Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

by Sophiebubbles 21.02.16 21:45

sharonl wrote:Not a bad article but again this is in the McCanns favour - promoting the line that Madeleine disappeared whilst her parent were out. The bottom line says it all really:

"Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found."

Abducted then? Sorry Kate, I am not buying this.

@ sharoni......perhaps Katie Hopkins has her own theory, as we all do as to why Madeleine's is missing The last two lines you speak of to me don't necessary mean as they seem just reading them. As we on this forum, most do not agree with abduction and has been well spoken about, but 'lost to be found' is not perhaps the way one would normally word things, imo. We all know Madeleine was 'found' by someone ,but not necessary an abductor! perhaps 'found' in whatever condition that befell her, by whoever. That was my thinking, as by the time I had read the article I had picked up on a few cleverly worded sentences. It is all my own opinion, but perhaps, you may see what I am trying to say......maybe not, just thought I would share as I do see also where you got your own opinion from reading the article.

by Doug D 21.02.16 21:47

'Soft' approach to gauge public opinion by their 'loose canon' columnist?

Mail on line today, Sunday
PUBLISHED: 16:56, 21 February 2016 | UPDATED: 18:06, 21 February 2016

so it missed todays actual papers.

‘Adverse’ McCann comments are being allowed though which is unusual.

Lost without trace by the time the print editions come out tomorrow? (although doing the rounds on twitter & FB)

It will be interesting to see.

……………………………………………..

As a secondary matter the article says (although this obviously reinforces the underlying ‘neglect/abduction’ story):

‘Even our British broadcaster was in on the act. A Crimewatch Special in 2013 featuring new photo-fits of Maddie’s abductor failed to acknowledge that the McCanns had been sitting on these pictures for nearly five years.
Pictures compiled by their own investigation team whose report they later hid from view when it pointed the finger of blame in a direction Gerry didn't enjoy.’

Is this significantly different from what the Sunday Times reported and then paid the Mc’s £55k in an out of court settlement for, together with their half-hearted apology?

This is the Sunday Times apology posted up by canada12 in August 2014:

Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund
Sunday Times, The (London, England) - Sunday, December 29, 2013
Publisher Notice: Please note: the sentence commencing "We also understand..." should read as follows "We also understand that a copy of the final report including the E-Fits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review".

In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to E-Fits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the E-Fits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the E-Fits was passed to the police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused.
Edition: 01
Section: News
Page: 2
Record Number: 80705525
(c) Times Newspapers Limited 2013

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10124p40-possible-action-against-the-times?highlight=times+apology

by plebgate 21.02.16 21:54

Well done Katie Hopkins I say for having the guts to say what she thinks.

I agree, it is interesting that she said this is the first time she has been allowed to say something. Why indeed?

by ChippyM 21.02.16 21:56

"Those kids were in danger. Because of their parents. And as a mum I can’t look at Gerry McCann — a man his wife says can ‘switch off’ from grief — without the hairs on my arms standing on end."

And what message is she conveying here? why mention 'Danger', him being able to 'switch off' from grief or hairs standing on end..what things do people associate with hairs standing on end? to me it is not merely someone who left a child in a hotel room whilst they went out for a drink.

by **sharonl** 21.02.16 21:57

Sophiebubbles wrote:
sharonl wrote:Not a bad article but again this is in the McCanns favour - promoting the line that Madeleine disappeared whilst her parent were out. The bottom line says it all really:

"Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found."

Abducted then? Sorry Kate, I am not buying this.

@ sharoni......perhaps Katie Hopkins has her own theory, as we all do as to why Madeleine's is missing The last two lines you speak of to me don't necessary mean as they seem just reading them. As we on this forum, most do not agree with abduction and has been well spoken about, but 'lost to be found' is not perhaps the way one would normally word things, imo. We all know Madeleine was 'found' by someone ,but not necessary an abductor! perhaps 'found' in whatever condition that befell her, by whoever. That was my thinking, as by the time I had read the article I had picked up on a few cleverly worded sentences. It is all my own opinion, but perhaps, you may see what I am trying to say......maybe not, just thought I would share as I do see also where you got your own opinion from reading the article.

You mean like "The night we found her"? winkwink

That would make sense. How strange that this article should come out right now. Perhaps those friends in high places have had enough and realised that they likely to be brought down with the McCanns. How far will go to protect them?

by Joannep43 21.02.16 22:10

@ chippyM " those kids were in danger because of the parents" in my opinion she's saying that because they were left alone.They were put in a vulnerable position for an abductor to strike?
"A man his wife says can switch off from grief " hardly damning evidence.People would probably put this down to personality type as throughout the article she is disagreeing with their methods of childcare; of the children being left alone.katie Hopkins is appealing to her readers that she hold the same values as them regarding childcare .

by plebgate 21.02.16 22:19

As the Met police have announced that none of the Tapas crew are persons of interest Katie Hopkins can only say what seems to be the "official" line - that line being that Maddie was abducted and that the case was to be investigated the same as it would have been if an abduction had occured in the UK. That is my imo and I think Katie H. may have been told to watch her wording very carefully. Again only my opinion.

by suzyjohnson 21.02.16 22:34

I agree with plebgate above.

There's quite a lot in the Katie Hopkins article .....

She hasn't been allowed to say any of this before. Why? Because the newspaper could be sued? Because of the police investigation? The libel trial?

But she is allowed to say it now? Could this be because the police investigation is winding down?

Or because the police investigation is at a standstill?

It seems as though it's come out of nowhere and it's going to put the McCanns under some pressure.

It's unusual for the Daily Mail to publish an article so negative to the McCanns. Even if Katie Hopkins has not diverged from the abduction line, she has certainly raised some new questions (for the people who have not looked into this before) .... the Efits that were kept for 5 years, the report which was unfavourable to the McCanns, the 48 unanswered questions. Etc.

It is obvious that to some extent or another Katie Hopkins has looked into the McCann case.

I thought the Express was sued because they specifically accused the McCanns of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance, the same assertion that got Amaral into so much trouble.

But Katie Hopkins, and the Daily Mail, haven't said this.

It sounds, to me, like it's the Daily Mail saying as much as they can at the present time. They're saying this isn't over yet.

I don't expect the McCanns will be happy at all. And where's Clarence these days?

by sar 21.02.16 22:45

Doug D wrote:'Soft' approach to gauge public opinion by their 'loose canon' columnist?

Mail on line today, Sunday
PUBLISHED: 16:56, 21 February 2016 | UPDATED: 18:06, 21 February 2016

so it missed todays actual papers.

‘Adverse’ McCann comments are being allowed though which is unusual.

Lost without trace by the time the print editions come out tomorrow? (although doing the rounds on twitter & FB)

It will be interesting to see.

……………………………………………..

As a secondary matter the article says (although this obviously reinforces the underlying ‘neglect/abduction’ story):

‘Even our British broadcaster was in on the act. A Crimewatch Special in 2013 featuring new photo-fits of Maddie’s abductor failed to acknowledge that the McCanns had been sitting on these pictures for nearly five years.
Pictures compiled by their own investigation team whose report they later hid from view when it pointed the finger of blame in a direction Gerry didn't enjoy.’

Is this significantly different from what the Sunday Times reported and then paid the Mc’s £55k in an out of court settlement for, together with their half-hearted apology?

This is the Sunday Times apology posted up by canada12 in August 2014:

Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund
Sunday Times, The (London, England) - Sunday, December 29, 2013
Publisher Notice: Please note: the sentence commencing "We also understand..." should read as follows "We also understand that a copy of the final report including the E-Fits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review".

In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to E-Fits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the E-Fits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the E-Fits was passed to the police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused.
Edition: 01
Section: News
Page: 2
Record Number: 80705525
(c) Times Newspapers Limited 2013

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10124p40-possible-action-against-the-times?highlight=times+apology

+1Doug D, "'Soft' approach to gauge public opinion by their 'loose canon' columnist? "

Easy to label her a firebrand / "gone native" if this new horizon turns out to be a false dawn, but useful as a pawn to "push the boat out" and test public opinion. Easy enough to monitor forums, comments sections, Faceland etc. There will be yet another PM in the not too distant future, maybe some more info. to be released in the constant ebb & flow and drip drip of media land???

by ChippyM 21.02.16 22:47

Joannep43 wrote:@ chippyM " those kids were in danger because of the parents" in my opinion she's saying that because they were left alone.They were put in a vulnerable position for an abductor to strike?
"A man his wife says can switch off from grief " hardly damning evidence.People would probably put this down to personality type as throughout the article she is disagreeing with their methods of childcare; of the children being left alone.katie Hopkins is appealing to her readers that she hold the same values as them regarding childcare .

You seem to miss my point, 'Danger', 'switching off from grief' and followed by 'gerry Mccann makes my hairs stand on end'......they are all mentioned TOGETHER. personal interpretation is one thing but there is no logical reason for her to include these things if she just wants to show they were neglectful.

what do people usually associate with things making their hair stand on end? To most people it would mean something or someone evil, ghostly, frightening, odd, or something they were afraid or in awe of, and your insinct is warning you about that person. Why include such a phrase, why mention these things at all?

by loopzdaloop 21.02.16 23:13

ChippyM wrote:
Joannep43 wrote:@ chippyM " those kids were in danger because of the parents" in my opinion she's saying that because they were left alone.They were put in a vulnerable position for an abductor to strike?
"A man his wife says can switch off from grief " hardly damning evidence.People would probably put this down to personality type as throughout the article she is disagreeing with their methods of childcare; of the children being left alone.katie Hopkins is appealing to her readers that she hold the same values as them regarding childcare .

You seem to miss my point, 'Danger', 'switching off from grief' and followed by 'gerry Mccann makes my hairs stand on end'......they are all mentioned TOGETHER. personal interpretation is one thing but there is no logical reason for her to include these things if she just wants to show they were neglectful.

what do people usually associate with things making their hair stand on end? To most people it would mean something or someone evil, ghostly, frightening, odd, or something they were afraid or in awe of, and your insinct is warning you about that person. Why include such a phrase, why mention these things at all?

You are on the money Chippy, Its made friends of mine who have never been interested in the Mccann saga start to chat and question things. The only people who could view this as a Mccann favourable piece on the neglect/abduction lines other than JoanneP is the Mccanns spin merchants.

by sallypelt 21.02.16 23:15

The search for Madeleine McCann continues to be a hot topic of discussion and debate worldwide. This could be partly thanks to the missing child’s mother making recent statements about her disappearance. Kate McCann recently declared that she believes her daughter was never taken far from the Praia de Luz resort where their family vacationed in 2007. However, a recent post on The Daily Mail shows that some people just aren’t buying the mother’s display of grief.

People on social media are sharing a wide variety of reactions to the post penned by Katie Hopkins. While some folks agree with the article, there are numerous supporters of Kate and Gerry McCann who are reacting with anger, disgust and sarcasm

Link to full article: http://www.inquisitr.com/2814905/madeleine-mccann-katie-hopkins-says-parents-share-blame/

by canada12 21.02.16 23:22

"Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found." ... is a very odd way of writing something.

My interpretation is that KH doesn't believe for a moment that somebody took an alive MM out of the apartment... but that possibly a non-alive MM was left in the apartment, and then removed.

by maebee 21.02.16 23:50

canada12 wrote:"Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found." ... is a very odd way of writing something.

My interpretation is that KH doesn't believe for a moment that somebody took an alive MM out of the apartment... but that possibly a non-alive MM was left in the apartment, and then removed.

“Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found.”

There could be more to this than what KH means. "Left to be found" - by whom? One of the T7?

by Guest 22.02.16 0:11

maebee wrote:
canada12 wrote:"Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found." ... is a very odd way of writing something.

My interpretation is that KH doesn't believe for a moment that somebody took an alive MM out of the apartment... but that possibly a non-alive MM was left in the apartment, and then removed.
“Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found.”

There could be more to this than what KH means. "Left to be found" - by whom? One of the T7?

I read it the same way. Left to be found by someone who had bad intentions and that could be anyone including someone she knew.

by maebee 22.02.16 0:23

KH now needs to follow up on her "I have never been allowed to say this before."

There's been a huge response to her article. Will the DM allow her a follow up?

by Guest 22.02.16 0:32

Anyone else notice the bedding on which Katie's children's toys were placed. Eerily similar to the bedding in the PdL apartment. Deliberate ?

by Liz Eagles 22.02.16 9:16

Just taking things paragraph by paragraph with my observations in red ink.

I have never been allowed to say this before.

I’ve been given all sorts of reasons — people who are normally brutally honest with me fobbing me off, arguing I am not bringing anything new to the debate.

Why has Clickbait Katie never been allowed to say this before? Who didn't allow her to say this before? Probably her paymasters.

It’s been a white-out, like the silence of snow.

What the devil does that mean?

But seeing the faces of Gerry and Kate McCann yet again this week, promoting the Child Rescue Alert Campaign to track down missing kids, I think it's finally time to speak out.

Let's ignore the juggernaut charity that is Missing People who recruited Kate McCann as its maidenhead. This is the charity/lobbying company/pseudo quango that has benefitted from the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The charity that has blossomed in leaps and bounds since the disappearance of Madeleine. Let's ignore that whilst Katie's paymasters allow her to slip in a quasi controversial McCann article supporting a neglect and abduction theory.

Kate McCann says she lives in a never-ending limbo.
But I believe the truth is that Madeleine McCann is never coming home.
She is long gone. It is time to stop looking and stop imagining there is some happy ending to this sorry tale. Enough.

Let's not look at things from the perspective of Madeleine McCann who deserves £11m and more from our coffers to find out the truth eh? Let's place the emphasis on the parents eh? Let's completely ignore the part that the media played in 'gathering information', making up headlines and sucking on the teats of Bell Pottinger eh? For goodness sake let's not look at any of that stuff eh? Let's not look at the political and media interference/greed eh? Oh no, let's not look at that. Let's stick out a clickbait article which amounts to nothing. And whatever we do let's not look at whether Scotland Yard's investigation has any integrity eh?

There is no amount of money the (sic) will right the wrongs of the past, no libel action that will cancel out the damage the McCanns inflicted on themselves.

See above comments and think how much money the media made from Maddie headlines against the amount of money paid out - but hush - let's not talk about the media.

Kate and Gerry McCann didn't deserve £11million of our cash to look for Maddie or try to resolve their consciences or salvage reputations. Others have greater need.

As a British national Madeleine McCann deserves £11million to find out what happened to her - but let's not look at the millions made by the media with their spurious stories and willingness to gorge at the trough of easy press releases. Let's not look at that eh? Let's not look at whether those in the establishment played any part in this eh? And whatever we do, let's not question whether the Scotland Yard 'investigation' is genuine eh? After all, Scotland Yard were ordered/ summoned to investigate weren't they?

If you really must blame someone, then Kate and Gerry are right there in front of you. And yet, protected by some invisible force-shield I don’t understand.

See above comments.

...........................

Just my opinion of course.

ETA: articles like this are imo akin to being asked if you'd rather have earache or toothache.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 22.02.16 10:03

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Call me cynical, but I believe the mixed messages in the British media about the McCanns - the suffering they still have to endure but the fact that the suffering is also partially their own fault - is a prelude to the closing of the Scotland Yard investigation. The British public can feel bad for the McCanns that the police are giving up but not totally bad because they got more than they deserved since they shouldn't have left their children unattended. The British public can also feel good that they tried hard to find Madeleine via their own tax money and their country's police resources but not too bad when the failed investigation calls it a day.

Tania Cadogan Scotland yard can pretty much only charge them in relation to the fraudulent fund.
It is the Portuguese who are running the Homicide, filing a false police report and concealing a cadaver case.
The PJ are not releasing anything they are doing in relation to the case and it is this that is scaring the mccanns.
How can they refute allegations and explain things away if they don't know what evidence etc is being looked at and investigated

Like · Reply · 5 · 8 hrs

Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million. - Page 2 18673_387116790642_2706109_n

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown Tania, nothing is really scaring the McCanns because a case against them will never fly in ANY court since Scotland Yard publically stated they were not involved and spent years proving they were looking for a stranger. No prosecutor is goiing to take a circumstantial case to court with that to deal with. Unless Maddie's body is found with evidence linking her death to the McCanns, the case is simply dead in the water.

Like · Reply · 2 · 6 hrs

Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million. - Page 2 12311311_10206419502459047_5368659996609892215_n

Michelle Pastore Not partially their fault...all. The SY investigation, should not have happened in the first place. It was a huge waste of money. I mean can you actually search for something that is not lost? We were conned from the start and continue to be so. Only those that believe the abduction theory will feel good about wasting 11 million on this farce, the well read amongst us think it could have been better spent elsewhere.

Like · Reply · 5 · 9 hrs

Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million. - Page 2 11057997_10155629349690386_8807333933531557114_n

Richard Holland I agree Pat. Although I have noticed a subtle but tangible shift in public opinion lately. Certainly public comments on UK online newspaper articles, although still heavily moderated, are a lot more sceptical and questioning about the McCann's "abduction story". However I am inclined to agree with you. Definitely something is brewing judging by the number of stories team McCann put out last week. As we know, these are usually the precursor to some other relevant news.

Like · Reply · 26 mins

Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million. - Page 2 12341043_1036931779660219_8557165040424671551_n

Annie Haley You're not cynical Pat... Just someone who knows this case so well. You have always been one to see the writing on the wall. Such a tragic case in so many ways.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10156825332985643&id=387068190642&fref=nf

Sharon Lawrence The timing of that article is suspect. Why now, on the very day that Richard Halls new film is officially released. I have seen the film and it suggest that Madeleine died early in the holiday. This article, although its not McCann friendly, does suggest that Madeleine was in fact abducted on May 3rd whilst her parents were absent. It does accuse the McCanns of child neglect, but thats nothing new and imo neglect was just an alibi for them. Being accused of neglect yet again is a small price to pay for someone promoting the abduction on May 3rd story, especially on the day that someone else attempts to prove the earlier death theory.
Like · Reply · 4 · 40 mins

Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million. - Page 2 10806384_397429043771767_5618364778939262755_n

Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million. - Page 2 10806384_397429043771767_5618364778939262755_n

Simon Robinson Maybe this is a prelude to SY closing the case, or maybe not. We do know that OG has been scaled down. The problem is that an ever increasing number of people no longer believe the McCann's or SY's version of events. Problem is that the Genie is well out of the bottle, and gone for good, there's no putting it back now.
Like · Reply · 12 mins
Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million. - Page 2 11137132_10206723763394040_944409268019227897_n

Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million. - Page 2 11137132_10206723763394040_944409268019227897_n

Andy Hopkins The establishment aren't bothered about people's perception in my opinion. They interfered and steered the case first time round, in 5 years and £10's millions later, they've achieved what? FOI requests revealed that G4S did some work for the met, this I think is groundwork for passing some of the blame for the impending whitewash, G4S has had a dodgy rep since the Olympics, maybe before. The PJ left a pretty solid evidence based foundation in which to start the case again, and what have they achieved?

by ChippyM 22.02.16 10:27

It is now the most read story on the 'Mail online' apparently. (Edited to add: 25 milion have viewed the DM site today worldwide, 11 million in the UK)

So how many of those millions of readers will look up the 48 questions or the crimewatch efit for the first time? How many will know she washed cuddle cat now? How many will get what she is saying about GM?
if it was all to promote an abduction, she has slipped up by mentioning these things to millions. She could have just concentrated on slagging them off for being alcoholics who left their kids whilst out on the lash, she could have spent a whole article comparing them to Jeremey Kyle fodder and being utterly vile about them purely on those terms but she didn't.

Regarding the comments posted above from Pat Brown and others, yes SY have said officially they were looking at possible abductors and that will stick in people's mnds but I don't agree a body needs to be found. They only need to find blood and prove it was MM's....a better dna technique...better evidence yes but not necessarily a body.

by rainbow-fairy 22.02.16 12:14

Well judging by most of above comments, mine won't be popular!

I find this article extremely suspect in its timing and content.
Out just as Richard D. Hall's new documentary is released which alludes to *no* neglect and death earlier in week... hmmm...

This article is neither here nor there; it doesn't raise questions that the McCanns haven't answered and it quite relentlessly pushes the 'neglect and abduction story.

Having read the reader comments there seems to be a split between the usual 'What I don't understand is why these lot haven't been done for child neglect??? If they were on the dole they'd be banged up and social services involved!!!' - benefit? TM abduction story

And 'yes they made a terrible mistake but none of us are perfect! They are paying every day and will never give up searching for Maddie' - benefit? TM abduction story

As well as 'nasty, vicious Katie - sickening comment. They don't need the likes of you twisting the knife' - benefit? TM abduction story, plus added hatred towards those questioning the OS.

Those who beleive the OS will likely as not go on believing it - '48 questions' has made its way into MSM and of course Kate didn't answer because 'her lawyer told her not to, those nasty sardine-munchers were trying to fit her up!'... washing of Cuddle Cat (not 5days later - an inaccuracy Pro's will love) 'it was dirty, covered in suntan oil so why *not* wash it?'
I can easily see a backlash towards those seeking truth, another way to say 'see how cruel these people are'...
It's lazy journalism IMHO, and on balance I believe it does more to benefit the McCanns than not...
Just keep on pushing neglect and abduction, have the majority up in arms about it and they are home and dry...

Nothing in reader comments inspires me to beleive anyone will question the OS from this piece - just the see-saw between 'why not charged with neglect' and 'why are you anti's such cruel trolls?'

It could almost have Team McCanns fingerprints on it... nah

by Liz Eagles 22.02.16 12:26

rainbow-fairy wrote:Well judging by most of above comments, mine won't be popular!

I find this article extremely suspect in its timing and content.
Out just as Richard D. Hall's new documentary is released which alludes to *no* neglect and death earlier in week... hmmm...

This article is neither here nor there; it doesn't raise questions that the McCanns haven't answered and it quite relentlessly pushes the 'neglect and abduction story.

Having read the reader comments there seems to be a split between the usual 'What I don't understand is why these lot haven't been done for child neglect??? If they were on the dole they'd be banged up and social services involved!!!' - benefit? TM abduction story

And 'yes they made a terrible mistake but none of us are perfect! They are paying every day and will never give up searching for Maddie' - benefit? TM abduction story

As well as 'nasty, vicious Katie - sickening comment. They don't need the likes of you twisting the knife' - benefit? TM abduction story, plus added hatred towards those questioning the OS.

Those who beleive the OS will likely as not go on believing it - '48 questions' has made its way into MSM and of course Kate didn't answer because 'her lawyer told her not to, those nasty sardine-munchers were trying to fit her up!'... washing of Cuddle Cat (not 5days later - an inaccuracy Pro's will love) 'it was dirty, covered in suntan oil so why *not* wash it?'
I can easily see a backlash towards those seeking truth, another way to say 'see how cruel these people are'...
It's lazy journalism IMHO, and on balance I believe it does more to benefit the McCanns than not...
Just keep on pushing neglect and abduction, have the majority up in arms about it and they are home and dry...

Nothing in reader comments inspires me to beleive anyone will question the OS from this piece - just the see-saw between 'why not charged with neglect' and 'why are you anti's such cruel trolls?'

It could almost have Team McCanns fingerprints on it...

In a roundabout way I posted something quite similar earlier.

by bristow 22.02.16 12:47

Todays Evening Standard - re Katie Hopkins.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/katie-hopkins-sparks-online-frenzy-with-attack-on-madeleine-mccanns-parents-a3185856.html

by Liz Eagles 22.02.16 12:57

bristow wrote:Todays Evening Standard - re Katie Hopkins.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/katie-hopkins-sparks-online-frenzy-with-attack-on-madeleine-mccanns-parents-a3185856.html

Aaah the London Evening Standard, the newspaper that held awards for Batmangeligjh's charity. The newspaper that promoted two downtrodden ex convicts who converted to Islam whilst in prison and who later opened up a removals company(s) - several limited companies opened and closed - a company, which after launching a new website disappeared within a breath of Batmangelidjh's company falling from government grace.

Please spare us from the LES.

by Verdi 22.02.16 12:59

@bristow

I wish it to be known, every time you're online I rush for the swatter and start frantically thrashing my laptop like a demented baboon - I'll see you in court..

splat

Sorry for the digression.

Log in for more topics