Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

by happychick 11.05.12 17:20

It would seem that John McCann wasn't lying when he said very early on that they were calling in some favours.

I wonder what the McCanns did for Rebekah Brooks et al that they were able to call in all these favours in return which have made them millionaires?

And denied Madeleine justice. VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron - Page 2 93316

VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron - Page 2 93316

This stinking country makes me sick to be British.

by tiny 11.05.12 17:31

happychick wrote:It would seem that John McCann wasn't lying when he said very early on that they were calling in some favours.

I wonder what the McCanns did for Rebekah Brooks et al that they were able to call in all these favours in return which have made them millionaires?

And denied Madeleine justice.

This stinking country makes me sick to be British.

thats about the truth of it all.

by Guest 11.05.12 18:28

Err who is running the country big grin

Rebekah Brooks denies making threats to MPs

Ellen Branagh , James Tapsfield

Friday 11 May 2012

Rebekah Brooks today denied using her clout to get her own way with Government ministers.

The former News International chief executive told the Leveson Inquiry she did not threaten to put Home Secretary Theresa May on the front page of The Sun if she did not order a review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

She also denied demanding that David Cameron "move" shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve after his views were expressed during a heated dinner conversation.

Ms Brooks told the inquiry The Sun and Sunday Times serialised the book written by Kate and Gerry McCann and helped them in their efforts to get a review into the case by the Metropolitan Police.

But she said she did not speak to Downing Street or the Home Office about the issue, though Sun editor Dominic Mohan or current political editor Tom Newton-Dunn may have done.

She denied intervening personally, telling the inquiry: "I did not say to the Prime Minister, 'I will put Theresa May on the front page of the Sun every day unless you give me a review', I did not say that."

She also denied suggestions she told David Cameron he should not have Dominic Grieve, now Attorney General, as home secretary, after he disagreed with colleagues about the Human Rights Act.

Ms Brooks said she was at a shadow cabinet dinner where Mr Grieve said the Conservatives should not be promising to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British bill of rights.

"The dinner conversation was quite heated as he was the only one at the table saying, 'actually'..," she told the inquiry.

"I admired him standing up to his shadow colleagues like that, and as I say, in the end he's turned out to be correct."

She denied telling Mr Cameron, who she said was not at the dinner: "You can't have someone like that as Home Secretary, he won't appeal to our readers", and said she had not shared her views with him.

"In fact, Mr Osborne and Mr Cameron did the opposite to me, where they were at pains to explain that Mr Grieve's view, which has now proved to be entirely correct, was absolutely not their view and they were going to repeal the HRA and replace it with a British bill of rights, and that Mr Grieve was mistaken."

Mrs Brooks also told the inquiry she had not told Ed Balls to fire former Haringey head of children's services Sharon Shoesmith over the Baby P scandal.

"I think he was well aware we had called for her resignation, it was all over the paper," she said.

"I did not tell Ed Balls to fire Sharon Shoesmith. It was obvious in our paper that we had launched a petition because the government were refusing to do anything about the situation."

She said she spoke to Mr Balls, and also to a shadow minister, possibly Michael Gove, at the time, adding: "I would have spoken to anybody, basically, to try and get some justice for Baby P, which was the point of the campaign."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rebekah-brooks-denies-making-threats-to-mps-7737520.html

by Guest 11.05.12 19:06

Friday, May 11, 2012

#McCann: #Brooks - Is That How ALL MP's Became Involved - She Would Ask A Favour And They Would Oblige?

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/mccann-brooks-is-that-how-all-mps.html?spref=tw

by friedtomatoes 11.05.12 19:38

Old Jay had her number. You cannot pretend to be uppermiddle class when you patently are not, it was embarrassing to watch her misuse of the English language trying to get one over a very sharp erudie lawyer LOL.Too evasive. Defending the scum is what scum do. Quedos to her for going from secretary to boss though, just a few things in between that stink.
big grin

by Snifferdog 11.05.12 19:57

Sounds like Black Mail to me......Definitely goes higher up than UK Government. R Murd. and cabal are there to ensure the mccs get off scott free as I think mccs set up the 'disappearance' and planned mcBlackmail plot before PDL, knowing their plot hatched would be protected by a person in Pdl at the time and related to the elite circle that exists on this earth, who control governments. Poor dead/missing M is nothing to these people as they have been formenting wars in which our ancestors/relatives/children have fought and died, financing both sides and earning billions of interest thereby. VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron - Page 2 173510

VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron - Page 2 173510

by Guest 11.05.12 20:01

I knew I had heard correctly, It was Mr Jay quoting what Dr G Mccann said in his evidence to Leveson. So..........

Dr McCanns answer was
"I think it's probably worth just elaborating a
2 little bit because it's quite a complex decision-making
3 process. News International actually bid for the rights
4 to the book along with HarperCollins, and one of their
5 pitches was the fact that they would serialise the book
6 across all their titles. We were somewhat horrified at
7 the prospect of that, given the way we had been treated
8 in the past and the deal was actually done with the
9 publishers, Transworld, that excluded serialisation.
10 "Now, we were subsequently approached by
11 News International and Associated to serialise the book,
12 and after much deliberation, we had a couple of meetings
13 with the general manager and -- Will Lewis and
14 Rebekah Brooks and others, and what swung the decision
15 to serialise was News International committed to backing
16 the campaign and the search for Madeleine."

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-11-May-2012.pdf

Full transcript now online on above link

by Guest 11.05.12 20:15

Like Mr Jay's style...........

We can find out in due course whether this is true or
4 not, but I must repeat it to you. It is said that you
5 directly intervened with the Prime Minister and warned
6 him that unless there was a review by the Metropolitan
7 Police, the Sun would put the Home Secretary,
8 Theresa May, on the front page every day until the Sun's
9 demands were met. Is that true or not?10 A. I did not say to the Prime Minister: "I will put
11 Theresa May on the front page of the Sun every day
12 unless you give me a review." I did not say that. If
13 I'd had any conversations with Number 10 directly, they
14 wouldn't have been particularly about that, but they
15 would have been, if I'd been having a conversation, that
16 the Sun was leading a major campaign with a very strong
17 letter on page 1 to start the campaign, and anyone who
18 knew me would have talked to me -- any politician would
19 have talked to me about it. But I did not say that.
20 I don't know who said I said that, but we're going back
21 to sources again.
22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could we ask this: were you part of
23 a strategy that involved your paper putting pressure on
24 the government with this sort of implied or express
25 threat?

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-11-May-2012.pdf

by Guest 11.05.12 20:21

Do you know how it came about that the review was
23 ordered?
24 A. No, I -- I can't remember, I'm sorry. Such a lot has
25 happened since then, but --
1 I think it was very short.
2 Q. Yes, it didn't take very long because the government
3 yielded to your pressure, didn't they? It took all of
4 about a day.
5 A. Or perhaps they were convinced by our argument.
6 Q. There are always two sides to the coin here, that of
7 course everybody would say, on one level, money should
8 be spent, but the campaign to date, I'm told, has cost
9 £2 million and some would say maybe that money might
10 have gone somewhere else. It's never clearcut, is it?
11 A. What, the Madeleine McCann campaign?
12 Q. No, the operation which started up the review, which was
13 called Operation Grange, I understand.

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-11-May-2012.pdf

by **HiDeHo** 11.05.12 23:57

by Guest 11.05.12 23:59

Thanks HiDeHo, you are a little gem roses

by **HiDeHo** 12.05.12 0:02

I continued recording the afternoon 3 hrs while I was out...Is there anything on there of any interest?

by aiyoyo 12.05.12 8:15

It beggars belief that a Secretary turned Editor can wield so much power over the country's politicians.

She literally had a gun on Cameron's head and said " do this or else?
And stupid Cameron shouldn't have given in because once he gives in there will be no end to it.
When he gave in and showed that he lives in fear of their power to destroy him just as they'd supported him, he proves he was theirs to make and to destroy.
The irony is once he gave in he's already a destroyed man, because he proves himself to be coward who cannot stand up for his rights. More importantly, he proves he cannot stand by what is right for the people, his ambition takes priority over his duty to the Country and People.

It it was true RB threatened to put TM on the front page every day if Cameron didn't accede to her request, then logically speaking DC and Theresa May should have exposed her by telling the world about her threat and RB will be shown to be the sly fox whose ruthless ambition to sell papers and to suck up to her boss is taking precedence over what is right and wrong.

How can it be right for her to interfere in the criminal case on the mccanns behalf just because she said she got along with Kate and Gerry?
Obviously high profile mccanns are marketable and hence profitable. But what has the profitability of her papers got anything to do with moral issue and moral fibre of the society? What gives her the right to dictate to PM which missing child cause should be supported so that she can meet NI titles profit objective.

What have her views about the mccanns and her personal relationship with them got anything to do with the cause of mccanns or the merits of their case? How can that be objective?

What gives her the right to interfere in criminal case just based on her "get-along-basis" with the mccanns?
More importantly what gives her the right to determine the mccanns' campaign has more merits over other similar cases say Ben Needham for example, that she felt that No 10 should obey her order or incur her wrath hence unleashing on the front pages?

Since when Newspapers run the Country?

by aiyoyo 12.05.12 8:46

Newintown wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Newintown wrote:
justme3 wrote:SPEECHLESS. What a filthy country we live in.

I was SPEECHLESS listening to it and trying to type it all at the same time.

I was gobsmacked that RB had read the bewk and believed every word. Pity she hadn't read the PJ files first. I also find it unbelievable that a newspaper can pay 2 people who may be involved in the disappearance of their child half a million pounds not really knowing whether they were involved or not.

Poor, poor Madeleine. RB should be totally ashamed of herself. I hope she gets everything coming to her. I doubt she had sleepless nights wondering about what happened to Madeleine. Her career was too important.

It's unbelievable isn't it. I listened to it all and couldn't believe what I was hearing. A government pushed into a review by a newspaper!! I hope they get this Dominic Mohan (spelling?) in to the Leveson inquiry to see what he says. Jay seems to have got his info from somewhere about the threats of putting the Home Sec. on the front page every day for a week. She mentioned him on a couple of occasions as the one of those who was in touch with No.10 and Home Sec. The whole thing stinks.

Jay did mention in the 3 hours I sat through, can't remember who they were talking about, that he was not going to reveal his source of where he gets his information from, and I think RB retorted with more or less the same thing.

P.S. I got up early this morning to do some housework, I still haven't started and it's 2.40 p.m. Oops!

For jay to grill her like that along those lines his must have a v reliable source. RB is playing with fire playing with words.

She is trying to push everything onto Dominic Mohan. At the end of the day, she's Mohan boss, and he must have been sent by her to do the dirty work for her then she comes in for the kill. I hope LI summons all those names she run off. She's dragged them into the mud, let's hope they have something juicy to offer.

by tiny 12.05.12 8:58

I wonder what brooks has got on Tersa May to threaten to put her on the front pages,

as i have noted else where on the net some one has put,Vote cameron get murdoch.

by jd 12.05.12 11:50

There would have been many people yesterday shouting at the TV screen knowing what a total evil, b**tch Brooks is.....knowing the "I'm whiter than snow" face she put on yesterday is nothing like the real Brooks and truth of her...she is the true meaning of the word nasty and vile

News International namely the sun/NOTW used a tactic they called leverage. In english this means blackmail. They get private info which they threaten to expose in their comics, I know of some who were under this 'leverage'. Of course Brooks threatened to put Theresa May on the front page, this was the leverage, Theresa May didn't want the review so had to be dealt with so to speak, what Rebekah wants Rebekah gets, she is pure evil and has the power of leverage to use. Someone said on here yesterday that Murdoch and Brooks were effectively running the country, yep this is the reality of it....

by Gillyspot 12.05.12 11:58

Well said JD.

I would have expected after Brooks revelations at Leveson for the media tone to have changed (at least in NON Murdoch papers) but in the Guardian regarding her testimony at Leveson - NOTHING at all about the McCann revelations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/11/rebekah-brooks-jeremy-hunt-hacking?newsfeed=true

I am not sharing the full article as am disgusted with them TBH.

by MaryB 12.05.12 13:24

I am trying hard to make sense of all this. People have been wondering for ages why the government ordered a review of the McCann case when there are a lot of other missing people. Now we know. They were 'persuaded' to. Now why would they give in to such pressure. By a newspaper. And why would a newspaper want to put this kind of 'persuasion' for a single case. Just to sell more copies. Or is there another reason. Is it too much to hope that the truth will come out eventually.

by Gillyspot 12.05.12 13:26

Some media are saying that it is Brooks who ordered it as was sympathetic & ran a campaign for Sara Payne. The big difference is clearly Brooks didn't interfere in the same manner in Payne case (10 years) as in McCann case (24 hours).

by justme3 12.05.12 13:36

Of course it's blackmail. What we have is RB trying to be the lady, who complains about sexist remarks, but uses it to the full, when it was to her advantage.

As for the "blackmail", I used this word about 2 hours into RB's inquiry. What we have, in a nutshell, is someone who held "democratically" elected governments to ransom if they didn't do as ask, BUT the crux is, who do you blame? We know that newspapers - especially tabloids - are there to sell papers through gossip and innuendos. What we need to do is look at our politicians. I would like to see a complete cleansing of the whole political system and get this filthy lot out. But I won't hold my breath

by Guest 12.05.12 13:44

Did they really think this would stay buried forever? I bet Cameron regrets ordering this Leveson inquiry, did he really think none of this wouldn't come out, and probably a lot more yet.

by Gillyspot 12.05.12 13:59

justme3 wrote:Of course it's blackmail. What we have is RB trying to be the lady, who complains about sexist remarks, but uses it to the full, when it was to her advantage.

As for the "blackmail", I used this word about 2 hours into RB's inquiry. What we have, in a nutshell, is someone who held "democratically" elected governments to ransom if they didn't do as ask, BUT the crux is, who do you blame? We know that newspapers - especially tabloids - are there to sell papers through gossip and innuendos. What we need to do is look at our politicians. I would like to see a complete cleansing of the whole political system and get this filthy lot out. But I won't hold my breath

suc
Agreed it seems that Brooks & Murdoch have run the country for at least 7 years so successive Lab then Con/Lib are all guilty of doing their bidding. I am sure this Mccann "review" is the tip of the iceberg. David Kelly, Daniel Morgan how many more are to be denied a public inquiry and justice

by espeland 12.05.12 14:22

Of course it's blackmail

What concerns me is that now the blackmail story is out perhaps moves will be made to stop the review: Redwood has only made public his endorsement of the adbuction story; SY are apparantly only a quarter the way through reviewing the PJ reports (does that mean it would take another three times the time and cost to complete?); are making comments available in facebook a way of guaging public opinion? If so, there are too many comments by just a few - Pam Gurney seems to have been very active for the pro-McCanns.

by Guest 12.05.12 14:34

Some light relief courtesy of the Missing Madeleine site.

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t20217p60-rebekah-brooks-mccanns-now-being-discussed-on-leveson

by Gillyspot 12.05.12 14:37

I wish Jay had asked Brooks whether she had ordered the remit of the review as well. Mind she would probably say "I can't recall".

VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron