New chapter from PeterMac: Decline and Fall of Modern Journalism

by **Jill Havern** 07.08.19 18:10

New chapter from PeterMac:

Decline and Fall of Modern Journalism

One small slip for a man; one giant fall for a profession.

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-34-decline-and-fall-of-modern.html

by Liz Eagles 08.08.19 5:56

Yet another immaculate chapter exposing the heinous lies and deceit surrounding the disappearance of a little girl.

To use the McCann slogan 'Don't give up on me', this forum is in full agreement and doesn't give up in its search for justice.

by **PeterMac** 09.08.19 21:18

One of the strange things about this case is that we can expect the Mccanns and the Tapas7 to change their stories and tell fibs to protect themselves.
That is normal and everyone understands that - especially those who have children or who remember being children
It is part of the human condition.

The whole sequence involving Jon Clarke and the Olive Press goes far beyond this.
It cannot be explained merely as someone making silly off-the-cuff excuses after being found out.
This looks far more like a concerted conspiracy to deceive.

The fact that Clarke has not managed to stick to a consistent script is worrying [perhaps even more so to his handler]
The Tapas7 stuck to their stories, more or less, even when they were shown to be nonsense
and then retired into obscurity.

Clarke could have done that, but chose the route of braggardly and boastful self-aggrandisement
combined with a personal vituperative and mendacious attack on me.

I do not know his motive, though I can suspect.

by Guest 10.08.19 0:49

PeterMac wrote:Clarke could have done that, but chose the route of braggardly and boastful self-aggrandisement
combined with a personal vituperative and mendacious attack on me.

Don't take it personally - he seems to make a habit of denigration.

He's not worth the time nor energy. Certainly not worth jeopardizing your own welfare.

At the end of the day, does anyone really care what he thinks says or does as regards the case of missing Madeleine McCann and/or his undeniable support for the McCann parents?

Risible at best.

by **PeterMac** 10.08.19 8:10

Under normal circumstances, Yes. I would agree.
But there is something about Clarke's involvement in this saga which will not go away
He was clearly paid by the Sun for his articles. For the first 6 months he put nothing in his own paper.
Nothing.
As if he was on a strictly worded contract . . .
And the Sun, and then other papers, have repeated so much of his stuff that it has gone into the National memory, as if it were true.

It was Clarke who said there were no police, no dogs, no forensics, and that no one was taking it seriously.
We all know that was a lie, and the Netflix film proves it beyond any doubt.
But it was said, and widely repeated, and is clearly widely believed to this day.

We still find Commentators holding forth about what the PJ 'should have done' ignoring the fact that they actually did.
This can be laid at Clarke's door.
So what was his motive, and what was the motive of whoever told him what to write ?
And who was it ?
His nonsense started within a very short time of the alleged incident, leading to an unworthy thought that the planning may have taken place some time before.

by Guest 10.08.19 12:24

Points taken.

The Sun has been deeply involved in press coverage of this case and a whole lot more. Professor McCann's guest appearance at the police bravery awards springs to mind.

It could be said Jon Clarke hasn't a clue what he's about - a sort of Mr Kandohla who flies in the face of evidence and intelligence. Maybe this was only a lucrative step up the career ladder or maybe the infamous Brian Kennedy was/is his benefactor. I only say this because of the Spanish connection i.e. Metodo3 and fake sightings across the country.

You've got me hooked now. Keep it coming ....

by **PeterMac** 10.08.19 16:29

He may be an innocent dupe. A useful idiot paid or sponsored by News Corp to publish stories to order
and to maintain falsehoods even in the teeth of video evidence proving him to be a liar.

But he is not stupid.
He runs a paper with a lot of staff, attracting huge income from advertisers, and published the resulting Ad-sheet with as much nonsense
'copy and paste' . editorial as he can cram in.

On any test that takes quite a bit of doing.

During our last meeting, many years ago, when he came over and we had a couple of beers each on the terrace over my pool he was totally normal, and behaved perfectly properly as one educated person would to another.
I gave him a copy of TB's 50 reasons, and he promised to look at it.
He said then that he accepted I knew far more about the case than he did, for the simple reason that he had hundreds of stories to work on , and I had only one.

His subsequent published aggression is strange.
Almost as if someone had told him to try to discredit me by any means available - and the only thing he has left is ad hom. abuse
since the facts are against him.

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts.
If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
— Carl Sandburg