UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: stephen25000 on April 06, 2016, 11:03:19 AM
-
So what has changed in the behaviour of the press since the inquiry which I believe cost in the region of £5.5. Million ?
Having reviewed this morning comments in the Guardian, it seems very little.
The irony of Gerry Mccann's statement in the light of Brenda Leyland, where the dossier was passed to the police (and clearly Sky News), by the mccanns is downright hypocrisy at it's best.
Likewise the hypocrisy of people who use the press when it suits them and cry wolf when it doesn't, never seems to end.
The mccanns have ruthlessly used the press when it suits them.
I feel for those who don't have the media clout or the money the mccanns have, and who don't have the luxury of resorting to libel trials when there privacy is impinged.
281
-
Neil Wallis @neilwallis1 32m32 minutes ago
I don't believe the McCanns had any sinister involvement - but their actions that night left Madeleine at risk
Alan Barnard @alanbarnard1
@neilwallis1 I don't understand this tweet from you - are you suggesting McCann caused the abduction? Advance apols if I have misunderstood
Neil Wallis @neilwallis1 1h1 hour ago
Breathtaking hypocrisy by #GerryMcCann to continue to attack Press Freedom yet spends fortune to PR in press abduction of child he caused
Neil Wallis @neilwallis1 2h2 hours ago
Shocking that @BBCr4today happy to be mouthpiece to HackedOff's Gerry McCann yet doesn't even pretend to get balance to refute his nonsense
Neil Wallis@neilwallis1
Yes, BBC happy to be puppets of HackedOff to recycle their self-serving anti-Free Press agenda
Neil Wallis @neilwallis1 2h2 hours ago
Astonishing that @BBCr4today teaming up with @guardian yet again to continue attacks on press by recycling self-serving Gerry McCann whinges
-
It was a chance for MPs to get their own back for the Expences Scandal and try and prevent future embarrassing stories.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/gerry-mccann-grilled-bbc-breakfasts-7698152
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/gerry-mccann-grilled-bbc-breakfasts-7698152
Thanks for that Faithlilly.
I have just read some of the mccann supporters 'comments' on twitter.
-
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Leveson and however much good the Missing People charity does the McCanns need to step down from any public roles. Innocent or not, they detract from anything they are associated with and for the good of the causes they support they should acknowledge this and shut up imo.
-
Context is everything. Remember this from Owen Jones's book The Establishment :
(Lord Bell is commenting on the ‘Hacked Off’ campaign )
‘Attempts to scrutinize the Murdoch empire were fiercely resisted by its allies in the British elite, who contrived to say they didn’t understand what the fuss was about. ‘I don’t want to know what happened to the Dowler family, and I’m very sorry, but honestly I can’t get into a state about it, says Lord Bell, Thatcher’s former advisor, chairman of PR giant Bell Pottinger, and a close ally of the Murdoch empire. He has long given Rupert Murdoch PR advice, and advised Rebekah Brooks during the phone-hacking scandal. ‘And I’m really not interested in what the McCanns think, because the McCanns paid me £ 500,000 in fees to keep them on the front page of every single newspaper for a year, which we did.’
-
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Leveson and however much good the Missing People charity does the McCanns need to step down from any public roles. Innocent or not, they detract from anything they are associated with and for the good of the causes they support they should acknowledge this and shut up imo.
The only interest the public have in the McCanns is in relation to Madeleine's welfare. It would do them both well to remember that.
-
The only interest the public have in the McCanns is in relation to Madeleine's welfare. It would do them both well to remember that.
Certain (largely out-of-touch) sections of the public.
It would do you well to remember that.
-
Neil Fissler
@neilfissler
Sports Journalist with the Sunday Express and The Rugby Paper. History hunter and Millwall fan
Neil Fissler @neilfissler 9m9 minutes ago
Not much love around for Gerry McCann. I could be very controversial but I think alot of people think the same as me.
-
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/this- ... 15626.html
The father of missing Madeleine McCann has been labelled a hypocrite after he appeared on breakfast TV to criticise the government for dragging its heels over press reforms.
Gerry McCann, whose daughter Madeleine vanished from a holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007, was quizzed on BBC breakfast earlier today after he signed his name on a letter to the Prime Minister posing questions about the Leveson inquiry.
The letter, which is also signed by other victims of press intrusion, including Christoper Jefferies, who was wrongly accused of murder, criticises the government for failing to enact promises it made over press reform.
The open letter, published in the Guardian, read: "We believe that it is not just us whom you are at risk of betraying, but Parliament, the public at large and future victims of a press industry which was condemned by Leveson for 'wreaking havoc in the lives of innocent people'.
"If your promises are not kept, history tells us that newspapers will wreak havoc again."
Mr McCann told the programme: "The Prime Minister promised us that the victims would remain at the centre of the Leveson reforms and we feel that our views have been pushed aside."
However, Mr McCann was roundly slammed on Twitter for "hypocrisy" by senior media commentators as he and his wife Kate have been accused of courting media coverage in the past.
The McCanns reportedly paid PR agency Bell Pottinger £500,000 to keep the case in the media spotlight.
mccann.jpg
Former newspaper editor Neil Wallis tweeted: "Breathtaking hypocrisy by #GerryMcCann to continue to attack Press Freedom yet spends fortune to PR in press abduction of child he caused"
While another twitter user posted: "K&G #McCann paid Bell Pottinger £500,000 to keep them on the front pages + then complained to Leveson about press intrusion."
And Jay Littlemore said: "When one wants a tin of beans one pays (500,000) for a tin of beans. How can one then complain when one gets beans? #Mccann"
Read more
The hashtag #McCann was also trending on Twitter, with people cynically criticising him for not mentioning his missing daughter.
One Twitter user wrote: "Not a mention of your missing child #mccann BBC give you a platform and not a mention...shame on you forever"
While another said: "Irony & hypocrisy all in one go. Gerry #McCann doing the rounds on TV & media, whining & moaning. Not one appeal to Maddie"
-
Happy days for McCann bashers indeed.
-
Certain (largely out-of-touch) sections of the public.
It would do you well to remember that.
In what way 'out of touch ' ?
-
Why is Gerry being criticised for not mentioning Madeleine? Was he being interviewed about her disappearance?
-
The condemnation of McCann has spread to other parts of the media.
Let's not forget the £500,000 given to a media baron Lord Bell, to keep the mccanns in the spotlight.
-
Press victims 'betrayed' by law delay
By David Sillito
Arts Correspondent
Victims of press intrusion have accused the government of breaking its promise over regulation.
The group, which includes Kate and Gerry McCann, says a delay in bringing into law a key part of the Royal Charter agreement is a "betrayal".
The change was one of the commitments made after the Leveson Inquiry into press standards and was passed by MPs.
But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration".
One of the regulations would require newspapers to pay libel costs even if they won a case brought against them, should they not have previously offered a low-cost means of resolving the claim.
Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has told newspaper editors he questions whether this legal change will be "positive" for the newspaper industry.
'Multiple promises'
The signatories to an open letter to Prime Minister David Cameron include the McCanns, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in 2007, and Christopher Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested during the investigation into the murder of Jo Yeates in Bristol in 2010.
Mr McCann says victims of the press feel very let down.
"The prime minister promised us on multiple occasions that we would be at the centre of press regulation reform and clearly that's not the case," he said.
"The people at the centre of this are the owners of the major newspapers.
"So, I think, we feel betrayed."
The letter, which the Guardian has published in full here,http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/letter-from-victims-of-press-abuse-to-david-cameron-full-text raises concerns about the lack of contact with victims when compared with the number of meetings between the prime minister and senior figures from the newspaper industry.
It also highlights reports that the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, which was scheduled to take place once the many criminal trials over phone hacking and payments to public officials had taken place, may be shelved.
'Vital public importance'
"Since this is meant to establish how lawbreaking took hold in our press, why the police failed to stop it and who was responsible, we need hardly say why this is of such vital public importance," the letter says.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was devised to punish newspapers if they forced people to use the libel courts without offering a cheaper alternative.
But if Section 40 was signed in to law, it would come in to force only if there was an officially recognised regulator.
A new regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), has been set up by the newspapers and has wider powers than previous bodies.
It represents most of Britain's main newsbrands except for the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent .
However it has not yet offered public arbitration, a cheaper alternative to the libel court, to settle disputes.
Ipso looks unlikely to ever seek recognition although a rival regulator, Impress, has applied.
Impress has about a dozen members so far and more are expected to be announced in the months to come.
Risk-free claims
It made its application for recognition in January and, if it is approved, the new law on libel costs would become active.
The papers would then face the possibility of libel actions from the public that would for the first time be effectively risk free for claimants and enormously expensive for the papers.
In a statement the Department for Culture Media and Sport said: "No decision has been taken about when to commence the cost provisions."
A spokesman added: "The criminal investigations relating to the Leveson Inquiry have not yet completed and we have always been clear that the conclusion of these cases must take place before we consider part two of the inquiry."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933
It would perhaps be useful were consideration given to exactly what it is that the signatories of the open letter to the Prime Minister are actually complaining about.
Antipathy towards the McCanns would appear to have blinded some to the fact that one of the most worthwhile conclusions of the Leveson Inquiry which offers protection to those ordinary people who in the future who may find themselves libelled by media giants has been ignored.
Surely very much in the public interest and worth reminding those politicians who have failed to deliver on their promises; if it takes an open letter to do do that, so be it.
-
Press victims 'betrayed' by law delay
By David Sillito
Arts Correspondent
Victims of press intrusion have accused the government of breaking its promise over regulation.
The group, which includes Kate and Gerry McCann, says a delay in bringing into law a key part of the Royal Charter agreement is a "betrayal".
The change was one of the commitments made after the Leveson Inquiry into press standards and was passed by MPs.
But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration".
One of the regulations would require newspapers to pay libel costs even if they won a case brought against them, should they not have previously offered a low-cost means of resolving the claim.
Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has told newspaper editors he questions whether this legal change will be "positive" for the newspaper industry.
'Multiple promises'
The signatories to an open letter to Prime Minister David Cameron include the McCanns, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in 2007, and Christopher Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested during the investigation into the murder of Jo Yeates in Bristol in 2010.
Mr McCann says victims of the press feel very let down.
"The prime minister promised us on multiple occasions that we would be at the centre of press regulation reform and clearly that's not the case," he said.
"The people at the centre of this are the owners of the major newspapers.
"So, I think, we feel betrayed."
The letter, which the Guardian has published in full here,http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/letter-from-victims-of-press-abuse-to-david-cameron-full-text raises concerns about the lack of contact with victims when compared with the number of meetings between the prime minister and senior figures from the newspaper industry.
It also highlights reports that the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, which was scheduled to take place once the many criminal trials over phone hacking and payments to public officials had taken place, may be shelved.
'Vital public importance'
"Since this is meant to establish how lawbreaking took hold in our press, why the police failed to stop it and who was responsible, we need hardly say why this is of such vital public importance," the letter says.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was devised to punish newspapers if they forced people to use the libel courts without offering a cheaper alternative.
But if Section 40 was signed in to law, it would come in to force only if there was an officially recognised regulator.
A new regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), has been set up by the newspapers and has wider powers than previous bodies.
It represents most of Britain's main newsbrands except for the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent .
However it has not yet offered public arbitration, a cheaper alternative to the libel court, to settle disputes.
Ipso looks unlikely to ever seek recognition although a rival regulator, Impress, has applied.
Impress has about a dozen members so far and more are expected to be announced in the months to come.
Risk-free claims
It made its application for recognition in January and, if it is approved, the new law on libel costs would become active.
The papers would then face the possibility of libel actions from the public that would for the first time be effectively risk free for claimants and enormously expensive for the papers.
In a statement the Department for Culture Media and Sport said: "No decision has been taken about when to commence the cost provisions."
A spokesman added: "The criminal investigations relating to the Leveson Inquiry have not yet completed and we have always been clear that the conclusion of these cases must take place before we consider part two of the inquiry."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933
It would perhaps be useful were consideration given to exactly what it is that the signatories of the open letter to the Prime Minister are actually complaining about.
Antipathy towards the McCanns would appear to have blinded some to the fact that one of the most worthwhile conclusions of the Leveson Inquiry which offers protection to those ordinary people who in the future who may find themselves libelled by media giants has been ignored.
Surely very much in the public interest and worth reminding those politicians who have failed to deliver on their promises; if it takes an open letter to do do that, so be it.
What you fail to understand it seems Brietta is the hypocrisy of the mccanns in using the press to their own end and bleating when it doesn't.
Then we have what happened to the press intrusion of Brenda Leyland.
-
What you fail to understand it seems Brietta is the hypocrisy of the mccanns in using the press to their own endsite and bleating when it doesn't.
Then we have what happened to the press intrusion of Brenda Leyland.
Do you support press regulation then, or not?
-
Do you support press regulation then, or not?
So what about Brenda Leyland, whose name was in the dossier and given BY THE MCCANNS (Hogan-Howe admitted that by the way) to the Police and sky of course ?
Didn't she deserve protection, or is your stand on this only for the mccanns ?
-
We are a democracy which elects people to a parliament to speak for us and to enact legislation for the benefit of the public good.
Sometimes the legislation passed is sometimes reasonable sometimes downright appalling dependent on one's point of view.
We are told ...
The change was one of the commitments made after the Leveson Inquiry into press standards and was passed by MPs. ...
... that seems clear enough. Our elected representatives have obviously discussed it and agreed it should be introduced into law.
So where is the problem?
It seems that in our parliamentary democracy when a majority decision has been taken ... one man can decide whether or not that decision should be implemented.
But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration".
The question arises as to why the failure to recognise that our democratic process is being impeded with impunity and all that seems to be of importance to some is to post a derogatory twitter comment about one of the whistleblowers.
Quotes from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933
-
Do you support press regulation then, or not?
I would, to some degree, but where would we be without unrestricted investigative journalism?
-
I would, to some degree, but where would we be without unrestricted investigative journalism?
Who should be prepared to be Sued, of course.
-
Press victims 'betrayed' by law delay
By David Sillito
Arts Correspondent
Victims of press intrusion have accused the government of breaking its promise over regulation.
The group, which includes Kate and Gerry McCann, says a delay in bringing into law a key part of the Royal Charter agreement is a "betrayal".
The change was one of the commitments made after the Leveson Inquiry into press standards and was passed by MPs.
But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration".
One of the regulations would require newspapers to pay libel costs even if they won a case brought against them, should they not have previously offered a low-cost means of resolving the claim.
Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has told newspaper editors he questions whether this legal change will be "positive" for the newspaper industry.
'Multiple promises'
The signatories to an open letter to Prime Minister David Cameron include the McCanns, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in 2007, and Christopher Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested during the investigation into the murder of Jo Yeates in Bristol in 2010.
Mr McCann says victims of the press feel very let down.
"The prime minister promised us on multiple occasions that we would be at the centre of press regulation reform and clearly that's not the case," he said.
"The people at the centre of this are the owners of the major newspapers.
"So, I think, we feel betrayed."
The letter, which the Guardian has published in full here,http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/letter-from-victims-of-press-abuse-to-david-cameron-full-text raises concerns about the lack of contact with victims when compared with the number of meetings between the prime minister and senior figures from the newspaper industry.
It also highlights reports that the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, which was scheduled to take place once the many criminal trials over phone hacking and payments to public officials had taken place, may be shelved.
'Vital public importance'
"Since this is meant to establish how lawbreaking took hold in our press, why the police failed to stop it and who was responsible, we need hardly say why this is of such vital public importance," the letter says.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was devised to punish newspapers if they forced people to use the libel courts without offering a cheaper alternative.
But if Section 40 was signed in to law, it would come in to force only if there was an officially recognised regulator.
A new regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), has been set up by the newspapers and has wider powers than previous bodies.
It represents most of Britain's main newsbrands except for the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent .
However it has not yet offered public arbitration, a cheaper alternative to the libel court, to settle disputes.
Ipso looks unlikely to ever seek recognition although a rival regulator, Impress, has applied.
Impress has about a dozen members so far and more are expected to be announced in the months to come.
Risk-free claims
It made its application for recognition in January and, if it is approved, the new law on libel costs would become active.
The papers would then face the possibility of libel actions from the public that would for the first time be effectively risk free for claimants and enormously expensive for the papers.
In a statement the Department for Culture Media and Sport said: "No decision has been taken about when to commence the cost provisions."
A spokesman added: "The criminal investigations relating to the Leveson Inquiry have not yet completed and we have always been clear that the conclusion of these cases must take place before we consider part two of the inquiry."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933
It would perhaps be useful were consideration given to exactly what it is that the signatories of the open letter to the Prime Minister are actually complaining about.
Antipathy towards the McCanns would appear to have blinded some to the fact that one of the most worthwhile conclusions of the Leveson Inquiry which offers protection to those ordinary people who in the future who may find themselves libelled by media giants has been ignored.
Surely very much in the public interest and worth reminding those politicians who have failed to deliver on their promises; if it takes an open letter to do do that, so be it.
As I said, if Gerry McCann cares about press regulation he needs to step out of the limelight and restrict himself to working behind the scenes. His involvement as a spokesman is not helping the cause.
-
So what about Brenda Leyland, whose name was in the dossier and given BY THE MCCANNS (Hogan-Howe admitted that by the way) to the Police and sky of course ?
Didn't she deserve protection, or is your stand on this only for the mccanns ?
Let me explain how satisfactory debate occurs on an internet forum:
Someone asks another person a question. They address the question by giving a meaningful honest answer, then pose a question back at the other person, who then gives a meaningful and honest response, and so on.
So, let's start again. Do you support press regulation or not then?
-
Who should be prepared to be Sued, of course.
Which, I think, is where we are at present.
-
As I said, if Gerry McCann cares about press regulation he needs to step out of the limelight and restrict himself to working behind the scenes. His involvement as a spokesman is not helping the cause.
I agree with that. He is too widely disliked by the general public to be a good figurehead for this particular issue. But I think he has balls putting his head above the parapet knowing it will bring forth a torrent of abuse from the press and the public alike. I would keep quiet myself.
-
Who was it who said 'No publicity is bad publicity', or something to that effect ?
-
Let me explain how satisfactory debate occurs on an internet forum:
Someone asks another person a question. They address the question by giving a meaningful honest answer, then pose a question back at the other person, who then gives a meaningful and honest response, and so on.
So, let's start again. Do you support press regulation or not then?
Let me explain to you.
You frequently don't answer questions yourself.
As to press regulation, what I want to see is that people who haven't the money or clout, to have access to the resources to challenge the press.
As to regulation, it would prevent the press investigating those who commit crimes or try to hide their dirty little secrets.
Would the Panama connection of the last few days been hidden with regulation ?
Then as to you alfred, it's all about the mccanns.
-
Press victims 'betrayed' by law delay
By David Sillito
Arts Correspondent
Victims of press intrusion have accused the government of breaking its promise over regulation.
The group, which includes Kate and Gerry McCann, says a delay in bringing into law a key part of the Royal Charter agreement is a "betrayal".
The change was one of the commitments made after the Leveson Inquiry into press standards and was passed by MPs.
But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration".
One of the regulations would require newspapers to pay libel costs even if they won a case brought against them, should they not have previously offered a low-cost means of resolving the claim.
Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has told newspaper editors he questions whether this legal change will be "positive" for the newspaper industry.
'Multiple promises'
The signatories to an open letter to Prime Minister David Cameron include the McCanns, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in 2007, and Christopher Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested during the investigation into the murder of Jo Yeates in Bristol in 2010.
Mr McCann says victims of the press feel very let down.
"The prime minister promised us on multiple occasions that we would be at the centre of press regulation reform and clearly that's not the case," he said.
"The people at the centre of this are the owners of the major newspapers.
"So, I think, we feel betrayed."
The letter, which the Guardian has published in full here,http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/letter-from-victims-of-press-abuse-to-david-cameron-full-text raises concerns about the lack of contact with victims when compared with the number of meetings between the prime minister and senior figures from the newspaper industry.
It also highlights reports that the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, which was scheduled to take place once the many criminal trials over phone hacking and payments to public officials had taken place, may be shelved.
'Vital public importance'
"Since this is meant to establish how lawbreaking took hold in our press, why the police failed to stop it and who was responsible, we need hardly say why this is of such vital public importance," the letter says.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was devised to punish newspapers if they forced people to use the libel courts without offering a cheaper alternative.
But if Section 40 was signed in to law, it would come in to force only if there was an officially recognised regulator.
A new regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), has been set up by the newspapers and has wider powers than previous bodies.
It represents most of Britain's main newsbrands except for the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent .
However it has not yet offered public arbitration, a cheaper alternative to the libel court, to settle disputes.
Ipso looks unlikely to ever seek recognition although a rival regulator, Impress, has applied.
Impress has about a dozen members so far and more are expected to be announced in the months to come.
Risk-free claims
It made its application for recognition in January and, if it is approved, the new law on libel costs would become active.
The papers would then face the possibility of libel actions from the public that would for the first time be effectively risk free for claimants and enormously expensive for the papers.
In a statement the Department for Culture Media and Sport said: "No decision has been taken about when to commence the cost provisions."
A spokesman added: "The criminal investigations relating to the Leveson Inquiry have not yet completed and we have always been clear that the conclusion of these cases must take place before we consider part two of the inquiry."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933
It would perhaps be useful were consideration given to exactly what it is that the signatories of the open letter to the Prime Minister are actually complaining about.
Antipathy towards the McCanns would appear to have blinded some to the fact that one of the most worthwhile conclusions of the Leveson Inquiry which offers protection to those ordinary people who in the future who may find themselves libelled by media giants has been ignored.
Surely very much in the public interest and worth reminding those politicians who have failed to deliver on their promises; if it takes an open letter to do do that, so be it.
Good point; try in 'ere:
http://hackinginquiry.org/mediareleases/victims-of-press-abuse-write-to-the-prime-minister-these-solemn-promises-have-not-been-kept-and-we-urge-you-to-honour-them-now/
-
Let me explain to you.
You frequently don't answer questions yourself.
As to press regulation, what I want to see is that people who haven't the money or clout, to have access to the resources to challenge the press.
As to regulation, it would prevent the press investigating those who commit crimes or try to hide their dirty little secrets.
Would the Panama connection of the last few days been hidden with regulation ?
Then as to you alfred, it's all about the mccanns.
OK, thanks. It seems you are against restricting the freedom of the press to report on whatever they want, and in whatever manner they choose to report it, or have I misrepresented your position?
Personally, I am in favour of complete freedom of the press, no ifs no buts, however I do believe that the press should be held to account for printing inaccurate articles, especially those that harm private individuals. I disagree with Gerry McCann that media institutions should have to foot the bill for ALL legal actions brought against them whether they win or lose, as that would only open the floodgates to a load of lawsuits which would only serve to enrich lawyers at the expense of the free press.
-
I agree with that. He is too widely disliked by the general public to be a good figurehead for this particular issue. But I think he has balls putting his head above the parapet knowing it will bring forth a torrent of abuse from the press and the public alike. I would keep quiet myself.
I'm wondering if they do know how disliked they are. Perhaps no-one has told them? Whatever, they can now add a few newspaper proprietors to the list. Not a wise move imo. Courageous or out of touch?
-
..and what of Brenda Leyland alfred ?
We know who gave her name and others to the police and hence the press.
-
I'm wondering if they do know how disliked they are. Perhaps no-one has told them? Whatever, they can now add a few newspaper proprietors to the list. Not a wise move imo. Courageous or out of touch?
I should think they are under no illusions about their lack of popularity amongst the gobbier section of the press and the public. It would probably bother me knowing I was hated by thousands, but perhaps after 9 years of it they have grown tough carapaces.
-
What you fail to understand it seems Brietta is the hypocrisy of the mccanns in using the press to their own end and bleating when it doesn't.
Then we have what happened to the press intrusion of Brenda Leyland.
Section 40 which has not been implemented by our parliament would assist people like Brenda Leyland to take action against media which they consider may have printed libellous statements about them without financial risk to themselves.
An ordinary person could never afford to take out a case against the Murdoch Empire as the law stands ... when the Leveson recommendations are implemented that will level the playing field somewhat.
Press intrusion happens to ordinary people who at the moment very often have to grin and bear it - that is what the news is about - I think that is a far more important message to take on board than criticising an individual involved in highlighting the situation.
-
..and what of Brenda Leyland alfred ?
We know who gave her name and others to the police and hence the press.
Brenda chose to get involved and post some vile posts
-
Brenda chose to get involved and post some vile posts
She committed no crimes davel.
Never forget that.
-
Section 40 which has not been implemented by our parliament would assist people like Brenda Leyland to take action against media which they consider may have printed libellous statements about them without financial risk to themselves.
An ordinary person could never afford to take out a case against the Murdoch Empire as the law stands ... when the Leveson recommendations are implemented that will level the playing field somewhat.
Press intrusion happens to ordinary people who at the moment very often have to grin and bear it - that is what the news is about - I think that is a far more important message to take on board than criticising an individual involved in highlighting the situation.
So what help did she get after the mccanns passed the dossier to the police and press.
Bottom line, the mccanns are hypocrites.
-
She committed no crimes davel.
Never forget that.
she was never judged by a court
-
Reluctantly, I have to agree with A Free Press. But it should be far more easy for Victims to Sue. And there should not be a torrent of abuse if and when they do.
There has been far to many incidents of clearly innocent people whose names have been dragged through the mud, and yet more misery heaped upon them.
The McCanns eventually sued because there was no help from any regulatory body. But would undoubtedly have got very much more if they hadn't settled out of court.
-
..and what of Brenda Leyland alfred ?
We know who gave her name and others to the police and hence the press.
What of her? Do we? Are you against press intrusion into private individuals? Should door-stepping be outlawed? Or only when it's directed at people you approve of? Should people who go to the police or the press about suspected criminal activity by others be arrested and prosecuted themselves if it turns out they were mistaken? What's your position on press regulation and how it might have saved Brenda Leyland?
My position is - Sky did nothing wrong with regard Brenda, and nor did whoever handed them a dossier of hateful online activity. It was simply unfortunate that she wasn't able to handle the shame brought about by her own online activity.
-
Section 40 which has not been implemented by our parliament would assist people like Brenda Leyland to take action against media which they consider may have printed libellous statements about them without financial risk to themselves.
An ordinary person could never afford to take out a case against the Murdoch Empire as the law stands ... when the Leveson recommendations are implemented that will level the playing field somewhat.
Press intrusion happens to ordinary people who at the moment very often have to grin and bear it - that is what the news is about - I think that is a far more important message to take on board than criticising an individual involved in highlighting the situation.
Only if the publisher has signed up. There is an option to not sign up and take an exemplary hit which is the cause of some debate vis a vis is it legal and should status rather than conduct be the prime mover in this instance.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldcomuni/135/13507.htm
-
What of her? Do we? Are you against press intrusion into private individuals? Should door-stepping be outlawed? Or only when it's directed at people you approve of? Should people who go to the police or the press about suspected criminal activity by others be arrested and prosecuted themselves if it turns out they were mistaken? What's your position on press regulation and how it might have saved Brenda Leyland?
My position is - Sky did nothing wrong with regard Brenda, and nor did whoever handed them a dossier of hateful online activity. It was simply unfortunate that she wasn't able to handle the shame brought about by her own online activity.
Skype and the dossier compilers took the law into their own hands.
Sky in the former of brunt stated she had committed crimes.
She hadn't.
Likewise, unlike the mccanns she had no legal backup.
and the dossier compilers hid behind anonymity.
-
So what help did she get after the mccanns passed the dossier to the police and press.
Bottom line, the mccanns are hypocrites.
Could you explain how and why the McCanns are hypocrites in regard to press intrusion and Brenda Leyland please, with evidence to back up your assertions thanks.
-
I would, to some degree, but where would we be without unrestricted investigative journalism?
Unfortunately whenever journalists do dig any deeper than the press releases liberally handed out by Mr Mitchell the McCanns and their associates never come out of it particularly well. Lest we forget the Daily Mail article on the non-investigation of the Barcelona sighting, the Mike Hollingsworth article on the PIs, the Mail article on the investigation helplines, the Times article on the efits etc, etc, etc.
-
Skype and the dossier compilers took the law into their own hands.
Sky in the former of brunt stated she had committed crimes.
She hadn't.
Likewise, unlike the mccanns she had no legal backup.
So how would you like the law to be changed in order to help people in similar situations in future?
Say in future a Mr X is suspected of sending hateful tweets to a high profile person and is doorstepped by Sky who then broadcast the encounter - how would you like Mr X to be protected from such an intrusion?
-
Could you explain how and why the McCanns are hypocrites in regard to press intrusion and Brenda Leyland please, with evidence to back up your assertions thanks.
You have to be kidding ?
The mccanns have used the press to their own ends.
They paid £500,000 to keep them in the news.
Their crocodile tears don'the wash with me or others.
-
So what help did she get after the mccanns passed the dossier to the police and press.
Bottom line, the mccanns are hypocrites.
Please provide a cite for the McCanns passing the dossier to the police and press.
Don't you think it a matter of some slight interest ... nay even of some importance that something ...
"passed by MPs.
But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933
What is he considering? as far as I can see it is how to ignore the democratic process.
In this he seems to have plenty of support in twitterland et al ... which must surely come in handy while ignoring or introducing the legislation of choice ... supported of course by those who have enjoyed a certain teflon coating which protects from those who cannot afford to do much about it.
-
So how would you like the law to be changed in order to help people in similar situations in future?
Say in future a Mr X is suspected of sending hateful tweets to a high profile person and is doorstepped by Sky who then broadcast the encounter - how would you like Mr X to be protected from such an intrusion?
Why not leave the police to deal with the matter ?
-
You have to be kidding ?
The mccanns have used the press to their own ends.
They paid £500,000 to keep them in the news.
Their crocodile tears don'the wash with me or others.
So your position seems to be that if you choose to use the media to highlight your daughter's disappearance then you must accept it lying down when the media will try its best to destroy your reputation and subject you to a string of innacurate and innuendo-laden articles. Correct?
-
Please provide a cite for the McCanns passing the dossier to the police and press.
Don't you think it a matter of some slight interest ... nay even of some importance that something ...
"passed by MPs.
But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933
What is he considering? as far as I can see it is how to ignore the democratic process.
In this he seems to have plenty of support in twitterland et al ... which must surely come in handy while ignoring or introducing the legislation of choice ... supported of course by those who have enjoyed a certain teflon coating which protects from those who cannot afford to do much about it.
Bernard Hogan-Howe Brietta.
This has been done all before.
Don't you remember ?
-
Why not leave the police to deal with the matter ?
You are avoiding the question. What should be in place to prevent the media from doorstepping Mr X if that is what they decide they want to do?
-
You are avoiding the question. What should be in place to prevent the media from doorstepping Mr X if that is what they decide they want to do?
You expect me to give an easy answer to that. I can't.
So why was the dossier passed to sky ?
Why not just the police ?
-
You expect me to give an easy answer to that. I can't.
So why was the dossier passed to sky ?
Why not just the police ?
Perhaps because the dossier contained nothing illegal ?
Can someone clarify if Gerry was asked about Madeleine in any of his interviews this morning ?
-
Brenda Leyland and Press Intrusion is hardly the same thing. She put herself and her opinions, often Libellous, all over Social Media.
It was ultimately a very sad thing. I live alone, and have briefly engaged on Twitter, but I have never had any desire to to heap abuse on anyone.
Brenda needed help, at a time when she couldn't even engage with her own family, and had long established Mental Health Issues. I felt briefly sad because I would have talked to her had I known, no matter what her opinions were.
I don't much care what any of you think. But it doesn't mean that I don't like any of you, or wouldn't listen if you seriously wanted to talk about why you feel the way that you do. Or even discuss why I feel the way in which I do.
This Forum is some sort of ghastly family, which is why we are all here. And for why John is so kind to all of you. And believe me, I know that he is, although he has never told me so.
Sometimes some of you use your superior intellect to put people down, and why not? But sometimes some of you go a bit too far. Please try to be a bit more kind. We aren't all verbal experts. Least of me.
This Forum is the best that any of you are going to get. Please help to keep it so.
-
Please provide a cite for the McCanns passing the dossier to the police and press.
Don't you think it a matter of some slight interest ... nay even of some importance that something ...
"passed by MPs.
But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933
What is he considering? as far as I can see it is how to ignore the democratic process.
In this he seems to have plenty of support in twitterland et al ... which must surely come in handy while ignoring or introducing the legislation of choice ... supported of course by those who have enjoyed a certain teflon coating which protects from those who cannot afford to do much about it.
Maybe he is ensuring it passes the LBJ test for legislation.
-
Brenda Leyland and Press Intrusion is hardly the same thing. She put herself and her opinions, often Libellous, all over Social Media.
It was ultimately a very sad thing. I live alone, and have briefly engaged on Twitter, but I have never had any desire to to heap abuse on anyone.
Brenda needed help, at a time when she couldn't even engage with her own family, and had long established Mental Health Issues. I felt briefly sad because I would have talked to her had I known, no matter what her opinions were.
I don't much care what any of you think. But it doesn't mean that I don't like any of you, or wouldn't listen if you seriously wanted to talk about why you feel the way that you do. Or even discuss why I feel the way in which I do.
This Forum is some sort of ghastly family, which is why we are all here. And for why John is so kind to all of you. And believe me, I know that he is, although he has never told me so.
Sometimes some of you use your superior intellect to put people down, and why not? But sometimes some of you go a bit too far. Please try to be a bit more kind. We aren't all verbal experts. Least of me.
This Forum is the best that any of you are going to get. Please help to keep it so.
And I believe that in 'real life' you are the sort of person one could come to for a comforting chat Eleanor. It's a pity you don't display that warmth more here.
-
And I believe that in 'real life' you are the sort of person one could come to for a comforting chat Eleanor. It's a pity you don't display that warmth more here.
Thank you, Faithlilly. Your thoughts are much appreciated. But I am a Moderator, whether you like it or not. I cannot afford to give quarter to any of you. Let alone warmth.
Do you think I don't know when you personally are winding me up?
Sad to say, I occasionally bite. That's about as human as I am ever going to get. Be thankful that I don't afford the same warmth to those with whom I agree.
-
I agree with that. He is too widely disliked by the general public to be a good figurehead for this particular issue. But I think he has balls putting his head above the parapet knowing it will bring forth a torrent of abuse from the press and the public alike. I would keep quiet myself.
do you honestly believe that ...................he is far too self centred ....don't forget its about them the mccs ....and what they go through....
not maddie ...he has shown that over and over again it wont even cross his mind ...he is disliked ....or he would never say the arrogant things he has
-
You have to be kidding ?
The mccanns have used the press to their own ends.
They paid £500,000 to keep them in the news.
Their crocodile tears don'the wash with me or others.
EXACTLY ...... 8((()*/
Even when they mention her name from time to time it is only to tell of there own suffering their own suffering.
they are a disgrace...........even now its about ...us .us us............
-
EXACTLY ...... 8((()*/
Even when they mention her name from time to time it is only to tell of there own suffering their own suffering.
they are a disgrace...........even now its about ...us .us us............
How very sad that you can't see how painful it is for The McCanns.
I know by now that you are very emotional about this, but I don't know why. Could you give some indication?
-
There is an excellent analysis of Gerry McCann by Rosalinda Hutton today of his appearance in response to Leveson.
I will provide the link later, but it is easily found by typing her name on google.
-
How very sad that you can't see how painful it is for The McCanns.
I know by now that you are very emotional about this, but I don't know why. Could you give some indication?
Eleanor ..................because i don't believe maddie was abducted ....i care more for the pain of maddie
-
Bernard Hogan-Howe Brietta.
This has been done all before.
Don't you remember ?
That is not a cite, Stephen. A cite is something which can be used to verify a statement. You keep reiterating a statement so should be easy enough to allow the rest of us to see your source.
-
That is not a cite, Stephen. A cite is something which can be used to verify a statement. You keep reiterating a statement so should be easy enough to allow the rest of us to see your source.
I have done it before on numerous times.
It is also on a radio interview which at the time I posted and someone accused me of posting a 'doctored' interview. &%+((£
-
I have done it before on numerous times.
It is also on a radio interview which at the time I posted and someone accused me of posting a 'doctored' interview. &%+((£
Please provide a cite to back up your claim or withdraw it.
-
There is an excellent analysis of Gerry McCann by Rosalinda Hutton today of his appearance in response to Leveson.
I will provide the link later, but it is easily found by typing her name on google.
perhaps Alfred should have a read ...certainly ..disillusion him that g mcc has balls...oops ...well the term he used i mean...
is it this one
http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/
-
Eleanor ..................because i don't believe maddie was abducted ....i care more for the pain of maddie
So you believe that Madeleine was in some way demised at the hands of her parents. Why would you believe that when there is no evidence?
Why would you believe that The Media has some right to suggest this?
I do so understand your defence of The PJ. And might even admire you for doing so. But The Media has no right to foreguess this.
-
So you believe that Madeleine was in some way demised at the hands of her parents. Why would you believe that when there is no evidence?
Why would you believe that The Media has some right to suggest this?
I do so understand your defence of The PJ. And might even admire you for doing so. But The Media has no right to foreguess this.
Are you suggesting that the press shouldn't question the McCann's behaviour and should only report McCann-favourable articles?
-
Are you suggesting that the press shouldn't question the McCann's behaviour and should only report McCann-favourable articles?
The press are at liberty to pose legitimate questions and are presently engaged in doing so regarding the Prime Minister's late father and how the PM himself may have benefited from tax evasion in his inheritance.
The press intrusion regarding the McCanns was illegitimate and libellous. I am surprised you appear to condone the lies and pejorative innuendo they were forced to suffer as a result.
-
The press are at liberty to pose legitimate questions and are presently engaged in doing so regarding the Prime Minister's late father and how the PM himself may have benefited from tax evasion in his inheritance.
The press intrusion regarding the McCanns was illegitimate and libellous. I am surprised you appear to condone the lies and pejorative innuendo they were forced to suffer as a result.
Misinterpretation again. It is not my concern what the media write about anyone - other than myself, of course.
-
How very sad that you can't see how painful it is for The McCanns.
I know by now that you are very emotional about this, but I don't know why. Could you give some indication?
Is there anyone who is unaware of the McCann's pain? I recommend reading the foreword to her book, the pain is well documented. A lot of it being caused by other people being less than sympathetic, it seems.
ordeal
great distress
crimes against our family
pain
injustices
criticism
suffering terribly
despair
i
-
Are you suggesting that the press shouldn't question the McCann's behaviour and should only report McCann-favourable articles?
Yes, I am. The Press have no right to suggest anything, in the absence of any proof. Who the hell do you think these persons are?
This is not The Law of my land, and never will be. They will never be allowed to get away with this.
-
The press are at liberty to pose legitimate questions and are presently engaged in doing so regarding the Prime Minister's late father and how the PM himself may have benefited from tax evasion in his inheritance.
The press intrusion regarding the McCanns was illegitimate and libellous. I am surprised you appear to condone the lies and pejorative innuendo they were forced to suffer as a result.
I'm surprised you're surprised (given the poster you are replying to).
All part of the onerous responsibility that comes with being a moderator and having to exercise tact and restraint, I guess ....
You are doing a splendid job, by the way.
Congratulations on your appointment ....
-
Yes, I am. The Press have no right to suggest anything, in the absence of any proof. Who the hell do you think these persons are?
This is not The Law of my land, and never will be. They will never be allowed to get away with this.
The media has every right. If they fall foul of the law, then that is their problem.
-
The media has every right. If they fall foul of the law, then that is their problem.
Which they have done. Of course.
-
The press are at liberty to pose legitimate questions and are presently engaged in doing so regarding the Prime Minister's late father and how the PM himself may have benefited from tax evasion in his inheritance.
The press intrusion regarding the McCanns was illegitimate and libellous. I am surprised you appear to condone the lies and pejorative innuendo they were forced to suffer as a result.
Steady on; although there is no libel of the dead. I suspect what Cameron senior did was Tax Avoidance.
-
Is there anyone who is unaware of the McCann's pain? I recommend reading the foreword to her book, the pain is well documented. A lot of it being caused by other people being less than sympathetic, it seems.
ordeal
great distress
crimes against our family
pain
injustices
criticism
suffering terribly
despair
i
A pretty modest list.
To first lose your daughter, then be accused of murdering her, when (in reality) you have no clue of her fate is a trying ordeal (to say the least of it).
But then to be mocked while enduring these things adds to the pain and anguish ...
-
Steady on; although there is no libel of the dead. I suspect what Cameron senior did was Tax Avoidance.
Tax avoidance is legal
Tax evasion is not.
-
Misinterpretation again. It is not my concern what the media write about anyone - other than myself, of course.
If the media should libel you at some time in the future the government inaction which the signatories to the open letter are highlighting, will prevent you accessing the low-cost justice that Leveson intended and as agreed by all parties in the Commons.
Rather than some individuals working themselves into a lather about Gerry McCann's involvement in exposing alleged political duplicity ... they should perhaps be giving a passing thought to the events which have led to the necessity for doing so.
-
Tax avoidance is legal
Tax evasion is not.
You don't say.
I never knew that.
Next contestant Charon; University of Life; specialist subject stating the bleedin' obvious.
-
You don't say.
I never knew that.
Next contestant Charon; University of Life; specialist subject stating the bleedin' obvious.
You could try assaying something pertinent.
-
Steady on; although there is no libel of the dead. I suspect what Cameron senior did was Tax Avoidance.
LOL there is no suggestion that the PM's father did anything illegal by his use of tax avoidance; however just a bit of embarrassment must have been caused (or perhaps not) when he apparently has benefited from a practice he once seemed to deplore.
**snip
The prime minister has prided himself on leading a global crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion, but the leak of millions of pages of files from the Panamanian agent Mossack Fonseca has put him on the back foot.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d9d9910-fb3a-11e5-b3f6-11d5706b613b.html#axzz453tfLFAX
-
So you believe that Madeleine was in some way demised at the hands of her parents. Why would you believe that when there is no evidence?
Why would you believe that The Media has some right to suggest this?
I do so understand your defence of The PJ. And might even admire you for doing so. But The Media has no right to foreguess this.
So you believe that Madeleine was in some way demised at the hands of her parents. Why would you believe that when there is no evidence?
yes...... i do......... .either way ....the responsibility was theres..the choice was theirs...
they have never accepted that for some reason ....they just go on destroying peoples lives ....
because they expect everyone to pay for what they did in the first place...
i know you can say they are paying for it now ...but are they .....what exactly are they paying for ....
look at this pic ....is it a check for the lottery or what ....that would have had most people on there knees
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X2fGIo3JAi8/Tucx8kVAjbI/AAAAAAAAITw/DB0g6IMKHk8/s1600/gerry_kate+-tshirt.jpg
as for evidence ........there is nothing to show either ...you are right ...or i am wrong....
-
Is there anyone who is unaware of the McCann's pain? I recommend reading the foreword to her book, the pain is well documented. A lot of it being caused by other people being less than sympathetic, it seems.
ordeal
great distress
crimes against our family
pain
injustices
criticism
suffering terribly
despair
i
spot on G-Unit
the i at the bottom .........could mean. i........... myself ..........and me
nothing much was mentioned about maddie's plight .............anyway.......or ever has been
-
So you believe that Madeleine was in some way demised at the hands of her parents. Why would you believe that when there is no evidence?
yes...... i do......... .either way ....the responsibility was theres..the choice was theirs...
they have never accepted that for some reason ....they just go on destroying peoples lives ....
because they expect everyone to pay for what they did in the first place...
i know you can say they are paying for it now ...but are they .....what exactly are they paying for ....
look at this pic ....is it a check for the lottery or what ....that would have had most people on there knees
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X2fGIo3JAi8/Tucx8kVAjbI/AAAAAAAAITw/DB0g6IMKHk8/s1600/gerry_kate+-tshirt.jpg
as for evidence ........there is nothing to show either ...you are right ...or i am wrong....
You have become a bit more incandescent as time goes by. And I really feel for you. Your posts are becoming just too much.
Was there never any fault of Goncalo Amaral?
-
So your position seems to be that if you choose to use the media to highlight your daughter's disappearance then you must accept it lying down when the media will try its best to destroy your reputation and subject you to a string of innacurate and innuendo-laden articles. Correct?
If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.
-
You could try assaying something pertinent.
If you look a few posts up you will find I did re Brietta referring to Cameron Srs tax evasion when it should have read avoidance..
-
LOL there is no suggestion that the PM's father did anything illegal by his use of tax avoidance; however just a bit of embarrassment must have been caused (or perhaps not) when he apparently has benefited from a practice he once seemed to deplore.
**snip
The prime minister has prided himself on leading a global crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion, but the leak of millions of pages of files from the Panamanian agent Mossack Fonseca has put him on the back foot.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d9d9910-fb3a-11e5-b3f6-11d5706b613b.html#axzz453tfLFAX
Jimmy Carr must be laughing his socks off.
I have no problem with tax avoidance as it is enshrined in EU law that an individual is entitled to pay as little tax as is legally allowable.
-
Jimmy Carr must be laughing his socks off.
I have no problem with tax avoidance as it is enshrined in EU law that an individual is entitled to pay as little tax as is legally allowable.
It becomes a slight problem for one who is on record decrying it when it is revealed he may have benefited directly from an inheritance from an assiduous expert when it came to tax avoidance.
However, I think we should probably go back to discussing the topic of the thread now. Leveson.
-
So you believe that Madeleine was in some way demised at the hands of her parents. Why would you believe that when there is no evidence?
yes...... i do......... .either way ....the responsibility was theres..the choice was theirs...
they have never accepted that for some reason ....they just go on destroying peoples lives ....
because they expect everyone to pay for what they did in the first place...
i know you can say they are paying for it now ...but are they .....what exactly are they paying for ....
look at this pic ....is it a check for the lottery or what ....that would have had most people on there knees
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X2fGIo3JAi8/Tucx8kVAjbI/AAAAAAAAITw/DB0g6IMKHk8/s1600/gerry_kate+-tshirt.jpg
as for evidence ........there is nothing to show either ...you are right ...or i am wrong....
To say the McCanns " just go on destroying people's lives" seems a tad melodramatic to me and possibly libellous.
I am interested to know if a statement like this is allowed on this forum.
-
Is there anyone who is unaware of the McCann's pain? I recommend reading the foreword to her book, the pain is well documented. A lot of it being caused by other people being less than sympathetic, it seems.
ordeal
great distress
crimes against our family
pain
injustices
criticism
suffering terribly
despair
i
"I see your pain, and I sneer at it".
-
If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.
*Cliché Klaxon*
I take it from this response that, had you been in the McCanns shoes (which of course I concede you never would have been, owing to your no doubt superlative parenting skills and complete inability to take your eyes off your children for a second, but please try and use your imagination if you can) that you would not use the media to help highlight the fact that your child was missing. Or if you did do so that you would think it fair play when they character assassinated you day in, day out, and wouldn't care a jot as your reputation means little or nothing to you. Am I right?
-
Does anyone have a clue as to why Gerry seems to have decided that being the vanguard of this movement was wise at this point in time?
Likewise, does anyone understand IF or WHY these complainants might choose to pick Gerry as the lead?
Was this idea discussed within ... Team McCann ... the Leveson group?
Serious question. It looks like a McCann own goal to me, and I'm less interested in Gerry's riñones than what was going through the space between his temples. What was he thinking?
-
Does anyone have a clue as to why Gerry seems to have decided that being the vanguard of this movement was wise at this point in time?
Likewise, does anyone understand IF or WHY these complainants might choose to pick Gerry as the lead?
Was this idea discussed within ... Team McCann ... the Leveson group?
Serious question. It looks like a McCann own goal to me, and I'm less interested in Gerry's riñones than what was going through the space between his temples. What was he thinking?
There have been comments on other forums about his invisibility. Perhaps this was his way of demonstrating that he is still around.
-
There have been comments on other forums about his invisibility. Perhaps this was his way of demonstrating that he is still around.
Yes, Faithlilly was lamenting this very thing on this forum only yesterday. Today must be like Christmas for her and all Gerry's other anti-fans.
-
Gerry McCann said 'us' in his reply, this isn't just about the McCann's.
Sorry new link -
http://snewsi.com/id/16230093303/Victims-of-press-intrusion-deserve-better-than-a-return-to-the-status-quo
-
Yes, Faithlilly was lamenting this very thing on this forum only yesterday. Today must be like Christmas for her and all Gerry's other anti-fans.
Look on the bright side, with all the bile directed at Gerry today at least it is a respite for Kate. It is normally all directed at her.
-
Look on the bright side, with all the bile directed at Gerry today at least it is a respite for Kate. It is normally all directed at her.
Why all the bile though, he wasn't just speaking for himself.
I even read someone posted why didn't he appeal for Madeleine??? WHAT!! he was speaking about the Leveson inquiry, why would he suddenly give an appeal for Madeleine? The mind boggles.
Also I read someone saying 'he brought it on himself' what a nasty thing to say, bringing the disappearance of his child into the argument, that really is as low as it gets.
-
I also should have added to my post that many have said the McCann's are so important they have had the Government running around in circles for them and important people helping them, well here you can see that is all a load of rubbish.
-
Politicians make lots of promises. They seldom follow through and deliver.
-
Why all the bile though, he wasn't just speaking for himself.
I even read someone posted why didn't he appeal for Madeleine??? WHAT!! he was speaking about the Leveson inquiry, why would he suddenly give an appeal for Madeleine? The mind boggles.
Also I read someone saying 'he brought it on himself' what a nasty thing to say, bringing the disappearance of his child into the argument, that really is as low as it gets.
I've no explanation for the bile and yes he was speaking for others. Reading much of the nastiness just endorses my opinion that there is a seriously unpleasant streak in today's society. Perhaps it has always been so but folk nowadays feel more entitled to voice their unpleasant opinions.
If he had mentioned Madeleine he would have criticized for that. I believe the opinion that " he brought it in himself" has been touted on a few internet sites.
-
Please provide a cite to back up your claim or withdraw it.
Are you giving me orders brietta ?
When I first bought up this subject and provided a cite I was accused of posting a doctored recording. Do you perchance remember that ?
Now here is the cite for the recording and the link, though the program is no longer available
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p02789bx
However, if this helps............
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbp53fvtL3Y
handed to him by the family.....................
-
I see the Liverpool Echo has now added to the 'debate'.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/wheres-maddie-appeal-ask-viewers-11147204
-
*Cliché Klaxon*
I take it from this response that, had you been in the McCanns shoes (which of course I concede you never would have been, owing to your no doubt superlative parenting skills and complete inability to take your eyes off your children for a second, but please try and use your imagination if you can) that you would not use the media to help highlight the fact that your child was missing. Or if you did do so that you would think it fair play when they character assassinated you day in, day out, and wouldn't care a jot as your reputation means little or nothing to you. Am I right?
You would have to be fairly naive to believe the media would be loyal to your cause.
-
Politicians make lots of promises. They seldom follow through and deliver.
As the late Shah of Persia found out with Margaret Thatcher.
-
Oh. Only in your humble opinion? So not of any importance then.
No more than yours, but mine is shared by others....
-
No more than yours, but mine is shared by others....
Eleanor's not alone. There must be, oh, half a dozen who agree with her. @)(++(*
-
Eleanor's not alone. There must be, oh, half a dozen who agree with her. @)(++(*
I wonder who they may be ....... &%+((£
-
No more than yours, but mine is shared by others....
You think mine aren't? And more so. It's all about plain common sense in the end.
-
Politicians make lots of promises. They seldom follow through and deliver.
Not when it has been thrashed out and a cross party agreement reached in which the government by force of numbers if nothing else must have acquiesced.
**Snip
A system of exemplary damages directed at newspapers that refuse to comply with the new regulatory structure was part of a late-night cross-party agreement made in 2013 ahead of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The victims have urged Cameron and the culture secretary John Whittingdale to impose the financial sanctions contained section 40 of the act.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/david-cameron-press-victims-gerry-kate-mccann
-
A couple points on this appearance.
1. Gerry's claim about a 'promise.'
The Prime Minister can 'promise' to take into account a particular viewpoint -- but in the legislative process, that is a drop in the ocean. The PM is lobbied by a range of interest groups and individuals. He takes advice from the civil service. From ministers. From political strategists. Legislation -- even then -- must survive press, parliamentary and judicial scrutiny. And in any case, judicial reviews are not binding -- they are recommendations. Respected yes, -- and led by able, intelligent people on the whole -- but not binding. For Gerry to start using terms such as 'betrayed' is naive at best. It also is an undemocratic perspective. At the last election, David Cameron was quite clear that Leveson would not be implemented. His party won a parliamentary majority. The party that backed Leveson (Labour) lost 24 seats. Worth reading this for a brief overview of our nation's history re: press freedom too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press#Great_Britain
2. Gerry being the spokesperson for Hacked Off.
Three points. 1) Clarence Mitchell is a paid PR man. Paid by the McCanns to promote their agenda in the press -- in essence. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/18/madeleine-mccann-family-spokesman-launches-pr-agency) 2) According to today's Standard: 'The McCanns reportedly paid PR agency Bell Pottinger £500,000 to keep the case in the media spotlight.' 3) The McCanns have been paid for puff pieces in the press such as 'I couldn't make love to Gerry' (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3571775/Kate-McCann-I-couldnt-make-love-to-Gerry.html).
These three facts show that Gerry is not simply a 'passive' participant in the mainstream media. As such, maybe the interviews should have been left to Christopher Jeffries -- who hasn't attempted to steer the media to meet his 'objectives.' Good luck to Hacked Off in attempting to bring about a better regulatory framework for the media, but maybe Gerry should take a break until he has sacked Clarence Mitchell.
-
"I see your pain, and I sneer at it".
I see your complaints and they sound very self-pitying.
-
Not when it has been thrashed out and a cross party agreement reached in which the government by force of numbers if nothing else must have acquiesced.
**Snip
A system of exemplary damages directed at newspapers that refuse to comply with the new regulatory structure was part of a late-night cross-party agreement made in 2013 ahead of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The victims have urged Cameron and the culture secretary John Whittingdale to impose the financial sanctions contained section 40 of the act.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/david-cameron-press-victims-gerry-kate-mccann
Different government now.
-
Eleanor's not alone. There must be, oh, half a dozen who agree with her. @)(++(*
While you share the views of the world in general? Very strange that The Judiciary don't agree with you. Perhaps there are only half a dozen of them.
-
A couple points on this appearance.
1. Gerry's claim about a 'promise.'
The Prime Minister can 'promise' to take into account a particular viewpoint -- but in the legislative process, that is a drop in the ocean. The PM is lobbied by a range of interest groups and individuals. He takes advice from the civil service. From ministers. From political strategists. Legislation -- even then -- must survive press, parliamentary and judicial scrutiny. And in any case, judicial reviews are not binding -- they are recommendations. Respected yes, -- and led by able, intelligent people on the whole -- but not binding. For Gerry to start using terms such as 'betrayed' is naive at best. It also is an undemocratic perspective. At the last election, David Cameron was quite clear that Leveson would not be implemented. His party won a parliamentary majority. The party that backed Leveson (Labour) lost 24 seats. Worth reading this for a brief overview of our nation's history re: press freedom too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press#Great_Britain
2. Gerry being the spokesperson for Hacked Off.
Three points. 1) Clarence Mitchell is a paid PR man. Paid by the McCanns to promote their agenda in the press -- in essence. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/18/madeleine-mccann-family-spokesman-launches-pr-agency) 2) According to today's Standard: 'The McCanns reportedly paid PR agency Bell Pottinger £500,000 to keep the case in the media spotlight.' 3) The McCanns have been paid for puff pieces in the press such as 'I couldn't make love to Gerry' (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3571775/Kate-McCann-I-couldnt-make-love-to-Gerry.html).
These three facts show that Gerry is not simply a 'passive' participant in the mainstream media. As such, maybe the interviews should have been left to Christopher Jeffries -- who hasn't attempted to steer the media to meet his 'objectives.' Good luck to Hacked Off in attempting to bring about a better regulatory framework for the media, but maybe Gerry should take a break until he has sacked Clarence Mitchell.
8((()*/
-
I wonder who they may be ....... &%+((£
The Judicial World. The people who matter.
-
You think mine aren't? And more so. It's all about plain common sense in the end.
The perception of mccann being arrogant is widely held and the ex-editor of the News of the World, Neil Wallis, in repsonse to mccanns appearance, nailed it.
Likewise he highlighted gerry mccanns hypocrisy.
-
The Judicial World. The people who matter.
Not in the slightest.
Just members of the public, no matter their airs and graces.
-
mccann as per usual, was doing the big I am.
IMHO of course.
Or maybe he was asked to be Spokesperson?
-
The perception of mccann being arrogant is widely held and the ex-editor of the News of the World, Neil Wallis, in repsonse to mccanns appearance, nailed it.
Likewise he highlighted gerry mccanns hypocrisy.
Only in your little world, everyone it appears who work and live near Gerry McCann say he is a lovely, respected person.
So maybe your Psychology of the man is wrong.
-
Or maybe he was asked to be Spokesperson?
More like someone asked for volunteers and every one else took one step backwards. 8(0(*
-
Only in your little world, everyone it appears who work and live near Gerry McCann say he is a lovely, respected person.
So maybe your Psychology of the man is wrong.
How would you know that ?
Can you provide a cite where people, and not just one person says that ?
-
Probably a poll of two, conducted by Kate .
-
What a patronizing little alfred we are.
Who are you to say what is an honest answer.
I don't support mccann or his wife for reasons I have made very clear, and what is very apparent today from his interference, is that more people know him for exactly what he is.
It is also apparent that recently more people in the media have made their feelings known on the mccanns, as the ex-editor of the NOTW did this morning.
So your answer was not honest then? Most puzzling...
-
Probably a poll of two, conducted by Kate .
8((()*/ 8)--)) 8)--))
-
What do you mean interfering? David Cameron made a promise to these people, Gerry McCann was voicing what they all think.
Ex editor of the NOTW, sour grapes.
Yes, didn't he lose his job as a result of issues raised by Leveson? I forget the details now...
-
8((()*/
Seconded. 8((()*/ 8((()*/
-
You would have to be fairly naive to believe the media would be loyal to your cause.
I wouldn't expect loyalty, but nor would I expect them to gleefully trash my reputation and print lies about me as they did with McCann and Jeffries.
-
How would you know that ?
Can you provide a cite where people, and not just one person says that ?
I'm fed up giving you cites you ask for the same ones over and over, search for yourself start with the hospital he works in.
-
More like someone asked for volunteers and every one else took one step backwards. 8(0(*
It was rather like volunteering to be "The Bulldog".
"All but one of the players would start at one end of the pitch, the lone "bulldog" would stand in the middle of the pitch (the bulldog either volunteered because he was a nutter or was forced to do it by the rest of the players)".
-
Probably a poll of two, conducted by Kate .
What about the Dowlers and Jeffries?
You know your dislike of the McCann's really shows up with the immature comments you make.
-
I'm fed up giving you cites you ask for the same ones over and over, search for yourself start with the hospital he works in.
I've read the quote by ONE person.
-
I see your complaints and they sound very self-pitying.
So, unlike leveson himself, you don't think the McCanns have any reason to complain about the way they were treated by the press, is that your view?
-
I've read the quote by ONE person.
There are loads more, you may dislike the McCann's so much it makes you angry if he has any back up, but sorry to say, he is a very successful Dr.
-
I wouldn't expect loyalty, but nor would I expect them to gleefully trash my reputation and print lies about me as they did with McCann and Jeffries.
As one of mentors from many years ago would have said
"You are bit previous linking McCann and Jeffries aren't you"?
-
What about the Dowlers and Jeffries?
You know your dislike of the McCann's really shows up with the immature comments you make.
What have they got to do with McCann's popularity in Rothely?
I don't make any secret of my dislike for them.
-
Not in the slightest.
Just members of the public, no matter their airs and graces.
Oh, I see. Convicted by The Court of Public Opinion. Sorry Stephen, this is never going to happen to The Mccanns. Perhaps you should not have tried so hard. It is now looking like really sour grapes and a really hard case of jealousy.
-
spot on G-Unit
the i at the bottom .........could mean. i........... myself ..........and me
nothing much was mentioned about maddie's plight .............anyway.......or ever has been
It goes without saying that someone suffering the trauma of a lost (loved and cherished) daughter, whose whereabouts or fate are neither known, should positively rejoice at (initially) being accused of murdering her; (later) of causing her death (by accidental means), covering up the (alleged) 'fact' of her death and launching a fraudulent 'fund' in her name ...
-
Oh, I see. Convicted by The Court of Public Opinion. Sorry Stephen, this is never going to happen to The Mccanns. Perhaps you should not have tried so hard. It is now looking like really sour grapes and a really hard case of jealousy.
Who are you trying to kid ?
I suggest you get real and read the feedback as regards mccann in the press.
As to being jealous of mccann, now that is a classic. %£5&% %£5&%
-
As one of mentors from many years ago would have said
"You are bit previous linking McCann and Jeffries aren't you"?
What on earth are you on about?
-
There are loads more, you may dislike the McCann's so much it makes you angry if he has any back up, but sorry to say, he is a very successful Dr.
Backup for a man, who along with his wife placed their children in unnecessary danger.
Well that's the problem of nameless people.
-
One could say like the stance taken towards the PJ in 2007. The McCanns, their family and friends, and especially their PR staff criticised the institutions, the legal system, and the personnel rather than confronting their questions or theories head on during interviews and requests for reconstructions.
-
This topic appears to have been inadvertently locked but is now open again.
Apologies
-
One could say like the stance taken towards the PJ in 2007. The McCanns, their family and friends, and especially their PR staff criticised the institutions, the legal system, and the personnel rather than confronting their questions or theories head on during interviews and requests for reconstructions.
My thinking exactly Gad!. Why would they rule out any other theory. At first Kate said she thought Maddie was 'hiding' so searched the apartment but this changed back to or onto I knew Maddie was taken right away. So when she had that whooshig thing going on she knew Maddie was taken but still thought,whooshing aside, that Maddie may be hiding..ok then yeah sounds about like... No Kate! That particular pup cannot be sold to me, sorry.
Did Gerry mention Brenda and Amarals right to privacy BY THE disgusting atacks on them by the UK press fed to the media by this self hating press-in his new job? ( chief winger for the 'innocent')
Oh and word to the wise ( yeah,I know just kidding). This Gerry, is the same Government spending OUR money on YOUR 'missing ' daughter. 12 million so far, wouldn't it be great if everyone was brilliant and everything as you are.....well apart from childrearing that is. So, anyway, here you are trying to save your reputation AGAIN...
-
Lots of people have been treated very badly by the tabloids in recent years, not just the McCanns.
If you feel that the tabloids are entitled to invent smearing splashes relating to your good selves, which will then be picked up ad infinitum by the dear souls on social media to continue to smear you and your loved ones or friends, then don't support what the Leveson inquiry was supposed to achieve.
But then don't moan if it happens to you.
-
Lots of people have been treated very badly by the tabloids in recent years, not just the McCanns.
If you feel that the tabloids are entitled to invent smearing splashes relating to your good selves, which will then be picked up ad infinitum by the dear souls on social media to continue to smear you and your loved ones or friends, then don't support what the Leveson inquiry was supposed to achieve.
But then don't moan if it happens to you.
It's a real dilemma for some isn't it? You sense that some DO support Hacked Off but CAN'T because You-Know-Who is involved and for those it would be preferable to cut one's own nose off rather than support anything HE'S involved with...
-
Lots of people have been treated very badly by the tabloids in recent years, not just the McCanns.
If you feel that the tabloids are entitled to invent smearing splashes relating to your good selves, which will then be picked up ad infinitum by the dear souls on social media to continue to smear you and your loved ones or friends, then don't support what the Leveson inquiry was supposed to achieve.
But then don't moan if it happens to you.
Yes but ,as has been mentioned, Gerry of all people flying this flag? He and his PAID PR AND 'friends' and FAMILY all passed his and his wife's venom onto this naughty press people.
They have taken a lot of prisoners for their disgraceful behaviour- and still seek to bemoan about something they were not involved in i.e phone tapping that is what this was about. Why they were given a platform to bleat about privacy ( Kate telling all and sundry about her sex life- how it was affected by her daughters disappearance) is beyond anyone with a modecum of sense and decency.
What her daughter, if found alive, will make of that I have no idea.. or the twins ew god doesn't bare thinking about.
So he doesn't want the press prying - why he got something to hide?
-
Yes but ,as has been mentioned, Gerry of all people flying this flag? He and his PAID PR AND 'friends' and FAMILY all passed his and his wife's venom onto this naughty press people.
They have taken a lot of prisoners for their disgraceful behaviour- and still seek to bemoan about something they were not involved in i.e phone tapping that is what this was about. Why they were given a platform to bleat about privacy ( Kate telling all and sundry about her sex life- how it was affected by her daughters disappearance) is beyond anyone with a modecum of sense and decency.
What her daughter, if found alive, will make of that I have no idea.. or the twins ew god doesn't bare thinking about.
So he doesn't want the press prying - why he got something to hide?
I think you'll find that the inquiry wasn't just related to phone-tapping.
-
It's a real dilemma for some isn't it? You sense that some DO support Hacked Off but CAN'T because You-Know-Who is involved and for those it would be preferable to cut one's own nose off rather than support anything HE'S involved with...
I do wonder if people vote in national elections based on such knee-jerk reactions... A bit scary.
-
It's a real dilemma for some isn't it? You sense that some DO support Hacked Off but CAN'T because You-Know-Who is involved and for those it would be preferable to cut one's own nose off rather than support anything HE'S involved with...
Or maybe some of us feel that this is a guy who is trying to reinvent himself as a man of the people! Both he and his wife are trying PR re invention to gain public support- perhaps sympathy for their up coming self funding 'search for their missing daughter' campaign? desperate attention seekers- self promoters of their own percieved importance. z list celebs.
aw diddums he feels 'betrayed'....Oh boy please...
Now do you think he may have an ilking as to what his daughter felt when she asked ...'where were you when....
-
Or maybe some of us feel that this is a guy who is trying to reinvent himself as a man of the people! Both he and his wife are trying PR re invention to gain public support- perhaps sympathy for their up coming self funding 'search for their missing daughter' campaign? desperate attention seekers- self promoters of their own percieved importance. z list celebs.
aw diddums he feels 'betrayed'....Oh boy please...
Now do you think he may have an ilking as to what his daughter felt when she asked ...'where were you when....
Quite right.
The mccanns weren't betrayed.
We know who was though, by the people who should protect her.
-
Or maybe some of us feel that this is a guy who is trying to reinvent himself as a man of the people! Both he and his wife are trying PR re invention to gain public support- perhaps sympathy for their up coming self funding 'search for their missing daughter' campaign? desperate attention seekers- self promoters of their own percieved importance. z list celebs.
aw diddums he feels 'betrayed'....Oh boy please...
Now do you think he may have an ilking as to what his daughter felt when she asked ...'where were you when....
He disgusts you, you can't stand him or her - we get it, no need to go on and on so...
-
Or maybe some of us feel that this is a guy who is trying to reinvent himself as a man of the people! Both he and his wife are trying PR re invention to gain public support- perhaps sympathy for their up coming self funding 'search for their missing daughter' campaign? desperate attention seekers- self promoters of their own percieved importance. z list celebs.
aw diddums he feels 'betrayed'....Oh boy please...
Now do you think he may have an ilking as to what his daughter felt when she asked ...'where were you when....
If you classify them as Z-list celebs, who would you classify as an A-list one promoting the same cause in whom you have confidence?
-
If you classify them as Z-list celebs, who would you classify as an A-list one promoting the same cause in whom you have confidence?
A list celeb= ADELE, Bowie, Helen Mirin, Martin Luther King, Bruno Mars..people of class and real talent.
z list= McCANNS, Kerry catona, katie price, 'reality stars' people known for having no talent worthy of news print interest except to squirm at.
-
A list celeb= ADELE, Bowie, Helen Mirin, Martin Luther King, Bruno Mars..people of class and real talent.
z list= McCANNS, Kerry catona, katie price, 'reality stars' people known for having no talent worthy of news print interest except to squirm at.
OK, your preferred list of "stars".
Martin Luther King might have a slight problem or two standing up against the UK government's apparent stance against implementing the Leveson charter.
-
A list celeb= ADELE, Bowie, Helen Mirin, Martin Luther King, Bruno Mars..people of class and real talent.
z list= McCANNS, Kerry catona, katie price, 'reality stars' people known for having no talent worthy of news print interest except to squirm at.
I agree with your zedders
Indeed, anyone who actively courts publicity is a zedder IMO
-
I agree with your zedders
Jeffries wasn't on any "celeb" list, was he? Nor were the Dowler family. Nor were the McCanns before Madeleine disappeared.
-
Jeffries wasn't on any "celeb" list, was he? Nor were the Dowler family. Nor were the McCanns before Madeleine disappeared.
I don't see those mentioned in the Z list - other than McCann, do you?
-
He disgusts you, you can't stand him or her - we get it, no need to go on and on so...
So....?
You want to shut me up like your 'hero'? free speech you don't need to read what I type. You want censorship on your terms...good luck with that one. Keep trying Gerry you have a huge folowing on this forum....well ok about 4 or 5 people.
-
Jeffries wasn't on any "celeb" list, was he? Nor were the Dowler family. Nor were the McCanns before Madeleine disappeared.
The whole point of calling the McCanns z list celeb status is ; they court publicity for self promotion...re inventing themselves as heros for the public= taking on good causes to show they are GREAT and worthy of our adulation whilst being oblivious to the fact that it is only a hand full of people who actually care about them. They are only 'famous' because of their daughters disappearance in suspicious circumstances imo fgs!
The Jeffries and Dowlers do not do breakfast TV and endless interviews -meeting heads of states and the pope!
They also didn't trash the investigation of their loved ones or describe the police, who obviously questioned the family, as fking tossers!
-
So....?
You want to shut me up like your 'hero'? free speech you don't need to read what I type. You want censorship on your terms...good luck with that one. Keep trying Gerry you have a huge folowing on this forum....well ok about 4 or 5 people.
Fair point, back on ignore.
-
You are being obtuse!
The whole point of calling the McCanns z list celeb status is ; they court publicity for self promotion...re inventing themselves as heros for the public= taking on good causes to show they are GREAT and worthy of our adulation whilst being oblivious to the fact that it is only a hand full of people who actually care about them. They are only 'famous' because of their daughters disappearance in suspicious circumstances imo fgs!
The Jeffries and Dowlers do not do breakfast TV and endless interviews -meeting heads of states and the pope!
They also didn't trash the investigation of their loved ones or describe the police, who obviously questioned the family, as fking tossers!
Don't forget Oprah @)(++(*
-
The McCanns are NOT celebrities.
-
Have you told them?
-
You are being obtuse!
The whole point of calling the McCanns z list celeb status is ; they court publicity for self promotion...re inventing themselves as heros for the public= taking on good causes to show they are GREAT and worthy of our adulation whilst being oblivious to the fact that it is only a hand full of people who actually care about them. They are only 'famous' because of their daughters disappearance in suspicious circumstances imo fgs!
The Jeffries and Dowlers do not do breakfast TV and endless interviews -meeting heads of states and the pope!
They also didn't trash the investigation of their loved ones or describe the police, who obviously questioned the family, as fking tossers!
Sadly, both Jo Yeates and Milly Dowler have been found, albeit deceased.
Madeleine McCann is still missing.
-
Probably also deceased.
-
Her's a question asked many times.
Where has the money gone from the serialization of the mccann book in the Sun and any other stories where they may have been paid by the media ?
-
Have you told them?
Why would I need to do that? They don't behave like celebrities, they know they are no more of a celebrity than Kerry Needham or Sara Payne.
-
Hasn't this gone to the £75,000 that has be sequestered away into yet another fund?
-
Probably also deceased.
That's a possibility. But she still deserves to be found, don't you think?
-
Oh Yes
-
Fair point, back on ignore.
?>)()< Hey dude Thanks! 8((()*/
-
Don't forget Oprah @)(++(*
Oprah was an opportunity to publicise an age progressed image of Madeleine.
**snip
Kate McCann wiped away a tear as she was shown the computer-aided image of her daughter Madeleine as she might look now.
I don't know who that little girl is,' she admitted to U.S. chat show host Oprah Winfrey.
The picture, produced using computer-assisted technology, shows a smiling Madeleine wearing a pink band in her shoulder-length hair and a blue dress with frilly white collar.
The 'then' and 'now' images will be used on posters - under the headline 'Don't Give Up On Me' - in a fresh drive to find the child who vanished from the family's holiday apartment in the Algarve two years ago tomorrow.
Madeleine, then three years old, would be six later this month.
The 'age progression image' was unveiled ahead of Oprah Winfrey's interview with the McCanns to be broadcast in the U.S. on Monday.
The couple hope the interview, which will reach a huge global audience, coupled with the new picture and a Channel 4 documentary next week, may help end their torment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1176009/Madeleine-Two-years-startling-image-rekindle-McCanns-hope.html#ixzz45Aex0Fug
-
Ah, a good marketing ploy.
-
Oprah was an opportunity to publicise an age progressed image of Madeleine.
**snip
Kate McCann wiped away a tear as she was shown the computer-aided image of her daughter Madeleine as she might look now.
I don't know who that little girl is,' she admitted to U.S. chat show host Oprah Winfrey.
The picture, produced using computer-assisted technology, shows a smiling Madeleine wearing a pink band in her shoulder-length hair and a blue dress with frilly white collar.
The 'then' and 'now' images will be used on posters - under the headline 'Don't Give Up On Me' - in a fresh drive to find the child who vanished from the family's holiday apartment in the Algarve two years ago tomorrow.
Madeleine, then three years old, would be six later this month.
The 'age progression image' was unveiled ahead of Oprah Winfrey's interview with the McCanns to be broadcast in the U.S. on Monday.
The couple hope the interview, which will reach a huge global audience, coupled with the new picture and a Channel 4 documentary next week, may help end their torment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1176009/Madeleine-Two-years-startling-image-rekindle-McCanns-hope.html#ixzz45Aex0Fug
A global audience which achieved ....
I wonder if any American talk show host would interview them now ?
-
A global audience which achieved ....
I wonder if any American talk show host would interview them now ?
Lots of others did when KMs book was published...it did not escape peoples attention that the interviews were more "probing"
I dont recall a USA "book interview"
-
I was surprised to see only nine victims of press abuse are listed as supporters of The Hacked Off Campaign Ltd, to give it it's full name. It was incorporated in August 2012 (not 2011 as the website says, that was a different set-up connected to the Media Standards Trust charity. It campaigned for an inquiry, which it got)
The company is a private not-for profit organisation and seems to be funded by donations;
Hacked Off and its executive director, Professor Brian Cathcart, have been criticised for the lack of transparency over funding.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/11/hacked-off-donors-revealed
The campaign was criticised by The Register, which described it as a "secretive pressure group...of wealthy and powerful individuals and celebrities...which has successfully campaigned for state control of the media"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Standards_Trust
-
Oh dear
-
If the PM held the decision whether to provide further funding to the police operation being carried out to find my child I don't think I'd be accusing him of all colour of calumnies just at the moment.
-
If the PM held the decision whether to provide further funding to the police operation being carried out to find my child I don't think I'd be accusing him of all colour of calumnies just at the moment.
So why do you think Gerry is challenging him about Leveson then? secretly hoping Cameron closes down Op Grange?
-
If the PM held the decision whether to provide further funding to the police operation being carried out to find my child I don't think I'd be accusing him of all colour of calumnies just at the moment.
Supposition but my understanding of political processes/recent political history of No. 10 makes me think that...
David Cameron will not have made that decision. Busy time for him. Theresa May likely signed it off, after assurances from Scotland Yard that there is value in keeping a dedicated team on the case for the next few months. This case is NOT a major political consideration for the government. The institutions -- Scotland Yard, Crown Prosecution Service -- will continue to process the case in their day-to-day work.
Gerry's remarks were clearly designed to create pressure on the PM yesterday. Given the PM's current agenda (EU referendum; IDS fall out; Boris' leadership ambitions; Off-shore tax avoidance), I would be surprised if he had even heard about Gerry's intervention by the end of yesterday.
-
Supposition but my understanding of political processes/recent political history of No. 10 makes me think that...
David Cameron will not have made that decision. Busy time for him. Theresa May likely signed it off, after assurances from Scotland Yard that there is value in keeping a dedicated team on the case for the next few months. This case is NOT a major political consideration for the government. The institutions -- Scotland Yard, Crown Prosecution Service -- will continue to process the case in their day-to-day work.
Gerry's remarks were clearly designed to create pressure on the PM yesterday. Given the PM's current agenda (EU referendum; IDS fall out; Boris' leadership ambitions; Off-shore tax avoidance), I would be surprised if he had even heard about Gerry's intervention by the end of yesterday.
You may be right gladfly but would you take the chance if you believed your child was alive and findable ?
-
You may be right gladfly but would you take the chance if you believed your child was alive and findable ?
I'll not answer that Q. but I will make the observation that Mr McCann sounded a little indignant, naive, hyperbolic, desperate, and self-deluded all at the same time. Hacked Off is a minor, Lib Dem dominated promotional pressure group -- not the policy making apparatus of civil liberties legislation in our great nation.
One thing it did get me to do however was reread 'I couldn't make love to Gerry'.
Particularly eye opening excerpts included:
1) 'After Madeleine was taken from us, my sexual desire plummeted to zero.'
2) 'I know there is more to a relationship than sex, but it is still an important element.'
3) 'Deep down, though, I knew there were only two solutions [to rekindling Kate's sex life - ed]: bringing Madeleine back or conquering my mental block.'
I don't quite know what to say.
Read it for yourself: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3571775/Kate-McCann-I-couldnt-make-love-to-Gerry.html
-
I'll not answer that Q. but I will make the observation that Mr McCann sounded a little indignant, naive, hyperbolic, desperate, and self-deluded all at the same time. Hacked Off is a minor, Lib Dem dominated promotional pressure group -- not the policy making apparatus of civil liberties legislation in our great nation.
One thing it did get me to do however was reread 'I couldn't make love to Gerry'.
Particularly eye opening excerpts included:
1) 'After Madeleine was taken from us, my sexual desire plummeted to zero.'
2) 'I know there is more to a relationship than sex, but it is still an important element.'
3) 'Deep down, though, I knew there were only two solutions [to rekindling Kate's sex life - ed]: bringing Madeleine back or conquering my mental block.'
I don't quite know what to say.
Read it for yourself: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3571775/Kate-McCann-I-couldnt-make-love-to-Gerry.html
You do realise that these quotes were taken from Kate's book and whipped up into a salacious front page story by the Sun don't you?
-
Alfie, my dear aristocratic son, sit down and I'll explain to you today's lesson. It's called Serialisation.
And the key points of the lesson include payment for content and taking photos to add an emotional edge to the piece.
-
Alfie, my dear aristocratic son, sit down and I'll explain to you today's lesson. It's called Serialisation.
And the key points of the lesson include payment for content and taking photos to add an emotional edge to the piece.
If you're going to attempt to patronize me in your posts I'll have to put you on ignore too.
It truly amazes me how prurient and childishly fixated on Kate McCann and her sex life some people seem to be. I have a lesson for these individuals and it is this - grow up.
-
I'll not answer that Q. but I will make the observation that Mr McCann sounded a little indignant, naive, hyperbolic, desperate, and self-deluded all at the same time. Hacked Off is a minor, Lib Dem dominated promotional pressure group -- not the policy making apparatus of civil liberties legislation in our great nation.
One thing it did get me to do however was reread 'I couldn't make love to Gerry'.
Particularly eye opening excerpts included:
1) 'After Madeleine was taken from us, my sexual desire plummeted to zero.'
2) 'I know there is more to a relationship than sex, but it is still an important element.'
3) 'Deep down, though, I knew there were only two solutions [to rekindling Kate's sex life - ed]: bringing Madeleine back or conquering my mental block.'
I don't quite know what to say.
Read it for yourself: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3571775/Kate-McCann-I-couldnt-make-love-to-Gerry.html
Imagine Katie Price had written the quotes above rather than Kate McCann and then complained about press intrusion. Can you guess what the reaction what be ?
-
Imagine Katie Price had written the quotes above rather than Kate McCann and then complained about press intrusion. Can you guess what the reaction what be ?
Nowhere near as harsh as the reaction from the "sceptic" online community towards Kate, I'll wager.
-
I think I can say with almost complete certainty that the McCanns cringe about that article. Maybe Gerry just forgot about it before appearing on television because he seemed to be suggesting he and Kate were 'passive' victims of the media.
Only the facts -- those oh-so inconvenient facts -- always have a way of catching up with us, bringing us back to reality and up from the pit of self-delusion.
The three facts again that undermine Gerry's case are:
1) He employs a PR guru full time to offer story 'packages' to the media.
2) He paid £500,000 to the country's largest PR company to promote his agenda.
3) He sold the serialisation rights to Kate's book, promoting an overtly sexual theme, in a case where that is inappropriate to say the least.
-
TBH I'm not sure how an individual who is willing to sell some of the most intimate details of her relationship, details that were absolutely unnecessary in the context of her daughter's disappearance, can then bemoan her lack of privacy. For me those details were nothing to do with the search for her daughter and everything to do with satisfying the rather base tastes of the main readership of her book and it's serialisation.
-
I'll not answer that Q. but I will make the observation that Mr McCann sounded a little indignant, naive, hyperbolic, desperate, and self-deluded all at the same time. Hacked Off is a minor, Lib Dem dominated promotional pressure group -- not the policy making apparatus of civil liberties legislation in our great nation.
One thing it did get me to do however was reread 'I couldn't make love to Gerry'.
Particularly eye opening excerpts included:
1) 'After Madeleine was taken from us, my sexual desire plummeted to zero.'
2) 'I know there is more to a relationship than sex, but it is still an important element.'
3) 'Deep down, though, I knew there were only two solutions [to rekindling Kate's sex life - ed]: bringing Madeleine back or conquering my mental block.'
i]I don't quite know what to say.[/i][/color]
Read it for yourself: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3571775/Kate-McCann-I-couldnt-make-love-to-Gerry.html
Me neither, to moan about press intrusion makes a mockery at best of leveson...if you push it out there you can do no less than expect it back. To take advantage of and getting paid half a million by the most read newspaper to serialise your book promoting the search for your missing child alledgedly and talking about how hard it was for your sex life has to be one of the stupidest most embarrasing thngs to do....unless of course the mccanns didnt agree to the excerpts...not seen them complain though
-
Me neither, to moan about press intrusion makes a mockery at best of leveson...if you push it out there you can do no less than expect it back. To take advantage of and getting paid half a million by the most read newspaper to serialise your book promoting the search for your missing child alledgedly and talking about how hard it was for your sex life has to be one of the stupidest most embarrasing thngs to do....unless of course the mccanns didnt agree to the excerpts...not seen them complain though
I didn't hear them complain to Leveson about them as they did with the extracts from Kate's diary.
-
I didn't hear them complain to Leveson about them as they did with the extracts from Kate's diary.
Yes, not sure what the indignation was about re the diaries...conflicting evidence given at leveson as to whether they were authorised for publication or not
-
Just to confirm it was a serialisation: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3565282/We-serialise-Kate-and-Gerry-McCanns-book-Madeleine-in-The-Sun.html
Oh, and The Sun paid money for it, paid lawyers to ensure other publications did not republish it verbatim, and the McCanns even posed for some special photos such as:
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01307/SNN1006KATE-682_1307327a.jpg)
-
Oh and alfred talks about salacious crime by the sun....no one forced kate mccann to almost emulate sharon stone in basic instnct!!!! Or force her to sign to reveal her sexual problems with gerry caused by the abduction
Shudders
Thats enough for one day
-
Just to confirm it was a serialisation: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3565282/We-serialise-Kate-and-Gerry-McCanns-book-Madeleine-in-The-Sun.html
Oh, and The Sun paid money for it, paid lawyers to ensure other publications did not republish it verbatim, and the McCanns even posed for some special photos such as:
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01307/SNN1006KATE-682_1307327a.jpg)
"The McCanns also hope the book may help provide the key piece of information that could lead to Madeleine being found.
Gerry said: “We are hopeful that this book may help the investigation to find Madeleine in other ways too.
"Our hope is that it may prompt those who have relevant information (knowingly or not) to come forward and share it with our team. Somebody holds that key piece of the jigsaw.”
-
Perhaps now that we have got that little eruption out of our systems perhaps we can return to the failure of the politicians to carry through an all party agreement for regulation of the press in the aftermath of the very expensive Leveson inquiry. The cost of which no-one seems too bothered about. Odd when one considers it has resulted in replacing one toothless with another.
The object of the exercise was to give some measure of protection from the excesses of the press to ordinary people such as the signatories to the open letter fronted by Gerry McCann.
All of whom were ordinary people thrust unwillingly into the limelight. A situation which anyone could find themselves in at any time in the future.
The family of the little boy killed while on a school coach trip in which twenty eight died were subjected to press harassment. Including publishing a photograph of his grieving eight year old sister.
The trauma of losing a much loved son was exacerbated by press intrusion without let or hindrance.
That is what the open letter was about ... ordinary people ... nothing at all to do with opening floodgates of opprobrium directed at one well placed to front their campaign.
-
Perhaps now that we have got that little eruption out of our systems perhaps we can return to the failure of the politicians to carry through an all party agreement for regulation of the press in the aftermath of the very expensive Leveson inquiry. The cost of which no-one seems too bothered about. Odd when one considers it has resulted in replacing one toothless with another.
The object of the exercise was to give some measure of protection from the excesses of the press to ordinary people such as the signatories to the open letter fronted by Gerry McCann.
All of whom were ordinary people thrust unwillingly into the limelight. A situation which anyone could find themselves in at any time in the future.
The family of the little boy killed while on a school coach trip in which twenty eight died were subjected to press harassment. Including publishing a photograph of his grieving eight year old sister.
The trauma of losing a much loved son was exacerbated by press intrusion without let or hindrance.
That is what the open letter was about ... ordinary people ... nothing at all to do with opening floodgates of opprobrium directed at one well placed to front their campaign.
The mccanns and some others with money behind them have very little to complain about, as they have used the press ruthlessly and let's not forget the £500,000 given to Lord Bell.
By the way who funded that £500,000 ?
However, I do have every sympathy for those people who have no power to fight back against press, when they have intruded into their lives, merely to 'get a story'.
Likewise, let's not forget those who hide behind UK laws to cover up their 'activities', which if brought to light would bring them into disrepute.
-
TBH I'm not sure how an individual who is willing to sell some of the most intimate details of her relationship, details that were absolutely unnecessary in the context of her daughter's disappearance, can then bemoan her lack of privacy. For me those details were nothing to do with the search for her daughter and everything to do with satisfying the rather base tastes of the main readership of her book and it's serialisation.
The extent of Kate's disclosure of 'intimate details' was to tell us that there were none to tell. Nothing salacious about that IMO and clearly one of the psychological effects of grief and in Kate's case - also a measure of guilt - which left her feeling that she wasn't entitled to enjoy anything anymore.
I can understand that. The first time I laughed out loud (at something said on the radio) after my beloved husband died - I immediately felt guilty - and I had nothing to feel guilty about.
It's all part of the grieving process.
The fact that some people have latched on to it as something to distort and sneer at - not to mention the faux shock and indignation - doesn't surprise me at all. It's just another example of the sceptic mantra that everything the McCanns do and everything they say - is wrong. Quite bizarre and totally irrational IMO.
The McCanns complaints about the press were about the terrible lies that were being printed about them day in day out - purely in the interest of profit. That is what they are trying to prevent from happening again to others - or at least to give the victims a simple and satisfactory method of dealing with libellous claims which wasn't the case at the time.
Christopher Jefferies was also a victim of the most vile and cruel libel by the press - who once again didn't care at all whether what they were printing about him was true or not. He regards the McCanns as having suffered in the same way.
I can't believe that anyone would not want that situation to change.
-
The extent of Kate's disclosure of 'intimate details' was to tell us that there were none to tell. Nothing salacious about that IMO and clearly one of the psychological effects of grief and in Kate's case - also a measure of guilt - which left her feeling that she wasn't entitled to enjoy anything anymore.
I can understand that. The first time I laughed out loud (at something said on the radio) after my beloved husband died - I immediately felt guilty - and I had nothing to feel guilty about.
It's all part of the grieving process.
The fact that some people have latched on to it as something to distort and sneer at - not to mention the faux shock and indignation - doesn't surprise me at all. It's just another example of the sceptic mantra that everything the McCanns do and everything they say - is wrong. Quite bizarre and totally irrational IMO.
The McCanns complaints about the press were about the terrible lies that were being printed about them day in day out - purely in the interest of profit. That is what they are trying to prevent from happening again to others - or at least to give the victims a simple and satisfactory method of dealing with libellous claims which wasn't the case at the time.
Christopher Jefferies was also a victim of the most vile and cruel libel by the press - who once again didn't care at all whether what they were printing about him was true or not. He regards the McCanns as having suffered in the same way.
I can't believe that anyone would not want that situation to change.
Why did kate mccann think people wanted to know about the mccanns sex life, or lack of it ?
It was IMO, just another way of trying to garnish sympathy for a couple who bought about their own woes.
-
The mccanns and some others with money behind them have very little to complain about, as they have used the press ruthlessly and let's not forget the £500,000 given to Lord Bell.
By the way who funded that £500,000 ?
However, I do have every sympathy for those people who have no power to fight back against press, when they have intruded into their lives, merely to 'get a story'.
Likewise, let's not forget those who hide behind UK laws to cover up their 'activities', which if brought to light would bring them into disrepute.
You've lost me a bit with your last sentence.
Who are these people and which 'activities' are being 'hidden' ... and was any of it mentioned in the Levenson inquiry. If it wasn't we risk straying off topic again.
-
You've lost me a bit with your last sentence.
Who are these people and which 'activities' are being 'hidden' ... and was any of it mentioned in the Levenson inquiry. If it wasn't we risk straying off topic again.
I presume you read the news from time to time.
The recent story about those having money/accounts in Panama ?
Do you really think that without investigative reporting those wishing to hide money abroad would have been found out ?
Or would those people trying to hide money, use increased controls over the press to hide this kind of story ?
Answers on a post card.
-
Why did kate mccann think people wanted to know about the mccanns sex life, or lack of it ?
It was IMO, just another way of trying to garnish sympathy for a couple who bought about their own woes.
There has been quite a bit of discussion on the topic of Kate's book some of it quite pejorative ... one would have been of the opinion you would welcome a return to talking about the aftermath of Leveson, the thread you started. Particularly as there are quite a few implications attached for press freedom and responsibility as well as for the ordinary people who may be caught up at any time in the future in a press maelstrom they are presently unable to do anything about, as the signatories to the open letter discovered to their cost.
-
Why did kate mccann think people wanted to know about the mccanns sex life, or lack of it ?
It was IMO, just another way of trying to garnish sympathy for a couple who bought about their own woes.
You really don't understand do you, please don't take up Psychology will you.
Benice has explained very well why Kate needed to put what she did in her book, she left nothing out of the pain and anguish that goes with a missing child. How it can turn your world upside down and how it affects everything you do.
-
There has been quite a bit of discussion on the topic of Kate's book some of it quite pejorative ... one would have been of the opinion you would welcome a return to talking about the aftermath of Leveson, the thread you started. Particularly as there are quite a few implications attached for press freedom and responsibility as well as for the ordinary people who may be caught up at any time in the future in a press maelstrom they are presently unable to do anything about, as the signatories to the open letter discovered to their cost.
In case you haven't noticed mr. mccann put him self in the news by the hard done by act.
If you had read my posts more carefully, you would observe I have every sympathy for those who have been maltreated by the press, but not for those who manipulate the press for their own ends and cry wolf when they don't comply to their wishes.
-
I presume you read the news from time to time.
The recent story about those having money/accounts in Panama ?
Do you really think that without investigative reporting those wishing to hide money abroad would have been found out ?
Or would those people trying to hide money, use increased controls over the press to hide this kind of story ?
Answers on a post card.
The people who can afford to hide their money and avoid paying UK taxes can well afford to take defamation cases out against people who may write untruths about them.
Ordinary people possibly like you and certainly like me could never aspire to take legal action against a newspaper group whatever intrusion they made into our lives.
That is the situation Leveson was set up to address and having done so the conclusions of the inquiry which have been agreed by all parties in parliament ... are being imperiously ignored by the powers that be.
Is that an example of open democracy in operation?
-
In case you haven't noticed mr. mccann put him self in the news by the hard done by act.
If you had read my posts more carefully, you would observe I have every sympathy for those who have been maltreated by the press, but not for those who manipulate the press for their own ends and cry wolf when they don't comply to their wishes.
By manipulate the press, do you mean the money paid by the McCann's to keep Madeleine in the news? I'm sure the press felt maltreated [not]
Parents of missing children need to keep their child in the spotlight, they need to keep the news fresh and if that means paying papers to do just that than so be it. I don't think the McCann's did anything wrong by wanting their child to be remembered.
-
You really don't understand do you, please don't take up Psychology will you.
Benice has explained very well why Kate needed to put what she did in her book, she left nothing out of the pain and anguish that goes with a missing child. How it can turn your world upside down and how it affects everything you do.
Totally wrong as usual Lace.
Why do you always omit that the mccanns are responsible for their own actions.
By the way I need no lessons in amateur psychology either from you or benice, as you will give nearly any excuse for the mccanns actions.
-
The people who can afford to hide their money and avoid paying UK taxes can well afford to take defamation cases out against people who may write untruths about them.
Ordinary people possibly like you and certainly like me could never aspire to take legal action against a newspaper group whatever intrusion they made into our lives.
That is the situation Leveson was set up to address and having done so the conclusions of the inquiry which have been agreed by all parties in parliament ... are being imperiously ignored by the powers that be.
Is that an example of open democracy in operation?
Did you really expect the inquiry in the end to achieve it's aims.
You don't strike me as being naive.
-
By manipulate the press, do you mean the money paid by the McCann's to keep Madeleine in the news? I'm sure the press felt maltreated [not]
Parents of missing children need to keep their child in the spotlight, they need to keep the news fresh and if that means paying papers to do just that than so be it. I don't think the McCann's did anything wrong by wanting their child to be remembered.
They paid Bell and their PR, to have the 'right' kind of image to be portrayed about them.
Unfortunately for them, it has been seen through.
-
In case you haven't noticed mr. mccann put him self in the news by the hard done by act.
If you had read my posts more carefully, you would observe I have every sympathy for those who have been maltreated by the press, but not for those who manipulate the press for their own ends and cry wolf when they don't comply to their wishes.
In medical terms is it Mr McCann or Dr McCann? ... I'm never quite sure.
There is a reason why on McCann boards or hash tag seems to be centre stage in the Leveson inquiry; quite ignoring the fact that all the signatories to the open letter have suffered from press intrusion.
He has been subject to some of the most scurrilous libels possible and and for a longer period than most. He is probably better experienced to front a campaign than any of the other complainants and the fact they have signed the letter would appear to suggest the other victims of press intrusion are content that he is fronting their campaign.
-
Totally wrong as usual Lace.
Why do you always omit that the mccanns are responsible for their own actions.
By the way I need no lessons in amateur psychology either from you or benice, as you will give nearly any excuse for the mccanns actions.
It is really easy to keep on topic just by relating something in your post to the aftermath of Leveson ... I know you can do it.
-
Perhaps now that we have got that little eruption out of our systems perhaps we can return to the failure of the politicians to carry through an all party agreement for regulation of the press in the aftermath of the very expensive Leveson inquiry. The cost of which no-one seems too bothered about. Odd when one considers it has resulted in replacing one toothless with another.
The object of the exercise was to give some measure of protection from the excesses of the press to ordinary people such as the signatories to the open letter fronted by Gerry McCann.
All of whom were ordinary people thrust unwillingly into the limelight. A situation which anyone could find themselves in at any time in the future.
The family of the little boy killed while on a school coach trip in which twenty eight died were subjected to press harassment. Including publishing a photograph of his grieving eight year old sister.
The trauma of losing a much loved son was exacerbated by press intrusion without let or hindrance.
That is what the open letter was about ... ordinary people ... nothing at all to do with opening floodgates of opprobrium directed at one well placed to front their campaign.
I would describe some of the signatories as ordinary, not all of them.
Kate and Gerry McCann
Paul Dadge
Mo George
Jacqui Hames
Baroness Sheila Hollins
Dr Martin Hollins
Mike Hollingsworth
Christopher Jefferies
David Kampfner
Maire Messenger-Davies
Ben Noakes
JK Rowling
Joan Smith
Brian Paddick
Jane Winter
-
Did you really expect the inquiry in the end to achieve it's aims.
You don't strike me as being naive.
How often do you get all party agreement on anything?
The report was accepted by the parliament and subsequently ignored and apparently reneged upon by those in power at the time and now, who seemed to have satisfied their initial objections through negotiation.
**snip
A new system of press regulation established by royal charter and underpinned by statute has been agreed by political parties in late-night talks, and will be sent to the palace for royal approval.
The system of statutory underpinning will be inserted into law in the enterprise and regulatory reform bill on Monday. A system of exemplary damages directed at newspapers that refuse to comply with the new regulatory structure will be agreed in the Commons in the afternoon.
Both sides were claiming victory, but David Cameron, in talks with the other party leaders last Wednesday, had set his face against a charter underpinned by statute. The underpinning clause, now accepted by Cameron, has been drafted by the Hacked Off legal adviser Hugh Tomlinson QC and has been on offer to the Conservatives for weeks.
The prime minister said on Monday: "It's not statutory underpinning. What it is is simply a clause that says politicians can't fiddle with this so it takes it further away from politicians, which is actually, I think, a sensible step.
"What we wanted to avoid and we have avoided is a press law. Nowhere will it say what this body is, what it does, what it can't do, what the press can and can't do. That, quite rightly, is being kept out of parliament.
"So no statutory underpinning but a safeguard that says politicians can't in future fiddle with this arrangement."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/18/press-regulation-deal-agreed-talks
-
They paid Bell and their PR, to have the 'right' kind of image to be portrayed about them.
Unfortunately for them, it has been seen through.
What? Link please to where it says they paid Bell and their PR for the 'right kind of image to be portrayed about them'.
-
By manipulate the press, do you mean the money paid by the McCann's to keep Madeleine in the news? I'm sure the press felt maltreated [not]
Parents of missing children need to keep their child in the spotlight, they need to keep the news fresh and if that means paying papers to do just that than so be it. I don't think the McCann's did anything wrong by wanting their child to be remembered.
no there is nothing wrong with wanting maddie remembered ....but it has never been about maddie ...
its all about THEM.......the mccs
what WE are going through ....how it affects US .....
makes you wonder what the interview..... and gmcc putting himself forward was all about
like you betrayed us .....let us down .............wonder if he was talking about something else to D C...and not leveson inquiry
it makes no sense him being the frontman ........or does he maybe think he is more important than anyone else ....
-
What? Link please to where it says they paid Bell and their PR for the 'right kind of image to be portrayed about them'.
You do know this has been discussed before and with links ?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6114.0
“The McCanns paid me £500,000 in fees to keep them on the front page of every single newspaper for a year, which we did”
and it was for PR as stated.
Why is it that certain people need repetition of links which have been provided before ?
Is it in the hope they will magically disappear into never, never land ? 8)--))
-
Members are asked to keep to topic under discussion.
Admin
-
You do know this has been discussed before and with links ?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6114.0
“The McCanns paid me £500,000 in fees to keep them on the front page of every single newspaper for a year, which we did”
and it was for PR as stated.
Why is it that certain people need repetition of links which have been provided before ?
Is it in the hope they will magically disappear into never, never land ? 8)--))
Since when has wanting Madeleine to be in the media so that the public don't forget her, mean that the McCann's paid for the right kind of image to be portrayed about them, which is what you stated.
I picked this post up from the link you provided -
Well someone is! Why would he have been paid for by the McCann's?
ALEX WOOLFALL (Bell-Pottinger Group - engaged by Wark Warner)
Within two days after Madeleine’s disappearance, the holiday firm Mark Warner had sent a crisis management team to Portugal. It included Alex Woolfall from Bell Pottinger, the public relations company. Alex Woolfall is Head of Issues and Crisis Management for the Bell Pottinger Group. Woolfall, who has 20 years experience in PR, spent the next two weeks advising the family on how to keep the media interested.
-
Since when has wanting Madeleine to be in the media so that the public don't forget her, mean that the McCann's paid for the right kind of image to be portrayed about them, which is what you stated.
I picked this post up from the link you provided -
Well someone is! Why would he have been paid for by the McCann's?
ALEX WOOLFALL (Bell-Pottinger Group - engaged by Wark Warner)
Within two days after Madeleine’s disappearance, the holiday firm Mark Warner had sent a crisis management team to Portugal. It included Alex Woolfall from Bell Pottinger, the public relations company. Alex Woolfall is Head of Issues and Crisis Management for the Bell Pottinger Group. Woolfall, who has 20 years experience in PR, spent the next two weeks advising the family on how to keep the media interested.
This is off topic.
Very briefly, the story has been in the media for nearly 9 years.
The £500,000 is all to do with PR.
Anyone non-biased researching this will see this is the case.
-
Since when has wanting Madeleine to be in the media so that the public don't forget her, mean that the McCann's paid for the right kind of image to be portrayed about them, which is what you stated.
I picked this post up from the link you provided -
Well someone is! Why would he have been paid for by the McCann's?
ALEX WOOLFALL (Bell-Pottinger Group - engaged by Wark Warner)
Within two days after Madeleine’s disappearance, the holiday firm Mark Warner had sent a crisis management team to Portugal. It included Alex Woolfall from Bell Pottinger, the public relations company. Alex Woolfall is Head of Issues and Crisis Management for the Bell Pottinger Group. Woolfall, who has 20 years experience in PR, spent the next two weeks advising the family on how to keep the media interested.
there was no one taking overall control of the situation,other than Alex Woolfall, whose primary role was to act for Mark Warner.
From Kate McCann's book.
-
In medical terms is it Mr McCann or Dr McCann? ... I'm never quite sure.
There is a reason why on McCann boards or hash tag seems to be centre stage in the Leveson inquiry; quite ignoring the fact that all the signatories to the open letter have suffered from press intrusion.
He has been subject to some of the most scurrilous libels possible and and for a longer period than most. He is probably better experienced to front a campaign than any of the other complainants and the fact they have signed the letter would appear to suggest the other victims of press intrusion are content that he is fronting their campaign.
Depends on his status. Is he a consultant or surgeon. For the record anyone not just NHS staff can call them selves Dr whether they earned it or not. Either way we are not obliged to call anyone anything. No point in getting hooked up on him not being given his title.....You should read some of the Dr's stories who have been struck off by the GMC after committing henious crimes.
-
Funny really, surgeons were Mr because they weren't physicians.
-
Depends on his status. Is he a consultant or surgeon. For the record anyone not just NHS staff can call them selves Dr whether they earned it or not. Either way we are not obliged to call anyone anything. No point in getting hooked up on him not being given his title.....You should read some of the Dr's stories who have been struck off by the GMC after committing henious crimes.
it is possible to be a consultant and a surgeon.....a consultant surgeon
-
Oh and alfred talks about salacious crime by the sun....no one forced kate mccann to almost emulate sharon stone in basic instnct!!!! Or force her to sign to reveal her sexual problems with gerry caused by the abduction
Shudders
Thats enough for one day
Oh My...sharon Stone... on myword I declaire!
That is a very nice pic of Kate with a nice dress/make up/ all luverly indeed.
I have just noticed THEY both work for 'charities' aw how cool is that? taking up good causes to promote Maddie...erm ...
-
Oh My...sharon Stone... on myword I declaire!
That is a very nice pic of Kate with a nice dress/make up/ all luverly indeed.
I have just noticed THEY both work for 'charities' aw how cool is that? taking up good causes to promote Maddie...erm ...
Do you mean Hacked Off? It's a limited company, not a charity.
-
it is possible to be a consultant and a surgeon.....a consultant surgeon
So he's a doctor and 'not a bricklayer'.
Dammit Jim. %£5&%
-
It would seem that not even the supporters over on the Find Madeleine are paricilarly interested in the latest attempt by Hacked Off's spokesman Gerald McCann to stifle press freedom. In the last 30 sp hours a measly 42 people have 'liked' the posted propoganda with a risible seven comments in support.
-
It would seem that not even the supporters over on the Find Madeleine are paricilarly interested in the latest attempt by Hacked Off's spokesman Gerald McCann to stifle press freedom. In the last 30 sp hours a measly 42 people have 'liked' the posted propoganda with a risible seven comments in support.
Indeed, however it would be good to contemplate the type of 'press freedom' you appear to suggest is being stifled.
One of the signatories to the open letter is Jacqui Hanes http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/letter-from-victims-of-press-abuse-to-david-cameron-full-text whose family suffered hacking, surveillance and intrusion by newspapers when her husband was investigating a murder case with links to News International associates.
**snip
The murder of Mr Morgan was raised at the Leveson inquiry into media standards and ethics on Tuesday in evidence from former Metropolitan Police detective and BBC Crimewatch presenter Jacqui Hames.
She told the inquiry that she and her husband, Det Chief Supt Dave Cook, were placed under surveillance by the News of the World after he appeared on Crimewatch seeking information about Mr Morgan's murder.
Ms Hames told the inquiry that Southern Investigations had "close links" to Alex Marunchak, the newspaper's crime editor in the late 1980s.
Jacqui Hames said she was put under surveillance by reporters
In a statement, she said: "I believe that the real reason for the News of the World placing us under surveillance was that suspects in the Daniel Morgan murder inquiry were using their association with a powerful and well-resourced newspaper to try to intimidate us and so attempt to subvert the investigation."
Alastair Morgan (the murder victim's brother) said his family believed they too had been placed under surveillance following a critical development in the case in 1998.
"I was living in Scotland at the time, my partner was doing a journalism course in Scotland, my mother was in Wales, my sister was in Germany, and over the same weekend we all noticed very strange activities around our homes," he said.
"My mother was photographed, my sister was photographed.
"Last year I wrote to [News International chairman] James Murdoch asking him to investigate this. I haven't even received a reply to my letter."
News International said it had "no comment" to make on Ms Hames's statement to the Leveson inquiry.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17201982
-
Hacked Off seems to have one aim only. To make it possible for those without funds to seek compensation from the media. Whether the fear of that will be enough to prevent the media from spreading lies is something else.
-
Hacked Off seems to have one aim only. To make it possible for those without funds to seek compensation from the media. Whether the fear of that will be enough to prevent the media from spreading lies is something else.
I don't think anything will ever prevent newspapers with their own agenda taking a gamble and printing something which they think will sell.
It remains to be seen how the internet versions will handle the situation.
I think the best that can be hoped for is that they will consider very carefully the possible consequences of what they do write ... if the government does act on the promises made and implement section 40, I think it is merely forcing newspaper proprietors and editors to behave as they should already have been doing.
The freedom of the press is sacrosanct or should be , in a democracy ... but that carries with it responsibilities which on many occasions have been ignored.
-
Section 40 of the Crimes and Courts Act 2013 for those interetsed.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/section/40
40 Awards of costs
(1)This section applies where—
(a)a relevant claim is made against a person (“the defendant”),
(b)the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time, and
(c)the claim is related to the publication of news-related material.
(2)If the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (or was unable to be a member at that time for reasons beyond the defendant's control or it would have been unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must not award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—
(a)the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or
(b)it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award costs against the defendant.
(3)If the defendant was not a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (but would have been able to be a member at that time and it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—
(a)the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant been a member), or
(b)it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.
(4)The Secretary of State must take steps to put in place arrangements for protecting the position in costs of parties to relevant claims who have entered into agreements under section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
(5)This section is not to be read as limiting any power to make rules of court.
(6)This section does not apply until such time as a body is first recognised as an approved regulator.
-
This might have more chance of becoming law if any money awarded went to the courts, rather than to the person claiming libel
I wonder how many people would bring a case if there was no chance of getting a wodge of cash at the end of the proceedings?
-
This might have more chance of becoming law if any money awarded went to the courts, rather than to the person claiming libel
I wonder how many people would bring a case if there was no chance of getting a wodge of cash at the end of the proceedings?
Probably very few. With the changes to defamation laws and Conditional Fee Arrangements I suspect the whole thing is now a bit more risky for a plaintiff and solicitors now have their success fees capped so might not be so keen as they once were either.
Section 40 would seem to offer a "something for nothing" route. One begins to see why HackedOff are so!
As for Leveson2 it has been mooted for three years that would never happen.
Like most public inquiries it is like March; in like a lion out like a lamb.
There are some interesting bits in here:
http://findlaw.co.uk/law/dispute_resolution/litigation/costs_and_funding/conditional-fee-agreements.html
-
This might have more chance of becoming law if any money awarded went to the courts, rather than to the person claiming libel
I wonder how many people would bring a case if there was no chance of getting a wodge of cash at the end of the proceedings?
I don't think there are many people making a living from litigation, George Galloway being one of the few who has managed to make it a financially punitive experience for those who have maligned and libelled him.
People don't want to be stalked, harassed and spied upon in an unjustified way by the press ... all they want is the freedom to be allowed to get on with their lives.
In my opinion receiving damages takes second place to stopping the press harassment experienced by them.
-
Hacked Off are receiving a lot of criticism for saying the newspapers should have printed the Wittingdale story. Strange when they are campaigning for less press intrusion to complain when the press decide not to intrude? They are being accused of rank hypocrisy and have just been referred to as 'nonentities' by Neil Wallace on the Jeremy Vine show.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3537386/BBC-Hacked-accused-rank-hypocrites-revealing-Culture-Secretary-John-Whittingdale-s-relationship-dominatrix-met-online-dating-site.html
-
Hacked Off are receiving a lot of criticism for saying the newspapers should have printed the Wittingdale story. Strange when they are campaigning for less press intrusion to complain when the press decide not to intrude? They are being accused of rank hypocrisy and have just been referred to as 'nonentities' by Neil Wallace on the Jeremy Vine show.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3537386/BBC-Hacked-accused-rank-hypocrites-revealing-Culture-Secretary-John-Whittingdale-s-relationship-dominatrix-met-online-dating-site.html
Hmmm ... Culture Secretary whose portfolio would appear to include press regulation.
A press inherently hostile to 'censorship' some of whom have been sitting on this individual's story saying 'not in the public interest' while railing against the super injunction preventing them from identifying the household name they have been trying to spill the dirt on ... in the public interest, perhaps?
Useful to consider cui bono in these situations and why the 'outrage' at Hacked Off from those who are not best pleased with the recommendations made by Leveson, all of which have not yet been implemented despite parliamentary agreement to do so.
**snip
But Labour's culture spokesman, Chris Bryant, said the Culture Secretary had a 'right to private life'.
But he suggested he should have withdrawn from making decisions about press regulation because of the 'sword of Damocles' hanging over his head.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3537386/BBC-Hacked-accused-rank-hypocrites-revealing-Culture-Secretary-John-Whittingdale-s-relationship-dominatrix-met-online-dating-site.html#ixzz45ieMKoSb
-
Well you have to admit The Mail article offers some amusement if nothing else. Provided you have a reasonable grasp of English grammar, a slightly lascivious mind and good sense of the ridiculous. Examples that amused me below:
Hacked Off have today been branded 'rank hypocrites' after a cabinet minister was forced to admit he unknowingly had a relationship with a prostitute he met through online dating. I am still trying work out how one has a relationship unknowingly.
The BBC has also been accused of pursuing its own agenda against Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, who is currently pushing to reform the corporation and its licence fee.
News of the MP's 2014 relationship was made public last night by Newsnight in an interview with Hacked Off founder Brain Cathcart.
The Tory MP for Maldon told the programme he did not know the woman was a dominatrix and he broke it off when he discovered. Ouch! I bet that brought tears to his eyes.
The story is only of public interest if Whittingdale's position in the cabinet or indeed the whole cabinet is compromised as a consequence. Otherwise the interest is simply prurience, a bit like Hugh Grant being caught for lewd conduct in a public place all those years ago..................... &%+((£
-
Well you have to admit The Mail article offers some amusement if nothing else. Provided you have a reasonable grasp of English grammar, a slightly lascivious mind and good sense of the ridiculous. Examples that amused me below:
Hacked Off have today been branded 'rank hypocrites' after a cabinet minister was forced to admit he unknowingly had a relationship with a prostitute he met through online dating. I am still trying work out how one has a relationship unknowingly.
The BBC has also been accused of pursuing its own agenda against Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, who is currently pushing to reform the corporation and its licence fee.
News of the MP's 2014 relationship was made public last night by Newsnight in an interview with Hacked Off founder Brain Cathcart.
The Tory MP for Maldon told the programme he did not know the woman was a dominatrix and he broke it off when he discovered. Ouch! I bet that brought tears to his eyes.
The story is only of public interest if Whittingdale's position in the cabinet or indeed the whole cabinet is compromised as a consequence. Otherwise the interest is simply prurience, a bit like Hugh Grant being caught for lewd conduct in a public place all those years ago..................... &%+((£
I missed the broken off bit. Must say I LOL at your comment.
-
Who is the guy in the middle lol
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2016/apr/13/steve-bell-on-john-whittingdale-and-press-regulation-cartoon
As for hacked off group,how can they say the papers had an obligation to print this whilst in the other breath complaining about press intrusion? Because that is all I see...a private affair
-
Well that week of attempted media manipulation went spectaculary wrong. Come on - use your smarts Gerry. :)
(http://s28.postimg.org/47ujt8h65/image.jpg)
-
Well that week of attempted media manipulation went spectaculary wrong. Come on - use your smarts Gerry. :)
(http://s28.postimg.org/47ujt8h65/image.jpg)
Sadly they don't appear to have enough funds to hire a media expert like Mr Mitchell.
-
Hacked Off seems to have one aim only. To make it possible for those without funds to seek compensation from the media. Whether the fear of that will be enough to prevent the media from spreading lies is something else.
Viewed strictly as a business proposition:
Increase in revenue from increased copy sales and by extension advertising revenue = say £1MM
Cost of sales (lobbing out agreed damages and associated costs by way of out of court settlement) = say £600k
GP = £400k
What would you do?
-
Sadly they don't appear to have enough funds to hire a media expert like Mr Mitchell.
Mitchell, Blair's tool in the media.
-
Sadly they don't appear to have enough funds to hire a media expert like Mr Mitchell.
The reason the McCanns have the money is a measure of their public support...
-
The reason the McCanns have the money is a measure of their public support...
What support would that be these days ?
Other than b....r all.
-
What support would that be these days ?
Other than b....r all.
the reason the mccanns have had so much money is because of the amount of support they have had
-
Don't forget that a lot came from the book and a couple of out of court settlements.
-
Sadly they don't appear to have enough funds to hire a media expert like Mr Mitchell.
Why would 'Hacked Off' need a media expert merely to state the present position i.e. the lack of action on implementing something which had cross party agreement?
If Gerry had the power to manipulate the media - he wouldn't be part of the Hacked Off campaign - as who in their right mind would want to change such a powerful position?
It's not that long ago that the Press had to pay £55,000 compensation for libelling the McCanns. So much for the idea that the McCanns have the press in the palm of their hands.
I suspect there would have been no criticism of Christopher Jefferies if he had made the same statement. His cruel treatment by the press was as equally disgraceful and unacceptable as their treatment of the McCanns and Robert Murat.
It's nothing to do with stifling freedom of speech, it's an attempt to prevent other people having to go through what those victims went through at the hands of an irresponsible press who didn't care if what they printed could ruin someone's life - as long as the sales figures were up.
I can't believe anyone would want that situation to remain the same. Although I'm not surprised to see the usual attempts to twist the subject into yet another stick to beat the McCanns with. It's par for the course for some sceptics.
AIMO
-
Don't forget that a lot came from the book and a couple of out of court settlements.
The book was written specifically to raise money for the fund and enabled the campaign on Madeleine's behalf to continue.
The out of court settlements to the McCanns and their friends were as a result of them being libelled in the press ... that is ... to say the press printed horrific lies about them.
-
the reason the mccanns have had so much money is because of the amount of support they have had
So how much has been donated in recent years then by private people, not counting private backers at the start.
Is Brian Kennedy still giving them dosh, or has that well dried up ?
A cite would help.
With the last Official Find Madeleine Facebook page post on 8 th April 2016, which asked for "urgent help", received as of yesterday 76 likes.
I don't call that overwhelming support.
-
Viewed strictly as a business proposition:
Increase in revenue from increased copy sales and by extension advertising revenue = say £1MM
Cost of sales (lobbing out agreed damages and associated costs by way of out of court settlement) = say £600k
GP = £400k
What would you do?
That does appear to be more or less how the tabloids calculated the business risk.
An additional cost to factor in, though, is the amount of money flying around for "scoops", which was quite considerable in the early days of the case (see the Al Jazeera "McCanns v. the Media" documentary, for example).
The PT media may well have had less potential outlay to consider: their press laws are more liberal; the likelihood of foreign residents suing a foreign media outlet may have seemed less likely due to the hassle involved; and, based on a few successful cases that I've seen, successful plaintiffs were typically awarded damages of €10k, i.e., peanuts in terms of the damage done.
-
Why would 'Hacked Off' need a media expert merely to state the present position i.e. the lack of action on implementing something which had cross party agreement?
If Gerry had the power to manipulate the media - he wouldn't be part of the Hacked Off campaign - as who in their right mind would want to change such a powerful position?
It's not that long ago that the Press had to pay £55,000 compensation for libelling the McCanns. So much for the idea that the McCanns have the press in the palm of their hands.
I suspect there would have been no criticism of Christopher Jefferies if he had made the same statement. His cruel treatment by the press was as equally disgraceful and unacceptable as their treatment of the McCanns and Robert Murat.
It's nothing to do with stifling freedom of speech, it's an attempt to prevent other people having to go through what those victims went through at the hands of an irresponsible press who didn't care if what they printed could ruin someone's life - as long as the sales figures were up.
I can't believe anyone would want that situation to remain the same. Although I'm not surprised to see the usual attempts to twist the subject into yet another stick to beat the McCanns with. It's par for the course for some sceptics.
AIMO
The stories being commented on above are nothing to do with Gerry McCann in particular, just of the pressure group he is part of. I believe it was Brian Cathcart who said the press had 'an obligation' to publish the Wittingdale story. Judging by the reaction that was a bad move which may have been prevented had they used a media advisor.
-
I'm trying to catch up on this.
One side of the story:
I say story, but that's inaccurate. There is no story here. Between August 2013 and February 2014 a single man went out with a woman. The fact the man happened to be media secretary and that she happened to be a sex worker has somehow made this worthy of Hacked Off's attention.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/04/13/whittingdale-story-destroys-the-last-vestiges-of-hacked-off
The other side:
Hacked Off
@hackinginquiry
This is NOT about Whittingdale private life: it's about whether press had power over him & why he's blocking key access to justice reforms.
https://twitter.com/hackinginquiry/status/720150630392795136
Back on the other side: has it been established that he has been blocking access to reforms?
Not much appears to have happened, but who or what is at the root of it?
-
Although Whittingdale is a cabinet minister, he would not be able to block anything, if his boss (Cameron) wished it to proceed. One must look elsewhere than Whittingdale for a culprit. IMO
-
Hmmm.
WHITTINGDALE SHOULD NEVER HAVE INTERFERED WITH PRESS REGULATION
WHITTINGDALE SHOULD NEVER HAVE INTERFERED WITH PRESS REGULATION
ATTENTION GRABBING OR MISLEADING? SOME OF FEBRUARY’S NATIONAL HEADLINES
David Cameron and Leveson 2: The Promises
Whittingdale and the story no paper will publish: Vital questions must be answered
Co-signatories warn Cameron against breaching 2013 cross-party press agreement
whittingdalefbPosted: April 13, 2016 at 10:14 am
By Brian Cathcart
The controversy surrounding Culture Secretary John Whittingdale today underlines how wrong he was, as a minister, to involve himself directly in the business of press regulation – something the Leveson Report explicitly warned against. In a healthy democracy the press must be free from meddling by politicians, and Hacked Off has always been clear on this point.* Such meddling raises three distinct dangers:
Censorship, where politicians assert power to gag or bully news publishers;
Corrupt trading in favours, where politicians alter their policies to suit news publishers in return for sympathetic coverage;
Blackmail, where news publishers extract favours from politicians, contrary to the public interest, by threatening to reveal potentially embarrassing information about them.
If politicians have no role at all in press regulation these problems are far less likely to arise. Under the Royal Charter both press self-regulation itself and the oversight of press self-regulation are kept entirely free from political influence.
Last autumn, however, the Culture Secretary breached these barriers by suspending the implementation of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, a key element of the Charter system enacted by Parliament. He effectively shelved it until he decides to implement it. In doing so he unilaterally made himself the arbiter of press regulation standards, a move totally contrary to the provisions of the Charter system.
It is now accepted that, at the time when Mr Whittingdale made this intervention, he knew several national newspapers were in possession of a potentially embarrassing news story about him. This is precisely the kind of story they routinely publish almost irrespective of public interest justifications, but this time they withheld it – and it is surely naïve to suggest that they did so in this particular case because of ethical scruples never otherwise on show.
Mr Whittingdale’s action to shelve Section 40 was a cause of delight at corporate national newspapers. In addition, Mr Whittingdale leaked that he wants to cut short the Leveson Inquiry before it begins its second phase investigating press criminality and its cover-up. Again the papers were delighted.
Further, he set in motion processes clearly designed to shrink and weaken the BBC. Again the press, and particularly the Murdoch press, were pleased.
Hacked Off has no interest whatever in Mr Whittingdale’s private life, but this sequence of events makes his private life relevant to the matter of independent press regulation, which in turn affects many thousands of people.
Only very recently many of the victims of press abuse who gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry wrote to David Cameron to ask him why he was breaking his promises to them. He brushed off their concerns – and referred them to John Whittingdale.
Given what we now know, the public is inevitably left with the suspicion that, despite his denials, Mr Whittingdale’s actions could have been influenced by his knowledge that the press was aware of these private matters and might publish. That suspicion is fatal to trust in his ability to act in the public interest.
It is only five years since the hidden wiring of relationships between press and politicians started to be laid bare by the hacking scandal, and the result then was widespread outrage. Any politician entering this area today should ensure that his or her actions are clearly above board – especially at a time when personal and social relations with press bosses are being publicly renewed.
Mr Whittingdale should never have meddled. Parliament clearly intended him to commence Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act as a matter of routine by last autumn at the latest and that is precisely what he should have done. Before he makes things any worse he should commence it now and confirm that Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry will take place.
* Hacked Off was instrumental in ensuring that the terms of reference of the Leveson Inquiry included the explicit requirement that it make recommendations ‘for a new more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press, the plurality of the media, and its independence, including from Government, while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards. . . .’ also played a leading role in ensuring that under the Royal Charter working politicians can play no part in appointments to the Press Recognition Panel or in the PRP itself, nor could they play any part in a recognised press self-regulator or in appointments to one. By contrast, and at the insistence of the press proprietors, IPSO has no such bars, which means that working politicians could actually run IPSO just as they ran the Press Complaints Commission for most of its existence.
http://hackinginquiry.org/mediareleases/whittingdale-should-never-have-interfered-with-press-regulation/
Daily Mail (no byline):
Before the Leveson Inquiry, such a story might have appeared on an inside page of the News of the World (now defunct, thanks to Hacked Off).
But under the draconian regime post-Leveson, papers were naturally reluctant to publish with so little justification and scant public interest.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3538903/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Hacked-BBC-arrant-hypocrisy.html#ixzz45nfs67Ms
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Greenslade appears to think that it's a non-story and that Whittingdale didn't have as much power as some suspect:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/media-blog/2016/apr/13/whittingdale-sex-worker-culture-secretary-minister
A number of media experts said that newspapers could not have run the story, as it did not meet the necessary public interest threshold.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/labour-and-hacked-off-accused-of-unbelievable-hypocrisy-over-joh/
There is clearly a media / political war, IMO.
My personal view is that everyone is entitled to a private life (barring illegal practices) and that press intrusion has been disgraceful. At the same time, there can sometimes be a genuine public interest issue at stake (and no... there is a distinction between public interest and what the public may find titillating).
I can't see any fathomable reason for a public interest defence in the Max Mosely affair, for example, but I can see one in this instance.
-
Although Whittingdale is a cabinet minister, he would not be able to block anything, if his boss (Cameron) wished it to proceed. One must look elsewhere than Whittingdale for a culprit. IMO
Possibly, but the decision-making processes don't appear that limpid to me at the moment.
-
Although Whittingdale is a cabinet minister, he would not be able to block anything, if his boss (Cameron) wished it to proceed. One must look elsewhere than Whittingdale for a culprit. IMO
Thanks Carana for the links.
Hacked Off are being neither hypocritical or prurient as regards Mr Whittingdale's private life ... but in essence he is not a private person.
He is a government minister.
His alleged involvement in blocking the all party agreement on Leveson is something which must clearly be scrutinised more closely. There is far more at risk here than the chance to deliver a cheap jibe at the spokesperson of the organisation raising the alarm.
**snip
Last autumn, however, the Culture Secretary breached these barriers by suspending the implementation of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, a key element of the Charter system enacted by Parliament. He effectively shelved it until he decides to implement it. In doing so he unilaterally made himself the arbiter of press regulation standards, a move totally contrary to the provisions of the Charter system.
It is now accepted that, at the time when Mr Whittingdale made this intervention, he knew several national newspapers were in possession of a potentially embarrassing news story about him. This is precisely the kind of story they routinely publish almost irrespective of public interest justifications, but this time they withheld it – and it is surely naïve to suggest that they did so in this particular case because of ethical scruples never otherwise on show.
Mr Whittingdale’s action to shelve Section 40 was a cause of delight at corporate national newspapers. In addition, Mr Whittingdale leaked that he wants to cut short the Leveson Inquiry before it begins its second phase investigating press criminality and its cover-up. Again the papers were delighted.
Further, he set in motion processes clearly designed to shrink and weaken the BBC. Again the press, and particularly the Murdoch press, were pleased.
Hacked Off has no interest whatever in Mr Whittingdale’s private life, but this sequence of events makes his private life relevant to the matter of independent press regulation, which in turn affects many thousands of people.
http://hackinginquiry.org/mediareleases/whittingdale-should-never-have-interfered-with-press-regulation/
-
Thanks Carana for the links.
Hacked Off are being neither hypocritical or prurient as regards Mr Whittingdale's private life ... but in essence he is not a private person.
He is a government minister.
His alleged involvement in blocking the all party agreement on Leveson is something which must clearly be scrutinised more closely. There is far more at risk here than the chance to deliver a cheap jibe at the spokesperson of the organisation raising the alarm.
**snip
Last autumn, however, the Culture Secretary breached these barriers by suspending the implementation of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, a key element of the Charter system enacted by Parliament. He effectively shelved it until he decides to implement it. In doing so he unilaterally made himself the arbiter of press regulation standards, a move totally contrary to the provisions of the Charter system.
It is now accepted that, at the time when Mr Whittingdale made this intervention, he knew several national newspapers were in possession of a potentially embarrassing news story about him. This is precisely the kind of story they routinely publish almost irrespective of public interest justifications, but this time they withheld it – and it is surely naïve to suggest that they did so in this particular case because of ethical scruples never otherwise on show.
Mr Whittingdale’s action to shelve Section 40 was a cause of delight at corporate national newspapers. In addition, Mr Whittingdale leaked that he wants to cut short the Leveson Inquiry before it begins its second phase investigating press criminality and its cover-up. Again the papers were delighted.
Further, he set in motion processes clearly designed to shrink and weaken the BBC. Again the press, and particularly the Murdoch press, were pleased.
Hacked Off has no interest whatever in Mr Whittingdale’s private life, but this sequence of events makes his private life relevant to the matter of independent press regulation, which in turn affects many thousands of people.
http://hackinginquiry.org/mediareleases/whittingdale-should-never-have-interfered-with-press-regulation/
For what little I understand of what is going on, I agree. He seems to have been offering himself the protection that no one else had.
-
For what little I understand of what is going on, I agree. He seems to have been offering himself the protection that no one else had.
If true he was sacrificing a great deal of the public good for his short term self interest. The implications of the most powerful in the land being controlled by press barons makes my blood run cold.
It was such a trivial matter too in the sphere of things ... I think he could well have brazened it out and got his version of events in first both to his bosses and the public domain ... he knows where twitter and facebook are.
-
A different view from an ex-sex worker:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/14/shaming-ex-john-whittingdale-culture-secretary
-
As far as I can work out, there is still a major confusion between the "public interest" and what may "interest the public".
At some point, the media will have to agree on some way forward.
Ironically, this chap seems to be in the cross-fire.
-
As far as I can work out, there is still a major confusion between the "public interest" and what may "interest the public".
At some point, the media will have to agree on some way forward.
Ironically, this chap seems to be in the cross-fire.
Sauce for the goose, or sauce for the gander.
-
Hacked Off would appear to be missing one basic point. Implementation was never in THIS governments manifesto!
One wonders why they [HackedOff] didn't make a fuss twelve months ago (they may have done but I don't recall it)
"Conservative manifesto pledges protection for journalists under bill of rights and makes no Leveson commitments"
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/conservative-manifesto-pledges-protection-journalists-under-bill-rights-and-makes-no-leveson
Sajid Javid rules out Tory press regulation intervention: 'Our job is done as a government. It's up to the press'
"A Conservative government would not seek to change the current system of press regulation, Culture Secretary Sajid Javid has said.
Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party all said in their election manifestos that the press should be forced to sign up for Leveson-compliant regulation.
The vast majority of newspaper and magazine publishers are currently signed up the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which replaced the Press Complaints Commission in September last year. The Guardian, Independent titles, Evening Standard and Financial Times have not signed up to IPSO.
Asked by the Daily Mail whether a Conservative government would “force the press to abide by a Leveson-approved system”, Javid said: “No, we won’t. But Labour will. It interferes with the freedom of the press".
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sajid-javid-rules-out-tory-press-regulation-intervention-our-job-done-government-its-press
-
Latest from Hacked Off
(https://gallery.mailchimp.com/36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47/images/b08b2e9e-a16e-4e2e-bf94-93747b89bf11.jpg)
(https://gallery.mailchimp.com/36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47/images/134a2018-42cb-4cdb-922b-c81b33a1a36d.jpg)
Dear Supporter,
We are expecting to come under attack with smears and lies in some of this weekend’s newspaper, just as we were when we successfully called for the Leveson Inquiry in 2011 and campaigned for the "full Leveson" Royal Charter in 2013.
We have been telling you for months that our campaign for the ‘commencement’ of guaranteed access to justice legislation and for confirmation that Leveson Part 2 will definitely go ahead, would be our biggest campaign yet – and the more traction we get in exposing the Prime Minister’s and John Whittingdale’s broken promises to victims, the more desperate the big newspapers become.
It’s important to us that you have the facts, so here they are:
Revelations of a possible conflict of interest against the Culture Secretary were broken by experienced former Indy journalist Jim Cusick on byline.com last week. The revelations were that three tabloids (the People, Sun and Mail on Sunday) had investigated John Whittingdale’s private life but then decided not to run it, and he alleged that the Independent had spiked the story because their landlords, The Daily Mail, regarded him as an “asset”.
The story was then further published by Private Eye, Open Democracy and BBC Newsnight.
Culture Secretary John Whittingdale issued a statement.
As a result of the statement, Hacked Off was approached for a comment by BBC Newsnight and other outlets where we were clear that Whittingdale was wrong to ever intervene in press regulation and break promises to victims, and that these revelations raised the possibility that fear of the press factored in Whittingdale’s decision to cow to them. You can read our statement here. Following this we received lots of bids for comment from newspapers, broadcasters and others.
Our line has always been that this story is not about John Whittingdale’s private life. It is about the possibility of newspapers withholding a story over the Cabinet Minister who presides over press regulation and him fearing they could use it as he reversed Government policy in their favour. It is about why, precisely, politicians should not interfere in press regulation as Whittingdale has done.
We do not know if the story had a bearing on Whittingdale’s decision to go back on the Prime Minister’s promises over press regulation. But there is every reason to believe it might have been a factor. The only way to prove they are not in hock to the press is for the Government to keep its promises over press regulation, and implement s40 and re-commit to Leveson Part 2. Victims of press abuse wrote to the Prime Minister only last week demanding this.
A number of broadcast commentators support this position.
In addition, the NUJ’s General Secretary Michelle Stanistreet has today called for John Whittingdale to resign claiming "he has compromised his position and integrity by allowing his privacy to be shielded by the newspaper owners who have been leaning on him throughout this time, in order that he deliver on press regulation and on the emasculation of the BBC."
As we’ve said all along – we have made more progress than ever before, and with your help, we can win this fight.
A number of you have already been incredibly generous by making unprompted donations to us this week. We are incredibly grateful. THANK YOU.
Now, if you haven’t already, please sign up to take action today:
Urge your MP to ask the Prime Minister to meet with victims of press abuse, without delay.
Attend our Parliamentary Lobby to hear experts, victims and Parliamentarians explain why these promises are so important and to lobby your MP face-to-face.
Support our social media campaign by sharing and re-tweeting our posts on Facebook and Twitter (please set your Twitter notifications to ‘on’ so you don’t miss a tweet).
Thank you,
Daisy and Evan
Joint Executive Directors, Hacked Off
http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47&id=6df7e3f3f2&e=58fbdaece9
-
This type of pressure group politics will not work. For a start, this group has always been on the outside of the decision making process. But given the seriousness of events that unfolded during the phone hacking revelations, they were given undue credit for having 'pressurised' the government into a judicial review. The truth of the matter is that the crimes were so serious (Dowler hacking for example) that the subsequent Leveson Inquiry was always bound to happen, The momentum was there from the news story alone: a judicial review is always the favoured choice of a government on matters such as this. Then came the legislation, and the debate over what form the new regulator should take.
Now they are demanding the full implementation of Section 40, which would ultimately liberalise the libel process -- and the reason Hacked Off want this such a liberalisation is to allow the 'little' guy to take on the likes of Dacre and Desmond. Fair enough you might say. But it will also mean limits on freedom of press, as newspapers' legal teams will block an ever-increasing number of stories for fear of a libel case and all the costs that would be guaranteed to go with it.
But Hacked Off (and Gerry) will fail. Cameron will not implement the change -- for the following reasons.
First, Hacked Off are led by Lib Dem no-marks. Following the GE 2015, the Lib Dems are irrelevant in contemporary British politics. But even worse for Hacked Off -- Evan Harris (the guy behind Hacked Off) is particularly hated at Westminster and also by respected political commentators (Andrew Neil could not hide his loathing of him this week during their Q&A). The reason they are loathed is simple: their leadership (Harris in particular) are complete and utter hypocrites, who are clearly exploiting the grief of the likes of the Dowlers and the Hillsborough families to further their own political agenda.
Second, even if HO was not Lib Dem/Evan Harris dominated... its tactics have just ended any opportunity of the government pursuing any compromise. Whittingdale is well-liked by his peers and journalists alike. Cameron and his special advisers won't forget these attacks during an already troublesome week (Did Gerry think of the 'betrayed' line? Very dangerous move, given that the McCanns have received such excellent treatment so far from the Home Office re: Grange). And strutting Gerry McCann out at the launch of the news blitz was a colossal miscalculation -- the BBC even used the #McCann in their twitter announcement -- a channel that isn't favourable to the McCanns, is inhabited by anti-Semites ("Israel Bombs Babies") and other cranks of the internet world who among other things, attempt to discredit cadaver dogs on a full-time basis. Not a great crowd to be associated with.
Third, the public don't understand the issue enough well enough to rally around it, like say the Burkhas being denied particular rights after fighting for their country. (Re: Burkhas, compare Evan Harris/Gerry McCann to the likeable Joanna Lumley). Without public support, forget about it. Outside of a few Guardianistas, that hashtag will not be taking off. The minute they started talking about Section 40 -- that's right the 40th section of a law (Crime and Courts Act 2013) with 61 sections, they lost people. They should have been smart and called it a campaign to abolish the Libel Tax or something.
Fourth, the media will destroy Hacked Off for obvious reasons: libel liberalisation could destroy them.
Fifth, Britain is not France. We have no tradition of the French model of strong press regulation. Politicians and media alike will resist 'continental-style' reform from a vague position of unwritten, but palpable, British constitutionalism.
Finally, Hacked Off is not a strong, unified organisation. Yes, Chris Jeffries is interested. Yes, Gerry McCann is interested. Yes, a few Lib Dems are interested. But the other victims are hesitant - most likely because they never signed their names up to Hacked Off letters to make a wholesale reform of the British press, but rather to protest at the excesses of it. The government brought about some reform -- and the press culture has changed markedly from the excesses of a decade ago.
--
Anyway, in summary. Section 40 will not be implemented, so Gerry would be better spending the time he has been dedicating to HO enjoying his kids growing up. Libel law will continue to favour the newspapers -- and that will mean they will be freer to print stories, especially when they know certain individuals are in a weak financial position.
-
An excellent post Gadfly and one to which I can certainly identify. I am not a fan of the Press by any means having had falsehoods printed about me too so I naturally tended to support any incentive which sought to limit their power. As you have so eloquently pointed out I don't believe Hacked Off have sufficient support in order to achieve this. A pity really.
-
Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will change. Too many people are perfectly happy to use the press when is suits them, government included, infact the government MAINLY. As such I don't think anything will ever change.
-
Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will change. Too many people are perfectly happy to use the press when is suits them, government included, infact the government MAINLY. As such I don't think anything will ever change.
Of course it wont. The principles the press intially and then a free press were founded on were hard fought for centuries ago. No sane person would go down the slippery slope of regulation. Any journalist who thinks its a good idea is joking.
-
If the press set out solely to destroy someone then that should be seen worthless, petty journalism and the liable laws should be used. If people set themselves up to be whiter than white and demand we do things their way and hypocracy is apparents then, well, I have no issues with the press bringing this hypocracy to our attention.
I have no interest in celebrities sleeping around, or their sexual orientation,or poltical persuasion. BUT as soon as they try to hood wink others, then I am happy for them to be called to question.
People should enjoy a private life if that life does not include ,serial killer,child abuser, terrorist/sympathiser/greedy corrupt politicians/police/ anyone in public office who say one thing and do another, cheats, fraudsters and other low life types.
Have a look at the link below to see how people can manipulate the press,be declared innocent, and then....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3553635/Stay-home-father-told-999-operator-little-girl-fallen-lying-call-two-hours-beat-death-fit-rage.html
-
Latest from Hacked Off
(https://gallery.mailchimp.com/36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47/images/b08b2e9e-a16e-4e2e-bf94-93747b89bf11.jpg)
Dear Friends,
Your MP is being lobbied by newspaper editors who are being encouraged by the big newspaper corporations to try to block the Leveson process.
Editors are asking MPs to oppose the initiation of the access to justice measure - which also importantly acts as an incentive for them to join the Leveson system - which all parties promised to deliver and which Parliament passed into law in 2013.
So we need your help - today. (http://hackinginquiry.takeaction.org.uk/lobby/dontletlevesonbescrapped)
The big news corporations are panicking. They know that if the new Leveson-complaint regulator IMPRESS is 'recognised' later this month, then the Government will be put under huge pressure - by victims of press abuse, by the ethical majority of the industry and by you the public - to trigger the incentives that will encourage newspapers to join this new recognised regulator, or to overhaul IPSO so it meets the same high standards, and deliver access to justice for victims of press abuse.
Just this week, the Government suffered a large defeat in a vote on the “Snoopers’ Charter” (Investigatory Powers Bill) as the House of Lords voted overwhelmingly to introduce the measure for phone hacking victims. We want this measure to be extended to victims of libel and intrusion too, as was originally agreed by Parliament in 2013, but the government – after holding secret meetings with editors and owners - is backtracking.
With the House of Lords prepared to act to ensure Leveson implementation and the prospect of a recognised regulator in sight, the newspaper editors are desperately attempting to mislead MPs. In letters that we've seen, they are claiming that the new guaranteed access to justice measure will put local newspaper publishers "at risk of crippling legal costs". Friends, this is NOT TRUE.
The measure ensures access to justice for the public when newspapers refuse to offer guaranteed cheap arbitration, while providing court costs protection to newspapers who sign up to the Leveson system.
Will you please write to your MP urgently today, to explain to them what the new system looks like and how much public support it has? (http://hackinginquiry.takeaction.org.uk/lobby/dontletlevesonbescrapped)
Last time we asked you to write to your MPs, nearly 7,000 of you did. Please help us do this again.
Please follow this link to email your MP today. (http://hackinginquiry.takeaction.org.uk/lobby/dontletlevesonbescrapped)
Best wishes
Daisy and Evan
Joint Executive Directors, Hacked Off
-
Latest from Hacked Off
(https://gallery.mailchimp.com/36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47/images/b08b2e9e-a16e-4e2e-bf94-93747b89bf11.jpg)
Dear Friends,
Your MP is being lobbied by newspaper editors who are being encouraged by the big newspaper corporations to try to block the Leveson process.
Editors are asking MPs to oppose the initiation of the access to justice measure - which also importantly acts as an incentive for them to join the Leveson system - which all parties promised to deliver and which Parliament passed into law in 2013.
So we need your help - today. (http://hackinginquiry.takeaction.org.uk/lobby/dontletlevesonbescrapped)
The big news corporations are panicking. They know that if the new Leveson-complaint regulator IMPRESS is 'recognised' later this month, then the Government will be put under huge pressure - by victims of press abuse, by the ethical majority of the industry and by you the public - to trigger the incentives that will encourage newspapers to join this new recognised regulator, or to overhaul IPSO so it meets the same high standards, and deliver access to justice for victims of press abuse.
Just this week, the Government suffered a large defeat in a vote on the “Snoopers’ Charter” (Investigatory Powers Bill) as the House of Lords voted overwhelmingly to introduce the measure for phone hacking victims. We want this measure to be extended to victims of libel and intrusion too, as was originally agreed by Parliament in 2013, but the government – after holding secret meetings with editors and owners - is backtracking.
With the House of Lords prepared to act to ensure Leveson implementation and the prospect of a recognised regulator in sight, the newspaper editors are desperately attempting to mislead MPs. In letters that we've seen, they are claiming that the new guaranteed access to justice measure will put local newspaper publishers "at risk of crippling legal costs". Friends, this is NOT TRUE.
The measure ensures access to justice for the public when newspapers refuse to offer guaranteed cheap arbitration, while providing court costs protection to newspapers who sign up to the Leveson system.
Will you please write to your MP urgently today, to explain to them what the new system looks like and how much public support it has? (http://hackinginquiry.takeaction.org.uk/lobby/dontletlevesonbescrapped)
Last time we asked you to write to your MPs, nearly 7,000 of you did. Please help us do this again.
Please follow this link to email your MP today. (http://hackinginquiry.takeaction.org.uk/lobby/dontletlevesonbescrapped)
Best wishes
Daisy and Evan
Joint Executive Directors, Hacked Off
See the emboldened bit.
That gets far enough up my nose, with crampons, to say upstick to Hacked Off.
The implication that somehow they are of a rank above the public......................?
-
See the emboldened bit.
That gets far enough up my nose, with crampons, to say upstick to Hacked Off.
The implication that somehow they are of a rank above the public......................?
Shades of the Brexit In and Out campaigners, the Labour MP's who know better than the members.....touch your forelock and listen to those who know best!
Who are the ethical majority in the media then?
-
Shades of the Brexit In and Out campaigners, the Labour MP's who know better than the members.....touch your forelock and listen to those who know best!
Who are the ethical majority in the media then?
Those that dont hack mobile phones....because that is the only crime the media could ever commit
-
Latest from Hacked Off
(https://gallery.mailchimp.com/36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47/images/b08b2e9e-a16e-4e2e-bf94-93747b89bf11.jpg)
Dear Friends,
Yesterday, we shared a film in which victims of press abuse told their stories: it included Jacqui Hames, a police officer whose family was placed under surveillance by the News of the World, during a murder investigation.
However, within minutes of sending you the link, the video was temporarily suspended by YouTube with only a glib explanation being given. It’s not yet clear whether this was due to a technical reason or because some viewers reported it, but we’ve uploaded it onto a different platform and you can now watch it here.
We asked you yesterday to watch the video and email the Prime Minister and almost 2,000 of you have done so already – thank you.
Please will you watch this (re-posted) video and if you haven’t already, please email the Prime Minister now?
http://hackinginquiry.org/latest-news/theresa-may-guarantee-press-victims-access-to-justice/
The measure that victims are calling for – Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act – is a ‘win win win’.
It delivers guaranteed access to justice to those victims who don't have the money to take a big newspaper corporation to court
It acts as a 'cost shifting incentive', so that newspaper corporations are encouraged to join a recognised regulator (because if they refuse to offer complainants access to quick cheap arbitration through a Leveson-style regulator, they have to pay a claimant's costs, win or lose), and It gives journalists stronger free speech protections so that they can expose wrong-doing free from the threat of chilling from litigious offenders like Robert Maxwell and Jimmy Savile.
We know that the Prime Minister has already met secretly with Rupert Murdoch once. And it is unlikely to have been her only contact with a press owner over this matter. They will do everything they can to retain their power without accountability.
Please watch this video and email the PM without delay. (http://hackinginquiry.org/latest-news/theresa-may-guarantee-press-victims-access-to-justice/)
Thank you,
Daisy and Evan
Joint Executive Directors, Hacked Off
http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47&id=d555874322&e=58fbdaece9
-
Leveson recommendations seem a dead duck now
Good
There should be no room for silencing the press j ust some valid mechanism to deal with abuses
-
Latest from Hacked Off
(https://gallery.mailchimp.com/36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47/images/b08b2e9e-a16e-4e2e-bf94-93747b89bf11.jpg)
(https://gallery.mailchimp.com/36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47/images/89e4925f-227d-4dc2-b02b-0e314ce5a48a.png)
Dear Friend
We need your help to make sure that press abuse victims are not betrayed and that Leveson’s recommendations are not abandoned.
This week political parties published their manifestos for the General Election on 8th June and we learned that the Conservative party are proposing to abandon the Leveson reforms which they agreed on a cross-party basis in 2011, and to cancel Part 2 of the inquiry which would investigate police corruption and the cover-ups of criminality at newspapers. We will fight this disgraceful betrayal.
The Conservatives, however, have chosen to renege on the cross party agreement and to betray press abuse victims. Their manifesto pledges to repeal the “Section 40” low cost arbitration incentive and thereby deny ordinary people affected by illegal press abuse access to justice. They have also pledged to abandon the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry, allowing unaccountable press barons to continue to get away with corporate misconduct. This appalling reversal comes in spite of the support for Leveson from a number of rank-and-file Conservative members, MPs and Peers.
After all the unminuted meetings between press representatives and the office of Number 10 over the last year, we can only conclude that There has been collusion at the highest level between government and newspaper owners. It appears that the Prime Minister has stitched up a calculated deal to trade the interests of the public for favourable coverage in powerful newspapers.
Press victim, Christopher Jefferies said:
"If this pledge is carried through, there will be no effective, independent regulation of the press in this country and no access to affordable justice for victims of press abuse. I wish to make it clear that I and others who have suffered at the hands of powerful and unaccountable newspapers will not tolerate this betrayal.
"We will fight throughout the next Parliament to ensure that the voices of ordinary people are heard above the megaphones of self-interested newspaper editors and proprietors. We will fight to ensure that the careful regulatory framework proposed by Leveson and agreed by Parliament is not systematically dismantled by a government subservient to newspaper editors. And we will fight to ensure that any inconvenient truths about cover-ups and about collusion between police, press and politicians in the past are exposed to proper scrutiny."
We need to challenge the Conservative leadership on why they have gone back on their word, but we can’t do it without your help! We need you to make sure you hold your prospective MPs to account in the run-up to this General Election. We will send you more on this next week.
Thank you for your continued support,
The Hacked Off team.
Read the full Press Release here. (http://mailchi.mp/hackinginquiry/theresa-may-reneges-leveson-dont-let-them-get-away-with-it?e=58fbdaece9)
-
Latest from Hacked Off
(https://gallery.mailchimp.com/36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47/images/b08b2e9e-a16e-4e2e-bf94-93747b89bf11.jpg)
(https://gallery.mailchimp.com/36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47/images/89e4925f-227d-4dc2-b02b-0e314ce5a48a.png)
Dear Friend
We need your help to make sure that press abuse victims are not betrayed and that Leveson’s recommendations are not abandoned.
This week political parties published their manifestos for the General Election on 8th June and we learned that the Conservative party are proposing to abandon the Leveson reforms which they agreed on a cross-party basis in 2011, and to cancel Part 2 of the inquiry which would investigate police corruption and the cover-ups of criminality at newspapers. We will fight this disgraceful betrayal.
The Conservatives, however, have chosen to renege on the cross party agreement and to betray press abuse victims. Their manifesto pledges to repeal the “Section 40” low cost arbitration incentive and thereby deny ordinary people affected by illegal press abuse access to justice. They have also pledged to abandon the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry, allowing unaccountable press barons to continue to get away with corporate misconduct. This appalling reversal comes in spite of the support for Leveson from a number of rank-and-file Conservative members, MPs and Peers.
After all the unminuted meetings between press representatives and the office of Number 10 over the last year, we can only conclude that There has been collusion at the highest level between government and newspaper owners. It appears that the Prime Minister has stitched up a calculated deal to trade the interests of the public for favourable coverage in powerful newspapers.
Press victim, Christopher Jefferies said:
"If this pledge is carried through, there will be no effective, independent regulation of the press in this country and no access to affordable justice for victims of press abuse. I wish to make it clear that I and others who have suffered at the hands of powerful and unaccountable newspapers will not tolerate this betrayal.
"We will fight throughout the next Parliament to ensure that the voices of ordinary people are heard above the megaphones of self-interested newspaper editors and proprietors. We will fight to ensure that the careful regulatory framework proposed by Leveson and agreed by Parliament is not systematically dismantled by a government subservient to newspaper editors. And we will fight to ensure that any inconvenient truths about cover-ups and about collusion between police, press and politicians in the past are exposed to proper scrutiny."
We need to challenge the Conservative leadership on why they have gone back on their word, but we can’t do it without your help! We need you to make sure you hold your prospective MPs to account in the run-up to this General Election. We will send you more on this next week.
Thank you for your continued support,
The Hacked Off team.
Read the full Press Release here. (http://mailchi.mp/hackinginquiry/theresa-may-reneges-leveson-dont-let-them-get-away-with-it?e=58fbdaece9)
Gerry being a member of this elite in society group.
"justice for victims of press abuse" and this : "I and others who have suffered at the hands of powerful and unaccountable newspapers will not tolerate this betrayal".
What exactly did Kate n Gerry do with this mosterous press? they paid money to be kept in the headlines, they said nothing in defence of the police investigating their childs disappearance when they were called all sorts of names, instigated by them and their family, Hypocracy or what?
The 'press' are losing out to the internet. The place where us lower society group research ourselves and make our own descisions. 8**8:/:
Two important things to know about elections and 'parties' they are self promoting closed shops, and are run and controlled by the Murdoch empire. ?>)()<
-
Gerry being a member of this elite in society group.
"justice for victims of press abuse" and this : "I and others who have suffered at the hands of powerful and unaccountable newspapers will not tolerate this betrayal".
What exactly did Kate n Gerry do with this mosterous press? they paid money to be kept in the headlines, they said nothing in defence of the police investigating their childs disappearance when they were called all sorts of names, instigated by them and their family, Hypocracy or what?
The 'press' are losing out to the internet. The place where us lower society group research ourselves and make our own descisions. 8**8:/:
Two important things to know about elections and 'parties' they are self promoting closed shops, and are run and controlled by the Murdoch empire. ?>)()<
Pertinent post.
The Mccanns failure to condemn criticism, IMHO, merely highlights their narcissism, and their attitude that it's all about them.
-
The condemnation of McCann has spread to other parts of the media.
Let's not forget the £500,000 given to a media baron Lord Bell, to keep the mccanns in the spotlight.
I haven't been able to find any independent corroboration of that.
What seems more likely to me is that his company did receive a large sum of money from Mark Warner for crisis management related to the case.
-
I haven't been able to find any independent corroboration of that.
What seems more likely to me is that his company did receive a large sum of money from Mark Warner for crisis management related to the case.
Nice to see you not being able to find independent corroboration for Stephens post - and then provide NONE for your 'opinion'. Crisis management money was used to...?
-
The Judicial Review into the Government’s U-turn on finishing the Leveson Inquiry, which was made possible by you and other Hacked Off supporters, has today found in favour of the Government.
Whilst finding that the former Prime Minister David Cameron repeatedly set out his intention to complete the Inquiry, the High Court ruling published today found that the Government had met its narrow legal obligations in how it cancelled the Inquiry.
We are bitterly disappointed with this outcome. But through this legal challenge, made possible by the generous and unwavering support of Hacked Off supporters, the Government’s cowardly refusal to challenge powerful newspaper proprietors and editors for their illegal behaviour has been exposed.
Thank you for making this possible.
The Government cannot hide behind today’s judgement to justify its decision as reasonable, proportionate or in the public interest. It has completely discarded personal commitments by a Conservative Prime Minister to the victims to complete this Inquiry.
This is not the end for Leveson Part Two. It is needed more than ever, to uncover the scale of unlawful and unethical conduct in which senior newspaper executives were complicit. That is why it continues to be supported by working journalists, the general public, and Parliamentarians across the country.
One of the applicants and victim of intrusion Jacqui Hames said,
“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.
“I and other victims of press illegality will continue to campaign and pursue every avenue to obtain the justice we were promised, and to see the completion of the Leveson Inquiry.”
The judgment reported that Sir Brian Leveson himself “fundamentally disagreed” with the Government’s decision to cancel the second part of the Inquiry, and highlighted the seriousness and egregiousness of the press abuse suffered by the applicants.
The second part of the Inquiry would investigate the extent of the illegal activity which is known to have occurred at Trinity Mirror Group and News International (now News UK), and which is alleged to have occurred at other newspaper groups. It would also explore allegations of corrupt relationships between the police, politicians and the press, and the role of senior newspaper executives in authorising and condoning press abuse.
At Hacked Off our message remains clear: the corporate press may have the megaphone, the money and the might, but they do not have right on their side.
We are committed to stopping the Government reneging on its promises and we will continue our fight to ensure that powerful newspaper executives are held to account.
Thank you again for your outstanding generosity and support,
The Hacked Off Team
-
The Judicial Review into the Government’s U-turn on finishing the Leveson Inquiry, which was made possible by you and other Hacked Off supporters, has today found in favour of the Government.
Whilst finding that the former Prime Minister David Cameron repeatedly set out his intention to complete the Inquiry, the High Court ruling published today found that the Government had met its narrow legal obligations in how it cancelled the Inquiry.
We are bitterly disappointed with this outcome. But through this legal challenge, made possible by the generous and unwavering support of Hacked Off supporters, the Government’s cowardly refusal to challenge powerful newspaper proprietors and editors for their illegal behaviour has been exposed.
Thank you for making this possible.
The Government cannot hide behind today’s judgement to justify its decision as reasonable, proportionate or in the public interest. It has completely discarded personal commitments by a Conservative Prime Minister to the victims to complete this Inquiry.
This is not the end for Leveson Part Two. It is needed more than ever, to uncover the scale of unlawful and unethical conduct in which senior newspaper executives were complicit. That is why it continues to be supported by working journalists, the general public, and Parliamentarians across the country.
One of the applicants and victim of intrusion Jacqui Hames said,
“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.
“I and other victims of press illegality will continue to campaign and pursue every avenue to obtain the justice we were promised, and to see the completion of the Leveson Inquiry.”
The judgment reported that Sir Brian Leveson himself “fundamentally disagreed” with the Government’s decision to cancel the second part of the Inquiry, and highlighted the seriousness and egregiousness of the press abuse suffered by the applicants.
The second part of the Inquiry would investigate the extent of the illegal activity which is known to have occurred at Trinity Mirror Group and News International (now News UK), and which is alleged to have occurred at other newspaper groups. It would also explore allegations of corrupt relationships between the police, politicians and the press, and the role of senior newspaper executives in authorising and condoning press abuse.
At Hacked Off our message remains clear: the corporate press may have the megaphone, the money and the might, but they do not have right on their side.
We are committed to stopping the Government reneging on its promises and we will continue our fight to ensure that powerful newspaper executives are held to account.
Thank you again for your outstanding generosity and support,
The Hacked Off Team
Hmmm.
It sounds like the equivalent of boxings "he got me with a lucky punch"
-
I haven't been able to find any independent corroboration of that.
What seems more likely to me is that his company did receive a large sum of money from Mark Warner for crisis management related to the case.
Lord Bell said that the McCanns paid his PR company £500,000 to keep them on the front pages of the newspapers for a year in an interview with Owen Jones in the Guardian. Ican't find it on internet anymore but I remember Owen Jones showing his astonishment at this information from Tim Bell.
-
Lord Bell said that the McCanns paid his PR company £500,000 to keep them on the front pages of the newspapers for a year in an interview with Owen Jones in the Guardian. Ican't find it on internet anymore but I remember Owen Jones showing his astonishment at this information from Tim Bell.
If someone paid this "£500,000" to Lord Bell, I have yet to see proof it came from the McCanns.
-
If someone paid this "£500,000" to Lord Bell, I have yet to see proof it came from the McCanns.
Why would Bell say it was from McCann if it wasn't?
-
Why would Bell say it was from McCann if it wasn't?
It could have been an incorrect memory, or a slip of the tongue.
-
It could have been an incorrect memory, or a slip of the tongue.
Why should it be either?
Why wouldn't he know what he was talking about?
No doubt Bell is pretty knowledgeable regarding where his money comes from
-
Why should it be either?
Why wouldn't he know what he was talking about?
No doubt Bell is pretty knowledgeable regarding where his money comes from
Who knows?
-
From this very forum 2015
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6114.0
I'm sure Bell would have been aware of the McCanns willingness to resort to the courts and would have been careful about what he said.
Have McCann or their mouthpiece ever denied Bell's version ?
-
From this very forum 2015
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6114.0
I'm sure Bell would have been aware of the McCanns willingness to resort to the courts and would have been careful about what he said.
Have McCann or their mouthpiece ever denied Bell's version ?
It makes quite a mess of the McCann's complaints if Bell was telling the truth;
The McCanns complained of press intrusion into their lives after their daughter Madeleine went missing on holiday in Portugal in 2007.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/mccanns-challenge-uk-high-court-over-press-inquiry/47431
-
It makes quite a mess of the McCann's complaints if Bell was telling the truth;
The McCanns complained of press intrusion into their lives after their daughter Madeleine went missing on holiday in Portugal in 2007.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/mccanns-challenge-uk-high-court-over-press-inquiry/47431
"IF" being the most salient word in your post.
-
It makes quite a mess of the McCann's complaints if Bell was telling the truth;
The McCanns complained of press intrusion into their lives after their daughter Madeleine went missing on holiday in Portugal in 2007.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/mccanns-challenge-uk-high-court-over-press-inquiry/47431
I believe in Bells claim, he has no reason to lie.
Firstly we need to understand what this enquiry was about, well first and formemost it WASN'T primarily about Kate N Gerry at all. Even though they do seem to enjoy the old bandwagon thing.....yeah that's right folks, they never had a phone hacked .
It was THEY who contacted the 'media' it was the who gave their blessings to babble to the 'media' even though it was prohibited.
They started up a company in their daughters name to promote an alleged abduction and took EVERY opportunity to advertise this company and its wares. The Media being used of course for this very purpose.
Hacked off? what really?
It would seem the Kate N Gerry show is losing its appeal and probably even more since the two police investigators are not buying their 'mad monster /paedo gang/ burglar didn't 'snatch' their daugher after all.
mmmm
-
"IF" being the most salient word in your post.
Lord Bell. Thatcher's 'spin doctor'. Experienced in advertising and PR. Neither career involves openness and straight talking in my opinion. Yet he made a blunt and unequivocal statement about the McCanns. In my opinion he believed what he said was true.
-
Lord Bell. Thatcher's 'spin doctor'. Experienced in advertising and PR. Neither career involves openness and straight talking in my opinion. Yet he made a blunt and unequivocal statement about the McCanns. In my opinion he believed what he said was true.
We could always use science to give us a helping hand:
https://blog.3dcs.com/what-is-a-tolerance-stack-up
In the McCann case we always use "worst case scenario".
i.e the McCann's version is always gospel and everyone elses is always flaky.....
-
We could always use science to give us a helping hand:
https://blog.3dcs.com/what-is-a-tolerance-stack-up
In the McCann case we always use "worst case scenario".
i.e the McCann's version is always gospel and everyone elses is always flaky.....
It's a fact that the McCanns didn't deny what Lord Bell said, even when accused of hypocrisy;
Mr McCann was roundly slammed on Twitter for "hypocrisy" by senior media commentators as he and his wife Kate have been accused of courting media coverage in the past.
The McCanns reportedly paid PR agency Bell Pottinger £500,000 to keep the case in the media spotlight.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gerry-mccann-slammed-for-hypocrisy-after-speaking-out-about-press-intrusion-a3219046.html
-
It's a fact that the McCanns didn't deny what Lord Bell said, even when accused of hypocrisy;
Mr McCann was roundly slammed on Twitter for "hypocrisy" by senior media commentators as he and his wife Kate have been accused of courting media coverage in the past.
The McCanns reportedly paid PR agency Bell Pottinger £500,000 to keep the case in the media spotlight.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gerry-mccann-slammed-for-hypocrisy-after-speaking-out-about-press-intrusion-a3219046.html
I often wonder what Jeffries and the true victims of press intrusion really think of the McCanns.
-
It's a fact that the McCanns didn't deny what Lord Bell said, even when accused of hypocrisy;
Mr McCann was roundly slammed on Twitter for "hypocrisy" by senior media commentators as he and his wife Kate have been accused of courting media coverage in the past.
The McCanns reportedly paid PR agency Bell Pottinger £500,000 to keep the case in the media spotlight.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gerry-mccann-slammed-for-hypocrisy-after-speaking-out-about-press-intrusion-a3219046.html
I'm wondering if someone else paid for this on behalf of the McCanns. i.e. not their decision.
-
I'm wondering if someone else paid for this on behalf of the McCanns. i.e. not their decision.
But in their name.
-
I'm wondering if someone else paid for this on behalf of the McCanns. i.e. not their decision.
Why are you wondering that? Have they denied it ?
-
I'm wondering if someone else paid for this on behalf of the McCanns. i.e. not their decision.
In her book Kate McCann tells us all about the wealthy people who paid out to help them, so why wouldn't she tell us if someone paid £500,000 to Bell Pottinger to help them publicise their 'search'?
What Kate doesn't give us are clear details of what the fund paid out.
-
In her book Kate McCann tells us all about the wealthy people who paid out to help them, so why wouldn't she tell us if someone paid £500,000 to Bell Pottinger to help them publicise their 'search'?
What Kate doesn't give us are clear details of what the fund paid out.
Isn't that Enid O'Dowd's job?
-
I'm wondering if someone else paid for this on behalf of the McCanns. i.e. not their decision.
Do you seriously give any credence to allegations that the McCanns had to pay anyone to keep Madeleine's name on the front pages, Robitty?
I most certainly don't.
-
Do you seriously give any credence to allegations that the McCanns had to pay anyone to keep Madeleine's name on the front pages, Robitty?
I most certainly don't.
Of course, I do and it wasn't to keep Madeleine's name on the front pages, it was to keep their names.
-
Of course, I do and it wasn't to keep Madeleine's name on the front pages, it was to keep their names.
Their names ??? Why would you think that?
-
Do you seriously give any credence to allegations that the McCanns had to pay anyone to keep Madeleine's name on the front pages, Robitty?
I most certainly don't.
I personally think someone was looking to keep the focus on the McCanns to kept the focus away from the perpetrators.
Whoever paid Lord Bell is a suspect IMO.
-
I personally think someone was looking to keep the focus on the McCanns to kept the focus away from the perpetrators.
Whoever paid Lord Bell is a suspect IMO.
Even if it true, that it was the McCanns as Tim Bell said?
-
I personally think someone was looking to keep the focus on the McCanns to kept the focus away from the perpetrators.
Whoever paid Lord Bell is a suspect IMO.
I agree.
Repeating some of the tabloid headlines particularly the Portuguese although ours were no better, is to perpetuate one calumny after another; so the object of the exercise was not to enhance reputations but to destroy them.
If Lord Bell is claiming credit for that bout of character assassination ... it would make me wonder how good his firm actually was at Public Relations?
-
Even if it true, that it was the McCanns as Tim Bell said?
See my post above.
If Lord Bell's claim can be substantiated, as far as PR was concerned it was a total failure and if his firm worked for the McCanns they are surely due a refund for proven incompetence.
-
I agree.
Repeating some of the tabloid headlines particularly the Portuguese although ours were no better, is to perpetuate one calumny after another; so the object of the exercise was not to enhance reputations but to destroy them.
If Lord Bell is claiming credit for that bout of character assassination ... it would make me wonder how good his firm actually was at Public Relations?
I'd like to see where the funds actually came from.
-
I'd like to see where the funds actually came from.
I don't think there is anything at all suspicious about it at all.
Apparently Bell Pottinger were retained by Mark Warner. Missing child = really bad publicity for a holiday firm.
Like everything else connected with Madeleine's disappearance unfriendly individuals have merely seized an opportunity to take the ramblings of an individual to add 2+ 2 to get 200 trillion adverse comments aimed at their favourite whipping boys posted on the internet.
Mark Warner Hires Bell Pottinger
May 09, 2007
Mark Warner, the holiday company at the centre of the Portuguese kidnap story, is using the Bell Pottinger Group for help with the crisis.
Head of issues and crisis management Alex Woolfall is on location in Portugal and reports directly to MD David Hopkins.
Mark Warner brought in Resonate on a generic brief a week before three-year-old Madeleine McCann was kidnapped from its Portuguese resort in Praia da Luz. MD Michael Frohlich then referred the firm to his parent company’s crisis specialist.
Frohlich and Resonate director Tricia Moon are helping liaise with the British Consulate in Portugal, the Portuguese Police and the Portuguese and UK media.
They are working with staff at Mark Warner’s Kensington headquarters.
https://www.prweek.com/article/656479/mark-warner-hires-bell-pottinger
-
And yet, from Owen Jones' book.
From: ‘The Establishment: and how they get away with it’
by Owen Jones Published by Penguin 1 March 2015
(Lord Bell is commenting on the ‘Hacked Off’ campaign. )
‘Attempts to scrutinize the Murdoch empire were fiercely resisted by its allies in the British elite, who contrived to say they didn’t understand what the fuss was about. ‘I don’t want to know what happened to the Dowler family, and I’m very sorry, but honestly I can’t get into a state about it, says Lord Bell, Thatcher’s former advisor, chairman of PR giant Bell Pottinger, and a close ally of the Murdoch empire. He has long given Rupert Murdoch PR advice, and advised Rebekah Brooks during the phone-hacking scandal. ‘And I’m really not interested in what the McCanns think, because the McCanns paid me £ 500,000 in fees to keep them on the front page of every single newspaper for a year, which we did.’
http://fytton.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-press-and-mccanns.html
Have the McCanns ever refuted this? I mean the McCanns themselves, not their supporters.
Also I find the rest of the page on that blog very interesting. I hadn't seen it before.
-
And yet, from Owen Jones' book.
From: ‘The Establishment: and how they get away with it’
by Owen Jones Published by Penguin 1 March 2015
(Lord Bell is commenting on the ‘Hacked Off’ campaign. )
‘Attempts to scrutinize the Murdoch empire were fiercely resisted by its allies in the British elite, who contrived to say they didn’t understand what the fuss was about. ‘I don’t want to know what happened to the Dowler family, and I’m very sorry, but honestly I can’t get into a state about it, says Lord Bell, Thatcher’s former advisor, chairman of PR giant Bell Pottinger, and a close ally of the Murdoch empire. He has long given Rupert Murdoch PR advice, and advised Rebekah Brooks during the phone-hacking scandal. ‘And I’m really not interested in what the McCanns think, because the McCanns paid me £ 500,000 in fees to keep them on the front page of every single newspaper for a year, which we did.’
http://fytton.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-press-and-mccanns.html
Have the McCanns ever refuted this? I mean the McCanns themselves, not their supporters.
Also I find the rest of the page on that blog very interesting. I hadn't seen it before.
Why should they?
Were they to contest every bit of misinformation regarding them which hits the headlines they would have time do little else.
It certainly seemed to have died the death anyway with MSM in the main paying it the attention it deserved and leaving it for internet posters to get outraged about.
-
Why should they?
Were they to contest every bit of misinformation regarding them which hits the headlines they would have time do little else.
It certainly seemed to have died the death anyway with MSM in the main paying it the attention it deserved and leaving it for internet posters to get outraged about.
Is anybody getting outraged? I hadn't noticed.
-
Why should they?
Were they to contest every bit of misinformation regarding them which hits the headlines they would have time do little else.
It certainly seemed to have died the death anyway with MSM in the main paying it the attention it deserved and leaving it for internet posters to get outraged about.
Do you think Lord Bell is lying or do you think the McCanns did pay half a million pounds to have their faces on the front of newspapers?
-
In the first year much of the news coverage about the McCanns on the front pages was negative, so is this what they paid £500k for, for the privilege of being trashed and smeared at regular intervals for a year?
-
Things don't always quite go according to plan
-
In the first year much of the news coverage about the McCanns on the front pages was negative, so is this what they paid £500k for, for the privilege of being trashed and smeared at regular intervals for a year?
When thinking about it rationally ... I imagine it is hardly a record a firm specialising in issues and crisis management would be eager to claim for clients whose reputation they were supposed to be promoting.
-
Things don't always quite go according to plan
Did Gerry ever think he was paying for his own thrashing?
-
Things don't always quite go according to plan
I’d have been asking for a refund if I’d paid half a mill and got that sort of coverage. Shurely shome mishtake...?
-
We need to know which year it was and what month the trashing stopped and was it because of Bells input ... Because all of a sudden the abduction story became THE only acceptable version by the media, in fact all comments were not allowed and previous negative comments were removed by some columns.. IMO
-
Would the changes that Hacked Off were pressing for have made things better or worse for people who suddenly find themselve the target of intense media scrutiny for something they have done, despite not being charged with any crime?
-
Would the changes that Hacked Off were pressing for have made things better or worse for people who suddenly find themselve the target of intense media scrutiny for something they have done, despite not being charged with any crime?
Are you talking about anyone in particular? As far as I am aware, hacked off don't want 'media intrusion' they want to control and to turn that tap on and off at their own leisure- smacks of sensorship to me.
The McCanns did not have their phone hacked! which is what brought about this situation, which I abhor in what happened in the Milly Dowler case.
The headlines in the McCanns primarily in the Uk were horrific and is evidence of the decline in independent journalism- but the McCanns did turn to the NOTW and the Sun.
It would have been prudent if actual investigative educated experienced journalists had taken on the parents claims and shot them down- then reported them in a civil manner. Sadly though Kate bought into that murdock 'titalising' sex sells everything including newspapers racket. Therefore, lost all credible claims about bad journalism.
-
Are you talking about anyone in particular? As far as I am aware, hacked off don't want 'media intrusion' they want to control and to turn that tap on and off at their own leisure- smacks of sensorship to me.
The McCanns did not have their phone hacked! which is what brought about this situation, which I abhor in what happened in the Milly Dowler case.
The headlines in the McCanns primarily in the Uk were horrific and is evidence of the decline in independent journalism- but the McCanns did turn to the NOTW and the Sun.
It would have been prudent if actual investigative educated experienced journalists had taken on the parents claims and shot them down- then reported them in a civil manner. Sadly though Kate bought into that murdock 'titalising' sex sells everything including newspapers racket. Therefore, lost all credible claims about bad journalism.
Utter baloney. IMO.
-
In my opinion it has not been proved that the PJ leaked to the press, but there is no doubt that the McCanns did so. They chose from the beginning to use the press for their own ends.
-
In my opinion it has not been proved that the PJ leaked to the press, but there is no doubt that the McCanns did so. They chose from the beginning to use the press for their own ends.
The ‘Beyond the Smears’ article is a classic example.
Much of the information contained in the article could only have come from the parents and in fact the author confirmed this to blogger.
Knowing the information comes directly from at least one of the parents it’s interesting to see how they tried to control the narrative even then.
-
The ‘Beyond the Smears’ article is a classic example.
Much of the information contained in the article could only have come from the parents and in fact the author confirmed this to blogger.
Knowing the information comes directly from at least one of the parents it’s interesting to see how they tried to control the narrative even then.
Which article? Which author? Which blogger?
-
In my opinion it has not been proved that the PJ leaked to the press, but there is no doubt that the McCanns did so. They chose from the beginning to use the press for their own ends.
I believe even the PJ have admitted leaking to the press, is this not proof enough?
-
I believe even the PJ have admitted leaking to the press, is this not proof enough?
Was that done openly or was that information leaked? 8)--))
-
I believe even the PJ have admitted leaking to the press, is this not proof enough?
No, a cite is needed, not a belief.
-
No, a cite is needed, not a belief.
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/officer-says-leaks-made-to-force-mccanns-confession-26320440.html
-
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/officer-says-leaks-made-to-force-mccanns-confession-26320440.html
No named sources there, just 'friends' of Chief Inspector Olegário Sousa. He did accept there might be leaks, but he certainly had no proof;
And the leaks from “sources close to the investigation” which appear almost daily?
“They are undesirable. But it is difficult to establish who these ‘leaks’ are or where they are coming from. Information is probably not leaked on purpose. I believe sometimes things are said at an informal lunch after which a friend tells a friend who knows a journalist. But there’s no doubt, these leaks do complicate my job.”
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-chief-inspector-olegario-sousa/22774
-
No named sources there, just 'friends' of Chief Inspector Olegário Sousa. He did accept there might be leaks, but he certainly had no proof;
And the leaks from “sources close to the investigation” which appear almost daily?
“They are undesirable. But it is difficult to establish who these ‘leaks’ are or where they are coming from. Information is probably not leaked on purpose. I believe sometimes things are said at an informal lunch after which a friend tells a friend who knows a journalist. But there’s no doubt, these leaks do complicate my job.”
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-chief-inspector-olegario-sousa/22774
What would constitute proof that you would accept then?
-
What would constitute proof that you would accept then?
Someone owning up. Lots of people had information from the investigation; Portuguese and UK policemen, interpreters, translators and witnesses to name a few.
-
Someone owning up. Lots of people had information from the investigation; Portuguese and UK policemen, interpreters, translators and witnesses to name a few.
So as that’s unlikely to ever happen you can carry on denying the PJ ever leaked, how convenient.
-
So as that’s unlikely to ever happen you can carry on denying the PJ ever leaked, how convenient.
I said it can't be proved. I don't know whether they leaked or not.
-
Madeleine McCann's father calls for greater scrutiny of press https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czdgje5p3qdo
-
For a man who supposedly murdered and / or disposed of his daughter’s body nearly 20 years ago it seems incredibly odd behaviour to resurface to a) remind everyone about his alleged crimes and b) deny that there is even a shred of evidence that the current and highly convenient “patsy” Christian Bruckner murdered her. So sceptics, how do you explain this latest reappearance of the man you believe is hiding the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance?
-
For a man who supposedly murdered and / or disposed of his daughter’s body nearly 20 years ago it seems incredibly odd behaviour to resurface to a) remind everyone about his alleged crimes and b) deny that there is even a shred of evidence that the current and highly convenient “patsy” Christian Bruckner murdered her. So sceptics, how do you explain this latest reappearance of the man you believe is hiding the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance?
He was once an arguido with a presumption of innocence. Be churlish not to afford Brueckner the same presumption.
Besides if he admitted that Brueckner quite possibly was guilty there would be no reason for Madeleine’s fund not to be used for other similar cases.
-
He was once an arguido with a presumption of innocence. Be churlish not to afford Brueckner the same presumption.
Besides if he admitted that Brueckner quite possibly was guilty there would be no reason for Madeleine’s fund not to be used for other similar cases.
You see how weak the argument sounds when you write it out like that? As far as the fund is concerned the McCanns can either use it to pay for further investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance or donate it to some other case or charity. In neither scenario do they gain from it financially so it’s really not a very satisfying explanation, but at least you had a go.
-
You see how weak the argument sounds when you write it out like that? As far as the fund is concerned the McCanns can either use it to pay for further investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance or donate it to some other case or charity. In neither scenario do they gain from it financially so it’s really not a very satisfying explanation, but at least you had a go.
Did you forget this?
‘ To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.’
Though to be fair the Find Madeleine website doesn’t look like it’s been updated in a decade if you discount the latest update on the Julia Wandelt trial and the anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance. Her birthday does get a mention by only after International Missing Children’s Day and the charity Missing People. It’s almost as if they know that she isn’t here to celebrate it.
-
Did you forget this?
‘ To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.’
Though to be fair the Find Madeleine website doesn’t look like it’s been updated in a decade if you discount the latest update on the Julia Wandelt trial and the anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance. Her birthday does get a mention by only after International Missing Children’s Day and the charity Missing People. It’s almost as if they know that she isn’t here to celebrate it.
Laughable. How many more years of sitting on their big pot of moolah do you think they have got to put up with before claiming financial hardship and digging in, and without managing to trigger a Captain Tom-style outcry? Your argument makes no sense anyway when you think about it - if the money was theirs for the taking irrespective of whether Madeleine was alive or dead as you seem to be suggesting then they could have helped themselves to the whole lot by now. Obviously that will never happen so you need to have another think as to why the McCanns refuse to accept definitively that Madeleine was murdered and Bruckner the convenient scapegoat.
Your comments about the website (one of your pet obsessions) are quite typically spiteful. You just can’t help yourself putting the boot in after all these years can you? It’s sad you still feel so bitter after all this time, and unable to accept you’ve been wrong all this time.