McCanns to have meeting today at Commons with Cameron, Milliband and Clegg

by Guest 21.11.12 12:15

Chris Ship‏@chrisshipitv
Waiting for families of MillyDowler & MadeleineMcCann to arrive at Commons for meeting w Cameron,Miliband,Clegg re #leveson Then to #pmqs

by Guest 21.11.12 12:42

Gerry McCann not attending then????

Chris Ship‏@chrisshipitv

Father of Milly Dowler & mother of Madeleine McCann have just arrived in Commons. They'll meet Cameron after #pmqs then Miliband/Clegg

by **Tony Bennett** 21.11.12 17:17

At last, then, something that all three political leaders can agree on!

How to stifle Britain's centuries-old tradition of a free press

by monkey mind 21.11.12 17:29

Tony Bennett wrote:At last, then, something that all three political leaders can agree on!

How to stifle Britain's centuries-old tradition of a free press

Yes, that's what it's all about.

But aside from scraps, I don't think the three political parties disagree on anything of consequence, it's only lip service. The incoming party simply picks up where the outgoing left off. It seems to me a simulation of democracy. I suspect, that if all election results were the same since the second world war, we would be in exactly the same rotten boat we are today......

by Liz Eagles 21.11.12 18:38

What's the meeting for?

by monkey mind 21.11.12 19:01

ooops, sorry, typo. My last post should have read "I suspect, that if all election results were ~~the same~~ reversed since the second world war, we would be in exactly the same rotten boat we are today......

For one minute there, I was in serious danger of making some sense big grin

by **Tony Bennett** 21.11.12 19:21

monkey mind wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:At last, then, something that all three political leaders can agree on!

How to stifle Britain's centuries-old tradition of a free press
Yes, that's what it's all about.

But aside from scraps, I don't think the three political parties disagree on anything of consequence, it's only lip service. The incoming party simply picks up where the outgoing left off. It seems to me a simulation of democracy...

What?!*!?*!? Are you saying we are the victims of a deliberate hoax?

by monkey mind 21.11.12 19:32

Tony Bennett wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:At last, then, something that all three political leaders can agree on!

How to stifle Britain's centuries-old tradition of a free press
Yes, that's what it's all about.

But aside from scraps, I don't think the three political parties disagree on anything of consequence, it's only lip service. The incoming party simply picks up where the outgoing left off. It seems to me a simulation of democracy...
What?!*!?*!? Are you saying we are the victims of a deliberate hoax?

by Guest 21.11.12 20:38

Video here of KM and others arriving for meeting......

Victims to urge government to keep Leveson commitments

The father of Milly Dowler and mother of Madeleine McCann have arrived at Westminster to urge the government to keep its commitments on the Leveson Inquiry, to which both families gave evidence.

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2012-11-21/press-victims-to-meet-pm/

by Woofer 21.11.12 20:56

What do they mean "urge the government to keep Leveson commitments"? What commitments? Leveson has done an Inquiry, is doing a report and making some suggestions. Do they mean "urge the government to initiate Leveson`s suggestions whatever they may be"? Sorry, don`t get it.

by Liz Eagles 21.11.12 21:06

I'm lost here. I don't understand why the Dowlers and KM are meeting with the PM et al. The results of the Leveson Inquiry aren't yet produced (or have I missed something). What exactly is this meeting about? Can someone shed some light on it?

by Guest 21.11.12 21:19

aquila wrote:I'm lost here. I don't understand why the Dowlers and KM are meeting with the PM et al. The results of the Leveson Inquiry aren't yet produced (or have I missed something). What exactly is this meeting about? Can someone shed some light on it?

The report comes out next week aquila. Probably a meeting briefing the participants about it?? It was a few more than the Dowlers and KM attending, this from ITV below says 6 victims.......

Lord Justice Leveson is expected to deliver his conclusions on media standards and regulation next week.

Newspaper groups have been warning the Government against signing off on any measures that restrict crucial press freedoms.

But around six victims are to use a series of meetings with the party leaders to insist they must implement the judge's recommendations as long as they are "sensible and proportionate".

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2012-11-21/press-victims-to-meet-pm/

by Guest 21.11.12 21:35

I'm so sorry, but being a female, I have to say this. What the heck is she wearing, trying to look like a Mom next door ... ? Hairdo and all ... Appearances IMO . Gosh ...

by Woofer 21.11.12 21:42

Weird - surely they`d do that once they knew what they were, not before.

"Please Mr. Cameron and Mr. Clegg you must implement Lord Leveson`s recommendations as long as they are sensible and proportionate"

"No, sorry Mrs. McCann, we`ll only implement them if they`re stupid and disproportionate"

by aiyoyo 22.11.12 6:49

But around six victims are to use a series of meetings with
the party leaders to insist they must implement the judge's
recommendations as long as they are "sensible and proportionate".

Firstly, has any one in the country has a natural right to insist on the Government to do their will?

Secondly, does this imply that they already knew what the Judge is going to recommend? As in,they knew he was in favour to suppress freedom of speech?

All very strange that even before the recommendations are publicly announced, a handful of people is already lobbying for "the recommendations" to be adopted. Is it common and acceptable practice for them to be informed of the recommendations ahead of the public announcement and for that matter, even ahead of the Press and Media. If they did learn of the recommendations before press and media it would be the end of freedom of speech for this country.

by **tigger** 22.11.12 6:58

Tony Bennett wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:At last, then, something that all three political leaders can agree on!

How to stifle Britain's centuries-old tradition of a free press
Yes, that's what it's all about.

But aside from scraps, I don't think the three political parties disagree on anything of consequence, it's only lip service. The incoming party simply picks up where the outgoing left off. It seems to me a simulation of democracy...
What?!*!?*!? Are you saying we are the victims of a deliberate hoax?

Politicians have a crucial role to play - they're of paramount importance in giving the voters the idea we're living in a democracy. It's very hard work keeping that myth afloat and it's not cheap.

Re the McCanns/Dowlers and other victims, once again it was the mcCanns and Dowlers amongst a group. Not the McCanns on their own. Clarence still working hard then. Did he advise on the Michelin coat, the home knitted scarf and of course being right at the front of the group?

As far as all parties agreeing on matters, there was 100% agreement on Nimrod, which was a disaster and most of that swept under the carpet after costing billions of pounds. A couple of suicides followed at Marconi and one does wonder how the contracts were allocated. Might have had something to do with the 'open contract' awarded to the firm.
There was suspiciously little to be found in the press at the time, except comments about the cost.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.11.12 7:11

Both the government and Lord Leveson seem to have put the McCanns right at the heart of whatever the two of them want to do to our free press.

Lord Leveson made sure that the McCanns were made 'core participants', and were given free rein by Leveson to outline their grievances and their agenda without challenge.

When it was Cameron's turn to give evidence to the Leveson enquiry, in answer to Lord Leveson was was vwery clear about the criteria for reform: any changes in press regulation must satisfy the McCanns.

This is what he said on 14 June 2012:

DAVID CAMERON: The test of a regulatory system is not, does that make the politicians happier? The test of the system is: is it going to provide proper protection to ordinary families who, through no fault of their own, get caught up in these media maelstroms and get completely mistreated? And the evidence of the Dowler family and the evidence of the McCann family is incredibly powerful in that regard. I will never forget meeting with the Dowler family in Downing Street to run through the terms of this Inquiry with them and to hear what they had been through and how it had redoubled, trebled the pain and agony they’d been through over losing Milly. I’ll never forget that, and that’s the test of all this. It’s not: do the politicians or the press feel happy with what we get? It’s: are we really protecting people who have been caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves by this process. That’s what the test is.

But back on 23 November 2011, exactly a year ago tomorrow, Dr Gerald McCann said this in answer to Lord Leveson:

Thank you, sir. I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don’t have a problem with somebody purporting [by which he really meant 'propunding'] a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we’ve got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence.

by Ribisl 22.11.12 8:41

I have no idea if the MCs have joined Hacked Off, the campaign launched by the likes of Hugh Grant, but they are obviously on a lobbying trail. One might have some sympathy for them if one were to believe their story to be the only and true version of the events.

by Liz Eagles 22.11.12 8:47

Tony Bennett wrote:Both the government and Lord Leveson seem to have put the McCanns right at the heart of whatever the two of them want to do to our free press.

Lord Leveson made sure that the McCanns were made 'core participants', and were given free rein by Leveson to outline their grievances and their agenda without challenge.

When it was Cameron's turn to give evidence to the Leveson enquiry, in answer to Lord Leveson was was vwery clear about the criteria for reform: any changes in press regulation must satisfy the McCanns.

This is what he said on 14 June 2012:

DAVID CAMERON: The test of a regulatory system is not, does that make the politicians happier? The test of the system is: is it going to provide proper protection to ordinary families who, through no fault of their own, get caught up in these media maelstroms and get completely mistreated? And the evidence of the Dowler family and the evidence of the McCann family is incredibly powerful in that regard. I will never forget meeting with the Dowler family in Downing Street to run through the terms of this Inquiry with them and to hear what they had been through and how it had redoubled, trebled the pain and agony they’d been through over losing Milly. I’ll never forget that, and that’s the test of all this. It’s not: do the politicians or the press feel happy with what we get? It’s: are we really protecting people who have been caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves by this process. That’s what the test is.

But back on 23 November 2011, exactly a year ago tomorrow, Dr Gerald McCann said this in answer to Lord Leveson:

Thank you, sir. I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don’t have a problem with somebody purporting [by which he really meant 'propunding'] a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we’ve got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence.

Perhaps GM would like to reveal the person who allegedly told the McCanns they were within the bounds of reasonable parenting.

by aiyoyo 22.11.12 9:06

Since they didn't once (not even in the bewk)mention the name of the person who advised them that, chances are Gerry made it up.
Who is to challenge him in public to provide the name? NO ONE. He can say what he wants really, when there's no way of verifying.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.11.12 9:12

aquila wrote:Perhaps GM would like to reveal the person who allegedly told the McCanns they were within the bounds of reasonable parenting.

Actually, aquila, Dr Kate McCann did that on page 124 (hardback version) of 'madeleine'.

She writes:

"One of the offers of help we'd received came from a paralegal based in leicester, via a colleague of Gerry's. He worked for a firm specialising in family law, the International Family Law Group (IFLG)...on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. We'd warned them to keep their arrival at our apartment low-key...in they came, dressed in bow ties and braces - the barrister was even wearing a panama hat...As well as this initial meeting we had two further sessions with the lawyers...to explore how they might be able to assist us. There had already been some speculation in the press, based on those erroneous reports that when Madeleine was taken we were dining 'hundreds of metres away', that we could face prosecution for negligence...the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting'..."

NOTE: I am not sure if either the barrister or the paralegal have ever been named, maybe someone else can help? Dr Kate McCann also wrote this:

"At the last two meetings the barrister and legal assistant were joined by a consultant called Hugh, whose profession was not at first explained ('Just call me Hugh', he said enigmatically). It transpired that he was a former intelligence officer, now a kidnap negotiator and counsellor. We were told that an anonymous (but evidently very generous) donor had set aside a considerable sum of money for us to put towards the cost of hiring a private investigation company if we wished. Hugh had been brought in by a firm called Control Risks, which had been primed to help..."

I think one of the Madeleine McCann researchers has subsequently identified him, though Dr Kate McCann doesn't reveal his name in her book

by aiyoyo 22.11.12 9:21

Tony Bennett wrote:Both the government and Lord Leveson seem to have put the McCanns right at the heart of whatever the two of them want to do to our free press.

Lord Leveson made sure that the McCanns were made 'core participants', and were given free rein by Leveson to outline their grievances and their agenda without challenge.

When it was Cameron's turn to give evidence to the Leveson enquiry, in answer to Lord Leveson was was vwery clear about the criteria for reform: any changes in press regulation must satisfy the McCanns.

This is what he said on 14 June 2012:

DAVID CAMERON: The test of a regulatory system is not, does that make the politicians happier? The test of the system is: is it going to provide proper protection to ordinary families who, through no fault of their own, get caught up in these media maelstroms and get completely mistreated? And the evidence of the Dowler family and the evidence of the McCann family is incredibly powerful in that regard. I will never forget meeting with the Dowler family in Downing Street to run through the terms of this Inquiry with them and to hear what they had been through and how it had redoubled, trebled the pain and agony they’d been through over losing Milly. I’ll never forget that, and that’s the test of all this. It’s not: do the politicians or the press feel happy with what we get? It’s: are we really protecting people who have been caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves by this process. That’s what the test is.

By stating that (the above underscored bits) so publicly, the PM has assumed the position that Mccann family is victim of the Press, which IMO, is wrong, since their claim of abduction is yet to be proven.
Whereas to say to state that the Dowlers were victims of the Press is fair enough considering the facts of Miller's case.
Cameron has questions to answer regarding his stance on the Mccanns.
Unless their case is solved, and the perpetrator/s prosecuted for the crime, no one - no even the PM, can state that the parents are victims of the press, especially since it is a well know fact that the parents did not cooperate with the Police to get themselves eliminated.

To have assumed a premature position and to have stated it so publicly before case is solved is to be biased, thus giving out the wrong impression to the public that the Mccanns are victims, when in fact the real victim is Madeleine, who's awaiting Justice.

But back on 23 November 2011, exactly a year ago tomorrow, Dr Gerald McCann said this in answer to Lord Leveson:

Thank you, sir. I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don’t have a problem with somebody purporting [by which he really meant 'propunding'] a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we’ve got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence.

by Liz Eagles 22.11.12 9:53

Still only verified by the McCanns. Still un-named by the McCanns. An anonymous donor, an anonymous paralegal with an anonymous barrister in tow (let's forget the bow ties and panama hat for now). So, nothing verified or checkable. Who are these people who flew in one week after Madeleine went missing to give legal advice? They haven't been named by the McCanns to my knowledge and yet there are so many people who have been named when it suited 'the campaign'.

ETA. The McCanns imo don't need to be beholden to kind people who helped them. If money was donated anonymously then it was anonymous. If money was donated with a name and then asked to remain anonymous there is something whiffy.

Just my opinion.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.11.12 10:26

aquila wrote:Still only verified by the McCanns. Still un-named by the McCanns. An anonymous donor, an anonymous paralegal with an anonymous barrister in tow (let's forget the bow ties and panama hat for now). So, nothing verified or checkable. Who are these people who flew in one week after Madeleine went missing to give legal advice?

Quite so.

And that's against the McCanns' own benchmark as set out 14 pages later on page 138 of her book, where she talks about how The Fund (Madeleine's Fund) 'must be run to the highest standards of transparency'.

As for 'these people who flew in to Praia da Luz', the number of important people who descended on the village was very substantial, see for example my OP here:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t636-the-people-who-rushed-out-to-praia-da-luz

I keep on discovering more, so must try and amend the OP some time.

Here's another: Dr Joe Sullivan:

Highly respected forensic psychologist Dr Joe Sullivan arrived in Praia da Luz within 48 hours of Madeleine's disappearance (according to Martin Brunt - reports at the time stated 08 May 2007), as part of a so-called 'Cracker' team with Detective Superintendent Graham Hill. He returned to the UK on 09 May 2007.

He later helped in the production of, and personally narrated, the A Minute for Madeleine campaign video; An appeal directly to the person who is keeping a 'secret' about Madeleine, 'who knows who's involved in her disappearance' and who may have been groomed by the perpetrator(s) to stay quiet.

In January 2010, he shared a stage with Gerry McCann at the CEOP conference entitled: 'Taken: Sexually-motivated child abductions', although Gerry McCann, despite being booked as the closing speech, spoke earlier in the day and would have missed the speech by Dr Joe Sullivan.

There's more about him on the McCannFiles site

by **Tony Bennett** 22.11.12 10:53

Back to the meeting between our three wise men - Cameron, Miliband and Clegg - and the two victims - the Dowlers and the McCanns - the agenda of the Cameron/Miliband/Clegg regime to crush press freedom was revealed in this article in The Times, 29 October 2012:

Pickles steps out of line with call to beware press regulation

A senior minister has earned the ire of Downing Street by opposing new laws to regulate the press.

Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, said ministers should be 'very, very, very reluctant' to introduce statutory regulation because the media were trying to strengthen the way it was dealing with complaints.

His intervention was in defiance of a direct order from the Prime Minister last week.

David Cameron warned them at Cabinet not to pre-empt Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations...Mr Pickles's remarks offer the clearest indication of unease within the Cabinet over a legally regulated press.

Mr Pickles said that: "The British press is good at exposing corruption and it is good at going to places where other press wouldn't.

"I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that for a free society to operate, then the river of a free press had to flow without restriction...my view is that we should always balance in favour of a free press".