yes, I agree with bb1:
"It was Gonc who spread the 'bestiality' story about Murat
If he is suing anyone, it will be Gonc."
"It was Gonc who spread the 'bestiality' story about Murat
If he is suing anyone, it will be Gonc."
Pedro Silva- Slayer of scums
- Join date : 2011-06-26
Similar topics» Guardian - Forensic scientists go to Portugal
» Guardian: LulzSec leader worked for FBI
» CLONING OF ADMIN
» Guardian: LulzSec leader worked for FBI
» CLONING OF ADMIN
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|
» help Liam Scott
» WE STILL HOPE' Madeleine McCann parents vow to keep searching for their daughter in emotional Christmas message
» Candles site
» Madeleine McCann's parents urge holidaymakers to take posters abroad with them this summer in bid to find their daughter
» Madeleine McCann investigation gets more funding
» new suspect in Madeleine McCann
» NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY
» SUN, STAR: 'Cristovao goes on trial' - organised home invasions, etc