The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Page 5 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by aiyoyo on 25.03.13 7:24

The pertinent point is not whether BHH did lead the balloon launch or not.
The fact is: he did nothing to correct that misrepresentation (if it was that) to the public, so it is as good as he being passively misleading the public.

If that info is only Mccanns' PR machinery that name drop to deceive the public into thinking they'd the support of the Met Commissioner, and if there is no truth in it whatsoever, why did BHB not ask the Press to retract it? That way, the Press would automatically know Mccanns' source was lying. The Press just have to retract stating team Mccanns' info was apparently wrong; then people will put 2 and 2 together and come to the conclusion team Mccanns lied.

BHH by his non action to correct a false statement is passively allowing the public to be deceived by Mccanns. If BHH does not want the public to get the wrong impression from that statement then he should actively do something about it. Short of that, he can be said to be passively encouraging team Mccann to fool the public. Misconception by public, ie making them believe lies, is how spins work effectively.

Conversely, if that statement is not about seemingly doing a good cause, but something with a very negative connotation I bet BHH would react in a flash to stop that misconception.
I think the point is: it does not matter whether the statement is pertaining to a good cause or not, if there is simply no truth in a statement , then it has to be corrected to avoid misleading people into a falsely believing something.

In short, BHH has only himself to blame if people use that stick to beat him because he did nothing to correct that wrong impression. So who is to say it is a wrong impression? Unless he comes out to clarify it and be explicit about it, no one knows the veracity of that statement.

Fair enough that we know that team mccanns is notorious for their spins, lies, and half truths, but dropping names of important person/s, especially names of people with might and power, without a hint of truth in it, bears a certain risk for them. Ask yourself how they got the audacity to do it? Were they misled by the MET Commissioner or did the Police give them the impression their cock & bull story about the alien abduction was believed? Or are they just fearless pathological liars who couldn't care less one way or another so long as they believe their own lies, and by their lies they are invincible.


aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by Guest on 25.03.13 8:22

@aiyoyo wrote:The pertinent point is not whether BHH did lead the balloon launch or not.
The fact is: he did nothing to correct that misrepresentation (if it was that) to the public, so it is as good as he being passively misleading the public.

If that info is only Mccanns' PR machinery that name drop to deceive the public into thinking they'd the support of the Met Commissioner, and if there is no truth in it whatsoever, why did BHB not ask the Press to retract it? That way, the Press would automatically know Mccanns' source was lying. The Press just have to retract stating team Mccanns' info was apparently wrong; then people will put 2 and 2 together and come to the conclusion team Mccanns lied.

BHH by his non action to correct a false statement is passively allowing the public to be deceived by Mccanns. If BHH does not want the public to get the wrong impression from that statement then he should actively do something about it. Short of that, he can be said to be passively encouraging team Mccann to fool the public. Misconception by public, ie making them believe lies, is how spins work effectively.

Conversely, if that statement is not about seemingly doing a good cause, but something with a very negative connotation I bet BHH would react in a flash to stop that misconception.
I think the point is: it does not matter whether the statement is pertaining to a good cause or not, if there is simply no truth in a statement , then it has to be corrected to avoid misleading people into a falsely believing something.

In short, BHH has only himself to blame if people use that stick to beat him because he did nothing to correct that wrong impression. So who is to say it is a wrong impression? Unless he comes out to clarify it and be explicit about it, no one knows the veracity of that statement.

Fair enough that we know that team mccanns is notorious for their spins, lies, and half truths, but dropping names of important person/s, especially names of people with might and power, without a hint of truth in it, bears a certain risk for them. Ask yourself how they got the audacity to do it? Were they misled by the MET Commissioner or did the Police give them the impression their cock & bull story about the alien abduction was believed? Or are they just fearless pathological liars who couldn't care less one way or another so long as they believe their own lies, and by their lies they are invincible.

Great post aiyoyo, you seem to have hit the nail on the head.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by ShuBob on 25.03.13 14:40

It is worth noting that BH-H was not the MET commissioner at the time the article was written. Other than that, I take your point Aiyoyo.

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by Woofer on 25.03.13 17:58

I wonder if there is any way of asking BHH to explain why he led the McCann`s balloon release when he was Chief Constable of Merseyside. And whether it indicated his belief in the McCann`s story. I thought the police had to remain impartial, especially when it comes to an unsolved crime and suspects that have not been cleared.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by aiyoyo on 25.03.13 18:21

@Woofer wrote:I wonder if there is any way of asking BHH to explain why he led the McCann`s balloon release when he was Chief Constable of Merseyside. And whether it indicated his belief in the McCann`s story. I thought the police had to remain impartial, especially when it comes to an unsolved crime and suspects that have not been cleared.

Good point! My fear is that he may mutually share same connection or association to influential friends as the Mccanns.

If the report was not misrepresented, and he'd supported the mccanns back then, then it is not a good sign about the prospect of exposing the mccanns' lies now that he's become commissioner. When it counts, would his ultimate recommendation to No 10 be clouded by personal biased?

BHH didnt get to his present position without being onside with politicians or sucking up to the politicians.

The worst that can happen if there isn't any white wash order is if the commissioner is biased because of some personal connection and cannot be professional about it.

I doubt it will descent to that, because a team of 37 from murder squad is a force to be reckoned I suppose. That said, if BHH were to spin his own colleagues, they would not be any wiser since his meeting with the Politicians would be strictly between him and them. Unless he brings colleagues along to such meeting, no one will know what transpires at the meeting between him and the Politicians.

We just have to hope BHH is not in any way associated to the Mccanns' rich supporters.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by Woofer on 25.03.13 18:35

Yes, one hopes he didn`t actually take part in that balloon release - perhaps someone advised him that it could be showing favouritism to suspects in an unsolved crime. If he did take part, its going to be a real blight on his reputation.

If he is open to coersion from rich friends etc., that`s even worse and it`s the very thing that is supposed to be being cleaned up through all these recent exposures. A person in his position cannot show favouritism.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by Guest on 25.03.13 18:51

Can someone remind me as to when exactly this balloon release was?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by Guest on 25.03.13 19:31

candyfloss wrote:The article is still there on the BBC, and to be fair it does say BHH will lead the balloon launch. Do we know if he ever did?

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6761027.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6761027.stm[/quote[/url]]

Chatelaine: the exact date isn't given but this article is from June 2007.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by AskTheDogsSandra on 25.03.13 21:44

@Woofer wrote:Yes, one hopes he didn`t actually take part in that balloon release - perhaps someone advised him that it could be showing favouritism to suspects in an unsolved crime. If he did take part, its going to be a real blight on his reputation.

If he is open to coersion from rich friends etc., that`s even worse and it`s the very thing that is supposed to be being cleaned up through all these recent exposures. A person in his position cannot show favouritism.

I wonder if he would answer the question about the balloon release by FOI?

AskTheDogsSandra

Posts : 132
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by Guest on 25.03.13 23:28

Jean wrote:
candyfloss wrote:The article is still there on the BBC, and to be fair it does say BHH will lead the balloon launch. Do we know if he ever did?

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6761027.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6761027.stm[/quote[/url]]

Chatelaine: the exact date isn't given but this article is from June 2007.
***
Thank you, Jean. That's early days then. There wasn't too much suspicion yet, was there?
And: it's not been confirmed apparently that he actually DID head the balloon launch.
So, he may have had 2nd thoughts before then.

IMO the fact that this hasn't been contradicted or corrected in the papers doesn't bear much meaning. I never reacted to or contradicted an incorrect article involving me. It is time assuming and in most cases just futile or even contra-productive ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by ShuBob on 26.03.13 1:10

Châtelaine wrote:
Jean wrote:
candyfloss wrote:The article is still there on the BBC, and to be fair it does say BHH will lead the balloon launch. Do we know if he ever did?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6761027.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6761027.stm

Chatelaine: the exact date isn't given but this article is from June 2007.
***
Thank you, Jean. That's early days then. There wasn't too much suspicion yet, was there?
And: it's not been confirmed apparently that he actually DID head the balloon launch.
So, he may have had 2nd thoughts before then.

IMO the fact that this hasn't been contradicted or corrected in the papers doesn't bear much meaning. I never reacted to or contradicted an incorrect article involving me. It is time assuming and in most cases just futile or even contra-productive ...

I agree with this post in it's entirety (unsurprisingly, some may say).

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by jeanmonroe on 26.03.13 1:11

Châtelaine wrote:
Jean wrote:
candyfloss wrote:The article is still there on the BBC, and to be fair it does say BHH will lead the balloon launch. Do we know if he ever did?

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6761027.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6761027.stm[/quote[/url]]

Chatelaine: the exact date isn't given but this article is from June 2007.
***
Thank you, Jean. That's early days then. There wasn't too much suspicion yet, was there?
And: it's not been confirmed apparently that he actually DID head the balloon launch.
So, he may have had 2nd thoughts before then.

IMO the fact that this hasn't been contradicted or corrected in the papers doesn't bear much meaning. I never reacted to or contradicted an incorrect article involving me. It is time assuming and in most cases just futile or even contra-productive ...

17th June 2007..............2pm............Mossley Hill. (fathers day) day 45 after 'abduction'
Report
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/100+messages+for+Madeleine.-a0165144468

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5129
Reputation : 884
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by aiyoyo on 26.03.13 4:34

Châtelaine wrote:
Jean wrote:
candyfloss wrote:The article is still there on the BBC, and to be fair it does say BHH will lead the balloon launch. Do we know if he ever did?

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6761027.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6761027.stm[/quote[/url]]

Chatelaine: the exact date isn't given but this article is from June 2007.
***
Thank you, Jean. That's early days then. There wasn't too much suspicion yet, was there?
And: it's not been confirmed apparently that he actually DID head the balloon launch.
So, he may have had 2nd thoughts before then.

IMO the fact that this hasn't been contradicted or corrected in the papers doesn't bear much meaning. I never reacted to or contradicted an incorrect article involving me. It is time assuming and in most cases just futile or even contra-productive ...

Pre-arguido days they did have plenty support from the Police.
Police delivered flowers of well wishers to Rothley.
Control Risk Group ordered higher fencing for them.
Call me "Stu" being friendly with them; etc.
So won't be surprised if BHH did express support for them or gave the impression he did.
Also won't be surprised the Mccanns PR machinery had maximised the situation to the optimal, and maybe in principle BHH did support the balloon release, just didnt see the point in countering the misinformation as it would have seemed insensitive considering it was early stage then whereby Mccanns spin was at its height and they were not named official suspects at that stage.
Just saying that if there's no contra-indication to the statement, then the joe public are free to assume whatever they like , and majority of the public generally just take report at face value so that's the spin job done good, proper, and effectively. BHH can't complain if the statement was mis-contrued.

Still on the enormous level of Police Support accorded to them: for a long time the PayPal on their official website was fully endorsed and linked to the Leicestershire Police despite forum members protests, LP did not withdraw it . So I am pleasantly surprised (just peeped in there) that the link to LP is now GONE.

When you clicked onto the Donate button this is what is stated
The full objects of the Fund are:

To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

Since I have never priorly visited their website before now, I wonder whether they'd been reading from fora and rewriting their web pages in retrospect to cover their back for just in case.
It's interesting to note that despite having suspended PI activities they are still collecting donation. The donation is most spent fulfilling only one of the above pledges no doubt.



aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by saltnpepper on 27.03.13 20:32

Muratfan did tell me that the costs are known & it is a small amount as TB has grassed us up

Tick Tock see you in the dock ... muratfan is one of the soft ones on twitter

saltnpepper

Posts : 154
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-30
Location : wales

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by Guest on 27.03.13 20:47

@saltnpepper wrote:Muratfan did tell me that the costs are known & it is a small amount as TB has grassed us up

Tick Tock see you in the dock ... muratfan is one of the soft ones on twitter



Hmmm, yes I saw that tweet. He also told us that Clarence Mitchell was at SY making a statement re the gun threat Which Clarence Mitchell denied but said he was not in SY but walking past.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by Guest on 27.03.13 20:50

He also said that he was in court [one day early ...] and that he/they were observing every single move, which then happened to be a 24/7 camera on top of the opposite building, installed, owned and publicly used by a lawyers office ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by saltnpepper on 27.03.13 21:08

candyfloss wrote:
@saltnpepper wrote:Muratfan did tell me that the costs are known & it is a small amount as TB has grassed us up

Tick Tock see you in the dock ... muratfan is one of the soft ones on twitter



Hmmm, yes I saw that tweet. He also told us that Clarence Mitchell was at SY making a statement re the gun threat Which Clarence Mitchell denied but said he was not in SY but walking past.

Im still waiting for my libel papers for stating ELEVEN CADAVER ALERTS...thought that was fact? ah well... ce la vie

saltnpepper

Posts : 154
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-30
Location : wales

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by PeterMac on 27.03.13 22:29

"Care in the Community'' was not one of Government's best strategies ! !

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

Post by aiyoyo on 28.03.13 1:57

@PeterMac wrote:"Care in the Community'' was not one of Government's best strategies ! !

The Mccanns do not object to that kind of loons supporting them.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum