Re: Jeremy Vine Show BBC radio 2 today at 12pm

by rainbow-fairy 01.12.11 22:08

mrscee, I think most people here won't forget this in a hurry. I personally have never felt any form of 'betrayal' over this in that I disbelieved from day one. I'm sure there must at least be a significant minority who started out 'believing' before becoming disillusioned and arriving here. Those people, I think, will possibly be the most affected long-term by this whole nightmare situation.

by Gillyspot 01.12.11 22:46

I am one of them. I have donated in the past (how much do I regret that) but since having the chance to read the files and question I cannot believe how stupid I was (except that I read the press only).

We are getting the word out slowly but surely that Kate & Gerry McCann are not what they seem. As I have no faith in Scotland Yard I don't think that will change anything but the court cases with Amaral and Pat Brown my change things I feel (at least abroad).

by jd 02.12.11 1:01

mrscee wrote:Thank you for saying that I am not melodramatic Rainbow Fairy! And I do so hope you are right. We have to have faith that the truth will come out. And I'm with you- I don't think I will ever forget about this case.

Mrscee you are not being melodramatic in the slightest. This 'off the cuff' accusation comes from people like the pro mccanns who are worried when the truth is near to being exposed

I too will never ever ever stop in exposing this scam....NEVER

by Newintown 02.12.11 2:25

Gillyspot wrote:I am one of them. I have donated in the past (how much do I regret that) but since having the chance to read the files and question I cannot believe how stupid I was (except that I read the press only).

We are getting the word out slowly but surely that Kate & Gerry McCann are not what they seem. As I have no faith in Scotland Yard I don't think that will change anything but the court cases with Amaral and Pat Brown my change things I feel (at least abroad).

Hello Gillyspot

Have you thought about writing to the McCanns and asking for your money back and see what response you get. You could say to them that at first you believed them but now so much has come to light that you would like them to persuade you that there was an abduction. You could also say that their accounts do not show fully where all the money has gone that has been donated to them and you would like a personal breakdown of where it's gone. Knowing them they wouldn't have the b*lls to reply to you.

by mrscee 06.12.11 15:16

Please see below the response I received from the BBC - my complaint focused on the issue of bias, and also the fact that the optician was slandered on air. This latter point was not addressed. However.... just wow! I am speechless, and don't quite know where to start in putting together a response to this.

Reference CAS-1121290-S32SQX

Thanks for contacting us about 'Jeremy Vine' broadcast on 24 November.

I have reviewed the item on the Jeremy Vine Show which focused on the Leveson Enquiry evidence given by the McCanns. The thrust of the item was the revelations of their shocking treatment by the press.

There were a number of e-mails read out from both sides which clearly presented the argument and gave balance to the item overall.

I'm sorry you felt that Jeremy was one-sided, but you'll appreciate that the McCanns haven't been found guilty of any offence, despite an extensive police investigation. Therefore it would be inappropriate, if legally dubious for him to imply anything other than the couple are totally innocent.

Over the years we've covered the McCann story from a wide range of perspectives and aired the arguments repeatedly, but given their innocence, the programme on this occasion (and in the light of the Leveson evidence) suggested that those who believe they're guilty, although they're entitled to an opinion, have no evidence to support those opinions, and are being provocative and possibly even libellous.

Leaving aside the fact that they've lost a child, the revelations of their treatment by parts of the press have horrified most reasonable people and we believe Jeremy was correct to challenge the unpleasant contributions in the light of the known facts.

Kind Regards

Phil Hughes | Editor Programmes
BBC Radio 2

by jd 06.12.11 15:35

My god! Im speechless too

by mrscee 06.12.11 15:40

What I am finding hard to articulate is that they must surely have known they would get critical responses, in which case the entire objective of the 'show' was contrived. Namely to solicit opinions which they were obliged to then reject because they do not represent the voice of the 'moral majority'. I find this whole ' reasonable people' thing extremely galling. The irony is that the subject of the emails was merely that the Mccanns were culpable for 'abandoning' their children by dining at the tapas. Surely this is a matter of fact and therefore the fear of libel as outlined by Phil Hughes here is not the case.

by jd 06.12.11 15:46

I have never seen a reply like this in my entire life, and its from the BBC too! Words fail me right now

what is it with these mccanns....they are being protected like they really are gods of this earth....why? who are they? are they actually able to turn water into (NZ) wine?

by mrscee 06.12.11 15:52

I know. It is shocking. The implications actually terrify me.

by nomendelta 06.12.11 17:10

So how about Kate's own comment about Maddie being dead in her book?

How about the Portuguese investigation concluding, IIRC, that in most probability the child died in the apartment and most likely her parents were involved?

How about that quote from Leicester police which stated that the McCanns have not been exonerated?

This is all quite astounding. Whilst I agree that clearly there's a need for the BBC and Jeremy Vine to tippy toe around the McCanns from whatever pressure may be present BUT that does not give him the right to insult members of the public who disagree with him.

by rainbow-fairy 06.12.11 17:14

Well. It takes a lot to stun me into silence - this has almost succeeded. This sounds like something from the Stasi, not the BBC!
It scares me too, mrscee. More than you know. It scares me that people can not care about this case, or blithely swallow the crap! Slowly, surely, we are all being re-programmed. Hard drives wiped. Well sorry, they won't succeed with me! I've taken my 12 year old out of school, partly for the insidious brainwashing and churning out of 'sheeples'. His class had a 'debate' on 'what Tesco has done for our town' - his reply was 'killed it!' (He did give examples). His teacher told him he was ridiculous, classmates laughed then all proceeded to 'debate' how wonderful our town was thanks to Tesco (it isn't. It barely survives)
This is what this reply sounds like.
I take real exception to the 'most decent people' line as I am not a bad person - I do voluntary work for charity amongst other things - I just choose not to believe a story that has no basis in reality. It is truly ironic, and sickening, how the author of that letter can accuse people like us of 'having no evidence' for our views - er, those who say McCanns were naughty for leaving the children are basing that opinion on the McCanns own word - ha!
I don't believe the McCanns word. Colours to the mast - IMO, no neglect, no abduction - far worse.

Just as an aside, what evidence is there, exactly, to say Madeleine was abducted?
1)She is not there.
2)Can anyone help me out here??? I'm struggling...
As far as I can see, that's like me saying if I wake up to find my son not in the house, he's been abducted - ridiculous!
Now, evidence against the abduction, anyone?
1)There's the dogs. As a dog owner, its certain for me if they barked @ dead body scent, then dead body there was...
2)I don't have time to list all the other evidence - it's almost endless.

You know what? I've been thinking about emigrating for a while. Going to a more free-thinking-allowed country than the UK would be good. Hmmm, China, anyone? Wink

Truly, truly shocking and terrifying. I never thought I would see such blatant 'you WILL submit' in my lifetime - horrified.

by jd 06.12.11 17:33

"it is truly ironic, and sickening, how the author of that letter can accuse people like us of 'having no evidence' for our views"

There is no evidence to support the mccanns story either. Infact their case is classified as 'missing persons' and not abduction, yet they still tell the world an abduction! despite no evidence and lies

So the BBC should treat the same as they do to people who hold a different view to the mccanns version of events. The BBC are being 100% totally biased and in effect stopping freedom of expression too

by pauline 06.12.11 17:52

Miscee, I empathise with you over the inadequate reply.

can you bear to follow up?

I'd point out that there is no balance if those making comments doubting the McCanns version are insulted by being accused of having mental health problems, whereas the pro emails were either praised or there was no comment.

The BBC cannot have considered the comments libellous or they would not have read them out in the first place. the logical thing would be for there to be for emails from both sides to be read out without comment.

I'd suggest you ask how many complaints they had - they may not answer, or you might get a vague reply but worth a try. A journalist i met at the weekend hen I told him about this show said to argue that the programme breached the BBC charter, that the BBS is sensitive to complaints that say this.

Pull the reply to pieces. Good luck!

by Gillyspot 06.12.11 18:00

Well said Pauline

The McCanns are not proved innocent as there has not been a court case. There simply was not enough evidence for the AG to take the matter further when the case was shelved (note shelved - not closed)

Would the BBC consider those police in Wales who have recently got off on a technicality as innocent? No it would not.

One thing I will say I will never ever listen to Jeremy Vine again (not that I did before mind). GRRRR

by mrscee 06.12.11 18:02

thanks guys, I have just about picked myself up off the floor after reading that. Rainbow fairy, I completely understand why you would take your son out of school. It is horrifying the lack of ability for dissenting opinions to be heard even at that young age. Anyhoo I don't know if it is even worthwhile replying to this chap, but I think I will just the same. I'm trying to break down what I want to say and I think it is the following-

1) I think I will ask him then why the heading of the show was Is it time for the Mccann detractors to shut up ( or something like that). This might lead a naiive listener such as myself to believe that there could be several responses on a continuum to this. However according to the BBC clearly the only acceptable answer to this question was' Yes, it certainly is time for those pesky detractors to shut up' . It would therefore have been more honest to simply make a statement to that effect rather than go through the motions of any kind of 'debate'

2) I didn't hear anything potentially libellous in the emails which were read out. They were mainly insinuating that the Mccanns left their children alone and thereofre were culpable in that respect. None of those emails were implying any more culpability than this, but they suggested that the Mccanns take some responsibility. That the children were left in the apartments while the Mccanns dined at the Tapas is a documented 'fact' ( ha!) of the case.

3) They did not respond at all to my comment about Nina Myscow's accusation that the optician must be mentally ill to be making those kind of comments was potentially slanderous.

4) While the presenter and Myscow did ' respond' to the comments in the emails they only did so in an ad hominem fashion and did not refer to any of the substance.

In conclusion, the entire show was a pointless exercise dressed up as a 'debate' in order to instruct the British public as to how they should think. Lazy, demeaning journalism. Yuk!

( Revised to add thank you Pauline for all your suggestions which I have just caught up with, will try and include them, and will review this BBC charter as well)

Waaaaah! Thank goodness it's nearly wine time .... ( not new zealand I hasten to add)

by rainbow-fairy 06.12.11 18:11

jd wrote:"it is truly ironic, and sickening, how the author of that letter can accuse people like us of 'having no evidence' for our views"

There is no evidence to support the mccanns story either. Infact their case is classified as 'missing persons' and not abduction, yet they still tell the world an abduction! despite no evidence and lies

So the BBC should treat the same as they do to people who hold a different view to the mccanns version of events. The BBC are being 100% totally biased and in effect stopping freedom of expression too

Yes jd. My point entirely - that's a perfect sum-up of my ranting post Wink

Its these supporting the abduction line who have 'absolutely no evidence' to support it, so how dare they be so condescending?
I'm utterly sick of hearing about the McCanns 'innocence'. Ok, so technically they are innocent as they haven't been found guilty by a court, but so what? Myra Hindley and Ian Brady were technically innocent until Myra's brother-in-law reported them! Technical innocence aside the sheer weight of evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, strongly shows the McCanns ARE NOT being truthful about the events of 2007.

by IAmNotMerylStreep 06.12.11 18:19

Gillyspot wrote:Well said Pauline

The McCanns are not proved innocent as there has not been a court case. There simply was not enough evidence for the AG to take the matter further when the case was shelved (note shelved - not closed)

You're right that the McCanns have not been proven innocent, but the fact is they don't need to be proven innocent because until they go to court they are innocent until proven guilty. The McCanns chose to allow the case to be shelved because, presumably, for them to keep it open may well have meant they would end up in court where they may well have been found guilty and ended up in prison, just like Kate's own lawyer told her.

Why would the Mccanns take that risk when they had the choice to allow the case to be shelved? They were given 30 days to request the investigation to remain open but they deliberately let the deadline pass. By allowing the case to be shelved they knew they would be innocent because they can't be proven guilty without the investigation being brought to conclusion.

They were more concerned with remaining innocent than in the police finding out what happened to their 3 year old daughter. And of course allowing the investigation to be shelved meant they could chase the money with libel action.

What they have done and continue to do gives me the impression that money, and not giving the PJ the chance to prove them guilty in a criminal court, is more important than Madeleine.

by puzzled 06.12.11 18:26

mrscee wrote: I find this whole ' reasonable people' thing extremely galling. The irony is that the subject of the emails was merely that the Mccanns were culpable for 'abandoning' their children by dining at the tapas. Surely this is a matter of fact and therefore the fear of libel as outlined by Phil Hughes here is not the case.

Of course, if you'd lived among the Aztecs, accepting human sacrifice would have made you a 'reasonable person'.

by puzzled 06.12.11 18:40

IAmNotMerylStreep wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:Well said Pauline

The McCanns are not proved innocent as there has not been a court case. There simply was not enough evidence for the AG to take the matter further when the case was shelved (note shelved - not closed)

You're right that the McCanns have not been proven innocent, but the fact is they don't need to be proven innocent because until they go to court they are innocent until proven guilty.

Exactly. And yet it goes from "they have not been found guilty of any offence..." to "...given their innocence...", as though the latter was an established fact, and a logical conclusion arising from the first statement. Funny, that.

by Daisy 06.12.11 18:42

mrscee wrote:I know. It is shocking. The implications actually terrify me.

Please don't let them scare you mrsree, that's the intention. They want
us terrified, they want us in a state of fear; a fearful
society is a more pliable society, much easier to control. Especially
when we turn to the perpetrators of the fear (propaganda) to alleviate
it. INSANITY!

I don't disagree that we're facing some mighty big challenges; the
implications are very serious you're right. It appears this is the approach they want the public at large to adopt, this attitude of insulting,
ridiculing and dismissing those that question the official line. They
are telling the one's that can't think for themselves out there, the
ones that are so conditioned they don't have an original thought and are happy for the likes of
Vine and other mainstream media programs to do their thinking for
them, that's it's ok to discredit and humilate those that question, even by
using such dirty tactics as labeling them metally ill - in need of
phychiatric help. By doing this they are encouraging some very ugly divisive and dangerous behaviour. Unthinking people emulate those they look up to - monkey see monkey do.

They must be fearful of the growing number of people that are questioning the 'staus quo'. Why else would they need to stoop to these new lows? Seems pretty desparate in my opinion.

by rainbow-fairy 06.12.11 20:06

Daisy wrote:
mrscee wrote:I know. It is shocking. The implications actually terrify me.

Please don't let them scare you mrscee, that's the intention. They want
us terrified, they want us in a state of fear; a fearful
society is a more pliable society, much easier to control. Especially
when we turn to the perpetrators of the fear (propaganda) to alleviate
it. INSANITY!

I don't disagree that we're facing some mighty big challenges; the
implications are very serious you're right. It appears this is the approach they want the public at large to adopt, this attitude of insulting,
ridiculing and dismissing those that question the official line. They
are telling the one's that can't think for themselves out there, the
ones that are so conditioned they don't have an original thought and are happy for the likes of
Vine and other mainstream media programs to do their thinking for
them, that's it's ok to discredit and humiliate those that question, even by
using such dirty tactics as labeling them mentally ill - in need of
psychiatric help. By doing this they are encouraging some very ugly divisive and dangerous behaviour. Unthinking people emulate those they look up to - monkey see monkey do.

They must be fearful of the growing number of people that are questioning the 'status quo'. Why else would they need to stoop to these new lows? Seems pretty desperate in my opinion.

Yes Daisy it does seem desperate, but let's face it, what else do they have apart from propaganda and media manipulation? The evidence to support the abduction hypothesis just isn't there..... However, there is an excess of evidence that suggests even if the McCann's didn't personally harm Madeleine they know exactly who did!
I'm actually starting to think that this may all backfire in a spectacular fashion before long, people don't like being taken for fools - but there again, it may be the case that the papers would be glad if the s**t hits the fan - least they wouldn't have to keep printing sycophantic McCann-ass-licking articles...
We can only hope.

by IAmNotMerylStreep 06.12.11 20:21

Daisy wrote:
mrscee wrote:I know. It is shocking. The implications actually terrify me.

Please don't let them scare you mrsree, that's the intention. They want
us terrified, they want us in a state of fear; a fearful
society is a more pliable society, much easier to control. Especially
when we turn to the perpetrators of the fear (propaganda) to alleviate
it. INSANITY!

I don't disagree that we're facing some mighty big challenges; the
implications are very serious you're right. It appears this is the approach they want the public at large to adopt, this attitude of insulting,
ridiculing and dismissing those that question the official line. They
are telling the one's that can't think for themselves out there, the
ones that are so conditioned they don't have an original thought and are happy for the likes of
Vine and other mainstream media programs to do their thinking for
them, that's it's ok to discredit and humilate those that question, even by
using such dirty tactics as labeling them metally ill - in need of
phychiatric help. By doing this they are encouraging some very ugly divisive and dangerous behaviour. Unthinking people emulate those they look up to - monkey see monkey do.

They must be fearful of the growing number of people that are questioning the 'staus quo'. Why else would they need to stoop to these new lows? Seems pretty desparate in my opinion.

The pro's have been using this 'mentally ill/psychiatric help' mantra from Day One.

If you look at Rosiepop's forum, you're greeted with this :-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by mrscee 06.12.11 21:15

Of course, if you'd lived among the Aztecs, accepting human sacrifice would have made you a 'reasonable person'

Quite! History tells very clearly us that what constitutes 'reasonable' can be open to interpretation.

( I am fumbling around here and not sure if I am doing all the things such as 'quoting' correctly. In fact am sure I am not so please do forgive me)

by Guest 07.12.11 9:27

A friend of mine who reads this site but is not a member also complained to the BBC about the programme and has received exactly the same reply as MrsCee's so clearly it's a case of one size fits all!

I really do hope that the person whose name was read out and told he needed psychiatric help will make an official complaint as that was outrageous.