Re: Leveson inquiry: LIVE twitter and news from journalists that reported on McCanns story

by Guest 21.12.11 15:53

From Flanagan witness statement....

15. [snipped]
But it was an established part of our system
that the stories were always put to Mr Mitchell

16. On the occasions that we received no call from the McCanns’ representatives, it meant
the story would have to run without a comment from the family. It’s understandable that
the McCanns could not respond in person when they became ’arguidos’. It meant they
were not supposed to talk about the case at all, but the convention was that, although
unidentified specifical!y in the article, Mr Mitchell would at times, and on his request, be
referred to as a ’friend close to the McCanns’ or ’a family spokesman’ when our quotes
were attributed.

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Padraic-Flanagan.pdf

by Me 21.12.11 16:05

candyfloss wrote:From Flanagan witness statement....

15. [snipped]
But it was an established part of our system
that the stories were always put to Mr Mitchell

16. On the occasions that we received no call from the McCanns’ representatives, it meant
the story would have to run without a comment from the family. It’s understandable that
the McCanns could not respond in person when they became ’arguidos’. It meant they
were not supposed to talk about the case at all, but the convention was that, although
unidentified specifical!y in the article, Mr Mitchell would at times, and on his request, be
referred to as a ’friend close to the McCanns’ or ’a family spokesman’ when our quotes
were attributed.

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Padraic-Flanagan.pdf

Jesus, despite us all knowing this it doesn't look good for Clarrie or the Team to see this in black and white.

No doubt Clarence will be breaking out the fire hose again to try and damp down the flames.

Big mistake for them, having their dark arts partially exposed.

I refer back to my previous question. Did they know there was going to be such a focus on stories relating to them which is why they gave evidence or did enquiries relating to Mccann articles only come about as a result of their original testimony?

For me that's crucial, becuase they have either created this by giving evidence which the enquiry has then fed off or they knew it would come out and have tried to deal with it and spin it before the journalists gave evidence anyway.

Either way, it's looking like a bit of a PR disaster for them.

by Gillyspot 21.12.11 16:11

So now we have it in black and white that Clarence is not only "family spokesperson" he is also "friend close to the McCann" and there was me thinking the McCanns actually had some friends.

by Guest 21.12.11 16:17

SkyFixer69James (Jim) Old

#Leveson surely you dont want to fill your paper with stuff that may be be v damaging to someone and could be complete piffle?
1 hour ago

SkyFixer69James (Jim) Old
#Leveson asks, where does balance, fairness, propriety come into it (#McCann coverage)? Long pause. Flanagan: I'm not sure I can answer that
1 hour ago

w_nichtweissnicht

#Leveson said that everybody is agreed that all allegations against the doctors #Mccann are unfounded and he has natural sympathy for them.
30 minutes

by jd 21.12.11 16:28

#Leveson said that everybody is agreed that all allegations against the doctors #Mccann are unfounded and he has natural sympathy for them.

Does Leveson also agree that allegations of an abduction are also unfounded? and has natural sympathy with the rights of people to question the abduction story

by tiny 21.12.11 16:30

hold on,has leveson read the official pj files to be able to state this.

#Leveson said that everybody is agreed that all allegations against the doctors #Mccann are unfounded and he has natural sympathy for them.
this is simply appalling to state this as fact,

also who is everybody??.

by Me 21.12.11 16:31

Gillyspot wrote:So now we have it in black and white that Clarence is not only "family spokesperson" he is also "friend close to the McCann" and there was me thinking the McCanns actually had some friends.

We just need the "false dialogue" line to come out now to really expose their odious PR ways.

As described by Blacksmith:

“false dialogues” (in which one of the media team pretends to be responding to a story which they have in fact provided) and a definite “line”. All the kind of stuff which isn’t far from phone hacking in its conscious duplicity and which has helped to land the press in its present miserable state.

by jd 21.12.11 16:34

16. On the occasions that we received no call from the McCanns’ representatives, it meant
the story would have to run without a comment from the family. It’s understandable that
the McCanns could not respond in person when they became ’arguidos’. It meant they
were not supposed to talk about the case at all, but the convention was that, although
unidentified specifical!y in the article, Mr Mitchell would at times, and on his request, be
referred to as a ’friend close to the McCanns’ or ’a family spokesman’ when our quotes
were attributed.

This is just disgusting and shows the crap reported in the media & how devious and the slimy snakes are on all sides.. It is so manipulated.....I am looking forward to Karma

by Cheshire Cat 21.12.11 16:41

candyfloss wrote:
SkyFixer69James (Jim) Old

#Leveson surely you dont want to fill your paper with stuff that may be be v damaging to someone and could be complete piffle?
1 hour ago

SkyFixer69James (Jim) Old
#Leveson asks, where does balance, fairness, propriety come into it (#McCann coverage)? Long pause. Flanagan: I'm not sure I can answer that
1 hour ago

w_nichtweissnicht

#Leveson said that everybody is agreed that all allegations against the doctors #Mccann are unfounded and he has natural sympathy for them.
30 minutes

Everybody in that room perhaps but certainly not outside in the real world!

by Guest 21.12.11 16:55

Leveson says:

What I need to do, not merely to identify the egregious behaviour about which we have heard, but also to ensure that it is put into context among the rest of the work of the press.

I want to be balanced and fair, in other words to comply with the very standards that I've been putting to some of the witnesses.

but he also says this.

• Leveson describes some of the Daily Express Madeleine McCann stories as "complete piffle" and "tittle tattle"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/21/leveson-inquiry-james-hipwell-live#block-91

by Gillyspot 21.12.11 17:20

candyfloss wrote:Leveson says:

What I need to do, not merely to identify the egregious behaviour about which we have heard, but also to ensure that it is put into context among the rest of the work of the press.

I want to be balanced and fair, in other words to comply with the very standards that I've been putting to some of the witnesses.

but he also says this.

• Leveson describes some of the Daily Express Madeleine McCann stories as "complete piffle" and "tittle tattle"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/21/leveson-inquiry-james-hipwell-live#block-91

I agree with Leveson "some of the Daily Express stories are "complete piffle" & "tittle tattle"

Here are 2

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/290600/Madeleine-Secret-files-reveal-four-sightings-in-Morocco

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/290013/Madeleine-McCann-Police-probe-eight-very-important-leads

And that's just in the last WEEK! big grin

by Maive 21.12.11 18:02

jd wrote:Leveson called anything against the mcscam version (where there is not a single shred of evidence to support an abduction), and I quote "tittle tattle"

he also failed to say that it is infact officially a missing persons case not abduction as there is no evidence of one

Anyone smell a huge coverup going on here

Leveson inquiry: LIVE twitter and news from journalists that reported on McCanns story - Page 2 636506

Me!!!

Leveson inquiry: LIVE twitter and news from journalists that reported on McCanns story - Page 2 181154

by russiandoll 21.12.11 18:25

someone should remind this man that Kate's book is subtitled "our daughter's disappearance and our continuing search for her " note the absence of the "a " word. I am sure the word abduction is used throughout the book, however for some reason not on the cover. I wonder why this was? Legal advice perhaps that factually at this point the vanishing can factually only be called just that or a disappearance......the abduction is not a fact.

by uppatoffee 21.12.11 19:59

It is incredible for Leveson to be talking this way. I am guessing those boozy evening receptions with Murdoch's family must have helped him reach this conclusion. He certainly hasn't been allowed anywhere near the case files.

If nothing else, it is going to severely p£@s off the journalists who he is questioning. Little by little the story is going to come out as we learn more and more about the investigation and the reporting of the story. I am curious why the McCanns got involved in the inquiry though as it is certainly increasing the level of animosity and scrutiny towards them and their version of events.

What I want to know is who is going to be first to print the real story? The Guardian? The Indepedent? One of the red tops?

by Cheshire Cat 21.12.11 23:01

uppatoffee wrote:It is incredible for Leveson to be talking this way. I am guessing those boozy evening receptions with Murdoch's family must have helped him reach this conclusion. He certainly hasn't been allowed anywhere near the case files.

If nothing else, it is going to severely p£@s off the journalists who he is questioning. Little by little the story is going to come out as we learn more and more about the investigation and the reporting of the story. I am curious why the McCanns got involved in the inquiry though as it is certainly increasing the level of animosity and scrutiny towards them and their version of events.

What I want to know is who is going to be first to print the real story? The Guardian? The Indepedent? One of the red tops?

No mention of the dogs though. Why back off from the dogs findings?

by **HiDeHo** 22.12.11 1:01

David Pilditch

by aiyoyo 22.12.11 5:44

jd wrote:Don't know if you noticed but before asking a question, they said 'we agree that this is an abduction and the mccanns have a missing child so...." (or words to this effect), Immediately this kills the argument & puts Pilditch in a position that he is a monster (very crafty)... Pilditch should have said that we have no proof of an abduction and this is only your theory which you based purely on the words of the mccanns so don't start a question from a base that it is fact of an abduction because it is not

Someone should complain by email or line open to the public to the Leveson Inquiry that Leveson has no rights to assume mccanns words are gospel truth before he allows press personnel to testify. He should just listen and seek clarifications if needed and not assume the press was wrong to start with. That's taking a prejudice position and defeats the objective of the inquiry.

Pilditch should enclose a copy of the Police released files for Leveson perusal in case leveson hasnt seen it. But the whole point is leveson is not supposed to be judge and jury of mccanns case. His inquiry is about phone hacking and press behavior, nothing to with judging the mccanns.

by aiyoyo 09.01.12 15:57

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-John-Edwards.pdf

page 5 is pertaining to the mccanns.

Log in for more topics