NUJ Code of Conduct

by **Enid O'Dowd** 28.12.13 11:08

NUJ Code of Conduct
1.    At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
2.    Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
3.    Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
4.    Differentiates between fact and opinion.
5.    Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means.
6.    Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
7.    Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work.
8.    Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge.
9.    Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
10. Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed.
11. A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.
12. Avoids plagiarism.

Members may feel that the Daily Mirror article breached the NUJ Code of Conduct (above). You can complain about a journalist to ethics@nuj.org.uk or to the NUJ 308-312 Grays Inn Road London WCIX 8DP Tel: 020 7843 3705. Obviously we don’t know whether the author of the Mirror article is an NUJ member or whether the authors of the many other articles published on this case, which are less than accurate, are NUJ members but nonetheless I think it is worth raising questionable articles with the NUJ.

by Guest 28.12.13 11:10

Worried Mum, that reminds me of Kate who couldn't distinguish the colour pink even in daylight, describing as she did Madeleine's pool outfit as peach when it was pink!

by Cristobell 28.12.13 11:21

I was having a dip into Kate's book again last night, and was reading about Jane's sighting and the amazing fact that Jane picked out the detail of the child's Eyore pyjamas, with no previous knowledge of what Madeleine was wearing. The detail that Jane saw on the pyjamas was amazing, especially considering the dim light and the distance between them. The fact that Jane recognised the pyjamas convinced Kate that it was indeed Madeleine being carried away.

Except. The man Jane saw has now been eliminated - he was an innocent holidaymaker collecting his own child from the creche, and the pyjamas the child wore, were completely different not Eyore PJ's at all.

by Pinktulips 28.12.13 11:37

And the really weird thing about the pyjamas is that Amelie had the EXACT same pair on holiday with her - just too big for a two year old. What a strange coincidence! And she called them "Maddies jamas" on record. Naughty child giving the game away like that!

by Jauna Loca 28.12.13 11:45

I think this article is just more McSpin. The public has been asking
(a) Why this man had only come forward now deapite the intense publicity the case received and
(b) Why the efits had only been made public now.

After CW these questions raise a lot of red flags and got people thinking. This article is more McPlugging to plug the holes in the argument
and get the official version back aflost with the Mcs fragrant again. Another shift the blame and plug the holes McSpin exerxise, IMO.

by Tangled Web 28.12.13 11:50

Are the general public really not credited with any intelligence? Are we really expected to believe that Tannerman was 'eliminated' in 2007 but we've been encouraged to look for this man for 6 and a half years due to an oversight, in one of the biggest missing child cases ever?

It's insulting.

Aside from this IMO he never even existed in the first place

by MRNOODLES 28.12.13 12:03

Tangled Web wrote:Are the general public really not credited with any intelligence? Are we really expected to believe that Tannerman was 'eliminated' in 2007 but we've been encouraged to look for this man for 6 and a half years due to an oversight, in one of the biggest missing child cases ever?

It's insulting.

Aside from this IMO he never even existed in the first place

Me too.

For the simple fact that PJ would have ruled him out by saying they've tracked him down. Rather than just saying they don't believe JT's story.

by Hongkong Phooey 28.12.13 12:04

To my mind this is just McSpin with the libel trial just around the corner. My guess is that SY are playing a psychological game knowing full well there is no Tannerman/bundleman, having said that it does open up the window of opportunity which they may very well be using to effectively close the case. I'm still not convinced that SY have been set the goal of finding out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, however time will tell.

by Cristobell 28.12.13 12:05

Jauna Loca wrote:I think this article is just more McSpin. The public has been asking
(a) Why this man had only come forward now deapite the intense publicity the case received and
(b) Why the efits had only been made public now.

After CW these questions raise a lot of red flags and got people thinking. This article is more McPlugging to plug the holes in the argument
and get the official version back aflost with the Mcs fragrant again. Another shift the blame and plug the holes McSpin exerxise, IMO.

Yes. I think you are spot on Jauna and a big welcome to the forum smilie

The PJ dismissed Jane's sighting at the off, and not because of this newly introduced innocent tourist, but because it was patently nonsense.

And what of the multi million pound search conducted by the McCanns? Private detectives being paid £50,000 per month from people's kind donations, not one of them picked up on this man returning from the creche? Kate tells us she has gone through the files with a fine toothcomb, yet she also overlooked this vital information?

The McCanns have promoted Tannerman from the start and they promote him still! The fact that they suppressed the Smith sighting is now in the public domain, and they are trying to backtrack and point the finger of blame at the PJ - perhaps the PJ are not going so gentle with their investigation as SY, and are getting too close.

by Cristobell 28.12.13 12:09

Tangled Web wrote:Are the general public really not credited with any intelligence? Are we really expected to believe that Tannerman was 'eliminated' in 2007 but we've been encouraged to look for this man for 6 and a half years due to an oversight, in one of the biggest missing child cases ever?

It's insulting.

Aside from this IMO he never even existed in the first place

Isn't it just! And they wonder why people have stopped buying newspapers.

by Mirage 28.12.13 12:13

worriedmum wrote:
watendlath wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:

...initially Tanner said a man was carrying a child/something wrapped in a blanket in the opposite direction, but changed her story to allow a Madeleine-like description and walking in the opposite direction.

I did a check on that: here is the relevant part from Tanner's witness statement from May 4th:

Jane Tanner - witness statement 04 May 2007, 11.30am

Meanwhile a man appeared* carrying a child**, with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention.
She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html

Further down the page (of the above link)is a map she drew to show where he was heading:

ie he was heading to the right at the top of the road.

lj wrote:
BTW if the child was indeed picked up from a creche it is not necessarily the MW one.

If you look back at the CW video, when Redwood says that they realised there was a night creche, they show a map of where the creche is, lit up with a red light, and it looks to be in the direction Tannerman was headed.
Can someone please help me out here?
I've just looked at the map on the Crimewatch programme, and to me it would mean that the 'Tannerman' was heading towards the creche with a sleeping child ? Has it ever been said whether he was taking the child to or from the creche?
Also I still find it difficult to believe that the pattern on the pyjamas was visible from that distance and at night.

On the CW video at 21:46 Redwood says the following:

"One of the things we picked up very quickly was that there was a night creche operating from the main Ocean Club Reception and eight families had left eleven children in there and one particular family we spoke to gave us information that was really interesting and exciting. In fact, I would say a revelation moment when, having discussed with them what they were doing on the night they themselves believed they could be the Tanner sighting."

Matthew Amroliwala: The British father had collected his two year-old daughter from the creche. He had been walking near the McCanns' apartment. This is the actual photograph taken by Metropolitan police officers of the man wearing the kind of clothes he wore on holiday. This image was compared to the aritist's image

AR: It was uncannily similar........ etc

The following points of information were clear to me:

1) There is no mention or hint of any other creche unless I have missed something somewhere else. The OC creche is the only one identified with a red splurge on screen.

2) The man has collected his child and is walking near the McCanns' apartment so, it would appear to suggest JT has misidentified the direction of travel.

3) Amroliwal says the man "had been walking near the McCanns' apartment" This "had" could also be taken to mean he had passed by the McCanns en route to the creche, in which case he would have been childless at this point. It may also mean he was a material witness to something rather than being witnessed by JT. On the whole, it seems to me unlikely he was passing the McCann apartment on his way to collect the child as he would have been coming from a direction where there were no bars or restaurants.

The following were general points of interest I picked up:

1) Bolded by me the "they" and "them" that Redwood exclusively uses in relation to JT's sighting, in other words a collective comprising the family and what they were doing. The crecheman becomes singular only when the narrative is picked up by Amroliwala.

2) At around 21:46 on the video where AR speaks of eleven children left in the creche I had to re-play it several times because it sounded (to me) as if he was saying: and a family had left eleven children in there. I accept he is almost certainly saying what I printed above, that is :" and eight families had left eleven children" but he speaks quickly and (for me, at least) the verbal stresses are not clearly defined.

3) The child he carried was a two year old. Not a three or four year old.

by noddy100 28.12.13 12:22

I though CW implied that they uncovered the creche man

by Tangled Web 28.12.13 12:23

Very interesting Mirage!

by Mirage 28.12.13 12:38

Tangled Web wrote:Very interesting Mirage!

Thank you. I have been taking lessons from Hobs!!! I'm looking at what is actually being said, rather than what I think has been said. All that I have quoted bears close examination and I can imagine Hobs would have a field day with this and the rest of what AR amd Amroliwala are saying. Are they saying the same things even?

It just takes ages to transcribe it all accurately and that is all I can manage for the time being..

by Tangled Web 28.12.13 13:29

Mirage wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:Very interesting Mirage!
Thank you. I have been taking lessons from Hobs!!! I'm looking at what is actually being said, rather than what I think has been said. All that I have quoted bears close examination and I can imagine Hobs would have a field day with this and the rest of what AR amd Amroliwala are saying. Are they saying the same things even?

It just takes ages to transcribe it all accurately and that is all I can manage for the time being..

I have had a look but are there any night crèche records???

by **PeterMac** 28.12.13 13:34

Hongkong Phooey wrote:To my mind this is just McSpin with the libel trial just around the corner..

But why would Mitchell or TM get the Mirror to re-release a Mail article from 13 October, knowing not only that it would be quickly identified as such, but that it would bring the entire story, not back into the forefront of discussion, but into total disrepute, and subject to ridicule and opprobrium.
It is that which I do not fully understand.

I can see why he would invent a story the first time, but to repeat it . . .?

by plebgate 28.12.13 13:34

There must have been night creche records. I cannot believe that a company would use day creche records but not night ones. Unthinkable imo.

by Guest 28.12.13 13:40

PeterMac wrote:
I can see why he would invent a story the first time, but to repeat it . . .?

***
My thoughts, too, Peter. I tend to think it is not Mitchell's hand here ...

by plebgate 28.12.13 13:42

PeterMac wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:To my mind this is just McSpin with the libel trial just around the corner..

But why would Mitchell or TM get the Mirror to re-release a Mail article from 13 October, knowing not only that it would be quickly identified as such, but that it would bring the entire story, not back into the forefront of discussion, but into total disrepute, and subject to ridicule and opprobrium.
It is that which I do not fully understand.

I can see why he would invent a story the first time, but to repeat it . . .?

Would it be identified quickly by the masses?

by sallypelt 28.12.13 13:43

PeterMac wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:To my mind this is just McSpin with the libel trial just around the corner..

But why would Mitchell or TM get the Mirror to re-release a Mail article from 13 October, knowing not only that it would be quickly identified as such, but that it would bring the entire story, not back into the forefront of discussion, but into total disrepute, and subject to ridicule and opprobrium.
It is that which I do not fully understand.

I can see why he would invent a story the first time, but to repeat it . . .?

I believe that Mitchell has distanced himself, or at least tried, from this sorry saga. Mitchell is too busy trying to get elected in Brighton, but from what I have seen is, him jumping on the bandwagon of what has already been achieved, or is going to be achieved by Conservatives. I have yet see anything that HE is going to do, but as he's not that interesting a person, maybe I fell asleep and missed it.

Moreover, if or when this is solved and it shows that the T9 are involved in a cover up (as if we need anymore proof), then look who is going to go down with them. I will name a few to get started, but please feel free to add others, as I am about to go out for the day, and don't have time to list many.

Those who have vehemently defended the McCann's are:

Clarence Mitchell (paid to do so)
Jim Gamble
Mark Williams-Thomas
The Twitter Brigade, who tweet day in, day out, insulting anyone who mentions dogs or PJ files.

and the list goes on.

by Mirage 28.12.13 13:46

Tangled Web wrote:
Mirage wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:Very interesting Mirage!
Thank you. I have been taking lessons from Hobs!!! I'm looking at what is actually being said, rather than what I think has been said. All that I have quoted bears close examination and I can imagine Hobs would have a field day with this and the rest of what AR amd Amroliwala are saying. Are they saying the same things even?

It just takes ages to transcribe it all accurately and that is all I can manage for the time being..

I have had a look but are there any night crèche records???

An extremely interesting point, Tangled Web. I have never heard of one being mentioned. Neither have I heard it denied that one was kept. Maybe it constitutes part of the 20% of files kept back by the PJ?

On the basis that Redwood is able to tell us eight families had a total of eleven children in creche that night I can only assume there was a record of sorts somewhere. Given the daytime regime of signing children in, would it have been a similar system at night? In view of them dealing with sleepy children with no activities to contend with, it must have been a less fraught handover. One that should surely have been overseen more meticulously at night.

by Tangled Web 28.12.13 13:49

plebgate wrote:There must have been night creche records. I cannot believe that a company would use day creche records but not night ones. Unthinkable imo.

Hmmm I may be barking up the wrong tree here and forgive me if this has already been covered but it's been suggested that all of the Tapas children were babysat in one apartment by one of the adults each night i.e. no neglect. Mirage's post (with regards to number of families and children etc.) made me wonder if it was possible that the night crèche facility was used and this was covered up for some reason? That would make far more sense than one adult staying in or all of this (non) checking business. They used the crèche all day so it's not logical to do anything other than use it at night if they wanted an adult only dinner. Hence why I'm looking for records...

by MRNOODLES 28.12.13 13:50

PeterMac wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:To my mind this is just McSpin with the libel trial just around the corner..

But why would Mitchell or TM get the Mirror to re-release a Mail article from 13 October, knowing not only that it would be quickly identified as such, but that it would bring the entire story, not back into the forefront of discussion, but into total disrepute, and subject to ridicule and opprobrium.
It is that which I do not fully understand.

I can see why he would invent a story the first time, but to repeat it . . .?

Maybe end is in sight, and it's a last ditch effort by TM to claim the bungling police are at it again about to accuse the wrong people?

by sallypelt 28.12.13 13:50

Mirage wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:
Mirage wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:Very interesting Mirage!
Thank you. I have been taking lessons from Hobs!!! I'm looking at what is actually being said, rather than what I think has been said. All that I have quoted bears close examination and I can imagine Hobs would have a field day with this and the rest of what AR amd Amroliwala are saying. Are they saying the same things even?

It just takes ages to transcribe it all accurately and that is all I can manage for the time being..

I have had a look but are there any night crèche records???

An extremely interesting point, Tangled Web. I have never heard of one being mentioned. Neither have I heard it denied that one was kept. Maybe it constitutes part of the 20% of files kept back by the PJ?

On the basis that Redwood is able to tell us eight families had a total of eleven children in creche that night I can only assume there was a record of sorts somewhere. Given the daytime regime of signing children in, would it have been a similar system at night? In view of them dealing with sleepy children with no activities to contend with, it must have been a less fraught handover. One that should surely have been overseen more meticulously at night.

I can't see the need for showing the records of other institutions or organisations. If the T9 didn't use these facilities, then there is no legal reason for them to be put in the public domain. Where would it stop? With crèches within a three-mile radius of the Ocean Club?

by Cristobell 28.12.13 13:53

The list does indeed go on Sally. Probably why we are struggling to believe that Madeleine will ever receive justice, there seem to be too many 'big' names who could be complicit. Lets not forget Gerry's private chat with Gordon Brown!

However, I feel more optimistic now than I have at any time in the previous years. I was re-reading David Payne's rogatory interview last night - can't believe anyone could possibly take it seriously - and was intrigued by the phone questioning. It read as though the police officer was doing a 'Colombo' routine - that is, he would lull David Payne into believing the questioning had reached the end, exchange pleasantries, then remember 'Oh, just one more thing' and then another question about the phones.

Referring to your list Sally, the line of questioning in DP's statement was pretty persistent on the people he called during the night of May 3rd/4th and we know that those records are part of this current enquiry. Therefore ALL those called on that night might well find themselves answering questions.