Gerry's chilling warning

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]‎[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

GERRY'S CHILLING WARNING

On 2 October 2014, Gerry McCann wrote in the Guardian about his treatment at the hands of the press, specifically about the Sunday Times article of October 2013 that claimed that he and his wife had withheld crucial evidence relating to Madeleine's disappearance. The paper was later forced to apologise and correct some of the points in the article and award damages of £55000. It can be no coincidence that this article was printed on the same day that Sky News published its "Troll" report. The two pronged assault on both the press and online doubters, with tragic consequences for one person in particular, Brenda Leyland, aimed to blame the press for the alleged "trolling", while at the same time ruthlessly using it to demonise and vilify people who express doubts about the McCanns' version of events.
"Nearly three years ago my wife, Kate, and I appeared before the Leveson inquiry to talk about the campaign of lies that was waged against us after our daughter Madeleine went missing. We described how our lives had been turned into a soap opera so that newspapers could make money, with no regard for truth, for the distress they were inflicting, or for the damage caused to the search for Madeleine. We asked Lord Justice Leveson to ensure that in future things would be different and that nobody would ever again have to endure the dishonest reporting we experienced, or at least that there would be some quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers.
Nothing has changed since then. Big newspaper companies continue to put sales and profit before truth. The protection for ordinary people is as feeble as it always was.
A year ago, when Kate and I were experiencing a time of renewed hope as the Metropolitan police stepped up its new investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, we received an email late on a Thursday night from the Sunday Times. Its reporter asked us to comment on information he planned to publish. This turned out to be a claim that for five years Kate, I and the directors of Madeleine’s Fund withheld crucial evidence about Madeleine’s disappearance. We rushed to meet his deadline for a response. In the vain hope that the Sunday Times would not publish such a clearly damaging and untrue story, we sent a statement to the newspaper. We denied the main tenet of the story and emphasised that since Madeleine’s disappearance we had fully cooperated with the police and that the directors of Madeleine’s Fund had always acted in her best interest.
However, the Sunday Times went ahead and published the report on its front page, largely ignoring our statement. We tried to settle this matter quickly and without legal action. I wrote to the editor asking for a correction, but all we got in response was an offer to publish a “clarification” and tweak a few lines of the article – but still to continue to publish it on the newspaper’s website. Indeed, further correspondence from the paper only aggravated the distress the original article had caused, created a huge volume of work and forced us to issue a formal complaint to get redress through our lawyers.
Eventually, two months after the article was published, a correction was printed, retracting all the allegations and apologising. But even then – and despite the grotesque nature of what it had falsely alleged on its front page – the apology was on an inside page and the word “apology” was absent from the headline. Since then, it has taken 11 months and the filing of a legal claim to get the Sunday Times to agree to damages, all of which we are donating to charity, and to get our right to tell the public that we had won the case. But the cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there. [Note: In fact, the journalists responsible for the article Gerry refers to, Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert, went on to share the Paul Foot award for journalism in 2014 for their investigation into FIFA corruption]
Nothing will be done to ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to some other unfortunate family – who will probably not have our hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology.
So what has changed in the newspaper industry since the Leveson report two years ago? Absolutely nothing. Newspapers continue to put “stories” before the truth, and without much care for the victims.
They treat the people they write about as if they don’t exist. Wild animals are given more respect. They hide behind talk about the rights of the press while they routinely trash the rights of ordinary people. They constantly claim to stand up to the powerful, but they are the ones with the power, and they use it ruthlessly.
Legal action should be a last resort. A final route when all else has failed. I don’t blame Leveson. He recommended changes that would make a big difference. He wanted a press self-regulator that was not controlled by the big newspaper companies and that had real clout. If a paper told lies about you, you could go to this body and count on fast and fair treatment: it would not just let papers off the hook. More than that, Leveson wanted a cheap, quick arbitration service so that ordinary people did not need to resort to the law. Our experience shows this is a vital reform.
Parliament backed Leveson’s plan. The public backs it. So do we, and almost all the other victims who gave evidence to Leveson. Only one group of people is opposing this change – the perpetrators themselves, the same editors and newspaper owners who were responsible for all that cruelty. Instead of accepting the Leveson plan, these people, including the owner of the Sunday Times, have set up another sham regulator called Ipso, which is designed to do their bidding just like the old, disgraced Press Complaints Commission.
If in another year’s time the press still rejects the royal charter – itself already a compromise – then it will be time for parliament to deliver on the promises the party leaders made, and ensure that what Leveson recommended is actually delivered. Otherwise elements of the press will go on treating people with total contempt. This time, once again, it was Kate and I who were the targets. Next time it could be you."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
-
Next time, in fact at the very SAME time on the same day that this article was published, it was Brenda Leyland who was thrown to the wolves by the same irresponsible press and media who, as Gerry tells us, show "no regard for truth, for the distress they were inflicting".
As Gerry chillingly predicted, reporters and editors - in this case, Martin Brunt and Jonathan Levy of Sky News, followed by the Daily Mail and in turn, all the other newspapers - did indeed "do something similar, soon", to Brenda Leyland. In fact it was much worse than one article in one newspaper. She was vilified all day long, every fifteen minutes on Sky News as the face of the alleged "trolling", (a facetious description of the doubts expressed by thousands of people regarding the discrepancies in the McCanns' version of the events of 207 in Praia Da Luz and the frustrations over the lack of honest reporting by the press). Following the Sky News report, she was subsequently named and her place of residence revealed, first in the Daily Mail, followed by other newspapers. She was dubbed a "twisted, fecked-up bitch" by Carole Malone in her column in the Daily Mirror and became a target of the most vile abuse, hatred and even death threats on Twitter. Her right to privacy, to express an opinion and her right to feel safe in her own home were all "trashed" by media storm unleashed upon her, to the point that, tragically, she felt no other option but to end her life.
Yet what did self-serving, sanctimonious hypocrite, Gerry McCann and his fellow Hacked Off campaigners, e.g. the campaign's founder, Brian Cathcart, have to say about the distress inflicted upon Brenda Leyland? Absolutely nothing. Not a word has been uttered in support of Brenda, nor in criticism of Sky News or any of the newspapers. Even after her death, she was still labelled a "troll". Even when it was revealed at the inquest into her death that none of the tweets she sent were unlawful, did ANYONE in the public eye, far less anyone who claims to care about press behaviour and its effects on ordinary people, speak out.
As Gerry wrote the above attack on the Sunday Times and the rest of the press, there is no doubt that he would have been aware of exactly what was about to be unleashed upon Brenda. It is inconceivable that Sky News would broadcast the "troll" report without the prior approval of the McCanns, given that it would affect his family and perhaps even frighten his twins into believing that they were at risk from alleged yet unproven "death threats". Presumably he and his wife deemed the high profile report less of a risk to their children than the book by Gonçalo Amaral, which Kate McCann claimed in court in Lisbon that her son had heard about on the school bus.
Yet no one has called out this glaring contradiction - that, as Gerry McCann sought to stamp his authority all over the press by decrying their actions, he was intrinsically linked to, or at the very least aware of a major media operation which set out to invade and ultimately destroy the life of an entirley innocent woman, who did nothing more than share her view of one of the biggest news stories - and one of the biggest coverups of modern times.
RIP Brenda Leyland

This would be the same Gerry McCann who paid 500k to keep his fantasy in the press?  The same Gerry who treated us to details of his sex life,  for a handsome fee visit,the same press? Hypocrite doesn't begin to describe him.

I have tried to educate as many people as possible about Brenda. Sadly many people believe that she actually sent the McCanns poison letters, thanks to the pro-McCann media sullying her character. Brenda was a sacrificial lamb in a campaign designed to silence and demonize us all. "Chilling warning" is an appropriate title indeed.

> Since then, it has taken 11 months and the filing of a legal claim to get the Sunday Times to agree to damages, all of which we are donating to charity

Anyone know which charity they donated the damages to, since the fund is not a charity?

Can someone confirm that Gerry McCann wrote a blog? Did it detail his daily life? Was it made publicly available?

Indeed he did worriedmum although all whooshed by him. Luckily most were copied and are available to read.

snook wrote:Indeed he did worriedmum although all whooshed by him. Luckily most were copied and are available to read.

Thanks, Snook. Where were they published originally?

Can you provide a link,please?

Hi, I'm on phone and mobile at mo' so can't do a link. I think he just published a blog initially but then removed it. You can find the blogs at Pamalam's site. Google Gerrymccannsblogs and the site will come up. If you have a problem drop a line here and I will link later when I get to laptop.

Found this ,Snook, hope it is okay to post the link:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But why would you delete them after initially posting by your own  choice?

That's the one!  I have no idea why he deleted unless he realised it contained incriminating statements. Such as his version of the day the PJ went  to search the villa and he made no mention. Or the fabled fridge, hastily deleted.

@snooks wrote:  I see no reason for it not to be true Verdi. The author doesn't comment on the Mc's story and I'm sure the book was libel proofed before publication?

To put it in context - excerpt from The Establishment by Owen Jones

Attempts to scrutinize the Murdoch empire were fiercely resisted by its allies in the British elite, who contrived to say they didn't understand what the fuss was about.  'I don't want to know what happened to the Dowler family and I'm very sorry, but honestly I can't get in a state about it' says Lord Bell, Thatcher's former advisor, chairman of PR giant Bell Pottinger and close ally of the Murdoch empire.  He has long given Murdoch PR advice and advised Rebekah Brooks during the phone-hacking scandal.  'And I'm really not interested in what the McCanns think because the McCanns paid me £500,000 in fees to keep them on the front page of every single newspaper for a  year, which we did'. 

Make of that what you will!  I don't know when or where Lord Bell is supposed to have made the statement about the McCanns, a while back I checked the Leveson Inquiry reports but couldn't find any reference to the McCanns by Lord Bell - I could of course have missed something.

Essentially connected to the Leveson Inquiry - how the McCanns ever managed to muscle in on the action I will never know.  They weren't the victims of the phone hacking scandal so I can only assume they were invited to participate, most likely invited by the organisation primarily under scrutiny - New International.  It's a toss up who paid who - did News International pay certain people to say the right things or did certain people pay News International to say the right things.  News International is the the one with extensive wealth, half a million is but petty cash to them but to certain people it's big money.

I see what you're saying Verdi. If I recall,  but don't quote me,  Jones interviewed Bell.

Get'emGoncalo -

It was an article in the 'New Statesman', by Brian Cathcart, founder of 'Hacked Off ' and currently Professor of Journalism at Kingston University, who claims to be a campaigner for a free and accountable press, and the non-publication of my letter of complaint about it (or anybody else's) that caused me to give up my subscription to that magazine after 50 years. The said piece seemed to me to be short, shallow, misinformed, and peculiarly and astonishingly partisan. 

It is frightening that such a person is teaching future journalists in training.  Whatever happened to independent investigative journalism... a sine qua non for any heathy society in my book.