An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
Page 1 of 1 • Share
An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
Hi all, here is the old news we knew: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html from October 2010.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/151405/Maddie-died-in-apartment-court-hearsal (January 2010)
Now there is this article, from today, The Telegraph (Monday 07 March 2011 -it was also published yesterday, I took screen captures):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html
-now, there hasn't really been any other court since the court + appeal of last year, has it? so isn't it curious as the Telegraph mentions this as if it was both past and future -if we read it in details- ???
but what is the point of this, it's not as if this paper was frankly unbiased usually, and ever gave a :flower: for Madeleine McCann's justice and truth... So what is it now? U-Turn? disguised error? Something really happened and I missed it? if yes can someone explain, lol? Or are journalists starting to be fed up covering them and their employers have finally, finally realised that they would make more money by presenting the TRUTH?!
Something's the matter with that...
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/151405/Maddie-died-in-apartment-court-hearsal (January 2010)
Now there is this article, from today, The Telegraph (Monday 07 March 2011 -it was also published yesterday, I took screen captures):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html
-now, there hasn't really been any other court since the court + appeal of last year, has it? so isn't it curious as the Telegraph mentions this as if it was both past and future -if we read it in details- ???
but what is the point of this, it's not as if this paper was frankly unbiased usually, and ever gave a :flower: for Madeleine McCann's justice and truth... So what is it now? U-Turn? disguised error? Something really happened and I missed it? if yes can someone explain, lol? Or are journalists starting to be fed up covering them and their employers have finally, finally realised that they would make more money by presenting the TRUTH?!
Something's the matter with that...
Magpie- Posts : 37
Activity : 48
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2010-12-05
Re: An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
Very strange to publish an article clearly marked as
By Fiona Govan in Lisbon 10:30PM GMT 12 Jan 2010
on
Monday 07 March 2011 Telegraph.co.uk
They don't do things like that by mistake.
Is this a spoiling action before April against the Sun and the Murdock empire ?
By Fiona Govan in Lisbon 10:30PM GMT 12 Jan 2010
on
Monday 07 March 2011 Telegraph.co.uk
They don't do things like that by mistake.
Is this a spoiling action before April against the Sun and the Murdock empire ?
Re: An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
Is it possible that this is just the old article but comes up with today`s date if you search for it? I`ve looked at the Telegraph on line just now and can`t find it....but please direct me to it if indeed it is there.
I`ve looked at old Mccann articles and these come up in exactly the same format with the date of the original report in the body of the text but with today`s date at the top of the page.
I`ve looked at old Mccann articles and these come up in exactly the same format with the date of the original report in the body of the text but with today`s date at the top of the page.
Guest- Guest
Re: An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
Thanks for posting that Magpie. Very interesting, makes you wonder if something is coming along to blow the McCann fairytale to bits Perhaps for some journalists, the book is a step too far. I'm convinced all the UK editors know the score but, probably because they are frightened of Carter Ruck and/or acting under instructions from Murdoch, they have gone along with this. Is The Telegraph part of the Murdoch empire?
Autumn- Posts : 2603
Activity : 2903
Likes received : 5
Join date : 2009-11-25
Re: An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
alison wrote:Is it possible that this is just the old article but comes up with today`s date if you search for it? I`ve looked at the Telegraph on line just now and can`t find it....but please direct me to it if indeed it is there.
I`ve looked at old Mccann articles and these come up in exactly the same format with the date of the original report in the body of the text but with today`s date at the top of the page.
You are right I think alison, I just searched some old articles and they come up with today's date at the top of the page.
Guest- Guest
Re: An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
Not at all, since I give the link of both articles with the 2 different dates, and: If old articles were all coming up with today's date, there would be no dating possible, no archiving possible either, of anything, it would be deliberate mess of history and events!candyfloss wrote:alison wrote:Is it possible that this is just the old article but comes up with today`s date if you search for it? I`ve looked at the Telegraph on line just now and can`t find it....but please direct me to it if indeed it is there.
I`ve looked at old Mccann articles and these come up in exactly the same format with the date of the original report in the body of the text but with today`s date at the top of the page.
You are right I think alison, I just searched some old articles and they come up with today's date at the top of the page.
I agree with Autumn, it's quite interesting how The Telegraph has come up with that today, even masking yesterday's date for the 1st re-publication, and was wondering the same thing, is this part of the Murdoch group??? can't be?, -LOL, otherwise it's easy: it would be just another 'book pre-sale' arrangement for marketing, as I've just read elsewhere!
'Free' publicity by fuss over old news -presented as new- to create sensation (from old broth) and get people to think of the 'poor parents'...? but , LOL, it acts more into showing them up! If I had the time I would write (email) to the Telegraph but I must dash now
-thanks all for the replies and keep them coming - if anyoone gets any answer from that media, please post here (do they hold comments? I haven't noticed)
--here's another old one I found, 'police won't be silenced' (just as well really, LOL, running out of coffee to spit at my pc screen!) - can't make out if all that is SPIN or a pale attempt of whispering "something"???? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/6989405/Madeleine-McCann-Portuguese-detective-wont-be-silenced.html
Magpie- Posts : 37
Activity : 48
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2010-12-05
Re: An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
I get it, this old piece of news has been re-posted on today and yesterday's editions of The Telegraph.co.uk, I really wonder the reason of this.
If it was an arranged commercial agreement between the McCanns' spinners and this media then it is assumed that the public is brainwashed into believing the McCanns! - because I can't see it as any other attempt, suddenly by miracle, dropping old senastional news that go against the holy "responsible" pair!
I think it's telling all of us who don't believe the McCanns to counteract the start of that new spinning vague -as much as we can. Because the other side is going to be paid (which WE aren't), and very well paid, to rekindle the sympathy votes organised publicity stunts, all in order to sell a maximum of book copies. There are quite a few share-holders whose interest rely in these profits.
A lot of more dirty nappies smells and shrimp fluid in view! But should they really assume that the UK public (or in any other country where that book is/will be promoted) is that naive? In the people who actually care (therefore search a minimum on the case), what is the percentage of the population who still believes them? ah ah!
But fair enough, I'm OK to share headlines of the sort, because all publicity is NOT good publicity:
"Madeleine McCann's death 'covered up by parents who faked kidnap', court hears
Madeleine McCann died in an accident in her family's Algarve holiday apartment and her death was covered up by her parents who then concocted a tale of kidnap, a Portuguese court was told."
If it was an arranged commercial agreement between the McCanns' spinners and this media then it is assumed that the public is brainwashed into believing the McCanns! - because I can't see it as any other attempt, suddenly by miracle, dropping old senastional news that go against the holy "responsible" pair!
I think it's telling all of us who don't believe the McCanns to counteract the start of that new spinning vague -as much as we can. Because the other side is going to be paid (which WE aren't), and very well paid, to rekindle the sympathy votes organised publicity stunts, all in order to sell a maximum of book copies. There are quite a few share-holders whose interest rely in these profits.
A lot of more dirty nappies smells and shrimp fluid in view! But should they really assume that the UK public (or in any other country where that book is/will be promoted) is that naive? In the people who actually care (therefore search a minimum on the case), what is the percentage of the population who still believes them? ah ah!
But fair enough, I'm OK to share headlines of the sort, because all publicity is NOT good publicity:
"Madeleine McCann's death 'covered up by parents who faked kidnap', court hears
Madeleine McCann died in an accident in her family's Algarve holiday apartment and her death was covered up by her parents who then concocted a tale of kidnap, a Portuguese court was told."
Magpie- Posts : 37
Activity : 48
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2010-12-05
Re: An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
Hi Magpie,
Could you please provide links for those two headlines in bold?
As to the stories you mention in Telegraph, I am sure it is a standard header at the top of page, with today's date, and then whatever you search for appears underneath with the date of the article. That's the way it seems to me. There is nothing in todays online edition re the above as far as I can see.
Could you please provide links for those two headlines in bold?
As to the stories you mention in Telegraph, I am sure it is a standard header at the top of page, with today's date, and then whatever you search for appears underneath with the date of the article. That's the way it seems to me. There is nothing in todays online edition re the above as far as I can see.
Guest- Guest
Re: An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
The article can now be read (via the link provided by magpie) but now with today's date i.e a rolling date at the very top. So forgive me if I'm wrong, but if the link is preserved, it will appear as many times as called-up, but with the latest day's date. In other words, much as I'd like to - conspiracy theories and all that - I can't imagine that the Telegraph has suddenly found renewed interest in the case.
kikoraton- Researcher
- Posts : 617
Activity : 629
Likes received : 8
Join date : 2010-10-13
Location : Catalunya, Spain
Re: An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
The photograph of the wind ravaged McCann couple is very interesting. This may be The Telegraph's way of showing us how close to the wind the McCanns are sailing. Many photographers would have take lots photographs on that day, and of course they have archives to choose from, yet they chose to print this one.
Judge Mental- Posts : 2762
Activity : 2960
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2010-03-17
Age : 87
Location : Chambers
Re: An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
Lol, Judge! Dr McCann is an accomplished businessman.
I have a message for Tony, I notived he had forgotten to add tags on his 48 QUESTIONS Video on Vimeo. http://vimeo.com/14180705
Excellent work by the way, everyone here should comment, registration is free, so is use, and it's much better quality than on You Tube! Cheers, M.
I have a message for Tony, I notived he had forgotten to add tags on his 48 QUESTIONS Video on Vimeo. http://vimeo.com/14180705
Excellent work by the way, everyone here should comment, registration is free, so is use, and it's much better quality than on You Tube! Cheers, M.
Magpie- Posts : 37
Activity : 48
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2010-12-05
Re: An article re the Court (today!)... Title is "anti-McCann"!
Is it possible that the libel case is due fairly soon - maybe its refreshing the subject in the minds of the general public.
Maybe that's why the McCanns are out trying to garner donations for The Fund - they may lose and have to cough up costs etc.
Maybe that's why the McCanns are out trying to garner donations for The Fund - they may lose and have to cough up costs etc.
____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
Angelique- Posts : 1396
Activity : 1460
Likes received : 42
Join date : 2010-10-19
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum