Re: ANOTHER TV programme about Madeleine - Tuesday 18 November, 7pm, Channel 5 - 'Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession'

by Brian Griffin 14.11.14 16:03

banshee wrote:
I agree, it was an awful, heinous thing to do .. imo, the McDossier was compiled on the prices of properties and how much tweeters/posters had to lose, financially .. it wouldn't surprise one bit me if this was put to Brenda, subtlety, off the record, of course, when MB entered her lovely home .. and the thought of her sons losing their inheritance, to fund TM, was just too much to bear .. all in my humble opinion.

It's an interesting point, but wouldn't she have been able to put all her property in her son's name before it could be snatched, or is there some kind of deprivation of funds legality in place? The thought of contributing to the McCann Fund is replusive, but I can see how the prospect of coming under attack online and offline could drive someone over the edge. Look how the online crowd reacted to the elderly lady who left someone's ice cream out of the freezer during the last GBBO. It was disgusting, and that was just over a bit of ice cream!

I think they also targeted Brenda because she was a nice, quietly-spoken, middle-class lady, i.e. an easy target and less likely to kick off like a chav might. I doubt Brunt would have had the gall to doorstep this lady, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pffpEDK6fE She'd have kicked him into next week!

In my opinion.

by Gaggzy 14.11.14 19:03

ANOTHER TV programme about Madeleine - Tuesday 18 November, 7pm, Channel 5 - 'Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession' - Page 3 Fullsi10

Following yet another money-scrounging session in the Lisbon courts, Gerry McCann clears his throat on the steps outside as he prepares to give the waiting throng of journos ...... his rendition of Frank Sinatra's My Way.

Unfortunately - for him - due to his squeaky little voice, he ends up giving them a rendition of Frank Spencer's Oooh Betty.

by Poppyfox 14.11.14 19:14

Gaggzy wrote:

Following yet another money-scrounging session in the Lisbon courts, Gerry McCann clears his throat on the steps outside as he prepares to give the waiting throng of journos ...... his rendition of Frank Sinatra's My Way.

Unfortunately - for him - due to his squeaky little voice, he ends up giving them a rendition of Frank Spencer's Oooh Betty.

That was hilarious, Gaggzy!!
Or Money,money,money by Abba!!

by Guest 14.11.14 19:18

The penitent man kneels before .........................

by AlexBG 14.11.14 20:47

aquila wrote:I can't imagine that Brenda Leyland, prior to being doorstepped by Martin Brunt had any plans to kill herself. From what I've read of her tweets I certainly see no evidence of that.

I can imagine having her face plastered all over Sky News every fifteen minutes for a whole day and her face plastered on the front pages of the media would have pushed her to take her own life. That's common sense.

Brenda Leyland was hounded and her tweets were misrepresented in the media. The way in which her tweets were portrayed was as if they came from her - and they didn't.

This was a complete travesty. This was a big hit and a pre-planned hit. A 'secret dossier' - what a bloody farce - where the police had not approached Brenda Leyland and she's suddenly found herself hounded on Sky News as the 'evil'.

Come on, no-one with a bloody conscience can say that's right.

This was a heinous thing to do.

Judging from Brenda's tweets, she comes across as a very level-headed and emotionally stable individual - not the sort of person to react with hysteria when placed under pressure.
99% of the tweets are calmly-worded, matter-of-fact and not abusive in the slightest. She had virtually nothing to be ashamed of in that regard.

That's not necessarily to say she couldn't have been prosecuted for them (as I discussed in another thread), or taken to court in civil proceedings, but even if Brunt had managed to convince her that legal proceedings were imminent, I don't think it would've caused her to immediately kill herself.

Countless people are charged with criminal offences every week in the UK and do not commit suicide as a result (although it's worth noting that those who have earned money and kept savings/investments will face the additional threat of potential financial ruin through legal fees - legal aid is means-tested).

As far as I know, Brenda hadn't even been contacted either by police or by lawyers prior to her death. Would she really have taken such drastic action on Brunt's word alone?
We know she had a family, friends and pets - all things to live for.

Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.

by Montclair 14.11.14 23:23

AlexBG wrote:
aquila wrote:I can't imagine that Brenda Leyland, prior to being doorstepped by Martin Brunt had any plans to kill herself. From what I've read of her tweets I certainly see no evidence of that.

I can imagine having her face plastered all over Sky News every fifteen minutes for a whole day and her face plastered on the front pages of the media would have pushed her to take her own life. That's common sense.

Brenda Leyland was hounded and her tweets were misrepresented in the media. The way in which her tweets were portrayed was as if they came from her - and they didn't.

This was a complete travesty. This was a big hit and a pre-planned hit. A 'secret dossier' - what a bloody farce - where the police had not approached Brenda Leyland and she's suddenly found herself hounded on Sky News as the 'evil'.

Come on, no-one with a bloody conscience can say that's right.

This was a heinous thing to do.
Judging from Brenda's tweets, she comes across as a very level-headed and emotionally stable individual - not the sort of person to react with hysteria when placed under pressure.
99% of the tweets are calmly-worded, matter-of-fact and not abusive in the slightest. She had virtually nothing to be ashamed of in that regard.

That's not necessarily to say she couldn't have been prosecuted for them (as I discussed in another thread), or taken to court in civil proceedings, but even if Brunt had managed to convince her that legal proceedings were imminent, I don't think it would've caused her to immediately kill herself.

Countless people are charged with criminal offences every week in the UK and do not commit suicide as a result (although it's worth noting that those who have earned money and kept savings/investments will face the additional threat of potential financial ruin through legal fees - legal aid is means-tested).

As far as I know, Brenda hadn't even been contacted either by police or by lawyers prior to her death. Would she really have taken such drastic action on Brunt's word alone?
We know she had a family, friends and pets - all things to live for.

Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.

You'll have to remind me which tweets, in your opinion, could have led to a possible prosecution of Brenda Leyland because I find it hard to believe that any of her tweets could be considered criminal.

by Joss 15.11.14 1:52

Montclair wrote:
AlexBG wrote:
aquila wrote:I can't imagine that Brenda Leyland, prior to being doorstepped by Martin Brunt had any plans to kill herself. From what I've read of her tweets I certainly see no evidence of that.

I can imagine having her face plastered all over Sky News every fifteen minutes for a whole day and her face plastered on the front pages of the media would have pushed her to take her own life. That's common sense.

Brenda Leyland was hounded and her tweets were misrepresented in the media. The way in which her tweets were portrayed was as if they came from her - and they didn't.

This was a complete travesty. This was a big hit and a pre-planned hit. A 'secret dossier' - what a bloody farce - where the police had not approached Brenda Leyland and she's suddenly found herself hounded on Sky News as the 'evil'.

Come on, no-one with a bloody conscience can say that's right.

This was a heinous thing to do.
Judging from Brenda's tweets, she comes across as a very level-headed and emotionally stable individual - not the sort of person to react with hysteria when placed under pressure.
99% of the tweets are calmly-worded, matter-of-fact and not abusive in the slightest. She had virtually nothing to be ashamed of in that regard.

That's not necessarily to say she couldn't have been prosecuted for them (as I discussed in another thread), or taken to court in civil proceedings, but even if Brunt had managed to convince her that legal proceedings were imminent, I don't think it would've caused her to immediately kill herself.

Countless people are charged with criminal offences every week in the UK and do not commit suicide as a result (although it's worth noting that those who have earned money and kept savings/investments will face the additional threat of potential financial ruin through legal fees - legal aid is means-tested).

As far as I know, Brenda hadn't even been contacted either by police or by lawyers prior to her death. Would she really have taken such drastic action on Brunt's word alone?
We know she had a family, friends and pets - all things to live for.

Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.
You'll have to remind me which tweets, in your opinion, could have led to a possible prosecution of Brenda Leyland because I find it hard to believe that any of her tweets could be considered criminal.

Exactly, They were her opinions only, and she had a right to them just like everyone else.

by Brian Griffin 15.11.14 3:23

Gaggzy wrote:

Following yet another money-scrounging session in the Lisbon courts, Gerry McCann clears his throat on the steps outside as he prepares to give the waiting throng of journos ...... his rendition of Frank Sinatra's My Way.

Unfortunately - for him - due to his squeaky little voice, he ends up giving them a rendition of Frank Spencer's Oooh Betty.

Maybe a Bee Gees tribute band will sign him. Bad taste joke coming up...

...Ah Ah Ah Ah Ah Staying Alive...

I started a joke...

Don't forget to remember me (just in case I get forgotten amidst all your media appearances, fund raising etc. The name is Madeleine)

Tragedy... (oh this is like shooting fish an a barrel!)...

Night Fever...

For Whom The Bell Tolls...

In The Morning...

Holiday...

Alone (Can we top that, I wonder?)

So, How Deep Is Your Love?

In my opinion.

by Joss 15.11.14 3:37

What a bunch of repulsive creatures/vultures they all are. Making money off of a missing little girl's back and those people that want to see justice for her. Wish that lot would just all slither back under their rocks and go away.

by Bishop Brennan 15.11.14 3:49

aquila wrote:

Then Brenda Leyland died.

I doubt if Brenda Leyland had plans to commit suicide (if that's what happened to her - which seems likely).

How can Sky News and Martin Brunt get away with this? how can they walk away from a wholly disproportionate/biased/premeditated attack on one poster on Twitter who 'wasn't the worst' and spend an entire day posting this woman who had not been charged with anything and as far as I know had not even been contacted by the police.

Brunt is back on the job.

Brunt has blood on his hands as far as I'm concerned. He could have said no.

Well said aquila. It's hard to know how Brunt has the gall to even return to his job, never mind show his face. He is disgraced and will carry the guilt of hounding an innocent woman to her death the rest of his life. Nobody will ever forget what he did and nor should they. He has not even apologised (possibly because of the ongoing risk of him being charged in relation to the death). I suspect his career is over, although Sky News will probably treat him as a charity case to cover their own guilt in broadcasting so irresponsibly.

by Brian Griffin 15.11.14 4:18

AlexBG wrote:
aquila wrote:I can't imagine that Brenda Leyland, prior to being doorstepped by Martin Brunt had any plans to kill herself. From what I've read of her tweets I certainly see no evidence of that.

I can imagine having her face plastered all over Sky News every fifteen minutes for a whole day and her face plastered on the front pages of the media would have pushed her to take her own life. That's common sense.

Brenda Leyland was hounded and her tweets were misrepresented in the media. The way in which her tweets were portrayed was as if they came from her - and they didn't.

This was a complete travesty. This was a big hit and a pre-planned hit. A 'secret dossier' - what a bloody farce - where the police had not approached Brenda Leyland and she's suddenly found herself hounded on Sky News as the 'evil'.

Come on, no-one with a bloody conscience can say that's right.

This was a heinous thing to do.
Judging from Brenda's tweets, she comes across as a very level-headed and emotionally stable individual - not the sort of person to react with hysteria when placed under pressure.
99% of the tweets are calmly-worded, matter-of-fact and not abusive in the slightest. She had virtually nothing to be ashamed of in that regard.

That's not necessarily to say she couldn't have been prosecuted for them (as I discussed in another thread), or taken to court in civil proceedings, but even if Brunt had managed to convince her that legal proceedings were imminent, I don't think it would've caused her to immediately kill herself.

Countless people are charged with criminal offences every week in the UK and do not commit suicide as a result (although it's worth noting that those who have earned money and kept savings/investments will face the additional threat of potential financial ruin through legal fees - legal aid is means-tested).

As far as I know, Brenda hadn't even been contacted either by police or by lawyers prior to her death. Would she really have taken such drastic action on Brunt's word alone?
We know she had a family, friends and pets - all things to live for.

Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.

In my opinion, it wasn't about Brenda, as such, it was about scaring the sceptics off! She was chosen as the 'soft target'.

by Joss 15.11.14 6:42

Brian Griffin wrote:
AlexBG wrote:
aquila wrote:I can't imagine that Brenda Leyland, prior to being doorstepped by Martin Brunt had any plans to kill herself. From what I've read of her tweets I certainly see no evidence of that.

I can imagine having her face plastered all over Sky News every fifteen minutes for a whole day and her face plastered on the front pages of the media would have pushed her to take her own life. That's common sense.

Brenda Leyland was hounded and her tweets were misrepresented in the media. The way in which her tweets were portrayed was as if they came from her - and they didn't.

This was a complete travesty. This was a big hit and a pre-planned hit. A 'secret dossier' - what a bloody farce - where the police had not approached Brenda Leyland and she's suddenly found herself hounded on Sky News as the 'evil'.

Come on, no-one with a bloody conscience can say that's right.

This was a heinous thing to do.
Judging from Brenda's tweets, she comes across as a very level-headed and emotionally stable individual - not the sort of person to react with hysteria when placed under pressure.
99% of the tweets are calmly-worded, matter-of-fact and not abusive in the slightest. She had virtually nothing to be ashamed of in that regard.

That's not necessarily to say she couldn't have been prosecuted for them (as I discussed in another thread), or taken to court in civil proceedings, but even if Brunt had managed to convince her that legal proceedings were imminent, I don't think it would've caused her to immediately kill herself.

Countless people are charged with criminal offences every week in the UK and do not commit suicide as a result (although it's worth noting that those who have earned money and kept savings/investments will face the additional threat of potential financial ruin through legal fees - legal aid is means-tested).

As far as I know, Brenda hadn't even been contacted either by police or by lawyers prior to her death. Would she really have taken such drastic action on Brunt's word alone?
We know she had a family, friends and pets - all things to live for.

Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.
In my opinion, it wasn't about Brenda, as such, it was about scaring the sceptics off! She was chosen as the 'soft target'.

ITA, and that possibly TM saw another payday in Brenda. Although i don't think she would ever of been charged with anything anyway.

by Bishop Brennan 15.11.14 7:35

Joss wrote:
ITA, and that possibly TM saw another payday in Brenda. Although i don't think she would ever of been charged with anything anyway.

That cannot be ruled out as a theory. There isn't the slightest chance that she would have been charged with anything - at most she'd have been given a warning to keep quiet. A civil suit on the other hand was entirely possible. If you have a tame set of libel lawyers, then you can sue for libel at the drop of a letter-of-engagement. For the victim, it's far cheaper to settle than to fight - and Brenda did have some money. They wouldn't have taken her for a lot of cash because her true value would have been as the "high-profile troll that got sued by the McCanns".

Sadly if that was the plan, it backfired disastrously and an innocent women lies dead because of it.

I wonder if the threat of being sued for libel was raised by Brunt just before she killed herself? #askDisgracedBrunt

by Liz Eagles 15.11.14 8:18

AlexBG wrote:
aquila wrote:I can't imagine that Brenda Leyland, prior to being doorstepped by Martin Brunt had any plans to kill herself. From what I've read of her tweets I certainly see no evidence of that.

I can imagine having her face plastered all over Sky News every fifteen minutes for a whole day and her face plastered on the front pages of the media would have pushed her to take her own life. That's common sense.

Brenda Leyland was hounded and her tweets were misrepresented in the media. The way in which her tweets were portrayed was as if they came from her - and they didn't.

This was a complete travesty. This was a big hit and a pre-planned hit. A 'secret dossier' - what a bloody farce - where the police had not approached Brenda Leyland and she's suddenly found herself hounded on Sky News as the 'evil'.

Come on, no-one with a bloody conscience can say that's right.

This was a heinous thing to do.
Judging from Brenda's tweets, she comes across as a very level-headed and emotionally stable individual - not the sort of person to react with hysteria when placed under pressure.
99% of the tweets are calmly-worded, matter-of-fact and not abusive in the slightest. She had virtually nothing to be ashamed of in that regard.

That's not necessarily to say she couldn't have been prosecuted for them (as I discussed in another thread), or taken to court in civil proceedings, but even if Brunt had managed to convince her that legal proceedings were imminent, I don't think it would've caused her to immediately kill herself.

Countless people are charged with criminal offences every week in the UK and do not commit suicide as a result (although it's worth noting that those who have earned money and kept savings/investments will face the additional threat of potential financial ruin through legal fees - legal aid is means-tested).

As far as I know, Brenda hadn't even been contacted either by police or by lawyers prior to her death. Would she really have taken such drastic action on Brunt's word alone?
We know she had a family, friends and pets - all things to live for.

Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.

That's pretty dismissive if you don't mind me saying. I hope the Coroner's Inquiry takes Sky News' bullying a bit more seriously.

by Joss 15.11.14 10:44

Bishop Brennan wrote:
Joss wrote:
ITA, and that possibly TM saw another payday in Brenda. Although i don't think she would ever of been charged with anything anyway.

That cannot be ruled out as a theory. There isn't the slightest chance that she would have been charged with anything - at most she'd have been given a warning to keep quiet. A civil suit on the other hand was entirely possible. If you have a tame set of libel lawyers, then you can sue for libel at the drop of a letter-of-engagement. For the victim, it's far cheaper to settle than to fight - and Brenda did have some money. They wouldn't have taken her for a lot of cash because her true value would have been as the "high-profile troll that got sued by the McCanns".

Sadly if that was the plan, it backfired disastrously and an innocent women lies dead because of it.

I wonder if the threat of being sued for libel was raised by Brunt just before she killed herself? #askDisgracedBrunt

I have wondered about that as well, but then thought if she was at all concerned about Brunts threats she could have told her son about it and he could of given her some legal advice about the situation, seeing as i have read he is studying to become a lawyer.
Brenda came across on the video as a person that was not easily intimidated, but i really have no idea as to why she would of committed suicide? I think it will be interesting to see what comes out at the inquest into her death.
I also am not familiar with U.K. libel laws, and from what you have mentioned it might have been a possibility.

by AlexBG 15.11.14 14:34

Montclair wrote:You'll have to remind me which tweets, in your opinion, could have led to a possible prosecution of Brenda Leyland because I find it hard to believe that any of her tweets could be considered criminal.

I refer you to the relevant discussion thread:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10515p170-let-s-not-forget-brenda#288641

by AlexBG 15.11.14 14:37

aquila wrote:
AlexBG wrote:Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.
That's pretty dismissive if you don't mind me saying. I hope the Coroner's Inquiry takes Sky News' bullying a bit more seriously.

I think it's equally dismissive to simply assume that Brenda was the sort of person to "end it all" at the drop of a hat. I myself would've been very upset had the press done that to me, but life experience would've told me how quickly the public forgets, and how soon the media's storms can "blow over". Brenda had more than 3 times the life experience I do. She also seems to have spent time abroad, so could easily have left the country to escape the hounding.

It is not for the coroner's inquest to pass judgement on the behaviour of the media, nor to attribute blame to anyone. The purpose of the inquest is only to ascertain "how the deceased came by her death"*.
This excludes matters such as the possible misconduct of media organisations which may have contributed to her state of mind. They may make reference to such matters when setting out the facts, but only if they are deemed to be "in the public interest".

*There is an exception, when public servants may be implicated. The inquest must consider "by what means and in what circumstances" the death occured, in those cases only.

All just my opinions - not legal advice.

by Brian Griffin 15.11.14 15:27

Brenda's death was a blow to the McCanns' campaign against the 'haters' and 'trolls'. It took the wind right out of their sails. Even they could see how continuing the attack would have been in very bad taste, so I wouldn't imagine Brenda's death to be anything other than suicide insofar as it might have had anything to do with the McCanns. Just my opinion.

by mysterion 15.11.14 15:43

Have the police reported that there was no suicide note? If there was, then the contents would surely be admitted in evidence at the inquest.

by Joss 15.11.14 16:39

Since an Inquest is an enquiry the Coroner collects the evidence. He receives reports and statements.
He can generate further enquiries. If you have not been approached directly by the Police or any other investigating agency and feel that you have relevant information do not hesitate to let the Coroners Office know
You may well be interviewed and a statement taken.
When is a Jury required?
There are some circumstances in which the summing of a Jury is compulsory:-
(a) Death in prison
(b) Deaths in industrial accidents
(c) Deaths occurring in circumstances the continuance or possible recurrence of which is prejudicial to the health or safety of the public
(d) Deaths occurring in Policy custody or resulting from an injury caused by a Police Officer in the purported execution of his duty.
A Jury is comprised of between 7 or 11 members taken from the Crown Court Jury List. The Coroner may accept a majority verdict providing not more than two Jury members disagree.
http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/inquestguide2.pdf

In reference to (c), i wonder if a Jury would be summoned in Brenda's case, because as a consequence of her death after the outing of her publicly by Brunt & Sky news, a further continuance or recurrence of another episode of such an incident on the general public would be deemed as prejudicial to the health and safety of other members of the public that would also have stood to be outed by the dossier & Sky news?

by Liz Eagles 15.11.14 20:00

AlexBG wrote:
aquila wrote:
AlexBG wrote:Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.
That's pretty dismissive if you don't mind me saying. I hope the Coroner's Inquiry takes Sky News' bullying a bit more seriously.
I think it's equally dismissive to simply assume that Brenda was the sort of person to "end it all" at the drop of a hat. I myself would've been very upset had the press done that to me, but life experience would've told me how quickly the public forgets, and how soon the media's storms can "blow over". Brenda had more than 3 times the life experience I do. She also seems to have spent time abroad, so could easily have left the country to escape the hounding.

It is not for the coroner's inquest to pass judgement on the behaviour of the media, nor to attribute blame to anyone. The purpose of the inquest is only to ascertain "how the deceased came by her death"*.
This excludes matters such as the possible misconduct of media organisations which may have contributed to her state of mind. They may make reference to such matters when setting out the facts, but only if they are deemed to be "in the public interest".

*There is an exception, when public servants may be implicated. The inquest must consider "by what means and in what circumstances" the death occured, in those cases only.

All just my opinions - not legal advice.

I hardly think 'drop of a hat' can be applied to what happened to Brenda Leyland. There was a sustained attack on her every fifteen minutes on Sky News for an entire day and it was covered elsewhere too. This wasn't trivial. This wasn't showing some nasty tweets presented in a 'secret dossier' and letting the police do their job. Au contraire, this was a pre-planned personal attack on one woman who was singled out even though she wasn't 'the worst'.

With regards to 'how soon media storms can blow over'. If you recall there was the aftermath with people such as Carole Malone. Why even Jim Gamble seemed delighted 'trolls' were being brought to book.

Had Brenda Leyland not died, how quickly do you think this media onslaught would have 'blown over'? Do you think the media would have left her alone?

As for 'she could've left the country' well that's really scratching around for an excuse imo and would have probably resulted in further media coverage/hounding.

I can only think that being so young yourself you can't understand what this dreadful attack by the media would do to someone in their 60's - either that or you are simply looking at a media defence strategy.

Setting aside the Coroner's Inquiry, do you think that Sky News, the Secret Dossier compilers and the rest of the media have the right to do this to a person who has not even been spoken to by the police? and importantly, do you think their behaviour in anyway could have contributed to her death?

by Brian Griffin 15.11.14 20:09

by Brian Griffin 15.11.14 20:24

I'd also add that not only did they show her face and name her, they as good as told people where she lived! Would you feel safe after that?

by Liz Eagles 15.11.14 20:29

Brian Griffin wrote:I'd also add that not only did they show her face and name her, they as good as told people where she lived! Would you feel safe after that?

Well quite. IIRC it was the Leicester Mercury wot did that but don't quote me.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.14 0:05

MORE ABOUT 'THE GLOBAL OBSESSION' HERE FROM 'TV RAGE

Martin Frizell travels to Praia de Luz for Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession, Tuesday at 7pm on Channel 5

Former GMTV editor and journalist Martin Frizell travels to Praia de Luz in Portugal to retrace the final hours leading up to Madeleine's disappearance in Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession, airing on Tuesday 18th November at 7pm on Channel 5. With exclusive insight he examines how a family's worst nightmare became breaking news and turned into one of the biggest stories of all time.

In Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession, he interviews key players who witnessed the McCann tragedy unfold first hand. Kate Garraway, presenting GMTV at the time, took the first call live on air from a distressed family friend of the McCanns in Portugal. It was just after 8am on Friday 4th May 2007 and Jill Renwick was frustrated by the lack organisation on the ground in the hunt for Madeleine. After the show Frizell as the programme editor sent her on the first plane out to be one of the first British journalists on the ground in Portugal.

Kate Garraway, newsreader and television presenter said: "If you [Martin Frizell], as the editor, hadn't been in the gallery, giving instructions, I'm not sure that the producer of the day would have put that call through to the studio, because it's such an unusual thing it almost needed the kind of authority of the editor to say, "Let's do it." Well, suddenly the mood of the whole show changed, I think, from that moment on air, that it wasn't a fun Friday moment. You were aware that something big was happening."

Mary Nightingale, newsreader and television presenter said: "Some stories appear and then disappear quite quickly but this one really had legs. I think for any parent...any mother of a child that age it kind of hit me in the chest...In a way that not many stories do"

Hundreds more journalists followed. Everybody wanted the story. Madeleine McCann's angelic face sold newspapers and TV viewers around the world were gripped. No one could get enough. Everyone desperately wanted to be the first to answer the question 'What happened to Madeleine McCann?'

But after months and no new leads into her disappearance, the media turned on the parents.

Martin Frizell said: "What followed was a sustained inaccurate and malicious series of headlines in newspapers suggesting somehow that the McCanns had been involved with the death of their own daughter....they were so cruel that even the Chief Constable of Leicestershire himself, appealed to the press twice to show restraint but not all of them did."

Judy Bachrach, Contributing Editor at Vanity Fair said: "They [the McCanns] were told by child abduction experts "If you cry on television...the kidnapper might get off on that." Horrible though that sounds, so she had to keep a stoic face on television. She couldn't weep, she couldn't look distraught and so she looked kind of like a robot, she looked mechanical, not only to her friends or in Praia da Luz, but all over the World; on TV and on the Internet and in newspapers. So that backfired because everybody, including the police in Portugal, including the news outlets were saying, "How come the mother isn't crying? Her child is missing"

Michael Cole, PR advisor to Mohamed Al Fayed said: "The monstering of the McCanns by the British Media is one of the most shameful episodes of the British free press. It should not have happened. Perhaps it was the heat of the Algarve sun or the fact that they were a long way from Fleet Street, though a collective madness seemed to afflict the whole of the British Press corp."

Seven years on the hunt for Madeleine still commands headlines and front pages around the world but as the documentary explains it is not without controversy.

Amanda Platell, Daily Mail columnist said: "Her disappearance divided the Nation on class lines because I lost count of the number of people who wrote to me and said, "You know, if she had been the daughter of, you know, a couple of unemployed people living in Liverpool, she would have been off the front pages in a matter of days."

For the father of seven year old Daniel Entwistle who went missing on his way to buy sweets in 2003 this could not be truer. "They got Daniel on camera going past the garage and that's the last sight of him" said father David Entwistle. After the initial media interest, stories about Daniel were quietly dropped, and eleven years on he has still not been found.

Martin Frizell asks: "So why is Madeleine McCann still on the front pages all these years on? Sure, the story sells newspapers, it boosts ratings but it's because of you. You want to know. Whether it's because of your cynicism of the McCanns and the way they've marketed their daughter, because it's the unsolved mystery, because perhaps it's every parent's worst nightmare or there but for the grace of God go I. Whatever the reason, you'd have to have a cold heart indeed not wish closure on this for the McCanns and that story, the eventual discovery of Madeleine will be the biggest yet."

http://www.tvrage.com/news/11136/martin-frizell-travels-to-praia-de-luz-for-madeleine-mccann-a-global-obsession-tuesday-at-7pm-on-channel-5

ANOTHER TV programme about Madeleine - Tuesday 18 November, 7pm, Channel 5 - 'Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession'