Monday 3 December 2018

NO TO LEVESON TWO

 
Hacked Off has quite rightly dropped off the public's radar - I think even it's most vociferous supporters can now see the dangers their demands posed to Freedom of Speech.  It simply isn't possible for journalists to do their jobs if their investigations are bound up by draconian rules and regulations that protect those being investigated.  We may not like the ways and means reporters get their stories, but we stomach it because they are the Fourth Estate, the people's protection against autocracy and corruption at the highest levels.
 
Earlier this month, the Courts ruled against an application by four prominent victims of phone hacking to go ahead with the 'promised' Leveson Inquiry Part II.  Gerry and Kate McCann were among the four.  Bizarre, because I thought Gerry and Kate would have had more than a bellyful of lawyers and court hearings, not to mention the ongoing enquiry into their daughter's disappearance, but there you go.  It would seem Gerry and Kate have been working quietly behind the scenes to silence the press and find ways in which to imprison journalists.  
 

Gerry and Kate feel that the news agencies and journalists have not been punished enough for their past misdemeanours, which probably translates to they haven't been compensated enough. And of course Leveson 2 promised to bring an opportunity for law enforcement to clamp down on social media. That massive thorn in the McCanns' side that opened the British public's eyes to the alternative narrative to Madeleine's disappearance - the not abducted one put forward by the Portuguese police.
 
The truth is Gerry and Kate were amply compensated by several large news agencies, apologies were given, and all these years on the tabloids and the MSM continue to treat these eternal victims with kid gloves, even though the McCanns were not themselves hacked, or so they claim.  The McCanns beef with the press, is 'press intrusion' - even though it was they who invited the press in!  A fact that did not go overlooked by the Portuguese Supreme Court.
 
I'm afraid the McCanns' endeavours to silence the media, both mainstream and social, is one of the reasons I continue to oppose them online.  Their need for vengeance against their enemies sends chills through me, though I do have a smidgeon of admiration that this tiny pair would take on Rupert Murdoch and Richard Desmond.  But, such is life, when they bit the hands that fed them, they fell off the front pages and their popularity nosedived. 
 
Imprisoning journalists is a bit like burning books.  It should shock and outrage every intelligent, educated, reasonable, adult.  Throughout history, reporters have had to go into areas where angels fear to tread. They protect our democracy, and the best example we have right now is Trump.  It feels as if every journalist in the USA is working night and day to expose every sordid, murky deal this 'president' has done, this is the Fourth Estate in action.
 
Presumably the McCanns are not now being harassed by anyone, and if they were, I am sure we would know about it.  This, it would appear is an old grievance, a bit like their grievance against Goncalo Amaral.  Punishing news organisations and Goncalo Amaral for stories that have already been published, read, and mostly forgotten from almost a decade ago has no practical advantage for Gerry and Kate whatsoever, none that I can see anyway.  If it is their reputations they are protecting, why bring those 'salacious' stories back into the public spotlight? 
 
Not surprisingly, this further Court loss of the McCanns didn't make it to the tabloids via the faithful Tracey.  Why?  Because it is not a popular cause and never will be.
 

72 comments:

  1. Their presence tainted this action for folks with a genuine grievance. I feel so sorry for Christopher Jeffries, in particular and also Millie Dowler's parents who were all unwitting victims of press intrusion, not on board to silence the truth from being written, like the McCanns.


    When will we hear that the ECHR has cast out their preposterous, showy appeal against the Portuguese state? I remember the supreme court dealt swiftly with their "frivolous" claim against their ruling and hoped this too would be kicked out PDQ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Cal, yes I agree, there were people among the Hacked Off group who had genuine grievances, such as the family of Millie Dowler, where the phone hacking caused so much real pain. I have sympathy too for those individuals caught up in media frenzies through no fault of their own, all too easily they become collateral damage.

      I can only guess at the reasons why Gerry and Kate were/are so keen for Leveson part 2 to go ahead, but I'm afraid all my guesses are very cynical. I find it incredible that these two educated adults believe civil court victories will change the way they are perceived by the public. It's really quite simple Gerry and Kate, if you want to be seen as nice people, act like nice people! If you did, you wouldn't have 90% of the problems you have now.

      Delete
  2. "Their presence tainted this action for folks with a genuine grievance. I feel so sorry for Christopher Jeffries, in particular and also Millie Dowler's parents who were all unwitting victims of press intrusion, not on board to silence the truth from being written, like the McCanns."

    Absolute rubbish!!

    Lord Justice Davis said: “I have a great deal of sympathy for the claimants. I can readily understand their bitter disappointment at what has eventuated. But I am afraid that sympathy cannot override the law, and I can see absolutely no basis for these grounds of claim… achieving the result which the claimants seek."

    Cal, please provide your proof with regard to your statement.

    Gary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judges tend to summarise diplomatically, Gary. Ask a member of the public if they have sympathy for Mr Jeffries or the Dowlers and you will get a resounding and unanimous yes. That's because nothing in their behaviour has given cause to attract criticism. Good luck asking the same question about the McCanns. I won't be providing proof of anything to you Gary, too busy watching and enjoying the dying embers of Team McCann's long and costly campaign to save their necks getting dampened by a visit from the police they have to spin as a positive development. It's going to be worth the wait.

      Delete
    2. I won't be providing proof of anything to you Gary"

      Says it all really, Cal - it's just a figment of your imagination.

      "too busy watching and enjoying the dying embers of Team McCann's long and costly campaign to save their necks getting dampened by a visit from the police they have to spin as a positive development. It's going to be worth the wait."

      Well Cal, you've already been waiting eleven years so I suppose that time is no object to you.

      Gary

      Delete
  3. “How claimants withheld evidence for Part two

    P.22

    It is stated by all four claimants (and is not disputed) that all accordingly gave evidence at the first stage of the Inquiry in somewhat restricted terms: it being anticipated that much fuller evidence would be given in Part 2 of the Inquiry”.

    https://hackinginquiry.org/leveson-two-jr-challenge-rules-in-favour-of-gov/

    Now, the government has decided to cancel the second part of the Inquiry, where will the McCanns give their “much fuller evidence”?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gawd 'elp us 15:28, I'm not sure I could take any more of the McCanns' suffering (fuller evidence), they have given us a blow by blow account every step of the way. Nothing it seems can compensate them for the hurt THEY suffered, the fate of poor Madeline is always secondary.

      Having left those 3 toddlers on their own, I wonder what reputation the McCanns are so keen to protect. Their reputations were forever defamed simply by being made arguidos. Even if the entire world media bowed down to them, it won't wipe out the fact that they left those babies on their own, and it resulted in tragedy.

      It would seem Leveson 2 was going to tackle the abuse the McCanns claim to receive online. It would have been an opportunity for Gerry and Kate to get their own back, or even pull the plug, on their online critics. As the second hearings didn't go ahead, they went to Plan B, handing all the evidence they collected (the dossier) to the Police and Sky News which resulted in the Brenda Leyland tragedy. What else could they do with that 'fuller evidence'?

      Delete
  4. "As the second hearings didn't go ahead, they went to Plan B, handing all the evidence they collected (the dossier) to the Police and Sky News which resulted in the Brenda Leyland tragedy. What else could they do with that 'fuller evidence'?"

    How did that happen? The second hearings were dropped in March 2018, while Brenda Leyland died in 2015.

    Gary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3 October 2014

      'McCann insisted they should not have been forced to go through an 11-month battle, saying the case showed there was “no sign of any post-Leveson improvement” in press culture.'

      https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/03/gerry-mccann-calls-example-made-vile-internet-trolls

      ----------

      "Brenda Leyland was found dead at a Leicestershire hotel on Saturday [4 October 2014]"

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brenda-leyland-dead-sky-news-faces-online-backlash-following-death-of-madeleine-mccann-parents-troll-9776369.html

      Delete
  5. He Gary 'God loves a trier', do you have posters of the gruesome twosome on your wall or something ... honestly they have loads of dosh tro spend on spin , they dont need you from the local council estate to defend them you are not there class they must think you are a right mug honestly they would be laughing at you , as we are

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very insightful and intelligent comment ..... unfortunately I have this horrible vision of you spitting your bile across the monitor screen as you typed your post. Shame about your grammer and spelling.

      Oh, and there aren't any council estates where I live. I live in Jersey, we don't have councils.

      Delete
    2. Anon 3 Dec 22.19

      "Shame about your grammer and spelling".

      Yeah, shame about your grammar and spelling.

      grammar, grammar, grammar, grammar

      not grammer". Let it soak into your brain before you insult anyone else.

      Delete
    3. Lol! I own up to the spelling mistake - but the original insults were made against me!

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 5 December 2018 at 08:50

      “…the original insults were made against me!”

      I would disagree, Gary.

      Your exclaiming “Absolute rubbish!!” had invited “the original insults” that followed. What ‘Cal’ had said wasn’t offensive (thank you, ‘Cal’), your reaction to it clearly was.

      Delete
    5. "do you have posters of the gruesome twosome on your wall or something ... honestly they have loads of dosh tro spend on spin , they dont need you from the local council estate to defend them you are not there class they must think you are a right mug honestly they would be laughing at you , as we are"

      I was replying to this!!

      Gary

      Delete
    6. Gary, you said "Absolute rubbish!!" (comment 3 December at 13:07)

      http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2018/12/no-to-leveson-two.html?showComment=1543842430756#c2032462995722039415

      You were replying to excellent comment Cal (3 December at 12:22)

      Delete
    7. @09:06

      I realise that, Gary. I was pointing out that throwing stones from a glass house window may provoke reciprocation. I think your initial choice of the mode of language might have been ill-considered. That’s all.

      Go in peace, have a G&T, sing and pray.

      :)

      Delete
    8. I said 'Absolute rubbish' because what Cal said was purely a malicious opinion. The hearing had been dropped on legal grounds, not because of personalities. Cal has no proof whatsoever to back up his or her claim unless they personally know Jacqui Hames or Christopher Jefferies.

      As Jacqui Hames said after the review, "The Government’s capitulation once again to newspaper owners and executives, over the cancellation of the Inquiry before it had been allowed to finish its work, was an act of extraordinary cowardice. Extensive criminal activity occurred at some of the country’s most powerful newspapers, yet not a single executive has been held accountable – and now the Government will not even allow the agreed and promised public inquiry to finish."

      In anything she has said, before, during or after the review, or indeed Christopher Jefferies, please show me where either have said or intimated that, "Their (the McCanns) presence tainted this action for folks with a genuine grievance."

      Now I'm off (in peace) for my G&T ....

      Gary

      Delete
  6. Anonymous3 December 2018 at 22:19
    Very insightful and intelligent comment ..... unfortunately I have this horrible vision of you spitting your bile across the monitor screen as you typed your post. Shame about your grammer and spelling.

    Oh, and there aren't any council estates where I live. I live in Jersey, we don't have councils.

    Still laughing at you !! dogsbody for the Mccann's unpaid laughing i am

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary doesn't live in Jersey,although he may have been there for his holidays.
      He lives in Liverpool and likes David Bowie.

      Delete
    2. There is always a connection with false names and aliases as the police well know.
      Gary Oldman was in the video for the Next Day and Teenage Wildlife from Scary Monsters was about Gary Numan.

      Delete
    3. Gary is Jersey born and Jersey bred!! Bouônjour!

      Gary from Jersey

      Delete
    4. Lol...La Corbiere is nice there in the summer isn't it?
      So is the rest of the island too.
      Nice place for a holiday.

      Delete
    5. It's a beautiful island to visit, and to live - as long as you disregard the self-righteousness of those who run the island.

      Gary

      Delete
  7. 2 October 2014

    “Leveson has changed nothing – the media still put ‘stories’ before the truth”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/02/leveson-gerry-mccann-media-stories-before-truth

    Gerry McCann

    “This time, once again, it was Kate and I who were the targets. Next time it could be you.”

    ----------

    Kate McCann (Madeleine)

    [3 May 2007]

    “Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see', almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point.”

    Why didn’t they ask Mrs Fenn if she saw or heard anything?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your post 11:05, presumably you are juxtaposing the hypocrisy of 'it could be you' with Kate's very unkind statement about innocent bystander, Mrs Fenn.

      Methinks when Kate wrote her book she was still mad at the by then deceased Mrs Fenn, for her statement to the police about the children being left crying.

      You are right 11:05, the obvious thing to do would have been to ask Mrs Fenn, and all the close neighbours if they had seen or heard anything. Living directly above 5A, Mrs Fenn could have had invaluable evidence. Gerry was equally dismissive of Mrs Fenn, though not quite so nasty, he mentioned her offer to use the phone but he didn't ask her anything!

      This is, I think just as damning as telling Jez Wilkins his help wasn't needed with the search. For me that was a wtf moment, a small child is missing, out there somewhere in the cold and dark, but no, big, strong, athletic Jez, your help searching for her is not required.

      Delete
  8. Anon 4 December 11.05

    "Why didn't they ask Mrs Fenn if she saw or heard anything"

    Because there wasn't anything for her to see or hear, if there was no abduction. And if there was no abduction I doubt it would have crossed KM's mind to ask those questions. If you haven't experienced a real live abduction you wouldn't be aware of the questions you should be asking unless you'd concocted a story in your head. I suspect she was taken unawares by Mrs Fenn appearing on the balcony and was thrown off kilter and had to diss Mrs Fenn in her book as she was seen as a threat to their fake abduction scenario.

    I've always wondered why KM likened Mrs Fenn's response to "a can of beans falling off a shelf". Not the sort of response a mother would have off the top of her head, unless something had fallen off a shelf/counter top previously and it was playing on the mother's mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 4 Dec 13.21

      I'm carrying on from my own post now as a few things have just popped into my head -

      a) "the can of beans mention" - did Madeleine climb up on to a worktop to get a can of beans out of a cupboard if she'd been left on her own for some time with the twins, was hungry and thought she would copy her Mother to feed herself and the twins whilst K & G were "busy" elsewhere then had fallen on the the hard floor and "bumped her head";

      b) I can't remember who actually stated about "if Madeleine had had a bump on her head"....

      c) another Tapas friend stated that "there were many people who could have "revived" her;

      d) Gerry stated "if Madeleine and fallen and hurt herself why would that be our fault"....

      I can't be bothered to trawl through all the Tapas 9 statements or TV interviews at the moment, so have just mentioned what I can remember from reading/seeing a long time ago.

      Delete
  9. Wasn't it Mrs Fenn who reported a child crying for some considerable time the night before. If so it could explain KM's comments about her in her book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John100

      Mrs Fenn heard the crying, for well over an hour, on the night of Tuesday 1st May, but the McCanns moved the crying episode to Wednesday 2nd May.

      Now why would the do that? It was very important to them that Mrs Fenn's crying episode should be ignored and they were the ones who were telling the media what's what and they can be believed, not Mrs Fenn and that the crying episode happened on Wed 2nd May.

      It's been the same ever since. The McCanns are the only ones to be believed, not any witnesses outside the Tapas friends, not the PJ, not any Tapas staff, etc etc.

      Delete
  10. Hi Ros, sorry my last comment got answered by you at 13:12. I was unaware that Jez Wilkins offer of help was turned down, wtf springs to my mind. Looking back as well JW's statement contradicts GM & JT's. JW I believe said that he only spoke to GM for a couple of minutes, GM said 15, JW or GM never saw JT or Tannerman, but she saw them??????. Perhaps that's why JW's offer of help was turned down because it didn't fit in the timeline. Also the next day Yvonne Martin an experienced UK child protection officer who happened to recognise David Payne from somewhere was also told her services were not required. Strange, if it was my son I would have been banging on doors getting people out of bed searching. Question how many of the Tapas 9 were actually searching? It seems they were all in the apartment, which then points that they didn't think it was an abduction either.

    ReplyDelete
  11. RE: Anonymous @13:21 and 15:23.
    What a wonderful escape route Mr Gerald McCann made for himself and his wife with the statement, "If Madeleine had fallen and hurt herself, why would that be our fault"...
    In other words, even if you don't believe our lies about an "abduction" there could never be a motive for her death you could pin on us. Right?


    That they killed their eldest daughter intentionally,- probably is not true - the scenario was too bungled and hasty for that.

    The fall from reaching for the can of beans theory you mentioned could be one scenario and another Freudian slip by the McCanns but I believe when they returned from their night out they found Madeleine dead from a sleeping pill overdose just like the dosage they had given the twins but unfortunately this was a fatal overdose.
    Even though the parents were medical doctors and one was a heart specialist, that didn't help. They had no drugs handy or means of reviving their dead daughter so tried CPR causing cracked ribs and punctures to the lungs and bleeding from the mouth which is so common with this last act of desperation in human revival (lately superseded by defibrillators).

    So the reality of being left with a very dead child and their reputation in tatters the McCann's minds went into overdrive.
    This would take a lot of explaining.

    Mrs McCann took the lead racing down the streets of Praia da Luz screaming "Abduction" to the whole town and ending up back at the Tapas bar in time to write an alibi with their doctor friends as to what really happened. (in their minds).
    Like they had checked on their children every half hour through the night

    And...just like a fairy story they found she was gone...taken.

    11 years after that evening's calamity their explanations are sounding thinner than they were on the first day of criminal investigation by Portuguese Detective Inspector Goncalo Amaral.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Expresso interview, 06 September 2008

    "Q – Were you surprised when you were made arguidos?

    Kate – It was not surprising after weeks with the media saying that we were suspects. And there we have to ask why the information that reached the media was disfigured. Why do the newspapers say that blood was found in the apartment when the police report does not confirm it? Why was it said that the DNA that was found in the car was a 100% match with Madeleine's?

    Gerry – In a way, we would like to have been accused so we could defend ourselves openly. Now, reading the process, there is no evidence that justifies the suspicion, apart from the dogs' action. There was never a sustained explanation. And the questioning: 'What happened to Madeleine? How did you get rid of her? Who helped you? Where did you put her?' All fantasy! If they had found DNA – so what? And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment – why would that be our fault?"

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id163.htm

    “And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment – why would that be our fault?”

    It sounds almost as if Gerry McCann is suggesting that someone else was with Madeleine when she had hurt herself in the apartment.

    Also, interesting question: “Who helped you?”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your post 08:06. That 'Expresso' interview is right up there in the top ten 'wtf' videos. Gerry and Kate simply couldn't hide their glee at the case being shelved and their glee at being relieved of their arguido status. Their smug, self satisfied behaviour during that interview would have made all but their most committed supporters to wince.

      OK, good for them, they were no longer arguidos, but, err, there was a pretty dramatic downside from their daughter's perspective. That is, the police were no longer searching for her. And the parents did of course have the option to keep the case open. They chose not to use it, they preferred to see the case closed.

      Anyone who follows this case, knows that the McCanns have always had the option to have the police investigation re-opened, there was no need for a Petition with 100k visitors.

      As for your interpretation of 'why would that be our fault?, I'm not sure I agree. I took from that 'toddlers are always falling over'. From the off, Gerry has been on the defensive, trying to predetermine any foreseeable dangers or accusations. This leads him to talk - far more than he should. His ego tells him he can talk his way out of anything, unfortunately he has never taken into account that time when his luck starts to run out.

      His fear of the dogs however, appears to be leitmotif, he believes the alerts of the dogs are all the police have, or should I say, all the police had at the time of the original investigation. Gerry exposed this particular achilles heel when he inappropriately spoke to the Judge at the end of one of his damages claims. The dogs' alerts mean nothing m'lud.

      Unfortunately for Gerry and Kate, I doubt there is a canine expert in the world who would be willing to stand in court and say those selectively bred and highly trained victim recovery dogs, are incredibly unreliable.

      'Who helped you?' Who indeed. From day one helpers were packing their bags and heading out to PDL, much praise was heaped upon slick professionalism of the entire campaign. The heroic and the philanthropic were getting in line.

      Delete
  13. Television made them, television is now destroying them.

    The temporary semi-hypnotic effects of television images are now beginning to be understood as the same "dopamine rush pushes" that Facebook and all other major social media orgs. deliberately incorporate in their output to manipulate their users' responses.

    The latter effects, which have been written about pretty extensively now, are mildly addictive but transient. If repeated, they rapidly grow stale, useless and sometimes repellent, tho' nobody knows why, so the designers make sure they are constantly changed and renewed.

    The McCann press bullshit about abduction could never have gone anywhere without the videos to turn the grey, printed words into dopamine rush images of reely, reely suffering human beings just like us, together with piccies of an adorable blonde tot, in our own front rooms.

    Fine.

    But now the McCanns are stuck with "semi-hypnotic dopamine-rush images that only work temporarily" for ever. They cannot delete their interviews but with every week that passes the interviews look more and more staged. Not just staged but crazily, laughably scripted and staged by manic liars putting on an act.

    It doesn't matter whether they are prosecuted or not. They are being destroyed by those performances since they convict themselves with their own words.

    They had a story. It wasn't true. A true personal story is like a bottomless well: you can always delve into yours' and others' memories to expand on it. But if it was a fib all you can do is repeat it.

    So the couple can never drown out the old stagings with new, updated performances because they literally have nothing new to say - no well of truth to draw from, only the one original script.

    All that is left are statements of guilt - available for watching to all their descendants.

    Good. Serves the two bastards right for attempting to play with forces they didn't understand.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "All that is left are statements of guilt - available for watching to all their descendants.

      Good. Serves the two bastards right for attempting to play with forces they didn't understand."

      I'd like to reply to this, but am afraid of being accused, for a second time, of being insulting .....

      Gary

      Delete
    2. Afraid be not. I’m all ears, Gary, fire away while I sing and pray.

      Don’t sulk if someone takes the piss: you set the tone.

      Delete
    3. john blacksmith 6 December 2018 at 15:10

      “…no well of truth to draw from, only the one original script.”

      Indeed!

      Delete
  14. Hi JB, yes indeed, being stuck with that one (and only) narrative has trapped them in some sort of additional circle in Dante's hell. Even their talk of Madeleine remains the same, yes we still talk about her every day, yes her room is just as she left, but [gentle giggle] full of presents now. Never mind the mental torment to her siblings, who know Maddie's room is full of brand new toys they can never touch.

    Their predicament is pretty uncomfortable to watch. They cannot talk as normal people do, that is allow the conversation to go in whatever direction it chooses, they have to stay within very strict parameters. From their perspective, Judicial Secrecy was a big plus, they had a valid reason for avoiding questions.

    And you are so right John, when we search our personal memory banks, we remember new details or find entirely different perspectives or even unrelated spin offs. Each memory is rich with material and potential. Simple memories, like the rustle of a petticoat, the coin in the Jukebox and there you are back in the sixties!

    I think in the early days, Gerry and Kate, Gerry especially, saw some kind of public role for himself in the future. The standing ovation he got from the police really went to his head, so you can see why he thought fame and fortune beckoned. Perhaps in their optimism, Gerry and Kate thought they could continue with their private search and fundraising forever. I tend to think there was a lot of bluff calling around April 2011 when the McCanns got something they really didn't wish for. A review and investigation by Scotland Yard. Were they double crossed? Did they know Rebekah Brookes actually had the power to influence the Prime Minister David Cameron? No wonder they wanted revenge via Leveson.

    The statements given by Gerry, Kate and their tapas friends, might as well be carved in stone JB, That timeline they hastily put together on the back of Madeleine's drawing book, and the polished out when the group met together prior to the interrogatory letters sent by the PJ.

    I don't think any of them have given statements since 2008 John, that is, they have hidden behind lawyers. Naturally, that would make the police investigation difficult, if not impossible to investigate. That Operation Grange and the Portuguese investigations are still live, shows gritted determination to get a result.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Rosalinda,
    It's so true about John Blacksmith's comments on the McCann's TV performances being forever accessible. To be able to watch videos of the incredible lies of the duo is a great thing.
    I hope they are always available

    The McCanns were without doubt hoping for the Leveson inquiry to give them the official whitewash and get the videos sanitized and removed from the internet. I guess that didn't work out.

    I just watched the RTE 2011 video on the Irish late night show where the duo are at their best, dressed like movie stars and promoting their unbelievable story to the interviewer without a care for their child.
    In fact, - the performance was so unbearable to watch I only gave it a couple of minutes. The man giving the interview was actually OK, his demeanor was sufficiently bland that his victims did a good bit of unintentional blabbing, giving away their hidden behaviour.


    Even if this couple feel they are as white as the driven snow, there is surely a major flaw in their scheming. They have to keep up appearances for ever.

    Further, a crime is still being committed with their outrageous "leave no stone unturned" Find Madeleine fund.
    Since May 3rd 2007 the night their daughter died they have been running the fund and taking in millions to pay for lawyers and ruining with litigation the Detective assigned to help them find their child.

    Since the McCanns can never admit their daughter is dead the fund is still boldly out there.

    That surely is the crime of the century, prostituting the memory of your own dead daughter in order to use the funds to protect yourself from being implicated in her death..

    But this couple will for ever have to keep up the charade to protect themselves from the hangman's noose.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
  16. I’m very surprised that anyone thought it was a good idea to be involved in a joint application for Leveson 2 with the McCanns after this: www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gerry-mccann-slammed-for-hypocrisy-after-speaking-out-about-press-intrusion-a3219046.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Ros

    re the start of your second paragraph. The McCanns were never victims of phone hacking, Clarence Mitchell specifically stated that many years ago. Although they stapled themselves to the actual victims of phone hacking riding on their backs for sympathy hoping nobody had noticed that they'd been made arguidos by the PJ but they still felt it necessary to go to candle vigils for the Dowlers and other actual victims.

    ReplyDelete
  18. https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ian-burrell-media-comment/

    'The media, of course, had its own public inquiry, in which 337 people witnesses spoke during nine months of oral hearings and 300 more provided written statements. The contributors included five Prime Ministers, Rupert Murdoch, the gamut of national newspaper editors, and a queue of victims of press abuse, including Hollywood actors and the parents of Madeleine McCann.'

    ...

    'Discover Leveson is an engaging and easily searchable mix of video and text that relives the high drama that took place in court 73 at the Royal Courts of Justice.

    Compiled over two years by a team from Kingston University, it has the “wholehearted support” of the inquiry chair, Sir Brian Leveson, now Head of Criminal Justice in England and Wales, who would like the material to reach “as wide a readership as possible”.

    It is hoped that the site can be developed as an education tool for schools, helping children to understand the workings and impact of the news media, for good and for bad.'

    ...

    'These insights can inform not only students and academic researchers but professionals in multiple fields, including the media itself.'

    ----------

    Discover:

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/
    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/

    It is hoped that the sites can be developed as an education tool for schools, helping children to understand the workings and impact of the news media, for good and for bad.

    These insights can inform not only students and academic researchers but professionals in multiple fields, including the media itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 9 December 2018 at 13:17

      Good comment. Thank you.

      Delete
  19. During the first Leveson inquiry the McCanns denied the relevance of the dog evidence on the witness stand and under oath. Which makes me think they wouldn't lie in those circumstances if they didn't have to. The dogs were after all British, and I've learned in this case not to trust anything British. In short, I don't believe the McCanns would have dared to have lied under oath. Which means the dogs did not signal to blood and cadaver scent as Madeleine died elsewhere and at an earlier date, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Wayback Machine points to an earlier time of death.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 9 December at 23:19
      ("During the first Leveson inquiry the McCanns denied the relevance of the dog evidence on the witness stand and under oath.")

      As far as I know, the McCanns did not mention the dogs; there is mention of DNA and blood, not cadaver scent.

      Mr McCann
      "The first thing to say is it's simply untrue. Madeleine's DNA was not uncovered from the hire car, that's the first thing."

      Mr McCann
      "The inference from this is, and I think the public who think that DNA is a very strong evidence in cases would take this to mean, absolutely, that Madeleine was in the hire car that we hired more than three weeks after she disappeared. It's incredible."

      Mrs McCann
      "I think that may have been the first time it was in a headline. In August 2007, we were told by a BBC journalist, in fact he stopped us and said, "Have you seen what's getting reported? They're saying there's blood in the apartment, they're saying that you were involved. Madeleine's been killed and you were involved." So actually it was stirring up in August 2007, but I think the headlines like that became very prominent once we were made arguidos."

      Mrs McCann
      "And I think it's important to emphasise, again, some of the headlines that we faced. They were incessant. And they're not just slight inaccuracies. I mean, "It was her blood in parents' hire car". Totally untrue."

      Mr McCann
      "There had been a large number of articles, similar tone to the ones that we had complained of previously, so it was more again about DNA, blood, suspects, Madeleine being killed, et cetera, rather than anything else. Paragraph 40 --"

      https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-23-november-2011/dr-gerald-patrick-mccann-and-dr-kate-marie-mccann

      Delete
    3. 9 Dec @23:19

      I am unable to follow the logic of your comment.

      I do not recall “the dog evidence” being examined during the first Leveson inquiry.

      “…I've learned in this case not to trust anything British.”

      I understand that. Dr Amaral, a Portuguese, had no doubt whatsoever as to Madeleine’s being alive at about 5.30pm on 3 May.

      Based on the info in the files (M Grime), the scent of blood had been indicated. The same could not be said about a cadaver scent.

      No Madeleine’s blood or DNA had been found in PdL. ‘Madeleine is dead’ is a conjecture.

      Delete
    4. 10 Dec @14:59

      No it doesn’t: “an earlier time of death” may be inferred from the WBM incident. Whether or not such an inference is justified is open to question.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 10 December 2018 at 22:16

      Correct. Thank you.

      Delete
  20. "We may not like the ways and means reporters get their stories, but we stomach it because they are the Fourth Estate, the people's protection against autocracy and corruption at the highest levels."

    Hi Ros. I accept that view but I'm not sure that I share it anymore. How, in fact, do they hold people to account? Only by amplifying what is said by some into stuff which is read by millions. But the internet can do that without them.

    No, my biggest beef is that people talk gaily of the "establishment" doing this or that for the McCanns or paedophiles or whatever and that the media can expose this. But, with respect, that is an incredibly old-fashioned view: landowners, politicians and the church were the Establishment for five hundred years but they certainly aren't anymore. Yes, they have a better chance of talking their way out of a motoring offence than a window-cleaner does but so what? They have no weapons, few employees and no means of enforcing their will. And these days a self-made monster from the bottom of the pile can make more in a year than a duke could in a century.

    The power of the media - which is, of course, the genuine Establishment, tho' nobody seems to have noticed - vastly exceeds that of any political party. True, the latter can get away with pushy stuff for a few years when they're in office - and then they're out, while the media stay on.

    Meanwhile the media are allowed to broadcast news bulletins every hour of the day on radio or set the agenda with evening TV news. Nobody with a phone needs news or football scores anymore, do they? Yet the propaganda, which included first the creation of, and then the silence about, the McCanns is unceasing: it is a way into people's minds that no politicians can ever get near, the closest thing to mind control outside the Catholic church in Europe or the church/squirarchy/local school net in the England and Wales of the past.

    Nor do I think that "press barons", let alone nonentities like Rebekah, have much power: the power lies mainly in the mind-set of journalists, who genuinely think they are better than other people, as the BBC reminds us every day. They really do, both intelligence-wise and morality-wise.

    Lastly, as I've written before, the media refuses to accept that it is completely penetrated from top to bottom: at a shrewd guess 80% of news broadcasts are based on media releases from the PR departments of organizations. Some of those are from big business but the majority are from people with the same mind-set as journalists, the same background and education and the same, essentially childish and simplified view of the world, Oxfam, the United Nations, the Climate Change industry, plus as much sex as possible. The argument against that mind-set is that it's naïve: that is why people like Mitchell and hundreds of others have worked out how to bend the media by infiltration. There are now, by the way, more PR people in "the media" than there are journalists.

    It is the McCann affair that has been responsible for bringing this to the surface.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi John, thank you for your interesting post.

    Last first, I agree the McCann affair has had a huge impact on the tabloids, first they had a boost in sales, then as time went by, the average Joe Public began to see that the tabloids were being less than honest. The internet opened our eyes to what was being reported on the other side of the Channel.

    I actually used to teach Media before the McCann saga began, but the manipulating McCanns and their get rich quick and stay innocent schemes were a sight to behold. Through their 'media monitoring' we could see first hand how bought and paid for internet trolls could stop discussion and spread misinformation. For students of media, watching the machinations of Team McCann takes media studies to a whole new level.

    That the media are no longer a democracy's protection against tyranny is, I think, still debateable. I agree we no longer seem to have those tenacious reporters who would go to any lengths to uncover corruption, there are many who still have a vital role.

    At the moment for example, our news reporters and networks are working day and night to hold Theresa May and whatever fecked up deal she has agree to with Europe, to account. The internet alone is not powerful enough to expose every shady, mutual back scratching deals she has lined up for her billionaire buddies and those willing to negotiate under the table. These are critical times and we are very much dependent on the MSM simply because they have instant access to the news as it happens.

    I do acknowledge there is a certain laziness that we see in the news industry, and it is more obvious to those of us who follow the McCann saga. By laziness, I mean journalists who clearly haven't researched beyond the tabloid headlines. And a lot of the tabloid headlines as we know, are press releases from Team McCann. The McCanns have been able to build and sustain, God knows how, the belief that they have massive support behind them. Kate warned there would be riots in the street if they were arrested. Public figures therefore always go with the popular belief that the parents were not involved. It's not actually the popular belief but they have made it appear that it is.

    continues

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am really glad that we have so much choice now John. It's not so long ago that we only had the BBC! For many decades news agencies were able to show us distorted images and only half the picture. Now everyone is armed with a mobile phone, there is no hiding place. For example, when they toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein, we saw only crowds cheering, none protesting.

      Picking up on the press barons and Rebekka Brookes, to some extent their power is much diminished, the front page of the Sun for example can no longer influence the outcome of a General Election. Newspaper sales are nosediving, as you say, none of us need them anymore, we have all the news and information at the tips of our fingers.

      With Rupert Murdoch it is easy to think his fortunes are in decline, but just ten minutes watching Fox News and it's not that plain anymore. Fox news owns Trump and Trump owns Fox news, ultimately, RM has the President in his hands. I'm surprised he hasn't done the same here with Sky News, that is allow all their anchors to support Theresa May unreservedly. Perhaps the UK public just aren't ready for that yet.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda 10 December 2018 at 20:42
      Hello Rosalinda and others
      "That the media are no longer a democracy's protection against tyranny is, I think, still debateable"

      My take on MSM is that any paper, TV- or radio company are no more honest and serious than the journalists who work for them. It’s the quest, the integrity and the civil courage of the investigative journalists that matters. The “good old time” when chief editors and newspaper owners could dictate which truth was the most appropriate to adhere to is gone. Each journalist in the free world chooses whether to seek or hide the truth.

      A joint investigation in which ”Foreign Police”,  Radio France Internationale, Le Monde, Swedish Television (independent media, though tax-based financing) and Süddeutsche Zeitung,  have been taking part is now about to reveal corruption within the UN and war crimes in Congo, which shows how important traditional media can be in times of fake news and corruption.

      In this particular case, both the UN and the DRC (Congo) have been acting in their own interests. In doing so, they’ve first of all disregarded the families of these victims (Michael Sharp & Zaida Catalán), who’re entitled to know what happened to their dear ones and why.

      Apparently, the UN haven’t been more interested in solving this case than Joseph Kabila and his scum of military leaders. As for the UN, they’ve just wished to settle the whole issue with the DRC, in a way so it would not lead to instability in the Kasai province or elsewhere in the country. Politics as usual, I’d say, but justice will prevail in this case as well as in other murder cases of political dignity, as long as there’re truth seeking journalists, who are allowed to work freely.

      Sooner or later independent journalists, in the spirit of justice will take real interest in the Madeleine case and reveal what’s going on behind the scene, which hasn’t happened yet. Madeleine deserves that as much as Sharp and Catalán do.

      Delete
  22. Hi. Yes, I accept your arguments; we tend to look at things from a different perspective, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 December 2018 at 20:42


    "I actually used to teach Media before the McCann saga began"

    Why did you stop?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @18:27

      None of your business, dear, I dare say.

      Delete
  24. Many thanks 23:52, I did have the same reply but with a 'feckin' in there ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought you did, Rosalinda. :)

      Bless.

      T (23:52)

      Delete
    2. Do you mind me asking when and where you taught media?

      Gary

      Delete
    3. Ah T lovely to see you, I had half an inkling the above was written by a like minded soul, lol.

      Bizarre that the uncivil and the downright bad mannered, think they have the right to ask such prying questions - particularly after they (Tigerloaf et al) trashed me to my publishers!

      Anyway, it is a joy to see you T - enough that I have poured myself a large glass of vino, filled with ice - I can't take it straight anymore :( Cheers my friend :)

      Delete
    4. Hello Gary. Do you mind me asking why you are asking for details of my work history? What do you need that information for? Go on, you go first.

      Delete
    5. You were discussing the media, and you qualified that with the fact that you said that you had taught media, so it is only natural to ask when and where you taught media.

      Gary

      Delete
  25. 12 December 2018

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7957994/madeleine-mccann-mum-hope-find-tomorrow-urges-hope/

    'Kate McCann gave the heartfelt message of support to the mum of Bek Stratfield whose son Finn Layland-Stratfield disappeared nearly 18 months ago.'

    ...

    'GP Kate, who is an ambassador for the charity, told her: "Just maybe tomorrow will be the day we find something to lead us back to Madeleine and to know what happened.

    "It gives us hope. Never give up hope.”'

    ----------

    23 October 2017

    https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/stop-looking-son-believe-hes-667253

    'A grieving dad whose teenage son disappeared four months ago has urged people to stop looking for him as it is believed he has taken his own life.

    'Finnian Layland-Stratfield was last seen near a youth hostel by a walker on the evening of Saturday, July 8.

    'The following day a rucksack containing some of his personal belongings, including a note, were located on cliffs nearby above Hole Beach in Cornwall.'

    ...

    'Mr Layland revealed that Finn left a note above the cliffs, where he believes his son jumped.

    "I don't want to upset too many people," he added. "But there are people are still out there looking for him, who don't know that he left a suicide note at all. So people are going to think that he's run away.

    "We are still searching the beaches, there's nothing to say people can't still search the beaches, but we know what for.

    "But wild goose chases across the country for a living person are fruitless. And it's making it more painful for us."'

    ReplyDelete
  26. I do hope did the research before coming out with that statement, it doesn't look as though she did.

    Gerry and Kate's refusal to accept reality has kept not just them, but everyone in their vicinity in perpetual limbo. And here's a thing, there doesn't seem to be a single person willing to say to the pair Ffs, enough is enough. Instead they are all supporting the delusion, scared to speak the truth to the parents for fear of upsetting them. Its like they all agreed to keep the myth of a live Madeleine going, like adults conspiring to keep kids believing in Santa. The truth must be kept from the parents at all costs even if it means going along with their batshit crazy fairy tales of Madeleine being kept like a princess. Course she is, it's only unkind people who would suggest anything else!

    'Hope' really isn't all its cracked up to be! In fact it is probably one of the most destructive aspirations we have. That first dawned on me while watching John Cleese in 'Clockwise' funnily enough. The hapless JC encountered a million obstacles in his journey to make the biggest speech of his career. As he sat defeated at the side of the road, what hurt him more than anything else was the 'hope', the hope that he could still make it, when it was clear he couldn't. He did of course make it, or the whole movie would have been pointless, but his 'hope' speech is memorable.

    Gerry and Kate have made life extremely painful for themselves, it's like they have signed up for a lifetime of misery. And they are doing it to themselves, and, err, their families.

    No-one would have thought less of them if they had established some kind of memorial to Madeleine, a playground, scholarships, maybe a school or hospital in a third world country. Imagine how popular the two doctors would have been if they had brought medical aid to those who needed it?

    Instead, this pair have let millions slip through their hands, most of it spent on lawyers and spin doctors and dodgy detectives. They have no memorial for Madeleine, and they haven't given any of their millions to any other child. Their last £750k seems to be bouncing between accounts, some might say kept out of reach of their mounting legal debts.

    None of this makes any sense, the pair seem to opt for 'more pain' at every turn.

    ReplyDelete
  27. As far as I am concerned the McCanns are not delusional or afraid to face the reality that Maddie is not alive. Just as the PJ concluded in September 2007, the parents know what happened that night to their daughter.

    Perhaps Rosalinda, you are a better person than I am, but I feel nothing, no sympathy at all for their suffering, especially when they did not hesitate to inflict pain and suffering on others in order to save their sorry asses. I assure you that When their downfall comes I will be celebrating.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hear, hear, to writer @ 01:32 on your comments that it would be impossible to elicit sympathy for the McCanns after all the pain and suffering they have inflicted on others.
    Unless some time in the future they admit to their crimes I totally agree.

    Rosalinda, what a great job you are doing in hosting this forum. Keep it going.

    I'm not sure how the internet works but to avoid unwanted comments on your site couldn't you require that the real name, address, and Email of every poster be logged in.
    Doubtless you have thought of that before. And it doesn't work.

    Anyway; - slightly off topic:
    Just a note on "Captcha' - the final hurdle into getting posted into your site.

    Compared to my bank's ATM machine where it's three strikes and you're out, for a mis-keyed card number and then the machine swallows your card. The "Captcha" system is pretty forgiving.
    Multiple attempts are infinite. (amazingly)

    Now, all I need to do is distinguish between traffic lights and lamp standards and storefronts and street scenes, and keep on trying and I'll get there.
    On second thoughts, - for a simple person like myself, maybe getting help from a robot might not be such a bad idea.

    But...have a nice day, and keep up the good work.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
  29. Missing Finnian Layland-Stratfield's father said "We are still searching the beaches, there's nothing to say people can't still search the beaches, but we know what for."

    https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/stop-looking-son-believe-hes-667253

    ----------

    24 September 2007

    "Madeleine McCann police 'must find her body'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564011/Madeleine-McCann-police-must-find-her-body.html

    'Police have been told that the case is "hanging by a thread" unless a body is found.

    One of Portugal's most senior prosecutors said it would be very difficult to secure a conviction without a body or a confession.

    A police source told Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas that it would be "almost impossible" for the district attorney to accuse anyone if the authorities do not find the missing girl.

    "The PJ has received instructions from the district attorney's office to find Madeleine's body at all costs," the source continued.

    "It is currently our great priority and operations are being worked on without success - finding the body is fundamental to solving the case."

    Antonio Cluny, president of Portugal's public prosecutor's service, said: "Without the little girl's body everything is extremely complicated.'

    ReplyDelete
  30. Björn (11:34)

    Probably nothing new to you, but according to an article in NRC newspaper a UN employee told NRC that the United Nations are in a quandary in Congo. They have to cooperate with a government army that is often committing crimes.

    Information has leaked that indicates that on the day before they were murdered the UN employees had consultations with a militia leader and a few translators. The militia leader warned them not to travel to Bunkonde, but the translators translated the opposite. Later on, it appeared that the translators work for the Congolese secret service. The militia was infiltrated by the government, preventing militiamen leading the UN investigators to a mass grave of the government army.

    As, in Sweden in particular, the murder and controversy surrounding the investigation is a sensitive issue, I was wondering about your view.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
  31. Kate McCann (Madeleine)

    [3 May 2007]

    “Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see', almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point.”

    ---------

    This is one of the real gems from Kate's book 'of the truth'. It is richly illustrative, in its own way, as I think it demonstrates that neighbour Mrs Fenn was a thorn in the Team McCann side. The location of her apartment gave her (and her niece who spent Thursday afternoon on the balcony) and bird's eye view of the comings and goings from the various nearby apartments. She is of course reported as telling police that she heard sustained, prolonged crying coming from apartment 5A on Tuesday that fateful week. Kate in her book moves the crying incident from Tuesday to Wednesday which I presume means it is important or at least there is a need to be deceptive about which evening it was on.

    Tuesday was supposedly the evening that Gerry McCann invited the attractive aerobics instructor/quiz host to their table and there is at least one (police?) report that it was on this evening that Kate returned early to the apartment and used her mobile to contact her friend and sometimes nanny/cleaner Amanda Coxton, married to a pathologist. (Apologies if some aspects wrong here - writing from memory).

    But the point is, Tuesday appears to have been a bit of a 'hot spot' and neighbour Mrs Fenn hears something that is incriminating. Mrs Fenn reports that the crying which had escalated over a long period of time then stops abruptly when she hears the patio shutters being moved rather than getting quieter over a period of time. Which is suggestive in my opinion of a certain scenario.

    I can't really think of another reason why Kate and Fiona should have it in for Mrs Fenn. Presumably they wanted to discredit her as they wanted to discredit her testimony. They certainly didn't seem to want to hear what she had seen/heard. I'm not surprised the poor woman was so bemused by their account of what happened. And despite what Kate wrote, Mrs Fenn did offer to help by lending her mobile. This was clearly not a welcome gesture. Gerry claims that the police had already been called, but had they? It would seem that poor old Matt was sent up to reception to ask them to call police so there was a strange reluctance to use mobiles that evening to summon police it would seem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 13 January at 22:41

      Presuming that Carole Tranmer has read ‘madeleine’, I wonder what her thoughts are on the way her aunt is portrayed by Kate McCann.

      Delete
  32. Thank you for your post 22:41.

    I too think that was a very unkind account of Kate's encounter with her upstairs neighbour? Why did she, and Fiona, snap at Mrs Fenn? Why not ask if Madeleine was with her, or if she had seen Madeleine leave the apartment? I think Kate's hostility to Mrs Fenn was a pre-emptive rebuttal of any statements Mrs Fenn may have made to the police.

    ReplyDelete