McCann tweets journalist told to reveal source

plebgate wrote:I, also, do not understand why the info. cannot be obtained from the police.   The dossier was given first to the police and then to Sky and apparently, according to BHH the police seem to know who gave the dossier to them.

Why should the dossier compiler not be named?  Everyone on the list should be able to demand that their accuser/s be named.  What about their human rights?

It may be that at some future point Brenda's family take civil action.   Would the police have to give that info. to any solicitors acting for the family if this should happen?

comperedna wrote:I didn't hear the broadcast concerned, if that was where the information came from... but I believe Bernard Hogan-Howe, boss of the Met, spoke of the dossier as having come from supporters of the McCanns. That's a pretty authoratative comment if he made it. Can someone please pipe up and correct me if I am wrong about this?

plebgate wrote:I, also, do not understand why the info. cannot be obtained from the police.   The dossier was given first to the police and then to Sky and apparently, according to BHH the police seem to know who gave the dossier to them.

Why should the dossier compiler not be named?  Everyone on the list should be able to demand that their accuser/s be named.  What about their human rights?

It may be that at some future point Brenda's family take civil action.   Would the police have to give that info. to any solicitors acting for the family if this should happen?

ultimaThule wrote:You must be jesting, j.rob.   Rupert is an immensely rich and powerful kingmaker and anyone who attempts to make a meal out of him will find their own head served on a platter before they've had a chance to warm the oven.   .

Joss wrote:

comperedna wrote:I didn't hear the broadcast concerned, if that was where the information came from... but I believe Bernard Hogan-Howe, boss of the Met, spoke of the dossier as having come from supporters of the McCanns. That's a pretty authoratative comment if he made it. Can someone please pipe up and correct me if I am wrong about this?

I thought it was handed in by the family of McCann?

RogerRabbit wrote:

plebgate wrote:I, also, do not understand why the info. cannot be obtained from the police.   The dossier was given first to the police and then to Sky and apparently, according to BHH the police seem to know who gave the dossier to them.

Why should the dossier compiler not be named?  Everyone on the list should be able to demand that their accuser/s be named.  What about their human rights?

It may be that at some future point Brenda's family take civil action.   Would the police have to give that info. to any solicitors acting for the family if this should happen?

It isn't a case of the information not being able to be obtained by the police. That would only matter if the only aim in the coroner's line of enquiry were to simply obtain the information. The coroner is not, it appears in this case, simply cluelessly asking to be informed. This is a game, in many ways. A power game, full of power plays. Like the case in Portugal, like the damages claim in Lisbon, this isn't just about what information can be obtained to fill in blanks... it's about putting pressure in key places, sending key messages, asserting authority and - in this case - I believe the Coroner will not have been naïve enough to believe that Sky and MB would ever capitulate. Everyone knows that journalists protect their sources. Their reputation for doing so is the only thing that affirms their discretion in being able to handle future 'scoops'. Rather, the mere formality of the Coroner publicly requiring the information on the record - even the very act of instructing the police to make the request for it - is the act of establishing Sky/MB as what American legal movies call 'a hostile witness.' It sets in the mind of the observer that from the outset Sky/MB are being regarded with suspicion, as perpetrators or agents of something nasty, and that they're not cooperating but are smugly pleading a defence of their right not only to silence but to impunity. Be under no illusion, this move is not designed to make Sky/MB look good. Quite the opposite. This, whatever the outcome and its implication for this case, has the potential to pick up the baton from Hackgate and develop a new line of assault against Newscorp, and quite probably play right into the hands of Leveson and, with unfortunate coincidence, Hacked Off. It would appear that someone, somewhere, if not by design certainly by opportunism, is going to make a meal of Rupert.

ultimaThule wrote:'Old coot' he may be, but nevertheless he presented Cherie with Tone's head on a plate and this should serve as a example of what Mr Murdoch is capable of should anyone have the temerity to cross him, or get across one of his wives as the case may be, Joss.

ultimaThule wrote:You must be jesting, j.rob.   Rupert is an immensely rich and powerful kingmaker and anyone who attempts to make a meal out of him will find their own head served on a platter before they've had a chance to warm the oven.   .

RogerRabbit wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:You must be jesting, j.rob.   Rupert is an immensely rich and powerful kingmaker and anyone who attempts to make a meal out of him will find their own head served on a platter before they've had a chance to warm the oven.   .

UltimaThule,

The one thing you're underestimating is that there are no shortage of immensely rich and powerful kingmakers in the world, not merely in media but in other fields. There is simply no precedent for believing that any one individual would ever become so almighty as to be untouchable. Even the most powerful and brutal of mafia godfathers inspire no shortage of would-be rivals. When you've climbed as high as you can go in a pyramid of power, and your way up is blocked by a bigger bully, that frustration has a tendency of making the ruthless ever more determined to topple the old man at the top of the heap.

ultimaThule wrote:And the award for 'Most Profuse Liars and Worst Actors in the History of the World' goes to....

j.rob wrote:

RogerRabbit wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:You must be jesting, j.rob.   Rupert is an immensely rich and powerful kingmaker and anyone who attempts to make a meal out of him will find their own head served on a platter before they've had a chance to warm the oven.   .

UltimaThule,

The one thing you're underestimating is that there are no shortage of immensely rich and powerful kingmakers in the world, not merely in media but in other fields. There is simply no precedent for believing that any one individual would ever become so almighty as to be untouchable. Even the most powerful and brutal of mafia godfathers inspire no shortage of would-be rivals. When you've climbed as high as you can go in a pyramid of power, and your way up is blocked by a bigger bully, that frustration has a tendency of making the ruthless ever more determined to topple the old man at the top of the heap.

Indeed. The big think that strikes me about Rupert and his family/acolytes, which came across when the phone hacking stuff was being televised, was that they don't have enough going for them apart from from being rich and powerful.

There are plenty of people around, as RR states, who are rich and powerful but also have more than that. 

Rupert and his son came over poorly when questioned in the hacking case. They came over as being quite shallow, not that bright. Boring. Not passionate about journalism or writing or world issues or anything. They could have been salesmen selling cars. 

There was, imo, nothing that made them stand out as special in any way at all. On the contrary, the did come across a bit like used car salesmen who had been caught doing dodgy deals.

It's incredible that Rupert and his family came to wield so much power over the press. Especially in the UK which has at least some reputation as a country with a free press (okay - that is highly arguable, especially when you consider the role of the BBC which it seems to me is more and more a mouthpiece for the leading party.)

Anyway, Rupert is a bore. The McScam became an out-of-control juggernaut and exceedingly ugly to boot.

Fat ankles and the rest of the Rothley Towers mafia are small fry in the general scheme of things. Although no doubt they all have a lot of dirt they can dish around. Gerry with his medical/nuclear links. No doubt lots of dodgy stuff there, imo.

j.rob wrote:It would seem that Summers and Swan were also keen to promote the idea of nasty trolls hiding under bridges and being mean to the McCanns as one of the Amazon one star reviewers wrote this:


"I was very concerned by the use of the loaded word ‘haters’ to describe those who doubt the McCanns. Chapters 15 and 16 deal with prominent doubters (my preferred word), and the authors' bias comes through.

For example they mention that the website http://mccannfiles.com set up in 2007 by Nigel Moore has long had a donate button and still does now. Why is this negative? They admit that he, according to press reports, gives the website work his virtual full time attention. Isn’t it reasonable for him to suggest that people who use the mass of information he provides make a voluntary donation towards his running costs?"

j.rob wrote:
I still don't understand why they targetted Brenda Leyland, though? She lived near the Mcs. I wonder if they knew (of) each other? Did she have some 'insider info' perhaps? Something about nanny Amy Tierney who I think it is said she was tweeting about shortly before her death. Amy was involved in printing out those early pics, apparently. So perhaps she is a 'key' player?

RogerRabbit wrote:

j.rob wrote:

RogerRabbit wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:You must be jesting, j.rob.   Rupert is an immensely rich and powerful kingmaker and anyone who attempts to make a meal out of him will find their own head served on a platter before they've had a chance to warm the oven.   .

UltimaThule,

The one thing you're underestimating is that there are no shortage of immensely rich and powerful kingmakers in the world, not merely in media but in other fields. There is simply no precedent for believing that any one individual would ever become so almighty as to be untouchable. Even the most powerful and brutal of mafia godfathers inspire no shortage of would-be rivals. When you've climbed as high as you can go in a pyramid of power, and your way up is blocked by a bigger bully, that frustration has a tendency of making the ruthless ever more determined to topple the old man at the top of the heap.

Indeed. The big think that strikes me about Rupert and his family/acolytes, which came across when the phone hacking stuff was being televised, was that they don't have enough going for them apart from from being rich and powerful.

There are plenty of people around, as RR states, who are rich and powerful but also have more than that. 

Rupert and his son came over poorly when questioned in the hacking case. They came over as being quite shallow, not that bright. Boring. Not passionate about journalism or writing or world issues or anything. They could have been salesmen selling cars. 

There was, imo, nothing that made them stand out as special in any way at all. On the contrary, the did come across a bit like used car salesmen who had been caught doing dodgy deals.

It's incredible that Rupert and his family came to wield so much power over the press. Especially in the UK which has at least some reputation as a country with a free press (okay - that is highly arguable, especially when you consider the role of the BBC which it seems to me is more and more a mouthpiece for the leading party.)

Anyway, Rupert is a bore. The McScam became an out-of-control juggernaut and exceedingly ugly to boot.

Fat ankles and the rest of the Rothley Towers mafia are small fry in the general scheme of things. Although no doubt they all have a lot of dirt they can dish around. Gerry with his medical/nuclear links. No doubt lots of dodgy stuff there, imo.

Well, the favourite caricature of Murdoch is the one which got twisted and adapted into the villain character in a James Bond movie - the mogul who makes the news around the world in order to be the one to broadcast it.

We tend to see Murdoch as greater than he actually is.

The nature of his power is this: his stations are watched by millions who are, in turn, fed carefully controlled opinions to adopt.

He gets to make his money, and those in his good graces get to have their agendas aided.

There is no evidence that I've seen which suggests that he has anything even resembling the kind of power wielded in the geopolitics of oil, the geopolitics of minerals, or the geopolitics of nuclear superpower which are fundamentally the prevailing factors dictating foreign policy around the world at present.

Combined with that is the fact that the traditional dominance of Newscorp ventures is diminishing at a rate of knots, Murdoch is arguably already on the defensive and trying to play catchup. The power of media corporations in general is on the decline - even in television and movie production we're now seeing the growth in power and prominence of audacious upstarts to the industry like Amazon and Netflix, who are using the power of their ubiquity and sheer subscriber numbers to fund their own transition into production rather than mere supply and it seems that these are capable of some heavy duty production if shows like Bosch, Black Sails and Vikings are anything to go by. Increasingly consumers are turning to the internet for information and opinion, which places the likes of Google and Microsoft in infinitely higher echelons of power than Newscorp. Sky News is seen generally as a caricature of a politically skewed news station, with reporting which is now barely above a Channel 5 grade show, and essentially the 'exclusive' content which set Sky apart from being a mere content delivery platform has now been eroded to sporting content, which in turn is and will be inevitably diluted further by Sky's need to capitalise on opportunity by selling content packages outside of their self-owned conduit.

What else is left of Newscorp? Movie studios can and do go bust with alarming frequency and while Fox is one of the more secure production stables, it is not immune, although it is certainly the most logical division to be spun off into an entirely independent state. Certainly it's number of billion dollar franchises has been decimated with the departure of Star Wars into Disney ownership.

In essence, Murdoch's power is inevitably tied to the relevance of the businesses he controls, and internet is changing an awful lot awfully quickly.

I can't help but get a picture of a railway magnate fighting against the tide of road and air travel. He's a giant who knows no equal, being slowly bitten to death by smaller, faster creatures, making a lot of noise, roaring and capable of inflicting great damage if he manages to stomp on you, but tiring and weakening to the flood of attacks hitting from all angles.

It doesn't matter how many friends he once had in high establishment places, the treatment he's received over Hackgate, Leveson, the ongoing criminal investigations which implicate Newscorp businesses in corruption and murder, the persistent negative exposure in the public gaze, his cold cynicism, and not only Brendagate, but potentially the colossal fallout if the Met ever get on the same page as the PJ in this case, and how Murdoch enterprises will have to spin and dodge faster than ever before to convince anyone that they were not deliberate agents of lies, but were always on the trail of whatever deceit has taken place...

Murdoch is in a very fragile position, and I doubt that he's making the kind of headlines that are affecting him so profoundly, rather just playing catch up and struggling to keep from capsizing against the power of the waves.

AlexBG wrote:

j.rob wrote:
I still don't understand why they targetted Brenda Leyland, though? She lived near the Mcs. I wonder if they knew (of) each other? Did she have some 'insider info' perhaps? Something about nanny Amy Tierney who I think it is said she was tweeting about shortly before her death. Amy was involved in printing out those early pics, apparently. So perhaps she is a 'key' player?

I've read through the entire archive of Brenda's tweets and haven't found anything which might stand out as obviously earth-shattering although, as you say, it's possible that something she said did hit a raw nerve with TM and we are simply unaware of it.
It's also possible that the archive itself has been edited by forces unknown - this would require access to the site which archived them (unrelated to twitter itself as far as I know).

Brenda was a woman who appears to have been living alone, with no UK-based close family to support her in any legal battles. In addition, nobody was present to bear witness either to her state of mind, or to any events which may have taken place, in the days/hours preceding her death. This is perhaps the real reason why she - of all the people allegedly on the list - was the one chosen.


All just my opinions.

RogerRabbit wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:You must be jesting, j.rob.   Rupert is an immensely rich and powerful kingmaker and anyone who attempts to make a meal out of him will find their own head served on a platter before they've had a chance to warm the oven.   .

UltimaThule,

The one thing you're underestimating is that there are no shortage of immensely rich and powerful kingmakers in the world, not merely in media but in other fields. There is simply no precedent for believing that any one individual would ever become so almighty as to be untouchable. Even the most powerful and brutal of mafia godfathers inspire no shortage of would-be rivals. When you've climbed as high as you can go in a pyramid of power, and your way up is blocked by a bigger bully, that frustration has a tendency of making the ruthless ever more determined to topple the old man at the top of the heap.