Meyer and Greenslade on the McCanns and PCC

It's clear, Britain deserves the McCanns

ShrinkingViolet

Your welcome - it was just a snip though not all of it. Yes - I agree - why through the British Embassy in Washington. Maybe there wasn't anyone in Portugal - I remember at some point no one was available.

Stella

Thank you for stepping in with the transcript.

lj wrote:It's clear, Britain deserves the McCanns

I disagree...I think your country should have them. Surely it must be your turn by now.

Marian wrote:Hope this isn't too off topic but I've just watched an ITV programme from 2009 which, to my mind, also conveys the impression that the McCanns are innocent with no doubts whatsoever.



http://www.mccannfiles.com/id243.html



There are various examples of people who have pleaded for the return of a missing person, only to have been the one responsible all along. The impression I get is that the McCanns are the exception to every rule and are as pure as the driven snow.

I do accept of course that other people's guilt does not mean that anyone else is automatically guilty too.

Marian

I am watching this and initially ~I think they mention some points pertinent to the McCanns.

I don't know - the Prof. Paul Ekeman looking at the tape on Karen's appeal - refers to the way she shrugs - I did notice that the McCanns used to do this - and also the smiles as well. Then the shaking head - Gerry did this smirk as well in early videos. There is one somewhere on this site recently where he smirks when asked about sightings. Cant find it at the moment.

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:

lj wrote:It's clear, Britain deserves the McCanns

I disagree...I think your country should have them. Surely it must be your turn by now.

Where I am a lot of people disappear mysteriously, so I'll take them for a bit, but I can't promise I'll give them back (in one piece).

Marian

I see what you mean - it's at the end - Rod Chaytor - reporter on The Mirror. He says at the end he believes they (McCanns) are innocent - but he is only a reporter.

Angelique wrote:
Marian

I am watching this and initially ~I think they mention some points pertinent to the McCanns.

I don't know - the Prof. Paul Ekeman looking at the tape on Karen's appeal - refers to the way she shrugs - I did notice that the McCanns used to do this - and also the smiles as well. Then the shaking head - Gerry did this smirk as well in early videos. There is one somewhere on this site recently where he smirks when asked about sightings. Cant find it at the moment.

It's on the topic McC body language. I also noticed the detective doing a Matthews, shaking head and saying 'yes'.

Re SCMeyer et al, not much to choose between the two of them. Wasn't SCM ambassador in Washington? Didn't his wife set up a charity and advise Gerry? And didn't she pay herself a enormous amount from that charity ( which had something to do with children)?

I think the McCann's didn't want the press to stop because it provided three very important things with negative publicity. First was information, it was the only way they could find out evidence the PJ's had. Second they could see potential libel income for the fund and third, Kate loves playing the victim card. She was "very unfairly" attacked by the press, they claim zero responsibility for their daughter's disappearance, they are victims of that big bad paedophile and the PJ's who didn't do exactly what the McCanns told them to do.

Going slightly of at a tangent but related to the Press - in her book Kate expresses her annoyance that the Ocean Club stopped the McCanns using the creche for the twins - for a while at least. The other parents were complaining about the media scrum surrounding it and how it was disturbing their children. Does Kate express any sympathy for the parents/children being disturbed - no. She expresses annoyance about the other parents stopping Sean and Amelie going and thus disturbing their routine!

This is a snip from the mccannfiles and Dr. Martin Roberts about the PCC.

With permission from Admin - please remove if not permitted.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id356.html
By Dr Martin Roberts
12 January 2011

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS

(We return you now to Clarence Mitchell answering Stephen Nolan)
Clarence Mitchell: "...the whole thing was a nonsense but it was driving sales of papers…obviously there were legitimate questions about child safety and, errr... parental responsibility….We would talk to journalists on the ground and we would talk to editors. It made a difference sometimes. Overall, in certain cases, it made not jot... not a jot of difference."
Well I take back what was said earlier about Mitchell's awareness of belief versus logic. Anyone capable of equating the general with the specific in such an ad hoc manner is likely not to appreciate the difference between empiricism and blind faith after all. Rather more importantly, CM makes it abundantly clear that questions pertaining to child safety and parental responsibility, i.e. questions of negligence, were both legitimate and inevitable. And in case you should have missed this devious operative's earlier remark on the subject, here it is again:
"...there's a very small vocal minority online who... who attack them for being negligent. That is completely misplaced and entirely wrong."
Not misplaced then. And when one takes into account the parents' own admissions, e.g. 'extraordinarily we went to the Tapas bar', by way of explanation for their leaving three children under five alone and unattended for more than an hour, 'entirely wrong' doesn't seem to fit the subsequent questioning either. Still, something should be done about maverick reporting shouldn't it? Let's conclude with the authoritative view of a PR professional, as adept at employing 'weasels' as any other in his line of work.
Stephen Nolan: "So, Clarence, what... what needs to happen? Does... does the PCC work, the Press Complaints Commission? Errr... Does there need to be a change of legislation? What needs to happen?"

Clarence Mitchell: "Well, we... we tried to resort to the PCC, at times, and they were very helpful in terms of logistical things, like keeping photographers away from the McCann's home. There were photographers camped outside their house, at the end of their drive, for six months. We even had paparazzi photographers, who normally do celebrity jobs in... in Los Angeles, turning up looking for them. And, you know, we had to patiently explain the McCanns were not celebrities, they didn't warrant this sort of intrusion and these photographers needed to be moved. Now the PCC were fantastic in that case, they were really helpful. But in terms of making the news desks and the editors in certain papers sit up and really listen, I'm afraid we had to, reluctantly, pick up the rather large hammer of defamation action and say, 'You will apologise, you will settle this, errr... on our terms, or we will go further'. And thankfully, after a lot of discussion - the Express group being the best example - finally agreed with us. Errm... But it was a reluctant action. You know, it shouldn't have got to that stage. But it wasn't of our making."
For those unfamiliar with the copywriter's technique, 'We tried to resort to the PCC at times' means exactly what it says. Most of the time they did not resort to the PCC at all, and on those occasions when they might have done so they only tried.

The PCC for their part have long since explained that their role is not to pre-judge the outcome of reportage but to take action in the event that they receive a complaint. The McCanns did not complain to the PCC about the Express group coverage, for example. The 'large hammer of defamation' was not an instrument of last resort, except in the chronological sense. The majority of what was written in the press during the torrid period for which the McCanns claimed damages could easily have been nipped in the bud by them early on. It wasn't. Kate's 'story,' all important for bringing Madeleine home, could have been written and published long before now, there being a sense of urgency attaching to any child's disappearance, or that of an adult. It wasn't.