Media turning on the McCanns?

by davro 07.10.14 10:23

I wonder if this is the start of the payback for the McCanns suing the Times. As many have found to their cost upset the Murdoch empire and you can go from hero to zero very quickly. I doubt Ms Hopkins would have said this in public about such a sensitive case if she hadn't been very sure it wouldn't cause here all kinds of problems with her employers.

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/newspaper-columnist-refuses-to-back-down-after-negligen#.VDK-jvinGxI.facebook

by HelenMeg 07.10.14 10:36

davro wrote:I wonder if this is the start of the payback for the McCanns suing the Times. As many have found to their cost upset the Murdoch empire and you can go from hero to zero very quickly. I doubt Ms Hopkins would have said this in public about such a sensitive case if she hadn't been very sure it wouldn't cause here all kinds of problems with her employers.

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/newspaper-columnist-refuses-to-back-down-after-negligen#.VDK-jvinGxI.facebook

This is not particularly good news at all. The Mc Cann supporters want everyone to think that negligence is at the heart of this. Negligence is not at the heart of this. Negligence = abduction. Negligence is the myth that the Mc Cann supporters want the public to believe in .
Katie needs to learn more about this case or else she is just spreading incorrect version of the case.

Surely there is noone still here on this forum who believes in negligence? How can you believe it is encouraging to spread the negligence myth?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10413-did-the-tapas-9-really-abandon-their-children

by plebgate 07.10.14 10:43

The headline is that Katie Hopkins refuses to back down because of her comments. Why should she back down? Fair comment is not a crime and who says that this is not a fair comment. Back down indeed.

I wish she had added on her blog about the 48 unanswered questions also.

by woodbine 07.10.14 10:44

Absolutely right HelenMeg. Those in PDL had to accept that they were going to come across as negligent parents in order to protect whatever or whoever they were protecting. Disinformation. Create a lie to protect a bigger lie

by HelenMeg 07.10.14 10:51

woodbine wrote:Absolutely right HelenMeg. Those in PDL had to accept that they were going to come across as negligent parents in order to protect whatever or whoever they were protecting. Disinformation. Create a lie to protect a bigger lie

Yes Woodbine and I just find it very frustrating that people like Katie are promoting this disinformation as it only benefits the Mc Canns and friends. She is great in that she speaks her mind but I wish she could understand the case better and therefore as a high profile person she would be extremely useful in getting 'the truth ' out there...
I have just e-mailed her at katie@katiehopkins.co.uk to try and help her understand that there is much more to this than promoting negligence.

If anyone else could also e-mail her then it would be helpful. If we got someone like her on board then it would be useful. Whilst she is just saying 'negligence' she is actually damaging any hopes of the real truth emerging.

by woodbine 07.10.14 10:53

I actually think Alan Sugar might be a candidate. I noticed he was tweeting a lot yesterday regarding this. Seems the kind of guy who would stop at nothing...

by tiny 07.10.14 10:56

Are the press turning, not a hope in hell,look what happened to Brenda leyland

by woodbine 07.10.14 11:00

tiny wrote:Are the press turning, not a hope in hell,look what happened to Brenda leyland

I think we're hoping that this might change as a result of what happened to Brenda..
McCann supporters send a dossier of trolls to Skynews -> Brunt confronts one of them -> And then it turns out she there wasn't really any evidence that she was a troll after all. This might upset the Murdoch empire

by Snifferdog 07.10.14 11:39

tiny wrote:Are the press turning, not a hope in hell,look what happened to Brenda leyland

I agree Tiny. There is not a hope in hell that the press is "turning".

imo Murdoch papers are funding the Mccanns and their litigation by paying up so quickly, before it even gets to court. Imo a way to make an "innocent tax deductible donation" to the Mccann Private Fund, without the public becoming aware that the msm is actually aiding and abetting the pair.
I don't think for a minute that the power of the Mccanns Carter Ruck combined are any match for Murdoch papers who could kick carter rucks ass if necessary.
The McCann enablers lke to use two pronged attacks, for eg. Set up a Levison fiasco - make out as though its the main stream sewerage media that looks as though its taking the flack, and threatened, meanwhile the true victims will be the alternative media and us bloggers.
It must have been a huge calculated decision to shut down News of the World....I did not achieve the desired results, as many people were aware of their intention to curb free speech.

by tiny 07.10.14 11:44

Then the next question would be ,why is Murdoch covering for the mccanns as he could tear them to shreds in a blink of an eye

by woodbine 07.10.14 12:05

tiny wrote:Then the next question would be ,why is Murdoch covering for the mccanns as he could tear them to shreds in a blink of an eye

Symbiosis. If the person or persons this whole charade is protecting is in government, it would benefit Murdoch to have something over them

by j.rob 07.10.14 12:33

woodbine wrote:
tiny wrote:Then the next question would be ,why is Murdoch covering for the mccanns as he could tear them to shreds in a blink of an eye

Symbiosis. If the person or persons this whole charade is protecting is in government, it would benefit Murdoch to have something over them

I think it was a media 'scam' from the word go. So the Murdoch press is heavily implicated in it all on many, many levels in my opinion. Murdoch has huge political influence. They are all in bed together so to speak.

If it was 'just' about the suspicious disappearance of a 4 year old child I would imagine the case would have closed years ago. Even with the absence of a body, there is so much in my opinion that incriminates the McCanns and their friends.They have not said or done a single thing that makes me believe that what they have said is true. Not one thing. Not from any of them.

Which is quite amazing, really. In the normal course of events you would expect to find a few aspects of a case that might give you pause for doubt. Where you might think: 'well, hang on, what about x,y or z.' But in this case I have been unable to find a shred of evidence that would rule out the McCanns and their friends from having any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine.

In actual fact, they tick every single box in terms of looking suspicious.

They were the last to see her alive.
There are no reliable photos of her from the holiday.
They refused to entertain any other scenario apart from abduction.
They gave conflicting accounts of the how the abductor is supposed to have broken in/entered the apartment.

And so on and so on.

I just don't understand why anyone believes their story.

Gerry: "Find the body and prove we killed her."

by Snifferdog 07.10.14 12:39

tiny wrote:Then the next question would be ,why is Murdoch covering for the mccanns as he could tear them to shreds in a blink of an eye

They are all members of the same "club" or lodge?

by SixMillionQuid 07.10.14 12:43

j.rob wrote:
woodbine wrote:
tiny wrote:Then the next question would be ,why is Murdoch covering for the mccanns as he could tear them to shreds in a blink of an eye

Symbiosis. If the person or persons this whole charade is protecting is in government, it would benefit Murdoch to have something over them
I think it was a media 'scam' from the word go. So the Murdoch press is heavily implicated in it all on many, many levels in my opinion. Murdoch has huge political influence. They are all in bed together so to speak.

If it was 'just' about the suspicious disappearance of a 4 year old child I would imagine the case would have closed years ago. Even with the absence of a body, there is so much in my opinion that incriminates the McCanns and their friends.They have not said or done a single thing that makes me believe that what they have said is true. Not one thing. Not from any of them.

Which is quite amazing, really. In the normal course of events you would expect to find a few aspects of a case that might give you pause for doubt. Where you might think: 'well, hang on, what about x,y or z.' But in this case I have been unable to find a shred of evidence that would rule out the McCanns and their friends from having any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine.

In actual fact, they tick every single box in terms of looking suspicious.

They were the last to see her alive.
There are no reliable photos of her from the holiday.
They refused to entertain any other scenario apart from abduction.
They gave conflicting accounts of the how the abductor is supposed to have broken in/entered the apartment.

And so on and so on.

I just don't understand why anyone believes their story.

Gerry: "Find the body and prove we killed her."

It's that patio door, not that they or Operation Grange will say anything though. Since 3rd May 2007 they've left it to the work done on internet forums to fill in the holes in their story. We're going to be hearing about that rear patio door in the not too distant future.

by Guest 07.10.14 12:45

j.rob wrote:

I think it was a media 'scam' from the word go. So the Murdoch press is heavily implicated in it all on many, many levels in my opinion. Murdoch has huge political influence. They are all in bed together so to speak.

j.rob have you been watching Tomorrow Never Dies? Good points nonetheless.

by jozi 07.10.14 15:01

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
j.rob wrote:

I think it was a media 'scam' from the word go. So the Murdoch press is heavily implicated in it all on many, many levels in my opinion. Murdoch has huge political influence. They are all in bed together so to speak.

j.rob have you been watching Tomorrow Never Dies? Good points nonetheless.

I agree with j.rob and don't forget the famous " Fu-k up of the century " words used by Murat !!! This could be why the police know and always state why the Mcs are so innocent in the abduction/disappearance of Maddie ??? Its also supposedly a State Secret !!!
It may also be why OG was called for and Millions to be spent.....Looking for a way out (In my opinion) or an answer to all our questions that will make the Mcs look innocent ?

The mind truly boggles......7 yrs on and no nearer to the truth at all . We will never ever know the truth, otherwise all the other Countries will never trust the British Government Again,

If that truth got out !!!
(All my own personal opinion of course) !!!

by Snifferdog 07.10.14 15:06

It is becoming increasingly difficult for Murdochs Media Propaganda Machine to control what they would like us to read.
There's a huge coven of coincidences in the mccann case...so many people, in the right place at the right time for the Mccanns,...what a small world we live in eh? Margaret Hodge, tainted with directly covering up child abuse at care homes, Murdoch, Freud are just some of them. It seems we are beginning to see the festering sore under the band aid. Desperate measures are being applied now to keep it under wraps. As they know the backlash that would come their way, should all become known.
imo it should be obvious that the McCanns were and are being protected by; slebs, the likes of those such as Branson, who gave massive undeserved donations to a pair of parents who gaily admitted to neglecting their children, and one subsequently went missing...; the courts; police; politicians; media giants; printing lies, making payments to the McCann private limited fund under cover of libel; AND going by Goiters posts, sick, lowlife, foul mouthed McCann supporters, must surely share something in common with them all as well? imo.

by **PeterMac** 07.10.14 15:14

Media turning on the McCanns? BzWQ89jCcAAjiz7

and the original here

What made him change his tune ?
Money ?
Threats ?
Intimidation ?

by **PeterMac** 07.10.14 15:18

j.rob wrote:
I just don't understand why anyone believes their story.

Quite.
But WHICH Story ?
I don't know why anyone believes any of their stories, as they have still not put together a coherent single version backed with any evidence whatsoever.