Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

by ChippyM 21.02.16 18:05

Are the tides turning in the press? This is in the DailyMail and she is highlighting the 'Gerry McCann resembling' photofit amongst other things and, she was 'never allowed to say this before', Gerry gives her the creeps, washing cuddle cat and the 48 unanswered questions.

If she was never allowed to say these things before does that mean something has changed to make it safer to say?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3457221/KATIE-HOPKINS-ll-never-know-really-happened-Maddy-parents-accept-share-blame-let-go.html

"
I have never been allowed to say this before.
I’ve been given all sorts of reasons — people who are normally brutally honest with me fobbing me off, arguing I am not bringing anything new to the debate
It’s been a white-out, like the silence of snow.
But seeing the faces of Gerry and Kate McCann yet again this week, promoting the Child Rescue Alert Campaign to track down missing kids, I think it's finally time to speak out.
Kate McCann says she lives in a never-ending limbo.
But I believe the truth is that Madeleine McCann is never coming home.
She is long gone. It is time to stop looking and stop imagining there is some happy ending to this sorry tale. Enough.
There is no amount of money the will right the wrongs of the past, no libel action that will cancel out the damage the McCanns inflicted on themselves.
Kate and Gerry McCann didn't deserve £11million of our cash to look for Maddie or try to resolve their consciences or salvage reputations. Others have greater need.
If you really must blame someone, then Kate and Gerry are right there in front of you. And yet, protected by some invisible force-shield I don’t understand.
Show me a family from a council estate who left their child alone to go out eating and drinking who have been lauded with such support and the protection of the state.
Last year, a father of a two year old was arrested and prosecuted after leaving his daughter in a car for two minutes whilst he ran in to a chemist to buy Calpol.

Even our British broadcaster was in on the act. A Crimewatch Special in 2013 featuring new photo-fits of Maddie’s abductor failed to acknowledge that the McCanns had been sitting on these pictures for nearly five years.
Pictures compiled by their own investigation team whose report they later hid from view when it pointed the finger of blame in a direction Gerry didn't enjoy.
They left their child in an unlocked ground-floor apartment next to two busy roads. Too self-assured to hire a babysitter and too self-centred to care.

The McCanns put their own children in harm’s way. Those kids were in danger. Because of their parents. And as a mum I can’t look at Gerry McCann — a man his wife says can ‘switch off’ from grief — without the hairs on my arms standing on end.
Kate was no better. There were 48 police questions Kate McCann refused to answer after Maddie was gone. Surely if you wanted to find your child you would give anything, tell police everything you knew, offer anything you had?
We are not the police. We cannot pretend to know what really went on.
What happened that night will remain a mystery and someone will take the truth to their grave
But we can understand as parents how we would feel if it happened to us.
Any mother who has lost her child even for a heartbeat understands how horrifying it is.

The prickle under the armpit, the sudden silence in a noisy shopping centre, the blind panic. Running through treacle while time stands still.
Waiting for a little face to show itself, telling her off when she reappears because you love her so much you can’t bear for her to be lost even for a second. And in that second you imagined the very worst.
When your first baby is born you join a special group of people – a group whose lives have been transformed.
That first morning in hospital you understand the enormity of your new responsibility to keep another little part of you alive. You have accepted The Fear.
Suddenly the life you knew before is transformed, filled with all the bad things that could happen to your baby. Jabs which go wrong. Death in a cot for no reason. Spots on the chest which don’t go away under glass.
You live every second with The Fear that your baby will be taken from you, or die before you and upset the natural order of life turning everything you trusted into a lie.
I still live in dread of my children’s lives being shortened, that someone might take them from me, strip away the thing I would happily hand over my own life to sustain.
I tell them to shout fire if someone grabs them. And I will never need them to get in a strangers car, no matter what they say.
Others give their children phones, hoping these will keep them safe, imagining them to be protection from predators roaming our streets looking for baby prey.
Mine sleep with the soft toy bunnies they have had since the day they were born. Not so cuddly now, mostly rags at best.

But rags which I will keep if I live to watch my children grow old. They are keepsakes of another time, when my kids were chubby and twitchy in their cots, when they needed me more fundamentally.
For warmth and food, cuddles for tears and encouragement to be brave.
And when they leave me for families of their own, for every day I wished I didn’t have to do the school run, there will be a thousand more when I am grateful that I did, knowing I kept them safe.
But now the faces I associate with neglect are being used to promote the Child Rescue Alert campaign.
And I am sorry, but I am not buying it.
Because nothing in this story reads well to the mum in me. Or the dad if that's you.
Leaving your babies alone, too far away to see. Knowing your daughter is gone and still able to play tennis. Taking her little bed-time toy, Cuddle Cat, with the last smell of their daughter, and putting it in the wash just five days after she vanished into the night.
I speak to people who have lost parents and cannot bear to wipe messages from their answer machine because it’s something to hold on to. They keep them just to feel close.
Some even call their mothers’ phone, just to hear it ring and imagine she might there to say ‘sleep tight’ one last time.
I would put Cuddle Cat under my pillow every night to be close to the baby I lost. Not wash its memories away.
The night before she became a memory, Maddie asked her mother, ‘Why did you not come when Sean and I cried last night?
I’d ask her the same question now. How did you leave the daughter you longed to have?
Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found."

by loopzdaloop 21.02.16 18:25

One of my friends posted this on facebook who I've not known to question the Mccann's story before.

For me the most interesting bit is:

"I have never been allowed to say this before"

we all know why. Hello Carter Ruck, Hello Aunty Phil. spin

I imagine people are googling right now to find out what these 48 questions are.

by Joannep43 21.02.16 18:25

This article isn't saying anything that hasn't been said before.Katie Hopkins is verbalising her maternal side how our natural instincts as parents are to protect our children.The whole article is about the "neglect " it's validating the abduction theory .

by **sharonl** 21.02.16 18:30

Not a bad article but again this is in the McCanns favour - promoting the line that Madeleine disappeared whilst her parent were out. The bottom line says it all really:

"Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found."

Abducted then? Sorry Kate, I am not buying this.

by ChippyM 21.02.16 18:31

Joannep43 wrote:This article isn't saying anything that hasn't been said before.Katie Hopkins is verbalising her maternal side how our natural instincts as parents are to protect our children.The whole article is about the "neglect " it's validating the abduction theory .

This may have been said before but not in the mainstream press.

It also points out in a subtle way that the E-fit looked like Gerry and the McCanns are to blame for something, it points out that it was odd for a mother to wash her missing daughters toy.

imo. the abduction stuff is a small part of the article and just there as a precaution rather than going all out with the accusation of a crime.

by ChippyM 21.02.16 18:33

loopzdaloop wrote:One of my friends posted this on facebook who I've not known to question the Mccann's story before.

For me the most interesting bit is:

"I have never been allowed to say this before"

we all know why. Hello Carter Ruck, Hello Aunty Phil.

I imagine people are googling right now to find out what these 48 questions are.

i hope people are googling the 'Gerry McCann' efit too!

by Joannep43 21.02.16 18:37

@chippyM I agree it's an article that will certainly get people talking.I will have to respectfully disagree the "neglect" is what this article is about.

by ChippyM 21.02.16 18:47

Se

Joannep43 wrote:@chippyM I agree it's an article that will certainly get people talking.I will have to respectfully disagree the "neglect" is what this article is about.

Yes I understand your point of view. I think the article on balance is against them but the question is whether the entirety of what she is blaming them for is neglect or a more serious crime.

Yet If she wanted to point the finger at them for being just neglectful and promote an abductor, why point out Gerry makes her skin crawl, the 48 unanswered questions, the crimewatch efit, or that she has never been allowed to write this until now? Why IS she able to write this now?

by loopzdaloop 21.02.16 18:58

Joannep43 wrote:This article isn't saying anything that hasn't been said before.Katie Hopkins is verbalising her maternal side how our natural instincts as parents are to protect our children.The whole article is about the "neglect " it's validating the abduction theory .

You might wish to have a review of the article or a google yourself as to what the 48 questions are about.
There is no way anyone reading that won't wonder what the 48 questions are once the seed of 'neglect' is planted.

They will then discover stronger alternatives to 'neglect - abduction' (which equates to creationism).
There is 'drugged - neglect - wake up - smash head open on floor - die - cover it up to save face' which people will discover when they read something of Goncalo Amaral or work out why dogs were signalling in specific places.

'Lost' is cleverly chosen as it also an euphemism for death.

by noddy100 21.02.16 19:03

I don't think its about neglect either as she mentions the washing of cuddle cat as something a parent would never do
Unless???

by Joannep43 21.02.16 19:05

Why point out Gerry makes her skin crawl? Katie Hopkins is saying as a mum she can't look him in the eye, because of the neglect ...out at the Tapas bar.?
The 48 questions have been talked about many times in the MSM.
She's able to write this now because there has been a high percentage of negative comments in newspaper articles,social media etc against the McCanns from recent press.
The abduction theory is being validated here in her article because she is saying they were neglectful and left Madeleine to be found

by noddy100 21.02.16 19:10

Considering how the sued the Express though I would think other editors would take a wide berth from this no matter what as newspapers are already losing circulation
and don't need further expense and negativity
Someone has let her write this long and fairly detailed articles and on twitter she is not shying from questions and has mentioned the files and someone has linked them so many will see this

by ChippyM 21.02.16 19:16

Yes I think the word 'lost' was cleverly chosen.

Could these words be chosen so carefully because people in the media have learned that some kind of legal proceedings may be coming but they can't possibly say what a court would decide. There's wishful thinking for you ! smilie

On the other hand, maybe they think the investigation will close and declare it all the greatest mystery of our time, unsolvable by our 'elite' forces never to be questioned again. K and G will act like they are devastated but sigh with relief and never have to sue anyone ever again...so KH decided to have a last dig...who knows?

by Joannep43 21.02.16 19:27

It comes across to me as if it's a closing piece designed to say to the public "we will never know what happened to Madeliene and her parents Were wrong to leave her alone."
So there it is ,the whole article about neglect,and while we are listening to a softer side of Katie Hopkins she is reinforcing the abduction theory .Which she has been paid to do.

by noddy100 21.02.16 19:30

Joannep43 wrote:It comes across to me as if it's a closing piece designed to say to the public "we will never know what happened to Madeliene and her parents Were wrong to leave her alone."
So there it is ,the whole article about neglect,and while we are listening to a softer side of Katie Hopkins she is reinforcing the abduction theory .Which she has been paid to do.

There was a time when I would have agreed but now I think people will fish around to 'check' some of what she has said

by Joannep43 21.02.16 19:36

@noddy100 I fully agree it will encourage others to check out what she had said.However in my opinion the whole gist of the article is in support of
the McCanns.

by ChippyM 21.02.16 19:37

Joannep43 wrote:ŴWhy point out Gerry makes her skin crawl? Katie Hopkins is saying as a mum she can't look him in the eye, because of the neglect ...out at the Tapas bar.?
The 48 questions have been talked about many times in the MSM.
She's able to write this now because there has been a high percentage of negative comments in newspaper articles,social media etc against the McCanns from recent press.
The abduction theory is being validated here in her article because she is saying they were neglectful and left Madeleine to be found

I think you are taking it literally in some parts that are just incidental really. i get that she is writing from a parents point of view but that is not the weight of the whole article. You can't say the 'whole article' is about neglect when it clearly isn't.

It seems quite obvious to me that she thinks they were not just neglectful and is using the 'normal parents' point of view in order to appeal to a readership that she knows value the same things, to get them on side. Don't forget that a huge lump of her readership still think these poor parents were the victim of a mythical villain and have never heard the other side of things.

If she wanted to promote the abduction theory she would play on peoples fear of the near mythical child sex attacker/ smelly burglar/ gypsy abductors that all the other articles do. iF she wanted to promote an abductor there is no need to infer Gerry looking like the efit is there ? nah

by Joannep43 21.02.16 19:50

@ chippyM ok I hear what you are saying and I don't have all the answers just my opinion.
You are right she is writing the article from parents point of view and that is how she is reeling in the reader.I feel she is appealing to parents by saying we should protect our children and they did not.
Therefore the appeal to her readership is to believe the neglect .
Katie Hopkins doesn't need to mention any mythical abductors she has told her readers in the last sentence, Madeleine was waiting to be found due to the McCanns neglect.

by sonic72 21.02.16 20:36

It's a strange article, these lines stick out.

"I have never been allowed to say this before"

"Others give their children phones, hoping these will keep them safe, imagining them to be protection from predators roaming our streets looking for baby prey"

"Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found"

Maybe she's naive to all the facts, or has come to a different conclusion? Or maybe as mentioned she's subtly reinforcing the abduction theory?
If she's reinforcing the abduction theory she could have left out all the negative stuff, so I'm a bit puzzled by the conflictions in the article.

by pennylane 21.02.16 20:42

sonic72 wrote:It's a strange article, these lines stick out.

"I have never been allowed to say this before"

"Others give their children phones, hoping these will keep them safe, imagining them to be protection from predators roaming our streets looking for baby prey"

"Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found"

Maybe she's naive to all the facts, or has come to a different conclusion? Or maybe as mentioned she's subtly reinforcing the abduction theory?
If she's reinforcing the abduction theory she could have left out all the negative stuff, so I'm a bit puzzled by the conflictions in the article.

I think she probably is naive to all the facts, sonic

by ChippyM 21.02.16 20:47

Joannep43 wrote: ŴA@ chippyM ok I hear what you are saying and I don't have all the answers just my opinion.
You are right she is writing the article from parents point of view and that is how she is reeling in the reader.I feel she is appealing to parents by saying we should protect our children and they did not.
Therefore the appeal to her readership is to believe the neglect .
Katie Hopkins doesn't need to mention any mythical abductors she has told her readers in the last sentence, Madeleine was waiting to be found due to the McCanns neglect.

On balance she mentions plenty of things unnecessary to the 'abduction theory', She has no need to mention the 48 questions, the holding back of information or washing cuddle cat at all. She could have wrote the whole article about that night and their version of it, how she believed it happened but it was neglectful and left it at that.

As loopzdaloop pointed out the last sentence is ambiguous as 'lost' is a word used by people to describe a death. With her hinting at Kate not answering the questions, (ie hiding information) and Gerry looking like a suspect that was carrying a child, what does that add up to? ...but yes we will have to agree to disagree smilie

.

The 'predators roaming our streets looking for baby prey' bit could be a bit tongue in cheek, ie. It's been exploited and exaggerated in this case and she's aware of that?

by Joannep43 21.02.16 21:11

Katie Hopkins says" Now the faces I associate with NEGLECT are being used to promote child rescue alert campaign"
That's the message she's conveying ,that's the tag line .People will remember that phrase.

by pennylane 21.02.16 21:15

Joannep43 wrote:Katie Hopkins says" Now the faces I associate with NEGLECT are being used to promote child rescue alert campaign"
That's the message she's conveying ,that's the tag line .People will remember that phrase.

Yes that's really spot on isn't it!

by Joannep43 21.02.16 21:18

@ pennylane glad someone agrees with me at last .thanks

by The Rooster 21.02.16 21:20

I don't believe for one minute that Katie Hopkins has written this in support of the McCann's. I hope indeed the papers are freeing up their reporting on this most awful account of parenting.

by Sophiebubbles 21.02.16 21:45

sharonl wrote:Not a bad article but again this is in the McCanns favour - promoting the line that Madeleine disappeared whilst her parent were out. The bottom line says it all really:

"Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found."

Abducted then? Sorry Kate, I am not buying this.

@ sharoni......perhaps Katie Hopkins has her own theory, as we all do as to why Madeleine's is missing The last two lines you speak of to me don't necessary mean as they seem just reading them. As we on this forum, most do not agree with abduction and has been well spoken about, but 'lost to be found' is not perhaps the way one would normally word things, imo. We all know Madeleine was 'found' by someone ,but not necessary an abductor! perhaps 'found' in whatever condition that befell her, by whoever. That was my thinking, as by the time I had read the article I had picked up on a few cleverly worded sentences. It is all my own opinion, but perhaps, you may see what I am trying to say......maybe not, just thought I would share as I do see also where you got your own opinion from reading the article.

by Doug D 21.02.16 21:47

'Soft' approach to gauge public opinion by their 'loose canon' columnist?

Mail on line today, Sunday
PUBLISHED: 16:56, 21 February 2016 | UPDATED: 18:06, 21 February 2016

so it missed todays actual papers.

‘Adverse’ McCann comments are being allowed though which is unusual.

Lost without trace by the time the print editions come out tomorrow? (although doing the rounds on twitter & FB)

It will be interesting to see.

……………………………………………..

As a secondary matter the article says (although this obviously reinforces the underlying ‘neglect/abduction’ story):

‘Even our British broadcaster was in on the act. A Crimewatch Special in 2013 featuring new photo-fits of Maddie’s abductor failed to acknowledge that the McCanns had been sitting on these pictures for nearly five years.
Pictures compiled by their own investigation team whose report they later hid from view when it pointed the finger of blame in a direction Gerry didn't enjoy.’

Is this significantly different from what the Sunday Times reported and then paid the Mc’s £55k in an out of court settlement for, together with their half-hearted apology?

This is the Sunday Times apology posted up by canada12 in August 2014:

Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund
Sunday Times, The (London, England) - Sunday, December 29, 2013
Publisher Notice: Please note: the sentence commencing "We also understand..." should read as follows "We also understand that a copy of the final report including the E-Fits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review".

In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to E-Fits 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 E-Fits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the E-Fits was passed to the police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused.
Edition: 01
Section: News
Page: 2
Record Number: 80705525
(c) Times Newspapers Limited 2013

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10124p40-possible-action-against-the-times?highlight=times+apology

by plebgate 21.02.16 21:54

Well done Katie Hopkins I say for having the guts to say what she thinks.

I agree, it is interesting that she said this is the first time she has been allowed to say something. Why indeed?

by ChippyM 21.02.16 21:56

"Those kids were in danger. Because of their parents. And as a mum I can’t look at Gerry McCann — a man his wife says can ‘switch off’ from grief — without the hairs on my arms standing on end."

And what message is she conveying here? why mention 'Danger', him being able to 'switch off' from grief or hairs standing on end..what things do people associate with hairs standing on end? to me it is not merely someone who left a child in a hotel room whilst they went out for a drink.

by **sharonl** 21.02.16 21:57

Sophiebubbles wrote:
sharonl wrote:Not a bad article but again this is in the McCanns favour - promoting the line that Madeleine disappeared whilst her parent were out. The bottom line says it all really:

"Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found."

Abducted then? Sorry Kate, I am not buying this.

@ sharoni......perhaps Katie Hopkins has her own theory, as we all do as to why Madeleine's is missing The last two lines you speak of to me don't necessary mean as they seem just reading them. As we on this forum, most do not agree with abduction and has been well spoken about, but 'lost to be found' is not perhaps the way one would normally word things, imo. We all know Madeleine was 'found' by someone ,but not necessary an abductor! perhaps 'found' in whatever condition that befell her, by whoever. That was my thinking, as by the time I had read the article I had picked up on a few cleverly worded sentences. It is all my own opinion, but perhaps, you may see what I am trying to say......maybe not, just thought I would share as I do see also where you got your own opinion from reading the article.

You mean like "The night we found her"? winkwink

That would make sense. How strange that this article should come out right now. Perhaps those friends in high places have had enough and realised that they likely to be brought down with the McCanns. How far will go to protect them?

Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.

Latest topics