Aftermath of the Leveson Inquiry

[faithlilly]

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:

"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.”

[Brietta]

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.
 

[stephen25000]

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.

[Benice]

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. 

 

[stephen25000]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Lace]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[Brietta]

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?

[Lace]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.