Blacksmith 5th march 2013 - and conclude

I enjoy Blacksmith's posts very much, even the ones I can't understand.
In this latest article he states that the press do not have drawers full of McCann related stories ready to unleash when needed. But then he says he was approached by a couple of journalists from different newspapers wanting information on the proposed settlement.
My question is why? If the papers aren't keeping info on the McCanns and don't ever print anything of a derogatory nature then why would they exert themselves in an effort to find out if the McCanns' had folded?
If they find that the McCanns' have fell on their sword then they won't print and apparently don't store it so why bother?

From his superfluous words what came across is that that Mccanns asked for the settlement, none was reached, the trial is going ahead, mccanns are facing comprehensive defeat; and BS feels sorry for them, no eyes to watch their boat sink to the bottom of the sea, so won't comment further on them.

In other words, he's saying his little bureau is retiring once the mccanns comprehensive list of defeats emerge from Court, and BS will walk away from it all. Then maybe he will reveal his true identity at that point, and may turn out to be a journalist with the rag.

He's certainly enjoys a cat and mouse game with his audience.

Casey5 wrote:I enjoy Blacksmith's posts very much, even the ones I can't understand.
In this latest article he states that the press do not have drawers full of McCann related stories ready to unleash when needed. But then he says he was approached by a couple of journalists from different newspapers wanting information on the proposed settlement.
My question is why? If the papers aren't keeping info on the McCanns and don't ever print anything of a derogatory nature then why would they exert themselves in an effort to find out if the McCanns' had folded?
If they find that the McCanns' have fell on their sword then they won't print and apparently don't store it so why bother?

I interpreted this as a convoluted way of saying the press are being kept silent...which clearly they are if they are not even going to be able to print basic information on whether a settlement has or not been agreed between both parties

aiyoyo wrote:
He's certainly enjoys a cat and mouse game with his audience.

Yes I think so most definately

Super injunction ? If bs is an affiliated member of the press he can't comment

I may be totally mistaken, but it looks like he might want to be sued ...

Châtelaine wrote:I may be totally mistaken, but it looks like he might want to be sued ...

Interesting thought. If the Leveson gets attached to the new libel reform bill, then it would be risky. If Gerry gets his way, with the likes of Huge Grant, then Leveson will fix it for freedom of expres​sion(NOT) for ever.
But better actors, writers, doctors, scientists etc. are now writing to his royal Cameronship to get the old Libel reform bill re-instated.
I don't know yet if a new petition will be called for, but I will definitely sign it if and when it does.
Article in the guardian here:-

Authors call on party leaders to save libel reform
Open letter from writers including Stephen Fry says defamation bill is in danger of being killed off by Leveson row
• The Guardian, Wednesday 6 March 2013 18.00 GMT

Stephen Fry, one of the writers who signed the letter along with Salman Rushdie, Julian Barnes, David Hare, Ali Smith and others. Photograph: Gavin Rodgers/Rex Features
Some of the Britain's most acclaimed authors and playwrights including Stephen Fry, Sir Tom Stoppard, William Boyd, Margaret Drabble, Ian McEwan and Salman Rushdie have called on the main party leaders to honour their pledge and implement a defamation bill aimed at transforming 170-year-old laws they say have silenced scientists and authors as well as journalists and activists.
In an open letter the authors tell David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband they were "deeply concerned" that the bill was going to be killed off after three years going through the legislative process simply because it had become entangled in a political row over the Leveson report on press regulation in the past month.
They said it was "entirely inappropriate, and even reckless, for libel reform to be sacrificed to the current political stalemate" in the letter, organised by the writers' lobby group English Pen.
Current British libel laws, the authors argue, have not changed substantially since 1843, have made London the libel capital of the world and are "not just a national disgrace" but an international concern. In 2010 the US president, Barack Obama, introduced laws in America to protect US citizens from British courts.
The signatories, who also include Julian Barnes, Claire Tomalin, Ali Smith, Dame Antonia Fraser, Sir David Hare, Susie Orbach and Michael Frayn, are concerned that improved libel laws are on the verge of collapse because of amendments inserted by Lord Puttnam into the bill in the past month during its final stage in the House of Lords.
The bill has been three years in the making and was included in the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It did not touch on press regulation until last month, when a group of peers, frustrated by the lack of progress on the Leveson report among the political parties, won overwhelming support in the Lords to add sections to the bill covering a newspaper watchdog's activities.
Writer Gillian Slovo, daughter of the anti-apartheid leader Joe Slovo, told the Guardian: "It would be a terrible thing if the bill was killed, not because it isn't supported by all three parties, because it is, but because it became entangled in Leveson. It would be a great loss."
She said that "one of the great strengths of Britain was freedom of speech but its achilles heel is the libel laws which are mostly used to silence the less well-off".
Libel reform campaigners including Lord Lester, believe it can be salvaged but only if it gets on to Commons business by the middle of March. Political sources have confirmed it is not currently slated for discussion and will not be while Leveson talks continue, raising fears the bill is already dead.
Boyd, vice-president of English Pen, said Puttnam's amendments had "nothing to do with the principle of libel reforms, whose validity had already been established" through consultation and debate in three parliamentary committees.
The amendments include proposals for a new arbitration unit to resolve disputes with newspapers and an incentive system that would mean publishers who did not sign up to the new press regulator could face punitive damages and costs in high court libel actions.
The authors say that in the past three years a number of scientists have faced "ruinous libel suits simply for blowing the whistle on dangerous medical practices". If the defamation bill became law, the risk of libel action would be lessened because of a new public interest defence. Big corporations such as drugs companies would also have to prove serious financial harm before they could take action.
"If the law is not reformed, bullies will continue to be able to prevent the publication of stories that are often not only in the public interest, but a matter of public health and safety," the letter says.
Other signatories are Lisa Appignanesi, Jake Arnott, Amanda Craig, Victoria Glendinning, Mark Haddon, Ronald Harwood, Michael Holroyd, Howard Jacobson, Hisham Matar, Philippe Sands, Will Self, Kamila Shamsie and Raleigh Trevelyan.
Downing Street said it supported the bill but said it was stymied as long as the Puttnam amendments remained. "The government is strongly behind the objectives of the original defamation bill. The government does not support the Puttnam amendments and is clear the Puttnam amendments will not make it onto statute," said a spokesman for Number 10.
A Labour spokesperson said: "Labour's commitment to modernising our outdated defamation laws can be seen in the sheer effort we've put into knocking into shape an original set of proposals that really weren't up to the mark. It would be an outrage if the government prevented parliament from having its say given how much work has gone into proposals that give our defamation laws a much-need updating."
Full text of the open letter
We are writing to urge you to fulfil your commitment to libel reform and ensure that the defamation bill is passed.
All three parties made a pledge in their manifestos and this was restated in the government's coalition agreement.
We are deeply concerned that the bill is currently under threat, following the insertion of a new clause, late in the legislative process, which introduced aspects of Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations. The defamation bill is not a suitable vehicle for the wider proposals of press regulation – as Lord Justice Leveson himself noted, libel did not form part of his terms of reference. It is therefore entirely inappropriate, and even reckless, for libel reform to be sacrificed to the current political stalemate. The bill offers an opportunity for reform that we cannot afford to miss.
This is a citizens' bill that has the support of scientists, consumer groups, lawyers, doctors, journalists, writers and bloggers – more than 60,000 individuals have signed the Libel Reform Campaign's petition for reform. This rare consensus across society springs from the knowledge that the libel laws of England and Wales may chill the speech of anyone who has the courage to speak out in the public interest.
Since the campaign for libel reform began three years ago, you will be aware of the many cases of scientists who have faced ruinous libel suits simply for blowing the whistle on dangerous medical practices, of writers whose investigations in the public interest cannot be published in the UK for fear of an action and consumer forums who face threatening letters from claimant lawyers for exposing poor practice. If the law is not reformed, bullies will continue to be able to prevent the publication of stories that are often not only in the public interest, but a matter of public health and safety.
Our libel laws are not just a national disgrace, but an international concern. The UN human rights committee singled the UK out for the impact of libel on freedom of expression; the USA has introduced legislation to protect its citizens from our libel courts.
The defamation bill promises to bring libel law into the 21st century by providing effective defences for online publication, it will stop corporations from bullying individuals into silence, put an end to trivial and vexatious claims, and introduce a long overdue public interest defence.
This is an historic moment for free speech in this country. As writers and members of English Pen, we ask you to honour your commitment and ensure that the bill completes its passage by the end of this session of parliament.
Lisa Appignanesi, Jake Arnott, Julian Barnes, William Boyd, Amanda Craig, Margaret Drabble, Antonia Fraser, Michael Frayn, Stephen Fry, Victoria Glendinning, Mark Haddon, David Hare, Ronald Harwood, Michael Holroyd, Howard Jacobson, Hisham Matar, Ian McEwan, Susie Orbach, Salman Rushdie, Philippe Sands, Will Self, Kamila Shamsie, Gillian Slovo, Ali Smith, Tom Stoppard, Claire Tomalin, Raleigh Trevelyan

We're in the thousands. It would be flooding the gates. Would they want to sue each and everyone, who holds a critical view of what may have happened? It's a case of their very own making. Their inconsistencies, their turnabouts ... why wouldn't one be allowed to doubt the veracity? Apart from that: would they want to take on posters outside the U.K.?

Châtelaine wrote:We're in the thousands. It would be flooding the gates. Would they want to sue each and everyone, who holds a critical view of what may have happened? It's a case of their very own making. Their inconsistencies, their turnabouts ... why wouldn't one be allowed to doubt the veracity? Apart from that: would they want to take on posters outside the U.K.?

I agree, there were some 60,000 signed that last petition, but the situation is still unequal. Just look at Tony and Goncalo, their books banned in the UK and UK citizens at risk of losing all and being imprisoned for exercising their freedom of speech. I know Tony signed papers, but he was forced to, such again is the unequal situation where the rich have ordinary people by the 'thingies'.
However, UN and ECHR are agreed that freedom of expression is a right and that the current UK libel laws are wrong, so an appeal could be made on those grounds, but of course Mme. Mai is talking of taking UK out of the ECHR. What will follow that, taking us out of UN.
The only thing is, as you say, numbers. The UK populace will take just so much before apathy becomes discomfort, then anger, then an overturn. Maybe it won't need to get to a repetition of the American civil war, or a new French type revolution, but once people are pushed enough, the push backwards is not a pretty thing and politicians can get spilled in the stampede too. Some politicians are mindful of this, others, so arrogant and self-believing may miss the cues, but at their peril. "The peasants are revolting, sir" "yes I know, no finesse at all"
Head in sand means bottom sticking out. Beware, head-in-sanders.

Casey5 wrote:I enjoy Blacksmith's posts very much, even the ones I can't understand.
In this latest article he states that the press do not have drawers full of McCann related stories ready to unleash when needed. But then he says he was approached by a couple of journalists from different newspapers wanting information on the proposed settlement.
My question is why? If the papers aren't keeping info on the McCanns and don't ever print anything of a derogatory nature then why would they exert themselves in an effort to find out if the McCanns' had folded?
If they find that the McCanns' have fell on their sword then they won't print and apparently don't store it so why bother?

I agree - but Blacksmith qualified this statement about dossiers with the following sentence:

"Whatever finally appeared in the media would only do so when the facts had been established elsewhere."

Maybe they await the facts from officials sources first.

Angelique wrote:

Casey5 wrote:I enjoy Blacksmith's posts very much, even the ones I can't understand.
In this latest article he states that the press do not have drawers full of McCann related stories ready to unleash when needed. But then he says he was approached by a couple of journalists from different newspapers wanting information on the proposed settlement.
My question is why? If the papers aren't keeping info on the McCanns and don't ever print anything of a derogatory nature then why would they exert themselves in an effort to find out if the McCanns' had folded?
If they find that the McCanns' have fell on their sword then they won't print and apparently don't store it so why bother?

I agree - but Blacksmith qualified this statement about dossiers with the following sentence:

"Whatever finally appeared in the media would only do so when the facts had been established elsewhere."

Maybe they await the facts from officials sources first.

If that is the case, why check with the little bureau for scrap of information, when they got to have established facts first before printing?
Info from the little bureau hardly constitutes official source or facts.

The Blacksmith Bureau

WEDNESDAY, 6 MARCH 2013

Footnote
John Blacksmith (Antony Sharples) writes:

The kind person who sent me the emails which I reproduced on yesterday's blog contacted me again today to let me know that the other party had asked her to get me to remove them. In fact I'm no believer in posting other's emails without their OK so I at once took them down and put them in a safe place.

This was all connected, of course, with our little exercise in the last few posts of getting as many viewpoints as possible about the claim that the McCanns have "asked for terms" from Goncalo Amaral – so that they can be coldly examined and reproduced, in the light of the truth when it emerges. Quite a public interest initiative really, isn't it? A kind of retrospective truth meter so that people will then be sure who they can trust in the future and who were lying through their fucking teeth.

Naturally, since most of the Blacksmith Bureau has been concerned with the McCann's repeated, incorrigible and self-admitted lying, we were very interested to hear what the couple had to say about this "rumour", so that their comment too could be fed into the truth machine. Alas, they will not tell us.

But it seems that in response to mounting pressure for an answer from the readers of the Find Madeleine Campaign page, the webmaster there finally said that she would talk to Kate about the matter. Later on she emailed some members, including the one who contacted me, and said that the claims that the McCanns were asking for terms were just unfounded rumours and weren't based on fact. That's fine, that's her entry into the truth machine draw.

But this webmaster, who unlike Kate and Gerry McCann, it seems, does read the Bureau, freaked out when she saw the emails here, contacted the person and in a rather coarse message – she lacks good manners—told her that she was to get the messages taken down by the Bureau immediately. Otherwise she would contact her "legal representation" – she lacks good English – and would, oh my God, contact Google! Much luck with that one, dearie.

She also claimed not that the relevant email was private, which it was, but that it was – she lacks knowledge of the law – confidential, which it wasn't. I was slightly perplexed by that since I read this on Tuesday night on Twitter:

“Gi' O'er ‏@Mrsxxxx Blacksmith's private e-mails as mentioned in today's blog were actually posts on the publicly viewable OFM FB page - ROFL! #McCann”

But don't let me intrude on private grief. The person who sent me the mails would rather I didn't remove them, on the grounds, she tells me, that:

"The undeniable duplicity of the McCanns and their cohorts is contained within those emails, we know it and so do they. Remove them and we are facilitating their deception. Publish and be damned say I but of course it is your blog so your call."

Anyway I've taken them down, as I said, since otherwise the privacy of one of the parties would be breached.

But it's not just a matter of privacy, of course: our ill-mannered webmaster, who can't even spell my name right, was extremely anxious to stress to her correspondent that it is she, not, no definitely not, Kate McCann, who is saying that the story that the McCanns cracked and asked for a settlement is unfounded. No, not Kate.

Well, that one goes into the truth machine as well, for recall at the appropriate date – Gosh, we do have a lot of entries! – but it does leave a couple of questions unanswered, doesn't it? Such as how did an insignificant website nonentity like this one know that the "rumour" was unfounded and not based on fact? And, while she was in contact, as promised, with Kate McCann, talking presumably about nothing special, why she didn't ask Kate whether the rumour was, as she herself was suddenly certain, (after having been unable to answer the question before speaking to Kate!) not based on fact?

Best thing she could do is contact her "legal representation" and sue me. Then she'd be able to tell us all about the conversation in court.

It didn't take long for the truth machine to start working, did it? There'll be more.

at 19:12

Oh dearie me, kate's blood is boiling again.
I bet the webmaster at Find Madeleine Campaign is the Mrs herself.
What a mountain over a molehill - typical - threatening to use "lawyer" over something as trivial as this is bringing more attention to this non issue.
If the Webmaster isnt Kate then the message must be from the horse's mouth. Else what does it matter whether the message is reproduced or not?
Does it matter whether people are told whether by webmaster or kate herself that the rumour "is unfounded and not based on fact".
Webmaster is representative of Mccanns so isnt it the same thing?
Another self goal that.

If the webmaster supplied that answer without checking with Kate then rightfully Kate should sue her webmaster.
Oh what a tangled web they spin ! "webmaster" indeed - I 'm liking the new title for the Mrs.

I don't believe for a minute that the webmaster is anyone other than Kate herself.

It certainly does conjure up an image of a particularly vicious spider.......

This is to add to the comments on page 3:
(from MM last year by The Slave)
I found this little gem hidden away in Private Eye January 2010......

''Scientists urge reform of 'lethal'libel laws''.thundered the headline over a Times report on how the libel law was endangering public health by stopping peer-reviewed research appearing in medical journals.
It quoted Dr.Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, describing how one of BMJ's satellite magazines, Archives of Disease in Childhood, had turned down a paper describing clinical signs associated with child abuse.''These cases were all from the U.K., and the information should have been readily available to doctors inthe U.K.'' she said. ''Science and medical discussion must be open and critical''.
But what was the paper that Dr.Godlee feared might bring her colleaguesthe unwelcome attention of Carter Fuck and Mr.Justice Eady? Perhaps fearing a writ of it's own, the 'Thunderer coyly refused to say. The Eye can reveal that in 2007 Professor Neil McIntosh from the Department of Child Life and Health at the University of Edinburgh, and his associates submitted an exhaustive review of 58,059 infants admitted to Scottish A&E departments.
They were looking for examples of nosebleeds and coughing up blood,and suggested they were so rare among children under two that they could be signs of child abuse. They recommended that in future a paediatrician should check out children with nosebleeds, but were careful to add: ''No children described in this report suffered injury from definite abuse that was sufficiently worrying to trigger child protection proceedings at the time of the injury''.
Though no individual was named or accused, the lawyers went into a tizzy fearing that parents could sue the journal claiming the doctors were indirectly suggesting they may be abusers. That was enough of a chilling effect for the Archives of Disease in Childhood lawyers to stop publication.
Although it turned the paper down, 'Pediatrics' decided that Professor McIntosh and his team had produced important work and published it. 'Pediatrics ' is an American journal. Thus American doctors can read the results of a study of British children in British hospitals that British publishers dare not run.'''
'Ratbiter'.

[quote="Angelique"]

Casey5 wrote:I enjoy Blacksmith's posts very much, even the ones I can't understand.


I agree - but Blacksmith qualified this statement about dossiers with the following sentence:

"Whatever finally appeared in the media would only do so when the facts had been established elsewhere."

Maybe they await the facts from officials sources first.

Those from the Leicester Police files, for example? Just a thought!

Snipped from aiyoyos post: "If the webmaster supplied that answer without checking with Kate then rightfully Kate should sue her webmaster.
Oh what a tangled web they spin ! "webmaster" indeed - I 'm liking the new title for the Mrs."

Yes I agree - any menton of contacting lawyers and suing would not surprise me iff this is her new title.

plebgate wrote:Snipped from aiyoyos post: "If the webmaster supplied that answer without checking with Kate then rightfully Kate should sue her webmaster.
Oh what a tangled web they spin ! "webmaster" indeed - I 'm liking the new title for the Mrs."

Yes I agree - any menton of contacting lawyers and suing would not surprise me iff this is her new title.

It's a dead giveaway that the webmaster is Mrs herself, else how dare the webmaster threaten people with suit?

Who is going to pay for the lawyer if it comes to that? The webmaster out of her own pocket or Find Madeleine Campaign? It is the same as the mccanns really. The webmaster would not have dared drag the mccanns name into a suit without kate's ok, or the webmaster must be the fragrant kate herself.
If the webmaster is the Mrs herself then the accounts showing over 30K paid to webmaster can only mean one thing.

aiyoyo wrote:
If the webmaster is the Mrs herself then the accounts showing over 30K paid to webmaster can only mean one thing.

Touché !
Even a spider can get trapped in its own web

Oh no I see
A spider web it's tangled up with me
And I lost my head
The thought of all the stupid things I said
Oh no what's this
A spider web and I'm caught in the middle
So I turned to run
The thought of all the stupid things I've done

And oh I never meant to cause you trouble
And oh and I never meant to do you wrong
And oh well if I ever caused you trouble
Oh no I never meant to do you harm

Oh no I see
A spider web and it's me in the middle
So I twist and turn
Here am I in my little bubble

Oh I never meant to cause you trouble
Oh I never meant to do you wrong
Oh well if I ever caused you trouble
Oh no I never meant to do you harm
They spun a web for me

Fairly apt, don't you think !

On the ofm facebook, some one wants to know why their post was deleted re-metodo3 and he was addressing his post to webmaster kate.

Re: Blacksmith 5th march 2013 - and conclude

Angelique Today at 12:35 am

Casey5 wrote:I enjoy Blacksmith's posts very much, even the ones I can't understand.

I agree - but Blacksmith qualified this statement about dossiers with the following sentence:

"Whatever finally appeared in the media would only do so when the facts had been established elsewhere."

Maybe they await the facts from officials sources first.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Leveson Hearing the Editor of the Express was savaged for stating that the articles the Express had printed had turned out to be factual and confirmed by the Portuguese police files.
The Express still paid the McCanns' and their mates though.

tigger wrote:This is to add to the comments on page 3:
(from MM last year by The Slave)
I found this little gem hidden away in Private Eye January 2010......

''Scientists urge reform of 'lethal'libel laws''.thundered the headline over a Times report on how the libel law was endangering public health by stopping peer-reviewed research appearing in medical journals.
It quoted Dr.Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, describing how one of BMJ's satellite magazines, Archives of Disease in Childhood, had turned down a paper describing clinical signs associated with child abuse.''These cases were all from the U.K., and the information should have been readily available to doctors inthe U.K.'' she said. ''Science and medical discussion must be open and critical''.
But what was the paper that Dr.Godlee feared might bring her colleaguesthe unwelcome attention of Carter Fuck and Mr.Justice Eady? Perhaps fearing a writ of it's own, the 'Thunderer coyly refused to say. The Eye can reveal that in 2007 Professor Neil McIntosh from the Department of Child Life and Health at the University of Edinburgh, and his associates submitted an exhaustive review of 58,059 infants admitted to Scottish A&E departments.
They were looking for examples of nosebleeds and coughing up blood,and suggested they were so rare among children under two that they could be signs of child abuse. They recommended that in future a paediatrician should check out children with nosebleeds, but were careful to add: ''No children described in this report suffered injury from definite abuse that was sufficiently worrying to trigger child protection proceedings at the time of the injury''.
Though no individual was named or accused, the lawyers went into a tizzy fearing that parents could sue the journal claiming the doctors were indirectly suggesting they may be abusers. That was enough of a chilling effect for the Archives of Disease in Childhood lawyers to stop publication.
Although it turned the paper down, 'Pediatrics' decided that Professor McIntosh and his team had produced important work and published it. 'Pediatrics ' is an American journal. Thus American doctors can read the results of a study of British children in British hospitals that British publishers dare not run.'''
'Ratbiter'.

Nosebleeds?

It was from a question on this:
Gerry being heard as an arguido on september 7th 2007:

Blood was mentioned. The defence lawyer reacting to this, i.e. Gerry's lawyer, tried to explain it away. To no avail:

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for
Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he
does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

Bleeding occurred: before May 3rd.
Press comments: after May 3rd.

How could Gerry's observing his daughters bleeding BEFORE may 3rd have been compromised by the media attention AFTER May 3rd??

Unquote (from forensic linguistics)

Somebody posted the PE article with it - I posted it here because another post mentioned the scientific community also protest against the libel law. This is a good example imo.

Sorry I'm completely OT!

Beanie wrote:Quote:
Blacksmith I assume is saying the press have not got stacks of boxes of dirt on the McCanns, but also that the McCanns are not being protected by powerful people!

I have in-laws who work in the media. There are journalists who are just waiting for the McCs to fall. There are also several authors with books already more or less written. As to powerful people. I have not been told anything, but it seems obvious that they have contact with people of influence. Who goes to see the Pope and is greeted by the British Ambassador? How many of us were invited to appear at the Leveson Inquiry? Someone must be pulling strings somewhere.

When the McCs fall, there is going to be a deluge of articles, videos and books. I do not know when this is going to happen, but I would think the turning point will be when they lose this case in Portugal. And they will lose it.

Writing that book was a terrible mistake. People all over the world have been picking it apart. It will be used against them.

Portia wrote:

tigger wrote:This is to add to the comments on page 3:
(from MM last year by The Slave)
I found this little gem hidden away in Private Eye January 2010......

''Scientists urge reform of 'lethal'libel laws''.thundered the headline over a Times report on how the libel law was endangering public health by stopping peer-reviewed research appearing in medical journals.
It quoted Dr.Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, describing how one of BMJ's satellite magazines, Archives of Disease in Childhood, had turned down a paper describing clinical signs associated with child abuse.''These cases were all from the U.K., and the information should have been readily available to doctors inthe U.K.'' she said. ''Science and medical discussion must be open and critical''.
But what was the paper that Dr.Godlee feared might bring her colleaguesthe unwelcome attention of Carter Fuck and Mr.Justice Eady? Perhaps fearing a writ of it's own, the 'Thunderer coyly refused to say. The Eye can reveal that in 2007 Professor Neil McIntosh from the Department of Child Life and Health at the University of Edinburgh, and his associates submitted an exhaustive review of 58,059 infants admitted to Scottish A&E departments.
They were looking for examples of nosebleeds and coughing up blood,and suggested they were so rare among children under two that they could be signs of child abuse. They recommended that in future a paediatrician should check out children with nosebleeds, but were careful to add: ''No children described in this report suffered injury from definite abuse that was sufficiently worrying to trigger child protection proceedings at the time of the injury''.
Though no individual was named or accused, the lawyers went into a tizzy fearing that parents could sue the journal claiming the doctors were indirectly suggesting they may be abusers. That was enough of a chilling effect for the Archives of Disease in Childhood lawyers to stop publication.
Although it turned the paper down, 'Pediatrics' decided that Professor McIntosh and his team had produced important work and published it. 'Pediatrics ' is an American journal. Thus American doctors can read the results of a study of British children in British hospitals that British publishers dare not run.'''
'Ratbiter'.

Nosebleeds?

Ok nose bleeds, they can and do happen. Since when do they omit cadaver odour though ?.? Or was it a sea bass with a nose bleed.

iluvpelageya wrote:

Beanie wrote:Quote:
Blacksmith I assume is saying the press have not got stacks of boxes of dirt on the McCanns, but also that the McCanns are not being protected by powerful people!

I have in-laws who work in the media. There are journalists who are just waiting for the McCs to fall. There are also several authors with books already more or less written. As to powerful people. I have not been told anything, but it seems obvious that they have contact with people of influence. Who goes to see the Pope and is greeted by the British Ambassador? How many of us were invited to appear at the Leveson Inquiry? Someone must be pulling strings somewhere.

When the McCs fall, there is going to be a deluge of articles, videos and books. I do not know when this is going to happen, but I would think the turning point will be when they lose this case in Portugal. And they will lose it.

Writing that book was a terrible mistake. People all over the world have been picking it apart. It will be used against them.

does this include the tapas friends,after all they could have stopped all this from day 1 when the mccanns lied about the jemmied shutters

iluvpelageya wrote:

Beanie wrote:Quote:
Blacksmith I assume is saying the press have not got stacks of boxes of dirt on the McCanns, but also that the McCanns are not being protected by powerful people!

I have in-laws who work in the media. There are journalists who are just waiting for the McCs to fall. There are also several authors with books already more or less written. As to powerful people. I have not been told anything, but it seems obvious that they have contact with people of influence. Who goes to see the Pope and is greeted by the British Ambassador? How many of us were invited to appear at the Leveson Inquiry? Someone must be pulling strings somewhere.

When the McCs fall, there is going to be a deluge of articles, videos and books. I do not know when this is going to happen, but I would think the turning point will be when they lose this case in Portugal. And they will lose it.

Writing that book was a terrible mistake. People all over the world have been picking it apart. It will be used against them.

I agree! Not for nothing was Kate's novel dubbed 'the longest suicide note in history'...

tiny wrote:

iluvpelageya wrote:

Beanie wrote:Quote:
Blacksmith I assume is saying the press have not got stacks of boxes of dirt on the McCanns, but also that the McCanns are not being protected by powerful people!

I have in-laws who work in the media. There are journalists who are just waiting for the McCs to fall. There are also several authors with books already more or less written. As to powerful people. I have not been told anything, but it seems obvious that they have contact with people of influence. Who goes to see the Pope and is greeted by the British Ambassador? How many of us were invited to appear at the Leveson Inquiry? Someone must be pulling strings somewhere.

When the McCs fall, there is going to be a deluge of articles, videos and books. I do not know when this is going to happen, but I would think the turning point will be when they lose this case in Portugal. And they will lose it.

Writing that book was a terrible mistake. People all over the world have been picking it apart. It will be used against them.

does this include the tapas friends,after all they could have stopped all this from day 1 when the mccanns lied about the jemmied shutters

Stopped?
Provided 'being into each other' excluded 'being into each others children'.

iluvpelageya wrote:

Beanie wrote:Quote:
Blacksmith I assume is saying the press have not got stacks of boxes of dirt on the McCanns, but also that the McCanns are not being protected by powerful people!

I have in-laws who work in the media. There are journalists who are just waiting for the McCs to fall. There are also several authors with books already more or less written. As to powerful people. I have not been told anything, but it seems obvious that they have contact with people of influence. Who goes to see the Pope and is greeted by the British Ambassador? How many of us were invited to appear at the Leveson Inquiry? Someone must be pulling strings somewhere.

When the McCs fall, there is going to be a deluge of articles, videos and books. I do not know when this is going to happen, but I would think the turning point will be when they lose this case in Portugal. And they will lose it.

Writing that book was a terrible mistake. People all over the world have been picking it apart. It will be used against them.

I have always hoped that journalists have been biding their time. We have not seen one critical article from friends, neighbours, work collegues etc., which is unheard of in this day and age of 5 minutes of fame. Yes I do believe they did have friends in high places protecting them but maybe not so many now, perhaps the fact they won't shut up has a lot to do with it. I have read elsewhere that Blacksmith's comment was, tongue in cheek so to speak.

Whatever happens now the McCanns and their friends have only themselves to blame, justice for Madeleine has been a long time coming but hopefully that time is coming soon. The only two people I feel for in all of this are the twins.

I'll add the children of the rest of the Tapas mob, Beanie, including the one born later to the Oldfields. They are the only truly blameless people in this unsavoury saga.