Jeremy Vine Show BBC radio 2 today at 12pm

by delly55 24.11.11 8:45

The show is going to be about the horrid press and horrid people needing to stop being horrid to the horrid McCann's! A lot of horrids I know, but it's all horrid you see!

Should be interesting...I wonder if the'll phone in and say just how horrid it all is? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Today on @BBCRadio2 at noon: is it time for people who said horrible things about the McCanns to finally stop. This was what Vine tweeted a while ago. Wink

by Guest 24.11.11 9:33

The last time Vine had a phone in on this subject he never gave anyone a chance to question anything, so I wouldn't bother with it myself delly, but thank you very much for letting us know.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by bristow 24.11.11 13:02

Jeremy Vine is sounding very angry about the 'treatment' of the McCanns, although yesterday he said to a listener that he is not allowed to have opinions, he is paid not to have opinions.
I'm going to have a listen.

by Guest 24.11.11 13:05

That's right. He and others know what side their bread is buttered.

by bristow 24.11.11 13:15

Oh my goodness Nina Mishkov is saying the reason the McCanns were in the paper so much is because Kate was so beautiful and they used her beauty to sell papers!

by Daisy 24.11.11 13:22

bristow wrote:Oh my goodness Nina Mishkov is saying the reason the McCanns were in the paper so much is because Kate was so beautiful and they used her beauty to sell papers!

Nooo! Please tell me you're joking?

by bristow 24.11.11 13:33

Daisy wrote:
bristow wrote:Oh my goodness Nina Mishkov is saying the reason the McCanns were in the paper so much is because Kate was so beautiful and they used her beauty to sell papers!

Nooo! Please tell me you're joking?

I wish I was joking Daisy, it gets worse too.

I will try and put a link up to it, they are having a phone in now.

An optician emailed the show saying very similar to what we do on this site and Jeremy doubts whether he is really an optician as he seems to think it's only ill edcuated and ignorant people who doubt the McCanns!

by mrscee 24.11.11 13:45

I feel like I am going to have a heart attack here- the most annoying thing I have ever heard. Have just emailed the delightful Jeremy to complain about the on-air slandering of this optician. Police state anyone?!!

by Invinoveritas 24.11.11 13:49

Here's a link if anyone is interested:

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

it works outside of the UK

by Daisy 24.11.11 14:23

I think it's pretty clear from everything I've seen or read since the McCann's perfomance yesterday, that the mainstream media (inc Vine - he's just another talking head) have recieved the memo: 'protect the Mccann's at all costs; ignore all the glaring inconsistencies and unanswered questions; elevate this couples status, they are part of the establishment now.'

I've always thought the McCann's were given this (unprecedented) high level of protection in return for something. I'm not quite sure what this 'something' is yet but I definitely believe they've been chosen for a role within the same establishment that's protecting them. I don't think we've seen the last of Kate & Gerry, not by a long chalk. We'll see, time will tell.

by Fred Up 24.11.11 14:37

bristow wrote:Oh my goodness Nina Mishkov is saying the reason the McCanns were in the paper so much is because Kate was so beautiful and they used her beauty to sell papers!

I switched my radio off at this point. I was starting to gag on my lunchtime sandwiches.

by IAmNotMerylStreep 24.11.11 14:40

I usually listen to Jeremy Vine and enjoy the debates.
But that wasn't a debate. He and Nina were singing from the same hymn sheet and telling us what to think or we're vile.
I also switched it off.

by Guest 24.11.11 14:58

Daisy, I can foresee the McCanns - when they have inevitably I feel been cleared by Scotland Yard of any blame or involvement - as roving ambassadors for the U N or patrons of children's and missing persons' charities.

On a good day I see them banged up for fraud at the very least but there are more bad days than good with the McCanns!

As for the Establishment pushing the view that querying the McCanns' version of events means you're mad or vile, words fail me.

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

by Daisy 24.11.11 16:46

Marian wrote:Daisy, I can foresee the McCanns - when they have inevitably I feel been cleared by Scotland Yard of any blame or involvement - as roving ambassadors for the U N or patrons of children's and missing persons' charities.

On a good day I see them banged up for fraud at the very least but there are more bad days than good with the McCanns!

As for the Establishment pushing the view that querying the McCanns' version of events means you're mad or vile, words fail me.

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

Your foresight makes a lot of sense to me Marian. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] But first it seems they have the job of spearheading the campaign to shut down free speech on the net (this very forum being an obvious target). That's one message I got from yesterday. Of course they didn't actually say this (it was hinted at) but as we all know, they have the cream of the crop working for them, 'friends' in very high places. The wheels are already very much in motion: The libel cases, the lawsuits, the manipulation of the press, the amalgamating of facebook groups, I could go on & on but you already know all this - they do not want anyone questioning their official version of events.

I don't believe for one moment that all is lost though. They are underestimating the general public. I found it quite telling yesterday when most of the mainstream media reports had their comments sections turned off. The Daily Mail were taking comments but they were so heavily censored/moderated it was a farce! I tried three times to post what I believed to be non controversial, sensible comments, to no avail. How many more people like me didn't get published? Yet flurries of supportive comments were allowed through. The divide between opinions and the scoring of the comments ended up being pretty bizarre to analyse tbh. (link below).

I say, let these talking heads/repeaters (that's all they are - they repeat a script) get on with it. Let them continue trying to force the McCann's = victims agenda, that will only serve to make people more suspicious. This could spectacularly backfire on them.

Just for the record, I don't know one single person that believes the McCann's official story. Like I said, they're seriously underestimating people. All just my opinion of course. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

by mrscee 24.11.11 16:49

I have wasted 5 minutes of my life, in addition to the 15 minutes I spent listening to this programme by writing to complain to the BBC about the bias in the show, the way in which they insulted their listeners, and question what agenda they were serving by not in this case hosting an 'expert' taking the opposing view to Myscoff which is the usual format of the show. Don't expect any reply, but I had to at least write down my frustration. The whole thing is scary.

by pauline 24.11.11 17:15

mrscee wrote:I have wasted 5 minutes of my life, in addition to the 15 minutes I spent listening to this programme by writing to complain to the BBC about the bias in the show, the way in which they insulted their listeners, and question what agenda they were serving by not in this case hosting an 'expert' taking the opposing view to Myscoff which is the usual format of the show. Don't expect any reply, but I had to at least write down my frustration. The whole thing is scary.

I agree having just listened to the show. where you have one person putting a strong point of view, the professional way to deal with this is for the presenter to take a polite but firm questioning attitude towards the guest. Vine allowed her to say to every critical comment that the caller should see a doctor to work thro the issues he/she obviously had. Vine agreed with her. These listeners were insulted and i hope they complain to the BBC. I never heard anything like this. He let her away with factual errors - he probably didn't know the truth anyway.

It was a classic of bad journalism. now everyone is evil if they have a different view to yours.

After the interview was over there was a supportive caller Jackie Johnston on the line telling the listeners to 'read the book because the truth is there. They were being watched... the evidence is in the book..' The caller had obviously never considered the possibility that the truthful boook might not be truthful and if I emailed in to say that i would be called evil.

by jd 24.11.11 17:39

pauline wrote:Vine allowed her to say to every critical comment that the caller should see a doctor to work thro the issues he/she obviously had. Vine agreed with her

by Liz Eagles 24.11.11 17:41

I've just watched the McCanns at the inquiry. Do they take responsibility for anything? I'm astounded. It's not their fault that their child was 'abducted' when they left her and the twins in an apartment abroad whilst they popped off each night for dinner and dropped them off everyday at various child minding activities. It's not their fault that the Portuguese police viewed them with suspicion. It's not their fault that they were advised by a pr machine within hours of Madeleine's disappearance (oh I noticed Madeleine's name was missing in the inquiry interview). It's not their fault for anything....grrr I could go on. I notice the bloody bracelet was in full view. It's not their fault!!!!!!!!! The inquiry questioning in itself was tame to say the least. At what point do we accept their intellect and at the same time swallow their stupidity? So, they speak well and spend their time consulting with legal and pr people (no stone unturned) I could spit.

by happychick 24.11.11 17:43

I found it very insulting that just because I don't believe the McCanns then I am requested to see my doctor and get medical help and talk through my own issues. That is exactly what the Pro's on JaTYK say. Maybe Nina is BB1 or rosiepops?

Thing is, the McCanns keep tripping themselves up with their lies, even in print and official police statements, so why is it so awful that I don't believe them? I don't understand what's going on with this pair and all the people who protect them and expect us to be brainwashed by them all. Is it all about the wider agenda and, if so, what is the wider agenda?

by aiyoyo 24.11.11 17:43

Fred Up wrote:
bristow wrote:Oh my goodness Nina Mishkov is saying the reason the McCanns were in the paper so much is because Kate was so beautiful and they used her beauty to sell papers!

I switched my radio off at this point. I was starting to gag on my lunchtime sandwiches.

I wonder what 'adjective' Nina will use when kate is charged?
Would it be even evil is beautiful or would it be the witch with a beautiful monster inside her belly?
Or would it she's a she devil? magic number 666 or even 'pure' evil?

by jd 24.11.11 17:48

happychick wrote:I don't understand what's going on with this pair and all the people who protect them and expect us to be brainwashed by them all. Is it all about the wider agenda and, if so, what is the wider agenda?

This I can assure you we will find out. They could not have made it any more clearer that there is a wider agenda going on, and the ones who can really do something about it are probably being very quiet right now and will strike when the time is right to

by Liz Eagles 24.11.11 18:35

wasn't Nina the woman who always wore pink and spouted scathing remarks?

by mrscee 24.11.11 18:51

@ aquila. Yes, I believe she did always used to wear pink. And very scathing. One might even go so far as to call her a rent-a-gob, if one were feeling very unkind, 'vile' and 'spiteful' . [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by anil39200 24.11.11 19:16

Hello all and I am so glad there is fighting spirit here on this forum. I have never regarded Nina Mishkov as a serious anything any way so her opinions are pretty well irrelevant to me, but I am surprised at Jeremy Vine, although not being a regular listener I dont really know what he is like normally. I have watched him on panorama and eggheads, and he seems quite competent there as a presenter, but there clearly seems to be an effort by good old Aunty Beeb to maintain the idea that the dire duo are innocent and their"version" of the "truth" is the only credible one. I must admit I have never known a situation like this in over 50 years where a couple of so called ordinary people are protected by virtually everyone who is famous. I am really thankful that there is a forum like this for people of sound mind and as far as I can see, on the right track with this, and I have certainly not encountered anyone "vile" since joining this forum. I have read some of the garbage on some of the so called supporters forums and the hogwash on the facebook page and cannot say the same. The issue to me is still neglect and I wonder if there are people in PDL or Rothley who would be prepared to put forward the real version of what went on, because people here are certainly having the wool pulled over their eyes

Keep up the good work and the questions everyone and I hope that one day this shameful scam will be seen for what it is.

How small children could be left alone and the parents almost feted as celebs is to me both obscene and disgraceful.

I feel they must have something on someone because I have seen not one shred of evidence to back up their "story" , now that cannot be right.

Poor Madeleine and poor twins having to be subjected to perpetual lies.