Hansard - UK Government public records regarding Madeleine

by DurhamGuy1967 21.06.14 19:38

Hansard is a documented record of every word spoken in UK parliment and government commites and written replies to questions.

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

A search on Madeleine McCann produces surprisingly few hits and makes me wonder how much of the so called support by the UK government to the McCanns is purely McCann spin.

One document does stand out , a memo from the McCann foundation
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Worth a read ...some highlights.

'Abduction' has frequently been claimed by parents of young children when it later turns out that he child has died and the parents are responsible, whether the child has died as the result of an accident, negligence, neglect or deliberate act. It is important that the media are able to engage in reasonable and fair discussion of the weaknesses of any particular claim of abduction, without fearing the consequences of a possible expensive libel action.

......

Viewpoint A: Madeleine McCann was abducted at round about 9.15pm on Thursday 3 May while her parents and their friends were dining at a Tapas bar 120 yards away

7. This has been the claim of the McCanns from their first announcement that Madeleine had been abducted at around 10.00pm on Thursday 3^rd May 2007. The 'fact' of the abduction was put into the media with lightning speed. The Daily Telegraph had an online article, reporting the 'fact' of the abduction, filed at 00.01am on Friday 4^th May. TV and press reports giving details of how and when Madeleine was supposed to have been abducted circulated and multiplied rapidly.

8. During the course of 2007 it became clear that the McCanns were claiming the abduction took place at around 9.15pm on 3^rd May 2007. In September 2007 Dr Gerry McCann - as several papers reported - publicly suggested that the abductor might have been in the apartment with him as he was checking the children between 9.05pm and 9.10pm. What we claim is the weakness of the evidence for the abduction is the focus of our booklet: "What Really happened to Madeleine McCann" and the Committee is respectfully referred to the facts and arguments there.
......
11b. The blood-hound Keela also alerted to blood in several of the same locations. The Sun newspaper published a link to the 'cadaver dog videos' on its internet edition. Other newspapers have since done so. The cadaver dog evidence is discussed on pages 6-9 of our booklet. Given the claim by the dog-handler and his senior officer, Mark Harrison, that the cadaver dog Eddie who detects the smell of human corpses had never once given a false positive in 200 previous outings, it was scarcely surprising that the British media sought to give prominence to the dogs' findings. They should not be criticised for that.

by Liz Eagles 21.06.14 20:13

Very interesting DurhamGuy1967.

What's even more interesting is that the pink person who has spun for a Labour government and then McCanns is now welcomed into the bosom of the Tory Party as a PPS.

P.S. There's surely much more in Hansard than you've quoted. They were the darlings of the parliamentary discussion in the Leveson Inquiry on both sides of the House. Milliband couldn't get enough of singing their praises whilst Cameron uttered their names at how atrociously they had been treated. Both sides of the House championing the McCanns.

by Guest 21.06.14 20:24

aquila wrote:

P.S. There's surely much more in Hansard than you've quoted. They were the darlings of the parliamentary discussion in the Leveson Inquiry on both sides of the House. Milliband couldn't get enough of singing their praises whilst Cameron uttered their names at how atrociously they had been treated. Both sides of the House championing the McCanns.

Surely every word ever spoken in parliament and it's sub-commitees can't be reproduced? That wouldn't be 'helpful' to an awful lot of agendas. 'History' is just the version they wanted us to know. His story.

Edited? Or whooshed?

by DurhamGuy1967 21.06.14 21:28

Dee Coy wrote:
aquila wrote:

P.S. There's surely much more in Hansard than you've quoted. They were the darlings of the parliamentary discussion in the Leveson Inquiry on both sides of the House. Milliband couldn't get enough of singing their praises whilst Cameron uttered their names at how atrociously they had been treated. Both sides of the House championing the McCanns.

Surely every word ever spoken in parliament and it's sub-commitees can't be reproduced? That wouldn't be 'helpful' to an awful lot of agendas. 'History' is just the version they wanted us to know. His story.

Edited? Or whooshed?

Hansard is a written record at the time. Written in stone. It's not rewritten later to reflect a version or interpretation of past events. And yes , every word is recorded.

by Liz Eagles 21.06.14 21:34

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
aquila wrote:

P.S. There's surely much more in Hansard than you've quoted. They were the darlings of the parliamentary discussion in the Leveson Inquiry on both sides of the House. Milliband couldn't get enough of singing their praises whilst Cameron uttered their names at how atrociously they had been treated. Both sides of the House championing the McCanns.

Surely every word ever spoken in parliament and it's sub-commitees can't be reproduced? That wouldn't be 'helpful' to an awful lot of agendas. 'History' is just the version they wanted us to know. His story.

Edited? Or whooshed?
Hansard is a written record at the time. Written in stone. It's not rewritten later to reflect a version or interpretation of past events. And yes , every word is recorded.

Would it be possible for you to quote the Leveson Inquiry parliamentary discussion in Hansard with regards to the McCanns?

I spent an entire day watching the televised 'discussion'.

The McCanns were imo given undue noteworthiness in the House.

Thanks DurhamGuy1967. Very interesting.

by Guest 21.06.14 21:56

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
aquila wrote:

P.S. There's surely much more in Hansard than you've quoted. They were the darlings of the parliamentary discussion in the Leveson Inquiry on both sides of the House. Milliband couldn't get enough of singing their praises whilst Cameron uttered their names at how atrociously they had been treated. Both sides of the House championing the McCanns.

Surely every word ever spoken in parliament and it's sub-commitees can't be reproduced? That wouldn't be 'helpful' to an awful lot of agendas. 'History' is just the version they wanted us to know. His story.

Edited? Or whooshed?
Hansard is a written record at the time. Written in stone. It's not rewritten later to reflect a version or interpretation of past events. And yes , every word is recorded.

DurhamGuy, I'm not doubting you but I do find this intriguing and astounding. How can we be so sure this record is free from corruption? And where can we access these files? Bloody fascinating. yes

by Sonmi-451 21.06.14 22:54

Following the link in the original thread comment I see the Hansard Record is a (quality) memo submitted to Parliament by Tony Bennett, (and underwritten by others). However, does this mean any MPs/Ministers are known to have actually seen it, let alone acted upon it?. It would be great to know what happened as a result of Tony's submission? Was the memo ever quoted, discussed or even debated by anyone in Parliament?...and if so what was the outcome?

by lj 22.06.14 1:50

Maybe we should make it clear that Tony has nothing to do with the current posting, that mentioned a certain booklet.

by Sonmi-451 22.06.14 9:52

lj wrote:Maybe we should make it clear that Tony has nothing to do with the current posting, that mentioned a certain booklet.

Hi Lj,
To confirm: Tony hasn't posted in this thread, nor mentioned the booklet. My reading of this thread is that the original post pasted extracts held in Parliamentary records of a memo sent to a Parliamentary Select Committee... and not anything an MP actually said in Parliament. So, since the memo is crystal clear, it'd be highly useful to know if any of our elected representatives "ran with it" as the saying goes. If not, then (if nothing else) that's quite revealing in how spineless and corruptible the Establishment is!

p.s. I'd recommend following the original link from DurhamGuy67 to the memo held in the Parliamentary records... and I've saved the link as I doubt it'll ever be whooshed! winkwink

by juliet 22.06.14 10:10

Hansard records what is said in Parliament. It would not cover the Leveson
inquiry which was not held in Parliament.

by Liz Eagles 22.06.14 10:39

juliet wrote:Hansard records what is said in Parliament. It would not cover the Leveson
inquiry which was not held in Parliament.

There was a parliamentary debate on the results of the Leveson Inquiry. It was most definitely discussed in parliament and most definitely mentioned the McCanns more than in passing.

by Doug D 22.06.14 12:34

Monday 3 December 2012
‘Speaking today in the House of Commons to open a debate on Lord Justice Leveson’s report into press standards, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Maria Miller said…………’

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

so it must all be in Hansard then.

As a separate issue does anybody know whether MP’s appointment and parliamentary diaries get recorded anywhere?

by canada12 22.06.14 12:46

UK Hansard reports are all online here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Search for Madeleine McCann
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Doug D 22.06.14 13:01

Only entries on 3^rd:December (I’ve printed it small so as not to take up too much space as it’s not very interesting!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
4.31 pm
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): Over the past five years, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, which I chair, has examined the issue of the standards and ethics of the press three times. Each time, what we have uncovered has caused us serious concern about the way in which the press operates in this country; we have revealed information that we all found truly shocking.
It is important that we remember the people who have suffered at the hands of the press, including the McCann family, the Dowler family and Christopher Jefferies. However, it is also important to note that all in those cases suffered as a result of breaches of the law. Breaches of the Data Protection Act, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the contempt of court laws and the libel laws were all involved in the suffering of those people.

4.44 pm
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): When Sir David Calcutt produced his second report in 1992, he was damning in his criticism of the lack of serious progress made by the Press Complaints Commission in the previous two years. We in Parliament as well as the press are now reaping the whirlwind of that collective failure. In the intervening years, the Conservatives and then Labour failed to grasp the nettle of press standards. As Lord Justice Leveson makes clear, standards have fallen, not risen, in many, although by no means all, sections of the press. What the McCanns, the Dowler parents, J. K. Rowling and thousands of others have been subjected to should never happen in a society that prides itself on its freedoms, for all these victims have been deprived of the most basic rights of family life and justice to which we are all entitled.

5.21 pm
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): Two questions must be asked of any and every proposal for legislation. The first is what problems it will solve and the second is what problems it will create.
First, the problems that gave rise to the Leveson inquiry were phone hacking, bribing and outrageous criminal libel. Those are already against the law or legal redress exists for them. The problem was a failure to enforce the law. Leveson boldly dismisses those issues in asserting, without adducing any evidence, that
“More rigorous application of the criminal law…does not and will not provide the solution.”
Of course it will. It is now, belatedly, doing so. Scores of people have been arrested and face serious charges. That is a powerful deterrent against any repetition.
The apparatus of independent regulation backed by statute, which Leveson proposes, would have no powers to address the very problems that he was supposed to be dealing with. Indeed, it could not do so, because they are matters for the police and the judiciary. His solution would not have prevented or provided punishment for the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone, the payments to police by the News of the World or the vile libel by the Sunday Express of the McCanns. Indeed, Leveson states in his recommendations that
“The Board should not have the power to prevent publication of any material, by anyone, at any time”.
The board could not, therefore, have stopped that libel.

8.11 pm
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): I want to talk about costs in libel, privacy and other proceedings against the press. This is not an ancillary issue, either in itself or in the context of providing an effective self-regulatory system, according to Lord Justice Leveson. It will require fresh legislation to correct the current state of the law and to give effect to the whole Leveson framework. That is something that Leveson has said, and that the Government have conceded as well.
Prior to the enactment of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, it was possible for persons grievously wronged by the press to sue using conditional fee—no win, no fee—agreements. The McCanns, the Dowlers and Christopher Jefferies used them. On the back of spurious attacks on personal injury claimaints, the Government legislated in part 2 of the LASPO Act to remove the protection from such claimants in bringing libel or privacy claims. They claimed that they were following the recommendations in Lord Justice Jackson’s report on civil litigation costs, but they were not.

by canada12 22.06.14 13:07

I see more than 400 results when I do a search for Madeleine McCann on Hansard. Goes on for quite a lot of pages, starting with the current date and working backwards.

ETA Sorry Doug D I just realized you were only looking at the one date specifically. Oops.