PeterMac's FREE e-book: Chapter 51 Some random unrelated thoughts

by **Jill Havern** Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:34 pm

CHAPTER 51

SOME RANDOM UNRELATED THOUGHTS

In a week when even the BBC has apologised and paid out a lot of your, the licence payers’ money for the disgraceful conduct and a series of blatant lies and libels by one of their top ‘journalists’ to get a sensational and “exclusive” story, and then covering it up at the highest levels in management for over a quarter of a century, I browsed through other organs of disinformation and junk ‘exclusive’ stories. In some cases “Exclusive” apparently means ‘appearing in no more than five other papers’, (rather like the definition of “top secret” meaning “tell no more than twelve”)
I focussed on some of the nonsense, including lies and libels published over the past 14 years, which continue to be covered up, denied, or simply ignored.

More here:
https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-51-some-random-unrelated.html

by **PeterMac** Tue Jul 26, 2022 9:33 am

It appears Clarke is not altogether happy with this Chapter.
Which is capable of several interpretations !

by CaKeLoveR Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:28 am

May his unhappiness increase tenfold.

by **Jill Havern** Tue Jul 26, 2022 11:08 am

Comment here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/disgracedjournalistjonclarkeolivepress.debunked/posts/570961854743826/

by **PeterMac** Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:50 pm

Perhaps if he stopped publishing lies and libels about people, they might think better of him and his newspaper.
Just a thought.

by **PeterMac** Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:31 am

The day after this Chapter was published and ‘churned’ to various Facebook sites, Clarke responded in characteristic belligerent fashion, denouncing it as lies, and finishing with
“His hatred for the media must have a basis in something…”
which is as we might expect completely untrue.

I do not hate the ‘media’
I am second to none in my admiration for good, and particularly for diligent investigative journalism.
We remember
* Bernstein and Woodward, who brought down a President “the single greatest reporting effort of all time”,

Heather Brooke who spend over five years delving into MPs’ expenses, to reveal when it was finally published (by the Telegraph) that it was a scandal which led to several being imprisoned, others losing their seats, and to a wholesale review of internal systems within the heart of Parliament
Sue Reid whose focus on the Tavistock Clinic has led to its being closed this very week
Nick Davies on the phone hacking scandal
Andrew Norfolk on grooming and trafficking in Northern towns
Claire Newall on the corruption at the heart of FIFA
and many more

What do they have in common ?
They all refused to accept the “Official Story”.
Each one was determined to challenge what they had been told, what the ‘experts” and the politicians and the Police and the Spokesmen were telling them.

That it was just a routine burglary; that all receipts were properly inspected; that this was recognised medial practice and did not cause harm to children . . .

They refused to accept this and to drift away.
And the others ? The hacks who turn up at incidents, ask damn-fool questions to which the answers are obvious anyway, and even more stupid ones which they must know cannot be answered for various reasons of legality, security or common decency ? I do not hate them. I pity and deplore them and the Tabloids which then publish the tripe they write, but I do not hate them.

The gutter press has a place to keep the illiterate masses happy. Page 3 of the Sun was there for a reason.
The News of the World had its infamous place in the order of things, as does the Star and the Record

I reserve my contempt for those who passively accept the official line on anything whilst falsely claiming to be independent and to be investigating. For those who pretend that pursuing a suspect who has already been exonerated is in some way helping an enquiry. For those who by refusing to look at evidence, even as basic as a registration plate on a motor vehicle, and by concealing facts make a saleable stories out of falsehood. For those who fail to do even basic research, invent ‘facts’ to fit a story, or mistake personal prejudice for evidence.

But that is not “hatred’. It may be contempt, pity, despite, scorn or many other things, but not Hatred.
That may be reserved for those who use their publishing power to lie, libel and abuse those who lack adequate means of reply.