Re: Sunday Times apology

by Smokeandmirrors 29.12.13 16:04

Interesting that L:eicestershire police decided to sit on them, and can't blame solely the PJ. The same Leicestershire police who said there was not sufficient evidence to clear the parents!

by Guest 29.12.13 16:06

kitchen wrote:I agree with aiyoyo; the title is the most significant part of that article.

***
"and Madeleine's Fund". A forewarning for their next article ... ?

by noddy100 29.12.13 16:07

kitchen wrote:I agree with aiyoyo; the title is the most significant part of that article.

Yes I agree
The title bears no relation to teh story?????

by Daisy 29.12.13 16:12

It's ok for us lot that follow the case to read between the lines in these latest "NEWS" articles. But we're just a fringe group aren't we? Surely these stories are aimed for mass consumption, not for us?

I'd love to have faith that the right thing will be done but I get ever more cynical when I remember what little respect the folk in charge have for us. When did they last listen to us?

They would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they'll listen now? (Now there's a good song) yes

Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Did they listen, did they care? nah

Still hoping though, else I wouldn't be here.

by Smokeandmirrors 29.12.13 16:22

Daisy wrote:It's ok for us lot that follow the case to read between the lines in these latest "NEWS" articles. But we're just a fringe group aren't we? Surely these stories are aimed for mass consumption, not for us?

I'd love to have faith that the right thing will be done but I get ever more cynical when I remember what little respect the folk in charge have for us. When did they last listen to us?

They would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they'll listen now? (Now there's a good song)

Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Did they listen, did they care? Still hoping though, else I wouldn't be here.

We might be just a fringe group, but there are probably more doubters than believers, and the believers in the official line demonstrate daily to have an IQ markedly lower than their shoe size.

by Guest 29.12.13 16:23

Daisy wrote:It's ok for us lot that follow the case to read between the lines in these latest "NEWS" articles. But we're just a fringe group aren't we? Surely these stories are aimed for mass consumption, not for us?

I'd love to have faith that the right thing will be done but I get ever more cynical when I remember what little respect the folk in charge have for us. When did they last listen to us?

They would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they'll listen now? (Now there's a good song)

Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Did they listen, did they care? Still hoping though, else I wouldn't be here.

This also means that the lawyers are not as completely dormant as we've come to believe of late. The McCanns, or someone, has paid them to extract this 'apology' from the ST. Unconvincing and still leaving the salient points 'unapologized for' as it is. The lawyers are still active on their behalf in some capacity.

The 'fund' reference is tantalizing. If not mentioned in the first article why refer to it now? Clearly something the ST are looking at...

by **tigger** 29.12.13 16:58

Daisy wrote:It's ok for us lot that follow the case to read between the lines in these latest "NEWS" articles. But we're just a fringe group aren't we? Surely these stories are aimed for mass consumption, not for us?

I'd love to have faith that the right thing will be done but I get ever more cynical when I remember what little respect the folk in charge have for us. When did they last listen to us?

They would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they'll listen now? (Now there's a good song)

Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Did they listen, did they care? Still hoping though, else I wouldn't be here.

Yes, that's why I would like to see a new circle of hell for Blair. To top it all he said in parliament that he rejoiced that his people lived in a democracy where they were free to protest. splat

It must be in Hansard.

70% were against the war in Britain - therefore it is a democracy
70% were content with Saddam - therefore it is a a dictatorship which needed to become a democracy

by aiyoyo 29.12.13 17:10

The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.
He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.

“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.

A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

It's not entirely accurate to say the contents had nothing to do with the Fund.
Quotes from a source of the Fund were used throughout.
Clearly someone from the Fund spoke to the Newspapers.
If isn't Pinkie (not of the Fund) then it has to be either Kate or Gerry or Edward Smethurst (the fund in-house lawyer) whose words would carry weight as representing the Madeleine's Fund. Who else can advise against the hypocritical report or the E-fits from being made public if not a lawyer, unless it was general consensus of the Board of Trustees.

The Board took the decision, the board shall bear responsibility for any ramifications.

by Guest 29.12.13 17:15

i vaguely remember reading that SY had to write to the fund to request a copy of the report,does anyone know if this is fact?
From the above it reads as if the information was given voluntarily.

by ultimaThule 29.12.13 17:18

tigger wrote: < snip >

70% were against the war in Britain - therefore it is a democracy
70% were content with Saddam - therefore it is a a dictatorship which needed to become a democracy

80% were of the opinion the McCanns were complicit in the disappearance of their daughter... therefore they must be innocent?

I think not, but this article gives some insight into why the UK's MSM chose to look at the couple with a less than critical eye:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by aiyoyo 29.12.13 17:22

Depends which side story is believed.
According to PIs the Police had to seek the Fund's permission before they could get their hands on E-fits and Report.
According to the ambiguous article, it would appear the E-fits were given to Police while the Report was held back and had to be pry out of Mccanns' clasps.

by Hongkong Phooey 29.12.13 17:26

Whilst we are all trying to read something more into the ST statement, for the average reader who has not followed the case this will just be another newspaper who got it wrong like many others have done in the past. Sometimes on here we go into over analysis mode and there is no such thing as a simple statement. It's all to do with hope, we are always hoping that an end is just around the corner but in truth is it.

by Over The Hill 29.12.13 18:23

At the time of the ST story, a lot of posters asked why the rest of the media hadn't repeated the story, and accused them of bottling out

Now you can see why they didn't

by Guest 29.12.13 18:38

Over The Hill wrote:At the time of the ST story, a lot of posters asked why the rest of the media hadn't repeated the story, and accused them of bottling out

Now you can see why they didn't

Oh but they did, it was in one or two of the red tops, and also in the Telegraph..........

StraightThinking wrote:
notlongnow wrote:I feel once any of this hits any of the red tops then you know the tide has changed.
Well it's in the Telegraph now
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 29.12.13 18:49

candyfloss wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:At the time of the ST story, a lot of posters asked why the rest of the media hadn't repeated the story, and accused them of bottling out

Now you can see why they didn't

Oh but they did, it was in one or two of the red tops, and also in the Telegraph..........

StraightThinking wrote:
notlongnow wrote:I feel once any of this hits any of the red tops then you know the tide has changed.
Well it's in the Telegraph now
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Now that is good to read, " news" about "news" so avoiding direct blame for the paper but getting the information out there. Thank you Telegraph (and candyfloss)

However much they have their fingers crossed, this isn't going away as respectfully and quietly as the Mcc's hoped and we are another day closer to the Libel Trial.

imo of course

by Over The Hill 29.12.13 19:10

I meant in particular TV, especially BBC and Sky

The BBC got a terrible slagging from some posters for failing to "do its duty" and repeat the ST story

Sky was accused of not highlighting it in its newspaper reviews

However it will be interesting to see if the papers who reported the ST "scoop" will issue a similar apology

Before I get accused of being a troll, I'm not. I joined this forum in Nov because I work for one of the above and was alerted by a colleague several weeks after the event to the unfairness of some posters expecting the media to report something that they aren't able to verify

I'm as interested in working out what happened as all of you are, and in the month since I joined I see many sharp minds on here

But deductions and conclusions (and news items on TV and radio) have to be made on absolute facts, and absolute facts alone, not an approximation of the truth

Anything else would breach the broadcast media rules and guidelines

by Hongkong Phooey 29.12.13 19:19

[quote="daffodil"]

candyfloss wrote:
Over The Hill wrote:At the time of the ST story, a lot of posters asked why the rest of the media hadn't repeated the story, and accused them of bottling out

Now you can see why they didn't

Oh but they did, it was in one or two of the red tops, and also in the Telegraph..........

StraightThinking wrote:
notlongnow wrote:I feel once any of this hits any of the red tops then you know the tide has changed.
Well it's in the Telegraph now
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Oh I don't know I think todays apology will be music to the ears of the believers and another apology from a newspaper to those who read newspapers. Not good news from our point of view as half a true story gets lost in the mire.

by TMH 29.12.13 19:26

Over The Hill wrote:I meant in particular TV, especially BBC and Sky

The BBC got a terrible slagging from some posters for failing to "do its duty" and repeat the ST story

Sky was accused of not highlighting it in its newspaper reviews

However it will be interesting to see if the papers who reported the ST "scoop" will issue a similar apology

Before I get accused of being a troll, I'm not. I joined this forum in Nov because I work for one of the above and was alerted by a colleague several weeks after the event to the unfairness of some posters expecting the media to report something that they aren't able to verify

I'm as interested in working out what happened as all of you are, and in the month since I joined I see many sharp minds on here

But deductions and conclusions (and news items on TV and radio) have to be made on absolute facts, and absolute facts alone, not an approximation of the truth

Anything else would breach the broadcast media rules and guidelines

Hmmm but there have been numerous times that the press and media have reported wrongly? The Daily Mail even has a regular slot on page 2 titled "corrections".

by SixMillionQuid 29.12.13 19:37

Surely Mr Redwood could have cleared up this issue during the last Crimewatch appeal?

by Over The Hill 29.12.13 19:39

TMH wrote:Hmmm but there have been numerous times that the press and media have reported wrongly? The Daily Mail even has a regular slot on page 2 titled "corrections".

Yes but the printed press tend to stick their necks out a bit more and just print an apology if it turns out to be wrong (as has happened in this case)

BBC, ITN and Sky newsrooms are instructed from the very top to check stories out and not use them unless they are verified

I know that the Beeb in particular has made a few cock-ups in the last year or so, but those of us who work in this field of activity were amazed at the lack of professionalism in those cases, and those responsible paid with their jobs

by Guest 29.12.13 20:00

aiyoyo(sorry can't quote on mobile version).
sometimes i can't see the truth from the lies butter would be inclined to believe the PI's and Sunday times. If you read between the lines of the apology they have still not apologised for the rest of the article.

by Guest 29.12.13 20:54

Over The Hill wrote:
TMH wrote:Hmmm but there have been numerous times that the press and media have reported wrongly? The Daily Mail even has a regular slot on page 2 titled "corrections".
Yes but the printed press tend to stick their necks out a bit more and just print an apology if it turns out to be wrong (as has happened in this case)

BBC, ITN and Sky newsrooms are instructed from the very top to check stories out and not use them unless they are verified

I know that the Beeb in particular has made a few cock-ups in the last year or so, but those of us who work in this field of activity were amazed at the lack of professionalism in those cases, and those responsible paid with their jobs

Nice to meet you. Your expertise will be very welcome, I'm sure

by Guest 29.12.13 20:59

Portia, I thought you'd left the forum. Glad to see you're still here.

by Over The Hill 29.12.13 21:13

Portia wrote:Nice to meet you. Your expertise will be very welcome, I'm sure

Contrary to what many posters believe, there are plenty of people in the news media who are interested in this case, but they have to treat it in the same professional manner as all other stories, ie only report facts and don't guess or speculate
I've been looking in on this forum for a few years, from both a personal and professional perspective, but it's impossible to develop the latter because there are so few facts

There is no conspiracy to cover anything up, and no conspiracy to report in a biased way
But if there are no facts, there is no story
News editors will tell you that when it comes down to it, the only fact is that a girl is missing

Newsrooms don't have the same freedom to comment like internet forums
Have a look back at the original ST story thread:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
How many of you would like to re-write your posts now? Broadcast journalists can't do that

The ST story looked interesting, but nobody could make it stand up, and it turns out that it is flawed
If any duty newsroom editor had given air time to it, even just reporting that the ST was saying it at the time, they would have been in big trouble
Not because the Maddie story is being massaged by the broadcast media, but because this development couldn't be proved (just like everything else)

by Daisy 29.12.13 21:16

Glad to see you back Portia, never did have you down as a quitter.

by Guest 29.12.13 21:51

Over The Hill wrote: [...]

The ST story looked interesting, but nobody could make it stand up, and it turns out that it is flawed

It is only "flawed" in the sense that, the McCanns indeed didn't "sit" on it for 6 years. It was only 1+ year later, that they gave the E-fits to the PJ & Leicester Police [when the case was archieved]. It was only 5+ years later, that they handed the report to NSY, after a "request" to the Fund by NSY, when they became aware of the existence of such report.

If any duty newsroom editor had given air time to it, even just reporting that the ST was saying it at the time, they would have been in big trouble
Not because the Maddie story is being massaged by the broadcast media, but because this development couldn't be proved (just like everything else)

***
Blue text and underlining is mine.

by Okeydokey 29.12.13 22:47

Over The Hill wrote:
Portia wrote:Nice to meet you. Your expertise will be very welcome, I'm sure
Contrary to what many posters believe, there are plenty of people in the news media who are interested in this case, but they have to treat it in the same professional manner as all other stories, ie only report facts and don't guess or speculate
I've been looking in on this forum for a few years, from both a personal and professional perspective, but it's impossible to develop the latter because there are so few facts

There is no conspiracy to cover anything up, and no conspiracy to report in a biased way
But if there are no facts, there is no story
News editors will tell you that when it comes down to it, the only fact is that a girl is missing

Newsrooms don't have the same freedom to comment like internet forums
Have a look back at the original ST story thread:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
How many of you would like to re-write your posts now? Broadcast journalists can't do that

The ST story looked interesting, but nobody could make it stand up, and it turns out that it is flawed
If any duty newsroom editor had given air time to it, even just reporting that the ST was saying it at the time, they would have been in big trouble
Not because the Maddie story is being massaged by the broadcast media, but because this development couldn't be proved (just like everything else)

Nonsense. There are loads of facts in this case: the rogatory interviews for instance, which as far as I know have never been reproduced verbatim in the UK press. The press could publish for instance MO's claims about see the twins breathing and then show photos of where he said he was standing. This is all factual. That's just one example. It's also factual that the McCanns' website hasn't taken down the Tannerman pic despute it being discredited by Redwood. It's not illegal to ask questions about that. If the press was doing its job it would. It might be of course that they have been intimidated by legal machinations/proprietor interference etc.

by Miraflores 29.12.13 23:11

...... and no conspiracy to report in a biased way....

But until very very recently, this hasn't stopped the press referring to the abduction, as though it's a fact.
Or what about a straightforward reporting of Amiral's book being banned, and then the ban being overturned? That is a fact, but there was hardly a squeak in our papers.

This to me, is bias.

by Guest 29.12.13 23:18

This reminds me: has the BBC ever corrected and apollogised for maintaining that Dr. Amaral said: "F*ck the McCanns", when leaving the Lisbon Court during the first days of the libel trial ...????

by aiyoyo 29.12.13 23:20

It's not beyond realm of believability that the Press and Media were warned by an unwritten code of silence imposed on them by the Police not to repeat the process files in any shape or form because the case is not closed. Anything that could jeopardy future trial might just be forbidden to be reported, who knows.

It's interesting to note that for once a source from the Fund (not Pinkie) was quoted.
Add two and two together and the answer is obvious the persons feeling most aggrieved by revelation that e-fits and report were concealed to the detriment of the search had the most to gain by demanding an apology.
The beauty of this apology is that all the data that the Mccanns did not like in the first place had to be repeated in order that people know what the inaccuracies were that need correction. It's a self goal, so to speak.

In the finished the Mccanns did themselves no favour causing more unwanted attention over something that won't alter people's already firmed up impression of them,
Despite the apology, the Public is not an inch clearer how the correction got to do with the Search for Madeleine.

Latest topics