News blackouts?

by Okeydokey 12.11.13 0:38

Does anyone find it suspicious that there appear to be these spikes in McCann news and then nothing for days and weeks on end?

It's almost like there is some sort of superinjunction in place. That would explain why they might have allowed news on the Crimewatch programme - which enabled the Sunday Times Insight Team to release their anti-McCann article. But otherwise we have had complete silence for several days despite tractorman...and that despite the fact we know the McCanns sell newspapers. Very odd. It's almost as if there is a basic injunction in place controlling what McCann stories are allowed - but of course if there are new stories that appear the papers try and latch on to those until some judge declares them to be covered by the already in place rolling injunction.

I would add - let's not forget it was only when the McCanns launched their action against Leics Police in an effort to get their hands on the police files (!!!) that we learnt there was already in place an injunction requiring all official agencies to aid the McCanns (even though they were arguido suspects at the time!! - amazing I know but true). And it was IIRC only then we learned that Madeleine McCann was no longer the legal responsibility of her birth parents but had actually been made a ward of court! As far as I know she still is a ward of court and every time Kate and Gerry go on TV and claim to have some parental (in a legal sense) responsibility for her, they must be (if the ward of court order is still in place) strictly speaking not telling the truth.

My point in that last para is to show there could be any number of injunctions in place which we are completely unaware of.

by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED 12.11.13 2:44

I'd suggest its apparent that there is some sort of restriction in place in relation to what the media can report. Whether that is as a result of a D notice or a super injunction.

IIRC Jon Vincent of the Mirror was unable to print an article / and or had a FOI request refused on the grounds of National Security.

by ekatae 12.11.13 3:11

I have always believed from the start from when I first looked on this forum in October that Newspapers and CW are working in conjunction....!! However, Maybe since the press regulations brought about over past couple of years, press are careful.....!m

by plebgate 13.11.13 8:40

It would not surprise me to hear that this is the case. However, they are costly to keep in place apparently, so if the libel trial goes against them, if there is an injunction in place we shall see how long it remains.

I read somewhere that they have to be renewed every six months and can cost up to half a million. A lot of money then if they have to pay all costs at the end of the libel trial. Then there is the possibility that Mr. A. might sue them.

I wonder why they still have a fund up and running in the search for Maddie as there are two official Police searches underway?

Who on earth would contribute to their fund now that Maddie is being hunted high and low by two Police forces in two countries?

by sami 13.11.13 8:44

What happened to the previously advertised Ireland Crimewatch ? At the time it was stated it would be later in the month (October) but never mentioned since.

by plebgate 13.11.13 8:48

Another odd thing to add to a very long list of odd things imo Sami.

by Okeydokey 13.11.13 9:17

sami wrote:What happened to the previously advertised Ireland Crimewatch ? At the time it was stated it would be later in the month (October) but never mentioned since.

Really? How odd! Maybe they thought better of it once the Insight article appeared?

by bristow 13.11.13 13:18

It does make me wonder whether there is a blackout on a lot of news, do people like Yvonne Warren Martin have to keep quiet, how about people who knew the McCann's in the time before Madeleine disappeared?
Usually there is interview upon interview in papers like The Sun from people, neighbours, parents of children who went to Madeleine's nursery?

I often wonder about Yvonne Martin, so much information in her statement, are the PJ, SY looking at all this again, if not will people like her be able to come forward and speak to the press one day?

Her statement

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

by boo boos 13.11.13 19:20

Hopefully they are keeping quiet as future prosecution witnesses for any future trial, god willing .

by MissDaisy 13.11.13 20:07

bristow wrote:how about people who knew the McCann's in the time before Madeleine disappeared?
Usually there is interview upon interview in papers like The Sun from people, neighbours, parents of children who went to Madeleine's nursery?

I have long wondered that too Bristow, they appear so one dimensional, no past, no history, little before 2007. As John Stalker said "they are hiding a big secret".

by sonic72 13.11.13 22:21

I'm glad somebody has brought this subject up!

I was thinking it was rather odd myself!

Things were fairly quiet in the papers and in the TV news until Crimewatch, then they went crazy for a couple of weeks, reporting every day. All the news channels including the BBC, and the papers were reporting in-sync..

But as soon as the Sunday Times published the story about the McCann's holding back e-fits, all the other papers left that story alone, and the BBC did not report it either.

Since then, all the cheap rags have been churning out all this tractorman tosh, and the BBC haven't reported on it since just before The Sunday Times ran their story.

So the BBC are avoiding the fact the McCanns held back the e-fit, and they are not reporting on tractorman.

These 'spikes' seem choreographed to me, most of the papers and tv news have generally reported when it favours the McCanns, all reporting with limited facts from a pre-prepared script, none of them deviating too far from the script.

So I think these batches of McCann stories just pop up when it's convenient for them, all part of their strategy to keep up the pretense.

How can there be a flood of stories about tractorman, and then no more news about him?

No more news on what the police are doing to certify it IS him, and just some info on what the hell they are actually doing would be good for the public. I mean if this so called tractorman is dead (RIP) then why the secrecy from the police? It's not as if tractorman is going to go do anything if they release his information, it's not going to effect the case one bit if they feel they have their man and he is dead. So the secrecy is quite strange imo.

I eagerly await the next flurry of McCann BS in the news, it's like a serial comedy. I suspect they will have some more stories just before the libel trial starts again on the 27th Nov (I think?!).

I wait in anticipation......

They would just

by notlongnow 13.11.13 22:33

sonic72 wrote:

But as soon as the Sunday Times published the story about the McCann's holding back e-fits, all the other papers left that story alone, and the BBC did not report it either.

Since then, all the cheap rags have been churning out all this tractorman tosh, and the BBC haven't reported on it since just before The Sunday Times ran their story.

So the BBC are avoiding the fact the McCanns held back the e-fit, and they are not reporting on tractorman.

Which i find even more bizarre when you think of all the build up the BBC gave to the CW programme.

Still like to know what happened to the the Irish version of CW that was meant to be shown at the end of October.

Did the ST story put the mockers on it?

by Jackie Regan 13.11.13 23:50

BBC is paid for by us.

We should be demanding an update on the Crimewash prog.

I cannot see why this programme would be shown at all if NOTHING IS CHANGING.

If there is to be a whitewash would you really refresh everyones memorys six years on before you did it.????

The papers are no real gauge of whats happening.

BUT if it is all going to come crashing down on the MCs ..the papers WILL BE FULL OF IT..ALL OF THEM!

by logical 14.11.13 0:07

The Irish Crimewatch on R.T.E did not broadcast anything to do with Madeleines disappearence:thinking:

by Who?What?Where? 14.11.13 1:06

Okeydokey wrote:Does anyone find it suspicious that there appear to be these spikes in McCann news and then nothing for days and weeks on end?

It's almost like there is some sort of superinjunction in place. That would explain why they might have allowed news on the Crimewatch programme - which enabled the Sunday Times Insight Team to release their anti-McCann article. But otherwise we have had complete silence for several days despite tractorman...and that despite the fact we know the McCanns sell newspapers. Very odd. It's almost as if there is a basic injunction in place controlling what McCann stories are allowed - but of course if there are new stories that appear the papers try and latch on to those until some judge declares them to be covered by the already in place rolling injunction.

I would add - let's not forget it was only when the McCanns launched their action against Leics Police in an effort to get their hands on the police files (!!!) that we learnt there was already in place an injunction requiring all official agencies to aid the McCanns (even though they were arguido suspects at the time!! - amazing I know but true). And it was IIRC only then we learned that Madeleine McCann was no longer the legal responsibility of her birth parents but had actually been made a ward of court! As far as I know she still is a ward of court and every time Kate and Gerry go on TV and claim to have some parental (in a legal sense) responsibility for her, they must be (if the ward of court order is still in place) strictly speaking not telling the truth.

My point in that last para is to show there could be any number of injunctions in place which we are completely unaware of.

How can a super injunction (sick) be in a system like this?

The whole basis of a legal system, is that you tell people what the law is and that you expect them to abide by that law.

It carries a penalty though. If you think that you have the authority, to tell people what the law is , then you have to abide by that law, yourself. If you do not do that , then it is rendered, meaningless.

You cannot, possibly, have a secret law, in a society which is based upon everyone abiding by the law. You cannot, possibly, prosecute someone for breaking a law that you, deliberately,tried to conceal from them. That would be insane.

It just does not make sense.

by Okeydokey 14.11.13 1:40

Who?What?Where? wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:Does anyone find it suspicious that there appear to be these spikes in McCann news and then nothing for days and weeks on end?

It's almost like there is some sort of superinjunction in place. That would explain why they might have allowed news on the Crimewatch programme - which enabled the Sunday Times Insight Team to release their anti-McCann article. But otherwise we have had complete silence for several days despite tractorman...and that despite the fact we know the McCanns sell newspapers. Very odd. It's almost as if there is a basic injunction in place controlling what McCann stories are allowed - but of course if there are new stories that appear the papers try and latch on to those until some judge declares them to be covered by the already in place rolling injunction.

I would add - let's not forget it was only when the McCanns launched their action against Leics Police in an effort to get their hands on the police files (!!!) that we learnt there was already in place an injunction requiring all official agencies to aid the McCanns (even though they were arguido suspects at the time!! - amazing I know but true). And it was IIRC only then we learned that Madeleine McCann was no longer the legal responsibility of her birth parents but had actually been made a ward of court! As far as I know she still is a ward of court and every time Kate and Gerry go on TV and claim to have some parental (in a legal sense) responsibility for her, they must be (if the ward of court order is still in place) strictly speaking not telling the truth.

My point in that last para is to show there could be any number of injunctions in place which we are completely unaware of.
How can a super injunction (sick) be in a system like this?

The whole basis of a legal system, is that you tell people what the law is and that you expect them to abide by that law.

It carries a penalty though. If you think that you have the authority, to tell people what the law is , then you have to abide by that law, yourself. If you do not do that , then it is rendered, meaningless.

You cannot, possibly, have a secret law, in a society which is based upon everyone abiding by the law. You cannot, possibly, prosecute someone for breaking a law that you, deliberately,tried to conceal from them. That would be insane.

It just does not make sense.

Insane, but true! A superinjunction applies to people even if they are not aware of its existence! LOL So if it exists we (if UK citizens tapping away in the UK) are guilty of an (very serious) offence. But we have no way of finding out if it exists. We are indeed talking 1984, Orwell and the death of democracy.

I have no idea whether there is actually a superinjunction but there is clearly something interfering with the free media. I suspect it is a devil's cauldron of:

1. Injunctions.

2. Press Commission voluntary censorship (with maybe some agreement from editors to submit stories for prior approval).

3. Carter Ruck letters.

4. Proprietor pressure.

5. Career-fear self censorship.

The only thing I am sure of is that the UK media would not react to this story in this way if it was operating normally.