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

Sunday Times apology

Page 2 of 14 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8 ... 14  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 15:40

I was just writing a post when I saw this tweet which sort of sums it up succinctly.


N.M ‏@AdirenM
Apparently it was the NSY that was sitting on those e-fits.The question is why? If they believe a child is alive, why did they wait?#mccann


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by PeterMac on 29.12.13 15:44

And it doesn't explain why they have now withdrawn the e-fits from the Find Madeleine web site and replaced them with a "Disney" picture of tree
Nor why Tannerman is STILL being promoted, despite Redwood's saying to the entire world that he had been ELIMINATED
There seems to be no one in charge of their strategy - if they still have one.
They are twisting and turning like "twisty-turney things'

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 29.12.13 15:46

@tasprin wrote:I can't believe that parents of a missing child - and all those around them - would be party to the endless game-playing that's gone on in this case if their child was really 'taken'/abducted by a stranger.

I think we CAN believe it after observing this for years, but don't really WANT to IYKWIM.  smilie 

There most certainly HAS been some sort of a game played and it is not very nice.

The McCanns should have, if they had more sense, spent less time talking to vacuous Lorraine on the sofa, sticking their nose into Leveson, trotting round the world and doing fun runs and so forth, and done a great deal MORE to rectify inaccuracies, set the record straight properly i.e. provided evidential support rather than Kate's rather self destructing book.

They have created each and every negative feeling to them, and it is well documented on what grounds. Appearing in public with their biggest mistake period, because clearly, hundreds of thousands of people don't like what they see and hear. Repeating the same mistakes ad nauseum just m,aces it worse for them.


____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by aiyoyo on 29.12.13 15:56

Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund


The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013
Comment (0) Print
In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

Not readable unless you subscribed.

Take note of the interesting heading title! Fund ?

aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by kitchen on 29.12.13 16:03

I agree with aiyoyo; the title is the most significant part of that article.

kitchen

Posts : 62
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-11-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 29.12.13 16:04

Interesting that L:eicestershire police decided to sit on them, and can't blame solely the PJ. The same Leicestershire police who said there was not sufficient evidence to clear the parents!

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 16:06

@kitchen wrote:I agree with aiyoyo; the title is the most significant part of that article.
***
"and Madeleine's Fund". A forewarning for their next article ... ?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by noddy100 on 29.12.13 16:07

@kitchen wrote:I agree with aiyoyo; the title is the most significant part of that article.
Yes I agree
The title bears no relation to teh story?????

noddy100

Posts : 696
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2013-05-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Daisy on 29.12.13 16:12

It's ok for us lot that follow the case to read between the lines in these latest "NEWS" articles. But we're just a fringe group aren't we? Surely these stories are aimed for mass consumption, not for us?

 I'd love to have faith that the right thing will be done but I get ever more cynical when I remember what little respect the folk in charge have for us. When did they last listen to us?

They would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they'll listen now? (Now there's a good song)  yes 

Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

Did they listen, did they care?  nah  Still hoping though, else I wouldn't be here.

____________________
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”   

Unknown


“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” 

Friedrich Nietzsche

Daisy

Posts : 1245
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-15
Location : Yorkshire, England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 29.12.13 16:22

@Daisy wrote:It's ok for us lot that follow the case to read between the lines in these latest "NEWS" articles. But we're just a fringe group aren't we? Surely these stories are aimed for mass consumption, not for us?

 I'd love to have faith that the right thing will be done but I get ever more cynical when I remember what little respect the folk in charge have for us. When did they last listen to us?

They would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they'll listen now? (Now there's a good song)  yes 

Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

Did they listen, did they care?  nah  Still hoping though, else I wouldn't be here.

We might be just a fringe group, but there are probably more doubters than believers, and the believers in the official line demonstrate daily to have an IQ markedly lower than their shoe size.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 16:23

@Daisy wrote:It's ok for us lot that follow the case to read between the lines in these latest "NEWS" articles. But we're just a fringe group aren't we? Surely these stories are aimed for mass consumption, not for us?

 I'd love to have faith that the right thing will be done but I get ever more cynical when I remember what little respect the folk in charge have for us. When did they last listen to us?

They would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they'll listen now? (Now there's a good song)  yes 

Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

Did they listen, did they care?  nah  Still hoping though, else I wouldn't be here.

This also means that the lawyers are not as completely dormant as we've come to believe of late. The McCanns, or someone, has paid them to extract this 'apology' from the ST. Unconvincing and still leaving the salient points 'unapologized for' as it is. The lawyers are still active on their behalf in some capacity.

The 'fund' reference is tantalizing. If not mentioned in the first article why refer to it now? Clearly something the ST are looking at...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by tigger on 29.12.13 16:58

@Daisy wrote:It's ok for us lot that follow the case to read between the lines in these latest "NEWS" articles. But we're just a fringe group aren't we? Surely these stories are aimed for mass consumption, not for us?

 I'd love to have faith that the right thing will be done but I get ever more cynical when I remember what little respect the folk in charge have for us. When did they last listen to us?

They would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they'll listen now? (Now there's a good song)  yes 

Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

Did they listen, did they care?  nah  Still hoping though, else I wouldn't be here.

Yes, that's why I would like to see a new circle of hell for Blair. To top it all he said in parliament that he rejoiced that his people lived in a democracy where they were free to protest.  splat 
It must be in Hansard.

70% were against the war in Britain   - therefore it is a democracy  
70% were content with Saddam  - therefore it is a  a dictatorship  which needed to become a democracy

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by aiyoyo on 29.12.13 17:10

The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.
He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.

“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.

A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

It's not entirely accurate to say the contents had nothing to do with the Fund.
Quotes from a source of the Fund were used throughout.
Clearly someone from the Fund spoke to the Newspapers.
If isn't Pinkie (not of the Fund) then it has to be either Kate or Gerry or Edward Smethurst (the fund in-house lawyer) whose words would carry weight as representing the Madeleine's Fund. Who else can advise against the hypocritical report or the E-fits from being made public if not a lawyer, unless it was general consensus of the Board of Trustees.

The Board took the decision, the board shall bear responsibility for any ramifications.

aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 17:15

i vaguely remember reading that SY had to write to the fund to request a copy of the report,does anyone know if this is fact?
From the above it reads as if the information was given voluntarily.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by ultimaThule on 29.12.13 17:18

@tigger wrote: < snip >

70% were against the war in Britain   - therefore it is a democracy  
70% were content with Saddam  - therefore it is a  a dictatorship  which needed to become a democracy
80% were of the opinion the McCanns were complicit in the disappearance of their daughter... therefore they must be innocent? 

I think not, but this article gives some insight into why the UK's MSM chose to look at the couple with a less than critical eye:
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1663733,00.html

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by aiyoyo on 29.12.13 17:22


Depends which side story is believed.
According to PIs the Police had to seek the Fund's permission before they could get their hands on E-fits and Report.
According to the ambiguous article, it would appear the E-fits were given to Police while the Report was held back and had to be pry out of Mccanns' clasps.

aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 29.12.13 17:26

Whilst we are all trying to read something more into the ST statement, for the average reader who has not followed the case this will just be another newspaper who got it wrong like many others have done in the past. Sometimes on here we go into over analysis mode and there is no such thing as a simple statement. It's all to do with hope, we are always hoping that an end is just around the corner but in truth is it.

Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Over The Hill on 29.12.13 18:23

At the time of the ST story, a lot of posters asked why the rest of the media hadn't repeated the story, and accused them of bottling out

Now you can see why they didn't

Over The Hill

Posts : 82
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 18:38

@Over The Hill wrote:At the time of the ST story, a lot of posters asked why the rest of the media hadn't repeated the story, and accused them of bottling out

Now you can see why they didn't

Oh but they did, it was in one or two of the red tops, and also in the Telegraph..........


@StraightThinking wrote:
@notlongnow wrote:I feel once any of this hits any of the red tops then you know the tide has changed.
Well it's in the Telegraph now
Telegraph

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Guest on 29.12.13 18:49

candyfloss wrote:
@Over The Hill wrote:At the time of the ST story, a lot of posters asked why the rest of the media hadn't repeated the story, and accused them of bottling out

Now you can see why they didn't

Oh but they did, it was in one or two of the red tops, and also in the Telegraph..........


@StraightThinking wrote:
@notlongnow wrote:I feel once any of this hits any of the red tops then you know the tide has changed.
Well it's in the Telegraph now
Telegraph



Now that is good to read, " news" about "news" so avoiding direct blame for the paper but getting the information out there.   Thank you Telegraph (and candyfloss)

 However much they have their fingers crossed, this isn't going away as respectfully and quietly as the Mcc's hoped and we are another day closer to the Libel Trial.

imo of course

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Over The Hill on 29.12.13 19:10

I meant in particular TV, especially BBC and Sky

The BBC got a terrible slagging from some posters for failing to "do its duty" and repeat the ST story

Sky was accused of not highlighting it in its newspaper reviews

However it will be interesting to see if the papers who reported the ST "scoop" will issue a similar apology

Before I get accused of being a troll, I'm not. I joined this forum in Nov because I work for one of the above and was alerted by a colleague several weeks after the event to the unfairness of some posters expecting the media to report something that they aren't able to verify

I'm as interested in working out what happened as all of you are, and in the month since I joined I see many sharp minds on here

But deductions and conclusions (and news items on TV and radio) have to be made on absolute facts, and absolute facts alone, not an approximation of the truth

Anything else would breach the broadcast media rules and guidelines

Over The Hill

Posts : 82
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 29.12.13 19:19

[quote="daffodil"]
candyfloss wrote:
@Over The Hill wrote:At the time of the ST story, a lot of posters asked why the rest of the media hadn't repeated the story, and accused them of bottling out

Now you can see why they didn't

Oh but they did, it was in one or two of the red tops, and also in the Telegraph..........


@StraightThinking wrote:
@notlongnow wrote:I feel once any of this hits any of the red tops then you know the tide has changed.
Well it's in the Telegraph now
Telegraph
Oh I don't know I think todays apology will be music to the ears of the believers and another apology from a newspaper to those who read newspapers. Not good news from our point of view as half a true story gets lost in the mire.

Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by TMH on 29.12.13 19:26

@Over The Hill wrote:I meant in particular TV, especially BBC and Sky

The BBC got a terrible slagging from some posters for failing to "do its duty" and repeat the ST story

Sky was accused of not highlighting it in its newspaper reviews

However it will be interesting to see if the papers who reported the ST "scoop" will issue a similar apology

Before I get accused of being a troll, I'm not. I joined this forum in Nov because I work for one of the above and was alerted by a colleague several weeks after the event to the unfairness of some posters expecting the media to report something that they aren't able to verify

I'm as interested in working out what happened as all of you are, and in the month since I joined I see many sharp minds on here

But deductions and conclusions (and news items on TV and radio) have to be made on absolute facts, and absolute facts alone, not an approximation of the truth

Anything else would breach the broadcast media rules and guidelines
Hmmm but there have been numerous times that the press and media have reported wrongly? The Daily Mail even has a regular slot on page 2 titled "corrections".

TMH

Posts : 192
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2013-02-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by SixMillionQuid on 29.12.13 19:37

Surely Mr Redwood could have cleared up this issue during the last Crimewatch appeal?

SixMillionQuid

Posts : 436
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Sunday Times apology

Post by Over The Hill on 29.12.13 19:39

@TMH wrote:Hmmm but there have been numerous times that the press and media have reported wrongly? The Daily Mail even has a regular slot on page 2 titled "corrections".
Yes but the printed press tend to stick their necks out a bit more and just print an apology if it turns out to be wrong (as has happened in this case)

BBC, ITN and Sky newsrooms are instructed from the very top to check stories out and not use them unless they are verified

I know that the Beeb in particular has made a few cock-ups in the last year or so, but those of us who work in this field of activity were amazed at the lack of professionalism in those cases, and those responsible paid with their jobs

Over The Hill

Posts : 82
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 14 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8 ... 14  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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