The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Page 5 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Guest on Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:36 pm

@tigger wrote:This was rehearsed, not a live interview. Kate herself wrote in the diary that they sometimes rehearsed interviews for hours.
She is not very articulate and motormouth Gerry probably needs her hand on his thigh to tell him to stop at some point.
Gerry's hair was so shorn that it looked as if he was just out of prison.

Thuggish
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Guest on Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:39 pm

@mydadsanastronaut wrote:So, Gerry wants a regulator to protect the interests of the public.

But if I remember correctly, Sir Christopher Meyer stated publically at a Select Committee that he had told Gerry that the Press Complaints Commission could stop all negative stories from appearing in the papers. But, he advised them that such an action would bring them no financial compensation for the stories that had been published ; he confirmed that he told the McCanns that if it was money they were after, they would have to sue.

So, there were already remedies in place that could have stopped the "hurtful" press coverage. but these would have brought no financial benefit. So they were not pursued.

Speaks volumes about priorities, doesn't it?


Honour does not pay the mortgage.

Extortion does.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Smokeandmirrors on Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:06 pm

@Portia wrote:
@mydadsanastronaut wrote:So, Gerry wants a regulator to protect the interests of the public.

But if I remember correctly, Sir Christopher Meyer stated publically at a Select Committee that he had told Gerry that the Press Complaints Commission could stop all negative stories from appearing in the papers. But, he advised them that such an action would bring them no financial compensation for the stories that had been published ; he confirmed that he told the McCanns that if it was money they were after, they would have to sue.

So, there were already remedies in place that could have stopped the "hurtful" press coverage. but these would have brought no financial benefit. So they were not pursued.

Speaks volumes about priorities, doesn't it?



Honour does not pay the mortgage.
Extortion does.


Sums the whole attitude of the McCanns perfectly. Money, self importance, entitlement, a bit more self importance, more money and so on. Never seen anything like it from so called "victims" before! It's very ugly to see.

____________________
The truth will out.
avatar
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2427
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Cristobell on Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:15 pm

@Mrs Beeton wrote:Decent journalists must feel really emasculated and peed off with the whole charade. I hope revenge is sweet and protracted! I wonder if there was any conversation with Sinead O' Connor on the show? She is not usually backwards in coming forwards with her opinions and I can't see her being in favour of statutory regulation of the press.




Sinead was great! Said told interviewer, 'just making idle chatter til you ask me something sensible' lol.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Guest on Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:27 pm

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Every time the McCann duo utter a word, there is a Tsunami of anger from the public, is this the press' plan? Is this how they will get their revenge? Keep printing and giving these two airtime, and without actually doing anything, they are letting the Mc's ruin themselves. Just a thought.

Please follow Textusa; she's right on top of this issue.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Guest on Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:33 pm

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
@Portia wrote:
@mydadsanastronaut wrote:So, Gerry wants a regulator to protect the interests of the public.

But if I remember correctly, Sir Christopher Meyer stated publically at a Select Committee that he had told Gerry that the Press Complaints Commission could stop all negative stories from appearing in the papers. But, he advised them that such an action would bring them no financial compensation for the stories that had been published ; he confirmed that he told the McCanns that if it was money they were after, they would have to sue.

So, there were already remedies in place that could have stopped the "hurtful" press coverage. but these would have brought no financial benefit. So they were not pursued.

Speaks volumes about priorities, doesn't it?



Thank you.
As a foreigner, it is very hard for me to understand why the British public allow this charade to go on & on.

We tend to ask the question: what's in it for them.

The Media: obvious.
The Government: less obvious, and DC must still find a way to wiggle out of this one. But less so if Gerry comes out so strong on the side of the undemocrats and/or Labour. Please, read me right: Labour and Gerrys attitude are irreconcilable. Only Gerry hasn't understood this yet, and apparently thinks his best chance lies in alienating the present government. Poor sod.



Honour does not pay the mortgage.
Extortion does.


Sums the whole attitude of the McCanns perfectly. Money, self importance, entitlement, a bit more self importance, more money and so on. Never seen anything like it from so called "victims" before! It's very ugly to see.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Beanie on Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:49 pm

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Gerry and Kate have SUCH a nerve saying the press are endangering Madeleine! THEY endangered her and now she has vanished off the face of the earth. Kate said they were watched, so if there had not been repeated neglect, there would have been no opportunity to be exploited.

Kate and Gerry (or whoever spies here on your behalf) …...
Just SHUT UP the pair of you, the British public AND the press AND David Cameron are ALL completely fed up with this endless whinging and demanding behaviour. The British public don't want everything changed at YOUR say-so. We don't respect the horrible way you've behaved these past 5 1/2 yrs, we don't agree with your inconsistent stories and we sure as hell DON'T want our press gagged. If you don't like the attention you so craved, stay OFF our TV screens, and shut the hell up so they don't keep bringing your name into the papers. YOU are doing this, creating this ridiculous hullaballoo wherever you go, just SHUT UP and stay at home and look after your twins. Leave everyone else alone and they will leave you alone. Before you left your kids alone, no-one knew who you were. You're famous for being selfish parents who want everything your own way. End of story.

Well said. thumbsup

Beanie

Posts : 238
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by aquila on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:10 pm

Each of the McCanns uttered the word 'transparency'. Is the Fund's dealings transparent? Do we see any slightly detailed accounts on their 37k website paid for by other people?
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8814
Reputation : 1775
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Spaniel on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:17 pm

@Cristobell wrote:
@Mrs Beeton wrote:Decent journalists must feel really emasculated and peed off with the whole charade. I hope revenge is sweet and protracted! I wonder if there was any conversation with Sinead O' Connor on the show? She is not usually backwards in coming forwards with her opinions and I can't see her being in favour of statutory regulation of the press.




Sinead was great! Said told interviewer, 'just making idle chatter til you ask me something sensible' lol.
Thats not great, that's ignorant!
avatar
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-01-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by aquila on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:24 pm

I'm adding to my previous post to say I think the word 'transparent' used by the McCanns today need to be applied to the Fund. It's simple money in, money out accounting isn't it?
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8814
Reputation : 1775
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Guest on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:32 pm

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Gerry and Kate have SUCH a nerve saying the press are endangering Madeleine! THEY endangered her and now she has vanished off the face of the earth. Kate said they were watched, so if there had not been repeated neglect, there would have been no opportunity to be exploited.

Kate and Gerry (or whoever spies here on your behalf) …...
Just SHUT UP the pair of you, the British public AND the press AND David Cameron are ALL completely fed up with this endless whinging and demanding behaviour. The British public don't want everything changed at YOUR say-so. We don't respect the horrible way you've behaved these past 5 1/2 yrs, we don't agree with your inconsistent stories and we sure as hell DON'T want our press gagged. If you don't like the attention you so craved, stay OFF our TV screens, and shut the hell up so they don't keep bringing your name into the papers. YOU are doing this, creating this ridiculous hullaballoo wherever you go, just SHUT UP and stay at home and look after your twins. Leave everyone else alone and they will leave you alone. Before you left your kids alone, no-one knew who you were. You're famous for being selfish parents who want everything your own way. End of story.

Such a good post... it's everything I would absolutely love to shout right into their faces every time they open their mouths on tv or in the press.... well said..
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Spaniel on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:33 pm

@aquila wrote:I'm adding to my previous post to say I think the word 'transparent' used by the McCanns today need to be applied to the Fund. It's simple money in, money out accounting isn't it?
In out in out shake it all about, more like aquila. Confusion is good.
avatar
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-01-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Smokeandmirrors on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:44 pm

Thanks for the positive responses - a bit of an outburst from a frustrated onlooker, but really, it is all so very infuriating!

____________________
The truth will out.
avatar
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2427
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Guest on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:53 pm

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Thanks for the positive responses - a bit of an outburst from a frustrated onlooker, but really, it is all so very infuriating!
***
Yes, it is sometimes [most times] isn't it? Thanks for letting it out.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Buildersbum on Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:09 pm

@Portia wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Every time the McCann duo utter a word, there is a Tsunami of anger from the public, is this the press' plan? Is this how they will get their revenge? Keep printing and giving these two airtime, and without actually doing anything, they are letting the Mc's ruin themselves. Just a thought.

Please follow Textusa; she's right on top of this issue.


Does anyone have a link please! high5

Buildersbum

Posts : 47
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-11
Location : Yorkshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Inspectorfrost on Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:17 pm

Mccanns received at least 1,050milion £ in damages/donations with apologies from the papers. I have no other comments as it's all been very well said. I think GM is annoyed because he is not in control and not getting his way. The former Sunday Times editor that was on the show said something like the Royal Charter was more than enough and would be quite tough on journalists.

Amazing that both the Guardian and the Express are allowing comments, and what comments.

Last point, I can never forget his evidence at the Culture/Media committee where he said that he was the most maligned person in the press in all it's history. That is going back several hundreds of years at least! Talk about exagerration.


Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Tony Bennett on Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:25 pm

@Inspectorfrost wrote:Mccanns received at least 1,050milion £ in damages/donations with apologies from the papers. I have no other comments as it's all been very well said. I think GM is annoyed because he is not in control and not getting his way. The former Sunday Times editor that was on the show said something like the Royal Charter was more than enough and would be quite tough on journalists.
He said, quote: "It's not only got teeth, it's got jaws - editors and journalists can be fined up to £1 million"

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14939
Reputation : 3019
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Inspectorfrost on Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:33 pm

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Inspectorfrost wrote:Mccanns received at least 1,050milion £ in damages/donations with apologies from the papers. I have no other comments as it's all been very well said. I think GM is annoyed because he is not in control and not getting his way. The former Sunday Times editor that was on the show said something like the Royal Charter was more than enough and would be quite tough on journalists.
He said, quote: "It's not only got teeth, it's got jaws - editors and journalists can be fined up to £1 million"

!! gosh, and that's not enough of a nuclear deterrent for some, says it all. Thanks Tony.

PS I think GM looked so miserable because he knows it's a failed mission and that sticks in his craw. Similar to the court antics in Lisbon in 2010. This country, despite its injunctions, bars on some free speech, still on the whole supportive of freedom of expression. They didn't fight in two world wars to be dictated to or be suppressed by anyone. Even murderers have human rights to not be deported. Sheesh, it's a no brainer.

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Mirage on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:08 pm

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Thanks for the positive responses - a bit of an outburst from a frustrated onlooker, but really, it is all so very infuriating!

Yes, brilliant post SM. It came straight from the heart - Pow!

I can tell you, I was feeling exactly the same after I watched this horrible pair pontificating on Marr this morning. Just who they think they are, I really don't know.

But I think they are on the wane. They both look desperate and isolated to my mind.

Serves them right! I hope they both grow Pinocchio noses.

Anyway, thanks for articulating everyone's frustration so well.

Mirage

Posts : 1905
Reputation : 758
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

More criticisms from the Express comments

Post by Inspectorfrost on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:14 pm

Angelita668:24pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
Who do this couple think they are? I echo everything that has been said before. A couple whose only claim to fame is that they failed in their parental responsibility to take care of and protect their three small children. They were happy to court the press as long as things were going their way. Hopefully one day we will know the truth and see it in print. We have a right to know - they have cost the UK and Portugal millions of pounds.

buddha7:48pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
The "fund" that they set up for **** was actually not a charity fund it was registered as their own private ltd company , they used donations to make payments on their mortgage , they had also stated they would share some of the money with other families of missing children , they have not fulfilled that .They have also used lawyers costing over £4 million I believe to sue and silence anyone that dares to question their account of the incident

246ate5:47pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
I add my sentiments to those voiced here, I too have my doubts about the whole thing.

Shenandoah4:55pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
I question the motives of these two. I always have. Only those with something to hide seek to muzzled the press, whether in Britain or in Portugal. The coverage of their daughter's disappearance was no more than less than would have been expected if some other couple had left their very young children alone while they wined and dined far enough away to be inaffective if some accident happened, and ultimately one of the children had disappeared. The Portuguese have their own idea as to what happened and that does not speak of a kidnapping. Nevertheless, this careless couple now want to turn their negligence into an attack on the British Press. The British Press was shamelessly used and abused by them. Once the **** realized that the media was not in lockstep admiration of them, they raised their voices i hysteria. Get real ****. Many of us recognize your negligence towards your children while on vacation. That enabled any criminal.

DJPJ20133:22pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
Are these two actually for real? Why are they campaigning to restrict our free and democratic rights when a) they were not hacked b) They use the press whenever it suits them c) they were happy enough to have "****" with a small m serialised in the Sun so that we could be treated to daily headlines about their sex life d) the papers are full of non sightings to further dull the memories of them leaving the children to go out drinking.

Shame on them.

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The guardian latest comments

Post by Inspectorfrost on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:22 pm


Justanortherngirl
17 February 2013 9:38pm
Recommend
4
Virgil Kane.... " savvy " in that they demonstrated a remarkable facility in manipulating the media to their own ends from day one, I have never said they are stupid on the contrary they have shown a great flair for self preservation and aggrandisement.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Gasparsstatement
17 February 2013 9:35pm
Recommend
8
I commend the good readers to avail themselves
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

michaelmichael
17 February 2013 9:34pm
Recommend
9
Do the McCanns have a viewpoint on parents who go out at night leaving young children unattended?
Just wondering.
They seem to have an opinion on everything else.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Thelarch
17 February 2013 9:28pm
Recommend
11
"...her safety is often treated with complete contempt,"

The good doctor has a nice feel for irony.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

JRedmond
17 February 2013 8:52pm
Recommend
15
If only all of our children were kidnapped. Maybe then we would develop the expertise on world affairs and journalism that the McCann's have had bestowed upon them.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

hoff1000
17 February 2013 8:40pm
Recommend
8
The McCanns and the Press
I seriously doubt the McCann's views should be given any more weight than the hundreds of other witnesses to Leveson. It is the future--and freedom--of the press we are talking about here.
They represent one tiny, limited, viewpoint. Certainly they were at times dealt harshly by the press. They also immensely benefited from it--the continued publicity publicity for what is most likely a lost cause, for example. Not to mention the £500,000+ newspaper contract mentioned above (if correct).
There is also their likely burden of guilt: why did they leave her unattended?
As the BBC reports:
The resort offers babysitting and creche services but Madeleine's parents, Gerry and Kate, dining just yards away, were popping back regularly to check on their three children. There is also babysitting, and a "dining-out" creche service in the evenings for children aged four months to nine years - parents eating in the resort's restaurants drop the children off and pick them up later.
Think that doesn't influence their views? What are they most upset about? Their treatment by some of the press--now somewhat compensated for? Or the loss of their daughter? Which had nothing to do with the press. Rather their own choices and those of the perpetrator. Whomever that was.
Consider the recent disappearance of that little girl in Wales. Much coverage at the time. Now none. I seriously doubt their 'story' will gather much cash. Yet in both cases, a family devastated by the disappearance of a little girl.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

asourcesaid
17 February 2013 8:20pm
Recommend
18
The Guardian doesn't believe the McCann case is anything other than a tabloid scandal.
It is massively wrong.
This newspaper is so busy looking down its nose at the likes of the Express it has completely ignored the facts of the McCann case.
On Thursday 7 August 2008, the day after the Portugese police files on the case became available to the public, the Guardian posted the following report from a staffer and agencies. Note that last, 'and agencies'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/07/madeleinemccann.portugal?INTCMP=SRCH
What that means is that the staffer copied,pasted and maybe pushed around a press release from the McCanns' press spokesman, Clarence Mitchell.
Madeleine McCann may have been kidnapped to order by a Belgian paedophile ring, documents released by Portuguese police this week suggest. began the report.
Except they didn't suggest that. It was dismissed by the police as nonsense.
Now ask yourself why, from the 20,000-odd pages of documents available to the McCanns' PR and legal team, did they pick out that piece of crap to feed to the waiting press? A press, remember, who have neither the time nor the money to translate or go through those files for themselves.
That's about as close as the Guardian ever got to the police files, though it prides itself on investigative journalism and while its (without doubt brilliant) journalists otherwise routinely dismiss anything emanating from PR men.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred", we are reminded. And the Guardian has never - ever - looked at the facts of this case.
It has a blind spot for the McCanns because they're a convenient stick with which to beat its evil arch enemy.
I can't imagine this comment will last long. Moderators hate it when you criticise the paper.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

menocranium
17 February 2013 7:57pm
Recommend
17
So continues the NcCann's very own reality show. Why don't they just pop next door and have some tapas??!!
Why on earth do they think they have any position to have any opinion at all and why do they think anyone else would care a hoot what they think!!
this whole thing has become very sad and very irritating. They are a couple of big time losers who leave children while they go out for a bite to eat then expect the world to pick up their pieces.
Please stop giving these people the coverage because either the G does it on purpose to make the McCann look stupid (easy to do) or the G really think we are interested.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Mortice
17 February 2013 7:54pm
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.


Ceartgoleor
17 February 2013 7:37pm
Recommend
2
Legislate.
Now.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

plexply
17 February 2013 7:34pm
Recommend
27
Who the hell are the MCanns to talk? They were paying out to some cloak and dagger investigation agency to take pictures of random people in North Africa and accusing them of having kidnapped kids on the back of the kids having blonde streaks. They were blaming anyone and everyone else all to deflect from them. Did they complain about the press printing all that?
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Mortice
17 February 2013 7:49pm
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.


Gasparsstatement
17 February 2013 7:23pm
Recommend
21
oh dear oh dear no evidence of an abduction suppressed by high powered lawyers
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

pandie
17 February 2013 7:23pm
Recommend
18
the fact that the Guardian (and not for the first time) are putting the McCanns and Leveson into the same sentence, let alone into a headline, beggars belief
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

OneCommentator
17 February 2013 7:04pm
Recommend
22
Any normal person in their place work would stay away from this discussion. Their case was controversial and many people never believed their story or believe they were negligent to the point if being criminally negligent. Besides they donor have proper training in legal matters to have a meaningful contribution to this issue. Just because they were in the middle of a press storm does not give them any knowledge about freedom of the press and responsibility. In fact since they see themselves as victims their opinions are obviously biased. Who cares what they think about the press?
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

lagoalberche
17 February 2013 7:54pm
Recommend
16
@OneCommentator -
I agree
Gerry McCann is entitled to express his opinion, as we all are
His opinion, however, is of no more value than anyone else's, and the very idea that he should have any kind of influence on our elected officials and law makers is absurd ... is he delusional ?
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

VirgilKane
17 February 2013 9:27pm
Recommend
0
@lagoalberche - You are absolutely right, but some of us happen to agree with him.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

lagoalberche
17 February 2013 9:51pm
Recommend
0
@VirgilKane -
You might agree with him, but I doubt you would express your agreed opinion to the Prime Minister in terms of what is, personally, at a minimum, acceptable to you ... and then expect the Prime Minister to go to his room and 'think about what he's done' before coming back to you with an apology and a shame-faced plea ... "What will be acceptable to you VirgilKane, because your personal opinion is the most important consideration here"
... because that is what meglamaniac McCann seems to expect !
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Ray Allott
17 February 2013 7:03pm
Recommend
2
I suspect that the press have much more on Conmoron that will be leaked out should he make regulation part of law.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Chiron66
17 February 2013 7:01pm
Recommend
22
This says it ALL:
"Madeleine was nearly four when she vanished from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in the Algarve, where she had been left by her parents as they dined at a tapas restaurant with friends nearby on 3 May 2007." (Shiv Malik et al.)
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Arty1
17 February 2013 6:42pm
Recommend
29
Perhaps accepting responsibility for their own actions might be a good place to start. If their tragedy had not happened, the press would never had heard of them.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Marvin2
17 February 2013 6:32pm
Recommend
26
"Madeleine and her safety are often treated with total contempt" said G. McCann during their show. What exactly does he mean by that? The reporting of the sightings I guess. Wasn't the childs safety put at risk by Mitchell going on TV and holding up the drawing of the "abductor"? Or by their private detective with his Barcelona-woman-story holding up the picture of the woman they were looking for? Or by all the pictures on the McCann-webpage with the "abductor"-parade we can choose from? What if the abductor is among them? What would he/she do with the child, if the little one would be alive?
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

elvencejo
17 February 2013 6:23pm
Recommend
33
When are the McCanns going to be charged with Child Neglect?
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

litesp33d1
17 February 2013 6:28pm
Recommend
5
@elvencejo - Well as someone once said "The problem with Capital Punishment is that it's them without the Capital that usually gets the punishment."
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

VirgilKane
17 February 2013 9:25pm
Recommend
2
@elvencejo - When is Cameron going to be charged for leaving his daughter at a pub! What was she doing there in the first place! Disgraceful.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

SELAVY
17 February 2013 6:03pm
Recommend
4
"... surely this week's approach presents an elegant solution to Rupert's dilemma. If only a hot woman could get murdered every day, then the Sun wouldn't need Page 3, because they could dredge up some semi-covered tits in the highfalutin' cause of illustrating a news story about her corpse."
God bless our noble press....bravely making a mint from the misery of others...
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

stephenpaularcher
17 February 2013 6:03pm
Recommend
39
The Mccanns have no cause to complain at all.
Their phones weren't hacked and they have used the press for the majority of the last few years for their own ends.
As was given legal precedence in the high court in the Bennett case, they admitted through their legal council, there is no proof of abduction.
From the CFO, it is listed as 'type of crime unknown'.
Yet the Mccanns have spouted 'abduction' since the start with no evidence at all.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Justanortherngirl
17 February 2013 6:02pm
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.


Marvin2
17 February 2013 5:56pm
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.


SELAVY
17 February 2013 5:50pm
Recommend
9
Thank god capital punishment is no longer practised in this country.
Half the posters above would be right at the front of the baying mob as the McCann's were strung up.
No proof necessary.Just blind hatred and a lust for hurting people who are already victims.Callous beyond words.
Of course their hero David Cameron left his daughter in a pub, but no one mentions that. Of course he simply forgot her. Forgot his daughter - so that's fine then.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

hilltop
17 February 2013 6:01pm
Recommend
3
@SELAVY - From the North, heterosexual with kids, married, Catholic, decent income but not excessive, the McCanns just do not tick the right boxes for Guardian sympathy.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Justanortherngirl
17 February 2013 6:20pm
Recommend
4
@SELAVY - " their hero David Cameron "....now I know you're having a laugh !
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Jeremy Johnson
17 February 2013 6:27pm
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.


OrlandosTwin
17 February 2013 5:33pm
Recommend
8
There's too much judgement of the McCann family on this thread - the real issue should be the future of the press.
We cannot have a self-regulating press any longer. Certain newspapers - I hesitate to use that word - have shown they have no respect for the privacy, private grief and private lives of "ordinary" people unwittingly thrown into the spotlight.
We need a responsible press, with the freedom for investigative journalism (including, and especially, the workings of government and its bureaucracy), without at the same time pandering to people's prurience in an attempt to sell more copies.
Leveson's report needs to be transferred into law, not just a royal charter which can be interfered with by the privy council. Any new regulatory body needs the legal powers necessary to impose fines and other sanctions on any press member who breaks its code of practice. It must also be a completely independent body, free from journalists, former editors, press barons and politicians, or their placemen.
Government must not be allowed to put the Leveson Report on a shelf to gather dust or history will repeat itself.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Marvin2
17 February 2013 5:36pm
Recommend
14
@OrlandosTwin - For you the brainwashing has worked!
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Jeremy Johnson
17 February 2013 5:38pm
Recommend
18
@OrlandosTwin - You italic the word 'responsible' yet do not make a definition or suggest who should make a definition.
There are plenty of legal processes that are available to people that feel aggrieved by the media.
Some are used inappropriately such as superinjunctions.
Others are utilised more regularly such as libel.
However, it is strange when people who take someone to trial alleging libel try to settle with the defendant such as in the Mccann V Goncalo Amarel situation.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Jeremy Johnson
17 February 2013 5:44pm
Recommend
10
@OrlandosTwin -
You wrote on the 17 February 2013 @ 12:22PM
"In any democracy (I believe we still live in one) the separation of powers is vital. It is dangerous for any legislature to interfere or bring pressure on the judiciary."
I agree in any democracy the separation of powers is vital.
I would argue that it is also dangerous for any legislature to interfere or bring pressure on the press.
It is the only thing we have to fight against corruption and spin doctors.
"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson (1786)
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

stevepa
17 February 2013 5:54pm
Recommend
0
@Jeremy Johnson Did Thomas Jefferson consider how far the 'free press' would go to get a 'story'?
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

OrlandosTwin
17 February 2013 6:03pm
Recommend
2
@Jeremy Johnson -
A body to regulate the press, an equivalent of the BMA, should draw up rules of conduct. It must however be truly independent as I've outlined - and Cameron's idea of a royal charter is open to political interference. If it is given the backing of law, the courts would decide, not the government, on specific cases.
Yes there are, as you say, laws of libel at present, but they only work in favour of the rich and powerful (superinjuctions, as you mention, and D notices from government). The ordinary person whose life is turned upside down by the gutter press wishing to sell more papers has little redress, with apologies, if at all produced, being two lines on page 18.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

OrlandosTwin
17 February 2013 6:05pm
Recommend
3
@Marvin2 -
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to let me know by whom my brain has been washed!
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Exmainer
17 February 2013 7:00pm
Recommend
2
@Marvin2 - At least he has a brain.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

OrlandosTwin
17 February 2013 7:47pm
Recommend
2
@Exmainer -
Thank you. It's nearly 70, but I believe in using it!
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

VirgilKane
17 February 2013 9:19pm
Recommend
1
@OrlandosTwin -
The point of all these comments is to muddy the water and make the press look like the crusading journalists they should be. Unfortunately, they are not. When I saw this article earlier today, it was positioned directly above one about Kelvin MacKenzie being sued for his "The Truth" story about Hillsoboro'. I'm afraid that says it all about our murky press.
Leveson needs to be implemented immediately.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Marvin2
17 February 2013 9:30pm
Recommend
0
@OrlandosTwin - Sorry! The comment was not for you!
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

CorfuDrunk
17 February 2013 5:23pm
Recommend
36
If they were decent parents we wouldnt even know their names.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Justanortherngirl
17 February 2013 5:10pm
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.


lagoalberche
17 February 2013 5:30pm
Recommend
38
@Justanortherngirl -
You raise a good point
One of McCann's demands regarding the implimentation of Leveson is that of 'transparency'
Yet, they themselves employ ( at considerable cost ) a media manager, who determines how, when, and in which way, information is relayed in the media.
Requiring openess and transparency by others does not sit well with their own determination to micro-control every word written or opinion expressed
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

stevepa
17 February 2013 5:42pm
Recommend
3
@lagoalberche - Wow- the McCanns employ ( at considerable cost) a media manager.....'
Fleet Street quakes in it's collective boots at the onslaught it is being subjected to.
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Marvin2
17 February 2013 5:42pm
Recommend
19
@Justanortherngirl - Not only a spin doctor but public relation companies as well:
http://www.hanovercomms.com/our-clients/case-studies/mccann-family/
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Justanortherngirl
17 February 2013 5:48pm
Recommend
1
@CorfuDrunk - thanks for that, ditto
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Jeremy Johnson
17 February 2013 5:10pm
Recommend
32
With the irony of Gerry saying that the press treated their daughter with contempt (Hello.... ?! ) aside....
The ******'s blatantly have a superinjuction.
How is that conducive to a free press?
How is that conducive to reporting 'accuracy' ?
What should be freely reported on is details that have been released in the police files by the portugese. The ******'s et al have given these statements under oath.
What is it that The member of the tapas called Gaspar reports that another member of the Tapas called David Payne says to Gerry?
Also what is all that about the Social Worker Yvonne Martin (an expert in child protection) reporting her thoughts anonymously... and then publicly...
if she wasn't convinced she would have been putting her job at risk for breaking confidentiality!!
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by ShuBob on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:30 pm

I'd just like to know where the couple get their brass necks from? I've never known the like

Have they completely lost their minds or is this a tactic in their wider agenda; to annoy people and elicit so much negative reaction so that if they're ever to face prosecution anywhere in the world they can claim they'll never get a fair trial

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by roy rovers on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:46 pm

Is a citizen's arrest out of the question?
avatar
roy rovers

Posts : 473
Reputation : 50
Join date : 2012-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Mirage on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:51 pm

@ShuBob wrote:I'd just like to know where the couple get their brass necks from? I've never known the like

Have they completely lost their minds or is this a tactic in their wider agenda; to annoy people and elicit so much negative reaction so that if they're ever to face prosecution anywhere in the world they can claim they'll never get a fair trial


I had exactly the same thought bubble Shubob.

I also wondered whether CR have set them up. Let's face it, they are not doing CR's image much good at present.

Maybe they thought they would get Kate and Gerry to push for state-controlled press. If they came up trumps CR would get daily business suing the pants off every editor in Fleet Street. If they failed they would be out of CR's hair in the longer term.

Personally, I think they are bombing rather nicely.

Mirage

Posts : 1905
Reputation : 758
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

Post by Inspectorfrost on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:53 pm

@ShuBob wrote:I'd just like to know where the couple get their brass necks from? I've never known the like

Have they completely lost their minds or is this a tactic in their wider agenda; to annoy people and elicit so much negative reaction so that if they're ever to face prosecution anywhere in the world they can claim they'll never get a fair trial

brass neck
noun  [S or U] UK informal disapproving
     
Definition
If someone has (a) brass neck, they are extremely confident about themselves and are unable to understand that their behaviour is unacceptable to others
She's got a brass neck to ask for a day off when we're so busy.


Someone who has the brass neck to do something has no sense of shame about what they do.

To display staggeringly daring rudeness and / or cheek. First Cousin to balls of brass.

---

It's obvious they dont think anyone can or will accost them, now why that is I have no idea, I do think they have hidden behind being parents of two other children

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum