Re: The Sunday Marr Show 17 February

by Guest 18.02.13 14:23

I think that anyone can read it Sharon, even non-registered guests.

by ShuBob 18.02.13 14:29

Bob Southgate wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Mirage wrote:Oh and.... Kate and Gerry, if you're looking in. The above, by the way, is how the hoi polloi get treated for neglecting their kids. Perhaps you could let us know the name of the bod who okayed your version of childcare?
They have more or less identified him. On page 124 of 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann, she writes "...the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting'...it was reassuring to hear..."

The barrister was from an organisation called the International Family Law Group. According to Kate (again, page 124), she wrote:

"One of the offers of help we'd received came from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry's. He worked for a firm specialising in family law, the International Family Law Group...on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal".

It was this barrister who gave the famous 'within the bounds of reasonable parenting' quote.

Or so Kate says, anyways
But they still haven't named him. And this failure to name the barrister casts doubt that they did receive such advice. If they had named him then he would be contactable and could confirm or deny the advice that was given.

Long before Kate released her book, I read an article which suggested it was the ex CEOP boss Jim Gamble who gave the advice. All Kate has to do is put a name to the adviser to put all doubt to rest. But she won't as it's very likely she's lying just as I believe she lied yesterday about her alleged correspondence with a newspaper editor The Sunday Marr Show 17 February - Page 6 816671

The Sunday Marr Show 17 February - Page 6 816671

by ShuBob 18.02.13 14:35

McCannfiles now has a transcript of the Marr Show interview credited to A. Miller The Sunday Marr Show 17 February - Page 6 847771

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

by Lostfridge 18.02.13 16:25

Interesting when you see it in black and white. It feels like the interviewers questions are almost mocking? And leading the Mccanns to elaborate on their strange delusions of grandeur for the interviewers entertainment. I also notice they say vanished and appear to be trying to get Gerry to elaborate on particular press reports?.

by Mirage 18.02.13 16:49

ShuBob wrote:
Bob Southgate wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Mirage wrote:Oh and.... Kate and Gerry, if you're looking in. The above, by the way, is how the hoi polloi get treated for neglecting their kids. Perhaps you could let us know the name of the bod who okayed your version of childcare?
They have more or less identified him. On page 124 of 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann, she writes "...the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting'...it was reassuring to hear..."

The barrister was from an organisation called the International Family Law Group. According to Kate (again, page 124), she wrote:

"One of the offers of help we'd received came from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry's. He worked for a firm specialising in family law, the International Family Law Group...on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal".

It was this barrister who gave the famous 'within the bounds of reasonable parenting' quote.

Or so Kate says, anyways
But they still haven't named him. And this failure to name the barrister casts doubt that they did receive such advice. If they had named him then he would be contactable and could confirm or deny the advice that was given.

Long before Kate released her book, I read an article which suggested it was the ex CEOP boss Jim Gamble who gave the advice. All Kate has to do is put a name to the adviser to put all doubt to rest. But she won't as it's very likely she's lying just as I believe she lied yesterday about her alleged correspondence with a newspaper editor

I agree Shubob. Her spiel about the editor on yesterday's show did not have the ring of truth about it. If she was in true blood-boiling mode, as she stated, what stopped her naming the newspaper there and then? Fear of litigation? Oh the irony.

IMO it was designed to ramp up their victimhood status. The Sunday Marr Show 17 February - Page 6 3247107148

The Sunday Marr Show 17 February - Page 6 3247107148

It could only have been the Russian one, surely? The NZ one had NSY's seal of approval because of international co-operation over DNA requests.

The Russian report in the DM clearly said that a "source close to the McCanns had requested ...." etc etc.

So if that was an untrue statement she should have just said they were suing instead of sending them a whinge letter and getting all upset over a short shrift reply.

She could have let the viewers know which paper it was?

by **tigger** 18.02.13 16:58

I hope Lord Leveson isn't crying himself to sleep these nights, because he only got 7 out of 10 from Kate.

Gerry is complaining that they have no way to get 'redress' from the papers at the moment - would he be meaning further contributions to the Fund? But they've had over half a million already - more redress is unlikely I'd think.

Pity that EM didn't ask Kate what to do about missing people as by now she must be very well informed, she took the trouble to say :
I got a reply back which made my blood boil. It was basically telling me that he... they knew what was best for Madeleine; that they knew best what was for missing children. So despite what we as parents thought, despite what the Metropolitan police thought, they knew what was best, unquote

An ideal opportunity to tell us what IS best for missing children Kate, but you didn't, lost the manual?

by Mrs Beeton 18.02.13 17:03

Bob Southgate wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Mirage wrote:Oh and.... Kate and Gerry, if you're looking in. The above, by the way, is how the hoi polloi get treated for neglecting their kids. Perhaps you could let us know the name of the bod who okayed your version of childcare?
They have more or less identified him. On page 124 of 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann, she writes "...the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting'...it was reassuring to hear..."

The barrister was from an organisation called the International Family Law Group. According to Kate (again, page 124), she wrote:

"One of the offers of help we'd received came from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry's. He worked for a firm specialising in family law, the International Family Law Group...on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal".

It was this barrister who gave the famous 'within the bounds of reasonable parenting' quote.

Or so Kate says, anyways
But they still haven't named him. And this failure to name the barrister casts doubt that they did receive such advice. If they had named him then he would be contactable and could confirm or deny the advice that was given.

Yes, it would be very interesting to read the details of that advice (if it was written). Without having any specific knowledge of family law myself , I can imagine something along the lines of: "if you were to say to me that you were no further away than the equivalent distance to the end of a suburban garden and that you checked the children every half hour that could arguably be within the bounds of reasonable parenting". I wonder if this type of legal advice helped with writing the timeline on Madeleine's book.

by **PeterMac** 18.02.13 17:08

tigger wrote:I
I got a reply back which made my blood boil. It was basically telling me that he... they knew what was best for Madeleine; that they knew best what was for missing children. So despite what we as parents thought, despite what the Metropolitan police thought, they knew what was best, unquote
An ideal opportunity to tell us what IS best for missing children Kate, but you didn't, lost the manual?

Kate may know what is best for missing children, but clearly not for ones which are not yet missing.

by onion 18.02.13 17:21

Extracted from --> http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/attent.htm

The need for attention is paramount to the person with narcissistic personality disorder,
and he or she will do anything to obtain that attention. Over the last two years, the
fastest growing sector for calls to the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line has
been from the charity / voluntary / not-for-profit sector. In most (although not all)
cases, the identified serial bully is a female whose objective is to demonstrate to the
world what a wonderful, kind, caring, compassionate person she is. Bold pronouncements, a
prominent position, gushing empathy, sitting on many committees for good causes, etc all
feature regularly. However, staff turnover is high and morale low amongst those doing the
work and interacting with clients. In each case, the relief of other people's suffering
changes from an objective and instead becomes a vehicle for gaining attention for oneself.
In some situations, more money is spent on dealing with the consequences of the serial
bully's behaviour (investigations, grievance procedures, legal action, staff turnover,
sickness absence etc) than is spent on clients.

those description sounded so familiar... :)

by ShuBob 18.02.13 18:07

We know Kate is lying about the alleged "reasonable parenting" advice because at the beginning, they said the advise was that they were well within the bounds of responsible parenting. That later changed to reasonable parenting. They haven't used the word "responsible" since, not even in Kate's book as far as I'm aware.

by plebgate 18.02.13 18:24

Thanks for that post Shubob.
I have not read her book so was unaware that there had been a "subtle" change of wording to reasonable parenting. Either way, I do not agree with the un-named official. Of course it would have to have been the barrister who supposedly said it - couldn't possibly be a mere un-named paralegal.
It's like somebody posted about the Andrew Marr interview. She emailed an un-named editor and was left with her blood boiling after the reply came back.
With the amount of clout they have I am surprised the owner of the newspaper wasn't contacted The Sunday Marr Show 17 February - Page 6 82678

The Sunday Marr Show 17 February - Page 6 82678

by margaret 18.02.13 18:38

ShuBob wrote:McCannfiles now has a transcript of the Marr Show interview credited to A. Miller

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Thanks a.miller.

Kate McCann: And why... why do the press, why do the Government what... not want to be accountable like everybody else? I mean the press are the first to hold people in authority to account.

Oh the irony. YOU, Kate never want to be accountable for your lax parenting skills.

And as for transparency, your fund is hardly transparent......

Ridiculous pair. They look ill, l think they know their free time is coming to an end.

by Inspectorfrost 19.02.13 1:35

Michael Nicholls was the barrister employed at the same time as iflg

In Kates book she says *reasonable* parenting

Press reports early on quoted Clarence as saying responsible and reasonable, both in the same one article, the Mail if you want to google it

My take is the barrister said reasonable and it got spinned into reaponsible to allay the GUILT and culpability as there is NOTHING responsible in leaving three babies to fend for themselves out of ear and eyeshot, oh, besides its not up to barristers to lay down the law what is ok or not vis a vis child neglect, KM might do good to eat his panama hat and digest a few things

by ShuBob 19.02.13 2:21

Inspectorfrost wrote:Michael Nicholls was the barrister employed at the same time as iflg

In Kates book she says *reasonable* parenting

Press reports early on quoted Clarence as saying responsible and reasonable, both in the same one article, the Mail if you want to google it

My take is the barrister said reasonable and it got spinned into reaponsible to allay the GUILT and culpability as there is NOTHING responsible in leaving three babies to fend for themselves out of ear and eyeshot, oh, besides its not up to barristers to lay down the law what is ok or not vis a vis child neglect, KM might do good to eat his panama hat and digest a few things

Gerry's blog of 22 July 2007 was unequivocal:

"We have been advised that legally our behaviour was well within the bounds of responsible parenting and subsequently been assured that no action will be taken."

by aiyoyo 19.02.13 5:06

ShuBob wrote:We know Kate is lying about the alleged "reasonable parenting" advice because at the beginning, they said the advise was that they were well within the bounds of responsible parenting. That later changed to reasonable parenting. They haven't used the word "responsible" since, not even in Kate's book as far as I'm aware.

Nail on the head. She made that up. Of all people, lawyer will be the last to tell you your parenting skill is responsible especially after you have have admitted to having left your children alone and one is missing.

It's easy to claim a barrister advised you that when you are vague about it and dont list a name so therefore there's no way for anyone to verify your claim.

If you have a legal eagle advising you that "you were well within the bounds of responsible parenting" then you would optimize the opportunity to repeat the quote verbatim. You wouldn't change the wording and you would name the barrister to lend support to your claim.

by Smokeandmirrors 19.02.13 8:30

Back to the Marr show, Kate saying that the front page "sighting" was one she had rather not have been published as it was a lead that hadn't been fully explored - that's such a lie. It wasn't a lead at all it was a picture of a wholly unrelated person and place put in the media by an attention seeking nutter. It took web detectives all of about 5 mins to source the picture back to a news website. Hardly a lead then, was it?

And yet they continue to "purport" their theories, which Gerry says is an OK thing to do, except when they're full of inaccuracies. Or are the inaccuracies the sole right and property of the McCanns? It's OK for them to go on TV with the likes of Piers Morgan and on respected current affairs shows like Marr and say the most misleading of things, but not OK for the rest of the world to challenge this verbal incontinence?

Mr and Mrs McCann, the time is coming for you to exit stage left as you keep fluffing the lines and talking nonsense.

by Mirage 19.02.13 9:25

If memory serves, didn't GM preface the statement with: "We've been advised that .........this was within reasonable bounds of parenting"?

Didn't the remark come shortly after they had a visit from the social services re the twins? Did he just announce thsi out of the blue, or was he asked a specific, I wonder. I seem to have a memory of assuming the social workers had cleared them. If so, maybe this comment also belongs on the pre-emptive thread!

Or, perhaps it was the social workers whofind in their favour!

by **tigger** 19.02.13 9:30

Mirage wrote:If memory serves, didn't GM preface the statement with: "We've been advised that .........this was within reasonable bounds of parenting"?

Didn't the remark come shortly after they had a visit from the social services re the twins? Did he just announce thsi out of the blue, or was he asked a specific, I wonder. I seem to have a memory of assuming the social workers had cleared them. If so, maybe this comment also belongs on the pre-emptive thread!

Or, perhaps it was the social workers whofind in their favour!

The CAT's files on each are in the system under child abuse. Although the LP when mentioning this about a year late, hasten to add that no actions have been taken regarding these files.

by ShuBob 19.02.13 13:21

Mirage wrote:If memory serves, didn't GM preface the statement with: "We've been advised that .........this was within reasonable bounds of parenting"?

Didn't the remark come shortly after they had a visit from the social services re the twins? Did he just announce thsi out of the blue, or was he asked a specific, I wonder. I seem to have a memory of assuming the social workers had cleared them. If so, maybe this comment also belongs on the pre-emptive thread!

Or, perhaps it was the social workers whofind in their favour!

In my previous post I quoted from Gerry's blog where he's categorical about the alleged advice.

by Mirage 19.02.13 13:43

[quote="ShuBob"]

Mirage wrote:If memory serves, didn't GM preface the statement with: "We've been advised that .........this was within reasonable bounds of parenting"?

Didn't the remark come shortly after they had a visit from the social services re the twins? Did he just announce thsi out of the blue, or was he asked a specific, I wonder. I seem to have a memory of assuming the social workers had cleared them. If so, maybe this comment also belongs on the pre-emptive thread!

Or, perhaps it was the social workers whofind in their favour!

Thanks Shubob. Tried to do a hasty catch up and have maybe missed bits. Notwithstanding, they were okayed by social workers to look after the twins but it seems GM wanted to emphasise the legal situation.

by **PeterMac** 21.02.13 8:52

"Madeleine and her safety is often treated with complete contempt"

You couldn't make up a quote like that !

by Guest 21.02.13 8:56

I think that this little gem has replaced my previous favourite "how-do-they-say-that-while-keeping-a-straight-face" remark - the one where Kate said that the families of missing people are left "in the dark" with no help available.

by bobbin 21.02.13 9:01

PeterMac wrote:"Madeleine and her safety is often treated with complete contempt"

You couldn't make up a quote like that !

Well, HE would know that, wouldn't he. A 'good marketing ploy' that risks your daughter's eye being gouged out for a start.
This man is evil incarnate, should not be left in charge of his other two children. Where are the social services? the police, the judiciary? The Sunday Marr Show 17 February - Page 6 173510

The Sunday Marr Show 17 February - Page 6 173510

by **PeterMac** 21.02.13 9:10

bobbin wrote:
Where are the ... judiciary?

Concentrating on what they have been told to ! !

by Truthmustout 21.02.13 9:16

PeterMac wrote:"Madeleine and her safety is often treated with complete contempt"

You couldn't make up a quote like that !

I like that he comes with quotes like that, makes it easier for ppl to see them for who they really are.more and more ppl are getting fed up with them one way or the other.

Gerry think he is smart, but then again stupid ppl often do..

by mydadsanastronaut 21.02.13 9:37

Moa-Vanilla wrote:
PeterMac wrote:"Madeleine and her safety is often treated with complete contempt"

You couldn't make up a quote like that !

I like that he comes with quotes like that, makes it easier for ppl to see them for who they really are.more and more ppl are getting fed up with them one way or the other.

Gerry think he is smart, but then again stupid ppl often do..

I agree. And I think he was badly advised PR wise about Sunday's tv appearance. Surely, it would have been a smarter move when asked what he would do, to have focused also on the ordeal faced by others who had been hacked, thus gaining sympathy for more draconian measures.

But no, they chose to make it all about their personal circumstances and it looked rather a petulant, dummy-spitting performance which was trying to force a change in direction of the proposed regulations solely to benefit them. Not their finest moment: somewhat reminiscent of his throwing a massive wobbly outside the court in Portugal a few years ago, after which their PR advisors appear to have decided he had to be sent home.

by russiandoll 21.02.13 10:07

Have looked but can't find a still of the pair on the show before their interview was screened. EM announced that they would be among his guests and they appeared briefly onscreen gazing directly at the camera with faces whose expression I wish could have been captured in a still. To describe it is difficult, faces like thunder does not quite do it, there was more than anger there. Something like defiance in it, it was a sight to behold all right and was more than the grief of years with a child missing. Did anyone else see this?

by Spaniel 21.02.13 11:37

russiandoll wrote:Have looked but can't find a still of the pair on the show before their interview was screened. EM announced that they would be among his guests and they appeared briefly onscreen gazing directly at the camera with faces whose expression I wish could have been captured in a still. To describe it is difficult, faces like thunder does not quite do it, there was more than anger there. Something like defiance in it, it was a sight to behold all right and was more than the grief of years with a child missing. Did anyone else see this?

I just had another look. A look of disdain from her and the usual pong under his nose face, defiance as you say from both. She having to lean across to hold his hand.

The responsible parenting from a barrister could have been a shot across the bow to SS. "Don't even think about it, you'd fail in court, a barrister said so." Should go in the preemptive speech thread if not there already.

The other line, "Madeleine has often been treated with complete contempt for her safety." is that because deep in the recess of their minds, they know they didn't leave her alone?

by Guest 21.02.13 12:43

russiandoll wrote:Have looked but can't find a still of the pair on the show before their interview was screened. EM announced that they would be among his guests and they appeared briefly onscreen gazing directly at the camera with faces whose expression I wish could have been captured in a still. To describe it is difficult, faces like thunder does not quite do it, there was more than anger there. Something like defiance in it, it was a sight to behold all right and was more than the grief of years with a child missing. Did anyone else see this?

Good morning.

Yes, I did. Their expressions struck me too, as an odd mix of defiance and anger.

Also, she was already reaching for his nether regions, which not for the first time struck me as inappropriate.

Maybe they don't see too much of each other at home and make up for this in public?

Who knows. Anyway, they are not 16 yr olds in the back of a movie theatre, so could they please stop this?

I for one would be very grateful.

by Ollie 22.02.13 20:56

[quote="Smokeandmirrors"]Back to the Marr show, Kate saying that the front page "sighting" was one she had rather not have been published as it was a lead that hadn't been fully explored - that's such a lie.
IIRC Gerry said it hadn't been fully investigated (can't watch it again). But a spokesperson - CM? - a long time ago said that all the sightings had already been fully investigated before they hit the headlines. So was the spokesperson lying or was it the McCanns lying on the show (most likely, to get the sympathy vote).

Latest topics