'I don't recall' - David Cameron and his foggy memory at the Leveson Inquiry

Putting this here, just for now, just look at how many times he can't recall, excellent piece.........



'I don't recall' - David Cameron and his foggy memory at the Leveson Inquiry


David Cameron's memory appeared to fail him as he gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.






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

(Clockwise from top left) James Murdoch, Prime Minister David Cameron, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson





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

2:32PM BST 14 Jun 2012

On being a special adviser


Jay: In your dealings with third parties, to what extent, if ever, did you offer an opinion which was not the opinion of your minister, without making it clear that it wasn't?

Cameron: Well, it's quite a long time ago, so it's hard to remember all the interactions I had... On occasions I'm sure I would have made clear to people my own view about something, but I can't think of particular instances.


Did he discuss the Information Commissioner's report on unlawful data access at dinner with Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail editor, in 2006?


Cameron: I don't remember, I'm afraid. I can't even remember where the dinner was. I think also he's had dinner in my home as well. The trouble with that one is I can't remember where it was, let alone what we talked about.


On meeting Matthew Freud and Rebekah Brooks on Rupert Murdoch's yacht in Santorini


Cameron: My memory is it came together quite quickly. I seem to remember I was on some tour day around the country. I got a call or a text from Matthew. I was just about to go off to Georgia, to visit Georgia at the time of the Russian invasion, and it just seemed like a possible opportunity to link up and - but I seem to remember it all came together very quickly at the last minute. But I might have got it wrong.

Jay: We know that Rebekah Wade was there, but did you have a conversation with her about this before you flew out or not?

Cameron: I don't recall that, I'm afraid.

On lunch with James Murdoch in 2009

Jay: Would you think it's possible on that occasion that you discussed regulatory issues, including Ofcom and the BBC?

Cameron: Well, I don't recall what was discussed directly at the lunch. I'm sure that over the years I've discussed some of those issues with James Murdoch. He has very strong views on them, I have very strong views, they're not really the same views, and I'm sure we would have had discussions about it. Perhaps particularly -- well, I think probably on both. I don't recall the specifics, but I'm sure we must have discussed our views.

Jay: This was a few months before his MacTaggart lecture, which was delivered in late August 2009. Did you have any discussions with him about the subject matter of that lecture, either before he gave it or afterwards?

Cameron: Not to my memory, no. I think these would have been... you know, as I say, most of these meetings were really about me trying to promote Conservative policy, the Conservative approach and the rest of it, but sometimes because I'm interested in media issues and have longstanding views on them, sometimes I'm sure we would have discussed them.

On lunch with Sun editor Dominic Mohan in 2009

Jay: Do you think on that occasion the issue of support of the Sun for you and your party was discussed or not?

Cameron: I wouldn't -- I don't recall. By this stage obviously I was making arguments that Sun readers were coming over to the Conservatives and our approach was what the country needed and all the rest of it, but I don't remember the specifics of that conversation, no.

On dinner with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks in 2009, following a drink with James Murdoch at which he said the Sun would back Cameron.

Jay: Can you remember anything about where the political issues, perhaps regulatory issues were discussed on that occasion?

Cameron: I don't particularly recall what was discussed then, no.

Jay: But for support the upcoming support of the Sun is likely to have been mentioned, isn't it?

Cameron: Yes. I think I'm trying to remember the exact date of the Labour conference.

Jay: I think we're onto about 27 or 28 September.

Cameron: Right. I expect that would have been discussed. In terms of what the Sun was going to do, it was - but I don't... I remember the drink, I remember what he said about the Sun supporting the Conservatives. I don't particularly remember the dinner.

Jay: Rightly or wrongly, the Sun had timed it for maximum political damage to Mr Brown's government, that goes without saying. It seems at least plausible again that that sort of point was discussed on this occasion. Would you agree?

Cameron: As I say, I recall the drink, I don't recall the dinner.

On meeting Rupert Murdoch in December 2009

Jay: Can you remember anything about that conversation, particularly about the change of support?

Cameron: Not particularly. I mean, in most of my lunches or breakfasts with Rupert Murdoch, the conversation has always been predominantly about economic issues, security geo-political issues, he was very interested in what was happening in Afghanistan, very interested in global markets.

On when Cameron realised Rebekah Brooks backed the Tories

Jay: When did you think Mrs Brooks was on onside? Six months, a year?

Cameron: I would have to go through my diary and try and remember the... but I can't give you a date.

Jay: Not even a sense of when it might have been? Was it months, was it weeks, was it years?

Cameron: I don't want to get it wrong. It certainly wasn't weeks. It was I think more than that. But I can't really give you any more than that.

Did Rekebah Brooks ask Cameron to open a police review into the Maddie McCann case?

Jay: Were you asked by Mrs Brooks to support or indeed cause to take place a review of the McCann case within the Metropolitan Police?

Cameron: I don't recall the exact provenance of this whole issue. What I remember is that I had a meeting with Kate and Gerry McCann as Leader of the Opposition, and anyone who's met them or obviously read about the story, you can't fail to be incredibly moved by what has happened to them and all the efforts they've made to try and get Madeleine back, and I followed this up as Prime Minister, but I can't remember the exact provenance of who called who and when, and what have you, but I think it was... the police clearly had played a role in trying to keep the investigation going, and the Government has helped them with that.

Jay: But in terms of any interaction between you and Mrs Brooks, was it drawn to your attention that Mrs Brooks went to see two of your special advisers, I think on 11 May?

Cameron: I don't recall. It might well have been. I don't recall the exact conversations.

About hiring Andy Coulson, and what they asked him about phone hacking

Jay: Mr Osborne's evidence was that he asked for and obtained assurances. Were you aware of that?

Cameron: I don't recall, but if George says that, I have no reason to doubt it.

...

Jay: You say that you are sure that you would have discussed his appointment with Rebekah Wade. To be clear, by this time, it's May 2007, would you have counted her as amongst your friends?

Cameron: Yes. I think I would. As I say in the evidence, I can't recall when I discussed it with her, whether it was before, during or after, but I'm sure I would have at some stage had a conversation with her about it.

Jay: Can you remember how many conversations?

Cameron: No

...

Jay: Sometimes discussions of these nature go into people's character and integrity. Do you think you had a discussion along those lines with Mrs Brooks about Mr Coulson?

Cameron: I'm afraid I don't... I don't recall. But I think the most important thing I would have wanted to know is would he be good at the job.

Did David Cameron ask Andy Coulson about phone hacking by phone while on holiday in Cornwall, or in person at his office in Westminster, or both?

Cameron: My recollection is that I raised the issue of phone hacking and sought the assurance in the face-to-face meeting we had in my office. That's my recollection. I vaguely remember the further telephone call, but that's - I've obviously racked my brains to try and remember exactly the sequencing, but my recollection is that I knew it was very important that I needed to ask hinm that question, and therefore did so, as it says in my evidence...

...

When did Andy Coulson repeat his assurances about phone hacking?

Jay: And to be clear, the repetition of the assurance, was it sought in a face-to-face meeting or phone call or by some other means?

Cameron: To the best of my recollection, although it's very difficult to do the specifics on this, the best of my recollection it was because of the impending Select Committee hearing, and I think... obviously the embarrassment there was that he was being taken through a Select Committee hearing while he was working for me, and it was in that context that I think we had this discussion.

Jay: I'm sure it was in that context, but just the means of communication.

Cameron: I don't recall.

Jay: Call him into your office, phone call, can you recall?

Cameron: I don't recall.

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

Shame cameron didnt read the files before he pledged all this money to find Madeleine,not that Madeleine doesnt deserve to be found just that there are so many other children that could do with a bit of help.

and the bit in red makes me sick,another couple who have pulled the wool over camerons eyes,seems he,s not a very good judge of people.

I was listening to David Cameron earlier at The Leveson Inquiry.

He was talking about a meeting with the McCanns, where they told him about

all they had been through since "losing....err.....Millie" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

mank wrote:I was listening to David Cameron earlier at The Leveson Inquiry.

He was talking about a meeting with the McCanns, where they told him about

all they had been through since "losing....err.....Millie" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He called her Millie?
And Gerry called her Margaret.

Did you leave your 8 year old daughter in the pub loo Mr Cameron?
"I don't recall".

Obviously.

admin wrote:

mank wrote:I was listening to David Cameron earlier at The Leveson Inquiry.

He was talking about a meeting with the McCanns, where they told him about

all they had been through since "losing....err.....Millie" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He called her Millie?
And Gerry called her Margaret.

Did you leave your 8 year old daughter in the pub loo Mr Cameron?
"I don't recall".

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

***
quote statement Cameron today page 57:
3 And the evidence of the Dowler family and the evidence

4 of the McCann family is incredibly powerful in that

5 regard.

6 I will never forget meeting with the Dowler family

7 in Downing Street to run through the terms of this

8 Inquiry with them and to hear what they had been through

9 and how it had redoubled, trebled the pain and agony

10 they'd been through over losing Milly.
unquote

You'd never guess he'd had intensive training in preparation for today!

Someone with such poor memory skills should not really be running the country. I am so glad I did not vote for any of this shower and their privileged pals. The performance by Osbourne also showed someone with a look on his face that said, 'no matter what you say, you wont get me' . Smug and always with a smirk. Now where have we seen that before?

Hehehe, everyone tweeting the latest buzz word......."Camnesia"[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Camnesia: The 22 occasions that Cameron does not recall










Thursday 14 June 2012






1. How he ended up on Rupert Murdoch’s yacht in Santorini in 2008 and what he spoke about with Rebekah Brooks



2. Whether or not he and James Murdoch discussed the BBC and Ofcom over lunch in 2009




3. Whether he and The Sun’s editor Dominic Mohan discussed supporting the Tories over lunch in 2009

4. What was discussed at dinner with James Murdoch in September 2009

5. Anything that he and Rupert Murdoch discussed when meeting in December 2009

6. When it was that Rebekah Brooks began backing the Conservatives

7. Whether or not Rebekah Brooks asked him to order the review of the Madeleine McCann case

8. Whether or not George Osborne obtained assurances from Andy Coulson about phone hacking before hiring him for the Conservative Party

9. Whether he spoke to Rebekah Brooks about Andy Coulson before his Downing Street appointment

10. How many conversations he had with Rebekah Brooks about Andy Coulson

11. Whether he raised the issue of phone hacking with Coulson in Westminster or over the phone while on holiday

12. Where and how Coulson repeated his assurances about phone hacking

13. What Nick Clegg said to him about Andy Coulson

14. Who else raised concerns about Coulson with him

15. Whether or not any Tory MPs expressed concerns about Coulson

16. Whether he discussed Coulson and phone hacking with Rupert Murdoch

17. Whether he sought direct assurances on hacking from Andy Coulson on 1 December 2010, when revelations appeared in the New York Times

18. Whether he and George Osborne discussed the BSkyB bid before Vince Cable was stripped of responsibility for it

19. Whether he spoke with Jeremy Hunt about the BSkyB bid at any stage

20. Whether he had any conversations with the Murdochs or Rebekah Brooks about the BSkyB bid before it was adjudicated

21. Whether there was a conversation about BSkyB – or “much of a conversation at all” – at the Boxing Day 2010 party at Charlie Brooks’ sister’s house

22. Whether or not he discussed the report into unlawful data access over dinner with Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre in 2006

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

Perhaps "no comment" would have been rather better, than "I don't recall"[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Perhaps No Cameron would be even better. Sorry I forgot...LOL.

Some excellent opinions and articles, here is another one...............



It wasn't meant to be like this




When David Cameron set up an inquiry into the press - triggered by the revelation that a newspaper had hacked into the phone of a murdered girl - he told the country he wanted to ensure that it could never happen again.


Nick Robinson Political editor

14 June 2012 Last updated at 08:28

He knew there would be questions not just for the press and the police but for politicians too. What he did not foresee was that the Leveson Inquiry would become, at least in part, a long running trial of his personal and political judgements. Nor did his advisers imagine that this inquiry would force them to trawl not just seven years worth of diaries and official minutes and emails but records and recollections of text messages, party invitations and horse rides.

For hour after hour, day after day, David Cameron's aides have been forced to focus on what he might be asked and what he might say today in Court 73 of the Royal Courts of Justice leading some to mutter that the Leveson Inquiry has transformed into a "monster" which is out of control.

Today after he swears on oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth Mr Cameron will be asked to explain:

• why, in his own words, he got too close to the media and in particular the Murdochs and their chief lieutenant Rebekah Brooks. And why did he think it appropriate to wine and dine, to party and horse ride with the country's most powerful media executive whose company had an aggressive policy of expansion.
  

• why he appointed, not once but twice, the man who resigned over phone hacking at the News of the World as his spin doctor - first in opposition and then in government, ignoring all the warnings he was given.
  

• why he handed responsibility for News Corp's £8billion bid for BSkyB from one minister who'd expressed a clear bias to another who'd done the same.
  

Many of these answers he has given before. Those which he hasn't have been carefully planned, plotted and rehearsed.

What won't grab the headlines but may, in truth, be the most significant part of today's proceedings is the exchanges between the Judge and the prime minister over what is troubling them both - how to regulate the press. Witness after witness, former prime minister after former prime minister has lined up to say that this moment must not be flunked and this inquiry must not become another lost opportunity. However, Lord Justice Leveson has been reminded again and again of why, again and again, since the war nothing has been done.

Both Tony Blair - who didn't do it and never tried - and John Major - who at least tried but never followed through - told him that the press would fight against any plan to regulate them, the struggle would absorb huge amounts of parliamentary energy and political time and the government would put at risk much of the rest of its agenda.

As David Cameron looks at Lord Justice Leveson and he looks back the biggest question will be the one which is unspoken: "What on earth are we going to do when this inquiry is finally over?"

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

um, um, um, um...........I don't recall. Um, um, uzzzzZZZZZzzzzzz. And this man is the Prime Minster of our country!

Tomorrows front page of Independant.............

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



Labour Press Team‏@labourpress

On our count, Cameron said at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that he couldn't recall or couldn't remember on 58 separate occasions

justme3 wrote:um, um, um, um...........I don't recall. Um, um, uzzzzZZZZZzzzzzz. And this man is the Prime Minster of our country!

Clearly his close contacts with the McCanns and the Tapas7 have influenced his choice of words.

Kevin Maguire‏@Kevin_Maguire
Lunchtime summary of Cam at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: Woman charged with perverting justice told Dave "we're definitely in this together" Tricky...

PeterMac wrote:

justme3 wrote:um, um, um, um...........I don't recall. Um, um, uzzzzZZZZZzzzzzz. And this man is the Prime Minster of our country!

Clearly his close contacts with the McCanns and the Tapas7 have influenced his choice of words.

Prime Minister, even [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Is this where Murdochs power comes from.............

Child porn list leaked to Sunday Times



The Sunday Times has obtained Operation Ore's entire list of UK subscribers to child porn sites. Containing 7,272 names, the list includes 'at least 20 senior executives' and a 'senior teacher at an exclusive girl's public school, services personnel from at least five military bases, GPs, university academics and civil servants."

There's more: a "famous newspaper columnist is named, along with a song writer for a legendary pop band and a member of another chart-topping 1980s cult pop group, along with an official with the Church of England."



The Sunday Times is a national Sunday [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] newspaper in the United Kingdom. The Sunday Times is published by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], a subsidiary of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], which is in turn owned by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Times Newspapers also owns [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], but the two papers were founded independently

Leveson inquiry: Paul McMullan


• Former News of the World deputy features editor.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] McMullan is asked to clarify whether he believes that no one should have privacy. He says "yes".

In 21 years of invading people's privacy I've never actually come across anyone who's been doing any good. Privacy is the space bad people need to do bad things in.

Privacy is evil; it brings out the worst qualities in people.

Privacy is for paedos; fundamentally nobody else needs it.

I am surprised Jay didnt grill Cameron about Madam Brooks text that states" I am so rooting for you. We are in this together professionally...yea, he cam..etc"!

In other words, Brooks was saying Cameron getting into No 10 means Brooks & NI getting into No 10 together. Cameron close relationship with her is why Brooks thinks she is running the country policies together with Cameron. Cameron even hired one of her staffs, Andy Coulson, after having asked Brooks for character reference.

I wasnt aware Cameron had met with Mccanns. When was that ? pre or post Mccanns asking Theresa May for the inquiry. One has to ask why didnt they ask Cameron directly during their meeting?

Leveson Inquiry expose the closeness of press and politicians but since this PM is no exception from his predecessors, the one who will suffer from this is press personnel not as a result of the close bond with politicians but because of their criminal act of hacking. How the hell the No 10 hopes to regulate the Press is anyone's guess.

aiyoyo wrote:I am surprised Jay didnt grill Cameron about Madam Brooks text that states" I am so rooting for you. We are in this together professionally...yea, he cam..etc"!

In other words, Brooks was saying Cameron getting into No 10 means Brooks & NI getting into No 10 together. Cameron close relationship with her is why Brooks thinks she is running the country policies together with Cameron. Cameron even hired one of her staffs, Andy Coulson, after having asked Brooks for character reference.

I wasnt aware Cameron had met with Mccanns. When was that ? pre or post Mccanns asking Theresa May for the inquiry. One has to ask why didnt they ask Cameron directly during their meeting?

Leveson Inquiry expose the closeness of press and politicians but since this PM is no exception from his predecessors, the one who will suffer from this is press personnel not as a result of the close bond with politicians but because of their criminal act of hacking. How the hell the No 10 hopes to regulate the Press is anyone's guess.

Aiyoyo, he met the McCanns when he was leader of the opposition, so it was a couple of years ago....



David Cameron's spokeswoman said: "The Prime Minister met Kate and Gerry McCann while he was Leader of the Opposition, and he has followed their plight very closely. He and the Home Secretary want to make sure the Government does all it can to help them".

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

Also this article date 13 May 2011.....

The couple had tried to get the UK Government involved in the case for a while and wrote to Mr Cameron asking for his help, having met him 18 months ago when he was opposition leader

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



So he met them 18 months before may 2011.

In that case why did they not persuade him to re-open the case or give them the review then?
Why go the roundabout way by asking Theresa May twice, and when that failed, colluded with Brooks to pressure the PM?

If the PM was sympathetic to their plight and had the MEt do a scoping exercise on their case on the overt all along without knowledge to the public, why did he need to wait till Brooks gave him the ultimatum before he announced his sudden decision to the review?

I cant help wondering if Brooks and mccanns were behind the scoping exercise together with Cameron in the first place, and the announcement of the review (planned all along) was deliberately timed to coincide with Kate's bewk release to maximize impact and thus profit for Brooks and her papers.

Cameron is up to his neck in this together with Brooks. Whether he is unwittingly misled by Brooks is one thing, the fact that Brooks was able to influence him to make the decision within 24 hours speaks volume. Something has been going on in the background for ages. Nothing is done at a whim of fancy, at least not something of this scale, that would involve million of taxpayers' money and a large murder quad team.

What are Cameron and Brooks hoping to achieve from this review - as the real objective of this review remains a mystery.

Hi aiyoyo,

The McCanns went to see DC when he was leader of the opposition. Labour were in Government then and Gordon Brown was the Prime Minister, not David Cameron. The Home Secretary at the time was Alan Johnson and it was he who carried out the scoping exercise.

I don't think as leader of the opposition Cameron could do much, except for lobby the Prime Minister, but it does beg the question which is Rebekah Brooks has been friends with David Cameron for a few years and her husband even longer, and also we know that the McCanns were quite friendly with RB. Didn't they ring her direct and the stories changed to support them after that. Perhaps they knew back then that NI and the Sun would change allegiance and back the Conservatives instead of Labour at the next election? How could she and her paper back Labour and Gordon Brown when Dave was such a good friend. Interesting thought....[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Country suppers and horse riding anyone[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I think the critical question in all this is why RB and NI are so supportive of the McCanns. Have RB and NI 'persuaded' successive prime ministers and people in high places to support the McCanns or is it actually the other way around with RB and NI support being given for favours rendered?

T4two wrote:I think the critical question in all this is why RB and NI are so supportive of the McCanns. Have RB and NI 'persuaded' successive prime ministers and people in high places to support the McCanns or is it actually the other way around with RB and NI support being given for favours rendered?

Works both ways imo. Maddie can bury bad news any time it's needed (sighting, revelation, psychic ramblings) but the Sun has a readership of over 3 million, 3 million copies a day with page 3 and a shock horror story usually on page one. Titillation for the masses in more ways than one...

Murdoch is losing big money on the other papers I think, certainly on the Times and from the start, this was The Sun's baby. McCanns got very matey with Nick somebody right from the start.

tigger wrote:

T4two wrote:I think the critical question in all this is why RB and NI are so supportive of the McCanns. Have RB and NI 'persuaded' successive prime ministers and people in high places to support the McCanns or is it actually the other way around with RB and NI support being given for favours rendered?

Works both ways imo. Maddie can bury bad news any time it's needed (sighting, revelation, psychic ramblings) but the Sun has a readership of over 3 million, 3 million copies a day with page 3 and a shock horror story usually on page one. Titillation for the masses in more ways than one... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Murdoch is losing big money on the other papers I think, certainly on the Times and from the start, this was The Sun's baby. McCanns got very matey with Nick somebody right from the start.

Difficult to believe that RB and NI would go to the lengths that they have gone to support the McCanns simply because it is good for the sales figures of one of their publications. You may well be right about the two-way thing of course but I must say that I find the concept of doing certain people a favour in order to clinch a billion pound deal has more going for it. Makes me wonder what motivation those certain people might have.

Didn't RB and The Sun have a high profile campaign to protect children and expose paedophiles.

What really does connect Murdoch/Brooks/News International and the MaCanns ?

Blackmail has always been Murdochs baby.

There really are some very frightened individuals out there at the moment The Leveson Inquiry has shown us this.

The Gaspar statement is not goig to go away.

It seems to me that the Media Machine will do whatever it can to sell newspapers.

Diana was a commodity that sold them in massive numbers. Before she died she was being slated in the press for her fling with Dodi. And when she died she was transformed into a martyr as the press again milked the decent side of human nature, we sympathise with tragedy regardless of the situation, we're suckers for a sob story. Mother Teresa's death paled into insignificance, these moments last a lifetime in our memories, the crowds, the outpouring of grief, the headlines, the injustice.

I've always felt that the press have merely been hedging their bets and the Madeleine story evokes almost the same response as Diana. There's something in it for everyone and they learned that being anti McCann is expensive. It's a win win situation because whatever the situation there's a good angle. Feeding us sob story suckers makes money and it's good business to ensure the politicians are all in line. But I can see another headline coming up: "WE WERE DUPED" and the spotlight will pass from the McCann couple back to Madeleine and the same sense of outrage and grief. Only this time the supportive politicians who are making them money will be shopped to sell the opposite story.

It's simply the era of Spin and the Press's only loyalty is to the £. And we don't know what's going on behind the scenes regarding the investigation or the key players point of view. We only know what the press chooses to spin about it.

One wrote:It seems to me that the Media Machine will do whatever it can to sell newspapers.

Diana was a commodity that sold them in massive numbers. Before she died she was being slated in the press for her fling with Dodi. And when she died she was transformed into a martyr as the press again milked the decent side of human nature, we sympathise with tragedy regardless of the situation, we're suckers for a sob story. Mother Teresa's death paled into insignificance, these moments last a lifetime in our memories, the crowds, the outpouring of grief, the headlines, the injustice.

I've always felt that the press have merely been hedging their bets and the Madeleine story evokes almost the same response as Diana. There's something in it for everyone and they learned that being anti McCann is expensive. It's a win win situation because whatever the situation there's a good angle. Feeding us sob story suckers makes money and it's good business to ensure the politicians are all in line. But I can see another headline coming up: "WE WERE DUPED" and the spotlight will pass from the McCann couple back to Madeleine and the same sense of outrage and grief. Only this time the supportive politicians who are making them money will be shopped to sell the opposite story.

It's simply the era of Spin and the Press's only loyalty is to the £. And we don't know what's going on behind the scenes regarding the investigation or the key players point of view. We only know what the press chooses to spin about it.

A very good post summing up brilliantly.

I cannot believe that all the media swallows the McCann version but because of their addiction to libel suits, it makes sense for the media to sit tight and publish the kind of sob stuff about Maddie that sells.
But I suspect they have stuff ready to go when (hopefully) the truth emerges - like papers have pre -prepared obituaries of famous people who are not so young! Not that I'm saying Antonia whatsername has a pre written piece claiming she always they they were guilty but wrote the stuff she did to lull them into a sense of false security so they would make a mistake! but perhaps some journalists might be keeping notes ready to go. We were duped would be a great headline and lets hope we see it. Last Friday an Irish paper The Irish Independent published a piece about the Camerons leaving their 8 year old in the pub and mentioned the McCann case - interestingly it said she was apparently abducted and never seen since. 'Apparently' - now that is progress. Will C-R sue? And next time they mention Maddie will they say her disappearance is a mystery?