Gerry McCann speech , Hacked Off conference February 11th 2013

candyfloss wrote:

We were labelled as murderers without a shred of evidence.

I can't ever remember any paper or media accusing them of murder, can anyone else? Some papers repeated the PJ papers where they said Madeleine had died accidentally, but murder??

The Bill, a government measure with all-party support, clarifies the law relating to libel, updates it for the digital age, stops libel tourism, helps to sharpen up for journalists the “public interest” defence, and (if the post-Leveson settlement were to establish a machinery of non-statutory arbitration for the newspaper industry) could put cheap arbitration within ordinary citizens’ reach.

Peers have just voted for a poisonous measure that will threaten crippling financial penalties on any publisher who (a) doesn’t agree to use a state-backed arbitration service to settle a libel claim; or (b) doesn’t submit what they plan to publish to a state-backed regulator for clearance (the amendment coyly calls this “pre-submission”) before publication.

Why poisonous? Imagine that you are a newspaper editor. A reporter has written a piece someone might object to as defamatory. This clause puts you at great risk unless you get the regulator’s approval before publishing. Of course the regulator would often want you to discuss your planned report with those whose reputations it might touch. There would ensue endless to-ing and fro-ing by lawyers on all sides and injunctions and threats of injunctions, in which your ownership of the story, any element of surprise and weeks or months would be lost. Super-injunctions by the rich and powerful can already stop public- interest investigative journalism in its tracks, costing a paper up to £100,000 a day in court to try to overturn.

As amended, new clause 2 would knock sideways the very real chance of the Government, the Opposition and the press reaching an agreed settlement on Leveson, as they are close to doing — and the proposers of the amendment know it. This is a sneak attack, a rearguard action by those who still want to see statutory control of the press. It is designed to pre-empt the conclusions of the all-party talks.

How would it do so? The amendment creates in law exactly the statutory body that the Hacked Off campaign looks like being denied in the agreement that appears close. But the statutory body will not operate (and this is the sneaky bit) in quite the field covered by the Leveson report. Leveson did not deal with libel reform, which was proceeding in parallel with his inquiry. It is in the libel reforms that Lord Puttnam has placed his virus. His “defamation recognition commission”, a state body, will establish and oversee the “independent regulatory board” that must in turn set up the “arbitration service” that in turn will police and adjudicate libel claims.

But of course this kicks the legs from under the consensus that inter-party talks were reaching on what to do with the rest of press regulation after Leveson: a consensus that apparently leaves the State out of regulation and may recommend machinery established under royal charter — machinery that could have been used in libel claims, too, to provide affordable arbitration in these claims.

It would be mad to run two press arbitration services, one statutory and the other not, side by side. So if Lord Puttnam’s amendment to the Defamation Bill is not removed, the Government will either have to kill that Bill or scuttle the emerging inter-party agreement on Leveson and agree to statutory press regulation.

pennylane wrote:They hope all their breast beating and macho posturing gives them an appearance of 'innocence.' The police files and the blood and cadaver dog alerts point otherwise and are all readily available on the Internet. Just imagine their gall at knowing many of their peers are privy to the fact that a fellow doctor believes one of the tapasniks is a pedophile. You can't pink spin or sugar coat that bombshell.... no way. The genie is out of the bottle no matter how many times they try to re-cork it, hence the need to keep up the facade. Besides, Gerry has big dreams and ambitions, and he isn't about to let a missing child and an absurdly dire version of events stand in his way.

imo

---

sally66 wrote:Even the Tapas 7 seem to have distanced themselves

tiny wrote:

sally66 wrote:Even the Tapas 7 seem to have distanced themselves

I thought gerry was the spokesman for the tapas7,but why they have to hide behind him is any ones guess,although it could be that gerry does not want them contradicting him on any of the points of this so called abduction.

sally66 wrote:

tiny wrote:

sally66 wrote:Even the Tapas 7 seem to have distanced themselves

I thought gerry was the spokesman for the tapas7,but why they have to hide behind him is any ones guess,although it could be that gerry does not want them contradicting him on any of the points of this so called abduction.

Exactly if they had nothing to hide and the Tapas 7 were fully behind them and believed in their innocence I'm sure GM would have allowed one of them to do an interview stating as such. The McCanns have had plenty to say themselves but far too risky to allow the others to speak.

I just remember when they came back for the Murat confrontation they flew in and out with undue haste, you would have thought they would have stayed a few days to support their friends in their hour of need especially as you were with them when it happened. Work commitments won't wash as an excuse either, at that point no employer would have refused them time off to support the McCanns.

Mirage wrote:

sally66 wrote:

tiny wrote:

sally66 wrote:Even the Tapas 7 seem to have distanced themselves

I thought gerry was the spokesman for the tapas7,but why they have to hide behind him is any ones guess,although it could be that gerry does not want them contradicting him on any of the points of this so called abduction.

Exactly if they had nothing to hide and the Tapas 7 were fully behind them and believed in their innocence I'm sure GM would have allowed one of them to do an interview stating as such. The McCanns have had plenty to say themselves but far too risky to allow the others to speak.

I just remember when they came back for the Murat confrontation they flew in and out with undue haste, you would have thought they would have stayed a few days to support their friends in their hour of need especially as you were with them when it happened. Work commitments won't wash as an excuse either, at that point no employer would have refused them time off to support the McCanns.

The pressure must be immense by now. Yet Gerald McCann seems so in denial, it's off the scale. I think Kate McCann is the weak link as far as the pair of them are concerned.

But time marches on, nothing stays the same. Old allegiances fall away when skin-saving time arrives.

Jane Tanner is the one amongst the Tapas 7 who interests me the most. It is so blatantly obvious that she lied and lied. She knows the "$** is poised to hit the proverbial. I wonder what contingency plans she is making to extricate herself from the dung heap?

Mirage wrote:aiyoyo quote - "The one possible explanation as to why they continue these ingrateful actions against the UK government that had helped them tremendously may be because they find themselves still shun by their friends and society. Maybe Gerry finds colleagues still giving him the funny eyes and whispering behind his back."

I think you hit the nail on the head, aiyoyo. Their reputational damage is immense and that will affect every aspect of their lives.

Their relationships vis-à-vis their own family will be altered. The pair will be increasingly wary of questions asked by the twins as they get older.

Simple everyday things where social interaction is routine to the rest of us will be plagued by anxieties about why someone was abrupt - didn't give good eye-contact while serving you in a shop - seemed in a hurry to get away - forgot to tell you about a social event - crossed the road quickly - didn't stop for a chat - seemed to blank you.

The professional side of life will be very adversely affected. The Gaspar statements will have driven a wedge between them and many professionals. They will be acutely aware of polite distancing. Supper party invitations may well have dwindled. Also, the doubts engendered by two doctors' statements will be very high, particularly amongst those with young children. After all, if you stop to consider it, how many times has it been said that the medical profession closes ranks - this only highlights the seriousness with which those statements must be viewed. They cannot have been given lightly.

There is also a sense in which the McCann name taints anything associated with it. For my own part, I get a sickly feeling broaching the subject with the uninitiated. It's a strange sensation - as if you are scratching the surface of something very, very bad that most people (I cannot blame them) would prefer not to look at. Some shoot you that distancing look that the McCanns must experience every day.

I wrote to the McCanns in the early days when I felt very sorry for them. I recall distinctly telling them that whoever had done this would not be able to bear it on their conscience for ever and it would destroy them.