Re: Daily Mirror front page 13/01/2014

by Aoife 13.01.14 18:52

russiandoll wrote:Aoife thinks there has been an off the record briefing by someone reliable, I will find her post.

and while I search, Aoife please take note that I was, as I am sure you know, referring to this from the Guardian

Police are ready to arrest and interview suspects over girl's disappearance in Portugal, says parents' spokesman

going beyond the ILOR which you keep mentioning. We all know one has been sent!

That is in the story, but it separately states:

"Scotland Yard confirmed that it had sent an international letter of request to the Portuguese authorities but would not elaborate on its contents"

by russiandoll 13.01.14 18:53

Aoife please quote where members of this forum doubt the ILOR.

People are discussing the reliability of its reported contents...REPORTED BY THE PARENTS' SPOKESPERSON.

according to the Guardian.

quote Aoife

I have faith in organisations that have journalistic standards and the need to maintain their image. This includes broadsheets and broadcast media which are held and hold themselves to higher standards than tabloids and middle market press. I also tend to believe things when they are clearly stated in such publications with clear referencing to a source and where that source does not deny it. I tend to believe such matters even when they are at variance with my own beliefs or desires.

so do you believe only in the ILOR as reported by the reputable Guardian or do you believe in the desire to arrest burglars as reported in the Mirror?

by tiny 13.01.14 18:54

candyfloss wrote:Rather interesting from Isa Soares from CNN international - .. Presenter and roaming reporter for CNN's Marketplace Europe. Portuguese national.

Isa Soares ‏@IsaCNN 5m
Portuguese Police tell me they have NOT yet received a letter of request from British Police regarding Madeleine #McCann case @cnn @ErinCNN

Isa Soares ‏@IsaCNN 1m
Portuguese Police tell me that MET cannot legally come to the country and arrest people. They will have to ACCOMPANY the Portuguese #mccann

So the portugues police haven't received any letter yet, but I thought sy were going arrest ,yep that makes sense,,, NOT

by Aoife 13.01.14 18:58

russiandoll wrote:Aoife please quote where members of this forum doubt the ILOR.

People are discussing the reliability of its reported contents...REPORTED BY THE PARENTS' SPOKESPERSON.

according to the Guardian.

I said:

We know from reliable sources that a new letter has been sent to the Portuguese in the last few days; that has to do with the Portuguese.

Tiny said

"so it has been said about the letter being sent, but do we know if this really true."

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

by Aoife 13.01.14 18:59

russiandoll wrote:Aoife please quote where members of this forum doubt the ILOR.

People are discussing the reliability of its reported contents...REPORTED BY THE PARENTS' SPOKESPERSON.

according to the Guardian.

quote Aoife

I have faith in organisations that have journalistic standards and the need to maintain their image. This includes broadsheets and broadcast media which are held and hold themselves to higher standards than tabloids and middle market press. I also tend to believe things when they are clearly stated in such publications with clear referencing to a source and where that source does not deny it. I tend to believe such matters even when they are at variance with my own beliefs or desires.

so do you believe only in the ILOR as reported by the reputable Guardian or do you believe in the desire to arrest burglars as reported in the Mirror?

I believe in the ILOR. All the rest is supposition, although it may be based on off the record briefings.

by TheTruthWillOut 13.01.14 19:00

The last few posts show just how easily confused even well read people on this case get. Now think how the general public are supposed make head or tail out of this mess...

But that is probably the point.

by Cristobell 13.01.14 19:04

I find it very strange that Clarence has been speaking to the media, especially, as Daffodil pointed out, only last week the McCanns stated they were not going to comment on the investigation.

If this were Portugal they would have been barred from doing so by judicial secrecy (unless of course spokesman Clarence was their loophole for getting round it). I might even be so bold as to ask if they are not interfering with the investigation by releasing SY operational details? It also shows a complete lack of integrity in referring to the problems between Scotland Yard and the PJ. Do they really need the parents of the missing child stirring things up?

And if must be asked, why are they tipping off the people who may have their live daughter? It makes no sense whatsoever. It feels as though Clarence is trying to stir up a media storm with this 'imminent arrests' nonsense, so what is he trying to hide?

by Guest 13.01.14 19:05

Aoife wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Aoife please quote where members of this forum doubt the ILOR.

People are discussing the reliability of its reported contents...REPORTED BY THE PARENTS' SPOKESPERSON.

according to the Guardian.

quote Aoife

I have faith in organisations that have journalistic standards and the need to maintain their image. This includes broadsheets and broadcast media which are held and hold themselves to higher standards than tabloids and middle market press. I also tend to believe things when they are clearly stated in such publications with clear referencing to a source and where that source does not deny it. I tend to believe such matters even when they are at variance with my own beliefs or desires.

so do you believe only in the ILOR as reported by the reputable Guardian or do you believe in the desire to arrest burglars as reported in the Mirror?
I believe in the ILOR. All the rest is supposition, although it may be based on off the record briefings.

Really, oh dear then it shouldn't be splashed all over the papers. Someone could be in bother!

off the record

not made as an official or attributable statement.
"all this is off the record"

synonyms: unofficial, confidential, in (strict) confidence, not for publication, not for public consumption, not to be made public, not for circulation, not to be disclosed, not to be mentioned, private, secret, classified, (to be kept) under wraps

by ultimaThule 13.01.14 19:06

candyfloss wrote:Rather interesting from Isa Soares from CNN international - .. Presenter and roaming reporter for CNN's Marketplace Europe. Portuguese national.

Isa Soares ‏@IsaCNN 5m
Portuguese Police tell me they have NOT yet received a letter of request from British Police regarding Madeleine #McCann case @cnn @ErinCNN

Isa Soares ‏@IsaCNN 1m
Portuguese Police tell me that MET cannot legally come to the country and arrest people. They will have to ACCOMPANY the Portuguese #mccann

Officers from the Met will not be able to 'ACCOMPANY' their Portuguese counterparts if any arrests are made in Portugal; the best they can hope for is to sit in a separate camera/audio linked room while officers from the PJ put their questions to the suspects.

Such proceedings will not be dissimilar to the rogatory interviews conducted by Leicestershire police at the request of the PJ and it remains to be seen whether these particular suspects are allowed to consult any previous statements they may have made in relation to this matter, or whether the equipment used suffers any technical problems such as beset RO'B's interviews.

by ultimaThule 13.01.14 19:09

TheTruthWillOut wrote:The last few posts show just how easily confused even well read people on this case get. Now think how the general public are supposed make head or tail out of this mess...

But that is probably the point.

No doubt it's purely coincidental that GM's mantra is 'confusion is good'. winkwink

by russiandoll 13.01.14 19:10

Half way through re reading this topic and have yet to find, apart from tiny, I do not see one person here questioning the truth of the ILOR but only the substance therein.

If I do not find any more I will ask for Aoife to explain why she has repeatedly tried to persuade just one person[ tiny] to accept the ILOR story. As far as I can see, almost every skeptic here is not buying the arrest of burglars story but accepts the ILOR statement.

by Gillyspot 13.01.14 19:13

candyfloss wrote:
Aoife wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Aoife please quote where members of this forum doubt the ILOR.

People are discussing the reliability of its reported contents...REPORTED BY THE PARENTS' SPOKESPERSON.

according to the Guardian.

quote Aoife

I have faith in organisations that have journalistic standards and the need to maintain their image. This includes broadsheets and broadcast media which are held and hold themselves to higher standards than tabloids and middle market press. I also tend to believe things when they are clearly stated in such publications with clear referencing to a source and where that source does not deny it. I tend to believe such matters even when they are at variance with my own beliefs or desires.

so do you believe only in the ILOR as reported by the reputable Guardian or do you believe in the desire to arrest burglars as reported in the Mirror?
I believe in the ILOR. All the rest is supposition, although it may be based on off the record briefings.

Really, oh dear then it shouldn't be splashed all over the papers. Someone could be in bother!

off the record

not made as an official or attributable statement.
"all this is off the record"

synonyms: unofficial, confidential, in (strict) confidence, not for publication, not for public consumption, not to be made public, not for circulation, not to be disclosed, not to be mentioned, private, secret, classified, (to be kept) under wraps

If you look on Met website you will see that on 10th Jan they confirm CPS have sent a second International letter of request (week commencing 6th Jan 2014). That is ALL they confirm there. IMO the rest of the "burglars" etc is speculation by MSM following Mitchells direct quotes.

by Aoife 13.01.14 19:17

candyfloss wrote:
Aoife wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Aoife please quote where members of this forum doubt the ILOR.

People are discussing the reliability of its reported contents...REPORTED BY THE PARENTS' SPOKESPERSON.

according to the Guardian.

quote Aoife

I have faith in organisations that have journalistic standards and the need to maintain their image. This includes broadsheets and broadcast media which are held and hold themselves to higher standards than tabloids and middle market press. I also tend to believe things when they are clearly stated in such publications with clear referencing to a source and where that source does not deny it. I tend to believe such matters even when they are at variance with my own beliefs or desires.

so do you believe only in the ILOR as reported by the reputable Guardian or do you believe in the desire to arrest burglars as reported in the Mirror?
I believe in the ILOR. All the rest is supposition, although it may be based on off the record briefings.

Really, oh dear then it shouldn't be splashed all over the papers. Someone could be in bother!

off the record

not made as an official or attributable statement.
"all this is off the record"

synonyms: unofficial, confidential, in (strict) confidence, not for publication, not for public consumption, not to be made public, not for circulation, not to be disclosed, not to be mentioned, private, secret, classified, (to be kept) under wraps

Off the record (or "background briefing on a non attributable basis) means it may not be directly referenced to the source but may be able to be referred to by indirect means. Rather than saying 'The MET said' the papers will say 'Our sources say'. Rather than saying 'Mr Rich Actor denies marriage split' they will say "Friends of Rich Actor tell us that..."

by Guest 13.01.14 19:36

Shame OTH isn't here any more. He knew a lot about news reporting. notme

by ultimaThule 13.01.14 19:39

dantezebu wrote:Shame OTH isn't here any more. He knew a lot about news reporting.

Wasn't OTH something of an expert on responsible journalism? laughat

by Mirage 13.01.14 20:08

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

on 24th October 2013 The Daily Telegraph contained the following lie in their report:

"Portugal's police officially closed their first inquiry into the case in 2008, after wrongly naming her parents as suspects."

Aoife you have said:
I have faith in organisations that have journalistic standards and the need to maintain their image. This includes broadsheets and broadcast media which are held and hold themselves to higher standards than tabloids and middle market press. I also tend to believe things when they are clearly stated in such publications with clear referencing to a source and where that source does not deny it. I tend to believe such matters even when they are at variance with my own beliefs or desires.

--------------------------------------

Why do you suppose the Telegraph - a broadsheet which, according to you, holds itself to higher standards than tabloids and middle market press - would come out with a blatant lie like this? A lie that, by extension, feeds the myth that the McCanns were cleared by the Portuguese Attorney General's report. Something that is so far from the truth it cannot be emphasised enough.

There is no source given for this lie, much less right of reply to the Portuguese police whose reputation they are so casually traducing with echoes of the gutter press xenophobia to the fore.

So it looks as if the Telegraph failed on both your requirements. Remember you said: I also tend to believe things when they are clearly stated in such publications with clear referencing to a source and where that source does not deny it

Well, they made pretty damned sure no source was given the opportunity to deny it, didn't they?

So, the trusted Telegraph have made a value judgement and slipped it into a format designed to be swallowed by a trusting reader. Tacky. Approaching the realms of subliminal conditioning.

I don't know about you but as far as I'm concerned that nasty little slur in an erstwhile respected broadsheet constitutes exactly the same pit-bottom standards we expect of the gutter press.

by Aoife 13.01.14 20:11

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

on 24th October 2013 The Daily Telegraph contained the following lie in their report:

"Portugal's police officially closed their first inquiry into the case in 2008, after wrongly naming her parents as suspects."

Aoife you have said:
I have faith in organisations that have journalistic standards and the need to maintain their image. This includes broadsheets and broadcast media which are held and hold themselves to higher standards than tabloids and middle market press. I also tend to believe things when they are clearly stated in such publications with clear referencing to a source and where that source does not deny it. I tend to believe such matters even when they are at variance with my own beliefs or desires.

--------------------------------------

Why do you suppose the Telegraph - a broadsheet which, according to you, holds itself to higher standards than tabloids and middle market press - would come out with a blatant lie like this? A lie that, by extension, feeds the myth that the McCanns were cleared by the Portuguese Attorney General's report. Something that is so far from the truth it cannot be emphasised enough.

There is no source given for this lie, much less right of reply to the Portuguese police whose reputation they are so casually traducing with echoes of the gutter press xenophobia to the fore.

So it looks as if the Telegraph failed on both your requirements. Remember you said: I also tend to believe things when they are clearly stated in such publications with clear referencing to a source and where that source does not deny it

Well, they made pretty damned sure no source was given the opportunity to deny it, didn't they?

So, the trusted Telegraph have made a value judgement and slipped it into a format designed to be swallowed by a trusting reader. Tacky. Approaching the realms of subliminal conditioning.

I don't know about you but as far as I'm concerned that nasty little slur in an erstwhile respected broadsheet constitutes exactly the same pit-bottom standards we expect of the gutter press.

I am talking about directly referenced quotes. Newspapers (Nor anyone else) can be 100% accurate 100% of the time. We do not know whether the Mccanns were 'wrongly' anythinged- arguido does not equal suspect. But when a trusted media makes a referenced and undenied statement, that should be worthy of belief, else we have nothing to discuss.

by Guest 13.01.14 20:18

Seems to me this is getting a bit silly. I assume that posters take splash headlines with a pinch of salt.
Why is it so surprising that NSY have sent an ILOR, it is to be expected surely ?
I doubt anyone with a bit of nous thinks SY are going to keep the public informed of their
intentions or queries.
Hoping certain advances are being made doesn't make them happen.
I am all for positive thinking, but none of us can expect to be kept informed (as a members
of the public) of the operations of SY or PJ, however much we read between the lines, we
are guessing, and the "Spokesperson" is full of cr*p imo. furiously peddling away.

The only people who have to be concerned are the perpetrators, and I expect they are
having sleepless nights (and restless days).

by Guest 13.01.14 20:21

I am talking about directly referenced quotes. Newspapers (Nor anyone else) can be 100% accurate 100% of the time. We do not know whether the Mccanns were 'wrongly' anythinged- arguido does not equal suspect. But when a trusted media makes a referenced and undenied statement, that should be worthy of belief, else we have nothing to discuss.

Aoife you are saying arguido does not equal suspect. Kate McCann says so in her book, surely she knew the meaning, her solicitor would have explained it.

Chapter 9
p. 134
para 2

" We soon found out that Murat had been made an arguido. This
formal status meant he would be officially treated as a suspect in
the crime."

SUSPECT

by Aoife 13.01.14 20:25

candyfloss wrote:
I am talking about directly referenced quotes. Newspapers (Nor anyone else) can be 100% accurate 100% of the time. We do not know whether the Mccanns were 'wrongly' anythinged- arguido does not equal suspect. But when a trusted media makes a referenced and undenied statement, that should be worthy of belief, else we have nothing to discuss.

Aoife you are saying arguido does not equal suspect. Kate McCann says so in her book, surely she knew the meaning, her solicitor would have explained it.

Chapter 9
p. 134
para 2

" We soon found out that Murat had been made an arguido. This
formal status meant he would be officially treated as a suspect in
the crime."

SUSPECT

So you are quoting Kate McCann as an expert on Portuguese Law then. I would not have thought that was a trustworthy source.

Arguido is roughly equivalent to a person being interviewed under caution in England- not necessarily a suspect, but having been given certain defined rights to support and to silence.

by bobby18 13.01.14 21:10

daffodil wrote:Seems to me this is getting a bit silly. I assume that posters take splash headlines with a pinch of salt.
Why is it so surprising that NSY have sent an ILOR, it is to be expected surely ?
I doubt anyone with a bit of nous thinks SY are going to keep the public informed of their
intentions or queries.
Hoping certain advances are being made doesn't make them happen.
I am all for positive thinking, but none of us can expect to be kept informed (as a members
of the public) of the operations of SY or PJ, however much we read between the lines, we
are guessing, and the "Spokesperson" is full of cr*p imo. furiously peddling away.

The only people who have to be concerned are the perpetrators, and I expect they are
having sleepless nights (and restless days).

Nicely put - time will tell where this will go. And that will be sooner, rather than later.

by Mirage 13.01.14 21:17

Aoife wrote:
Mirage wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

on 24th October 2013 The Daily Telegraph contained the following lie in their report:

"Portugal's police officially closed their first inquiry into the case in 2008, after wrongly naming her parents as suspects."

Aoife you have said:
I have faith in organisations that have journalistic standards and the need to maintain their image. This includes broadsheets and broadcast media which are held and hold themselves to higher standards than tabloids and middle market press. I also tend to believe things when they are clearly stated in such publications with clear referencing to a source and where that source does not deny it. I tend to believe such matters even when they are at variance with my own beliefs or desires.

--------------------------------------

Why do you suppose the Telegraph - a broadsheet which, according to you, holds itself to higher standards than tabloids and middle market press - would come out with a blatant lie like this? A lie that, by extension, feeds the myth that the McCanns were cleared by the Portuguese Attorney General's report. Something that is so far from the truth it cannot be emphasised enough.

There is no source given for this lie, much less right of reply to the Portuguese police whose reputation they are so casually traducing with echoes of the gutter press xenophobia to the fore.

So it looks as if the Telegraph failed on both your requirements. Remember you said: I also tend to believe things when they are clearly stated in such publications with clear referencing to a source and where that source does not deny it

Well, they made pretty damned sure no source was given the opportunity to deny it, didn't they?

So, the trusted Telegraph have made a value judgement and slipped it into a format designed to be swallowed by a trusting reader. Tacky. Approaching the realms of subliminal conditioning.

I don't know about you but as far as I'm concerned that nasty little slur in an erstwhile respected broadsheet constitutes exactly the same pit-bottom standards we expect of the gutter press.
I am talking about directly referenced quotes. Newspapers (Nor anyone else) can be 100% accurate 100% of the time. We do not know whether the Mccanns were 'wrongly' anythinged- arguido does not equal suspect.goes But when a trusted media makes a referenced and undenied statement, that should be worthy of belief, else we have nothing to discuss.

I am talking about directly referenced quotes. So am I.. And so should the Telegraph be when they decide to make an unsubstantiated claim about a serious matter that commands global interest. Sloppy and mischievous.

Newspapers (Nor anyone else) can be 100% accurate 100% of the time. Of course not. But on matters of this magnitude where malign accusations could adversely affect the diplomatic relations between two EU member states and jeopardise the working relationship between the MET and the PJ - sloppy and mischievous.

We do not know whether the Mccanns were 'wrongly' anythinged. If you cannot take ownership of that which you wish to convey using appropriate vocabulary I cannot offer a response.

arguido does not equal suspect. But arguido status is conferred on suspects for their own protection and offers them the option of not answering questions, a protection which Kate McCann took full advantage of by refusing to respond to 48 out of 49 questions.

. But when a trusted media makes a referenced and undenied statement, that should be worthy of belief, You are right, it should be worthy of belief .... but it wasn't.

And back we come to the point at issue. You are advocating blind belief in the unsubstantiated word of a reporter because the newspaper is in broadsheet format and not tabloid.

This lie was printed in the UK. The lie was effectively an accusation against the police in Portugal not doing their job properly. Quite an irony here, if you stop to think about it.

It was not a mistake. It was a sly insertion designed to influence public opinion.

No opportunity could possibly arise for the police to refute the lie and the reporter knew that fine well. He hid the sly innuendo behind the convenient barriers of geographical distance and language.

Following your tortuous logic, the onus seems to rest on the injured party to detect at distance, something he should make it his business to refute. As if the injured party might be guided by serendipity to purchase an English newspaper off a tourist news stand in Portimao, take it along to the police HQ and get it translated just in case there's something amongst it pages they need to deny.

What happened to journalistic courtesy, like picking up the telephone and offering right of reply, and seeking clarification of the Attorney General's findings while they're on the blower? That must have been the Telegraph of yesteryear.

by loopzdaloop 13.01.14 21:17

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
candyfloss wrote:This is the headline from todays Guardian paper............

British police 'preparing to make arrests' in Madeleine McCann case

Police are ready to arrest and interview suspects over girl's disappearance in Portugal, says parents' spokesman

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

Al this "preparing to make arrests" doesn't sound right at all. You can either arrest someone or you can't. Why would anyone be leaking such a story? Just sounds silly.

"yes, we're preparing to arrest you next Wednesday. Can you make sure you're in anytime between 12-4pm? Just waiting for some new handcuffs to arrive from eBay, and I've got to sharpen my pencil. By the way, what's the parking like where you live?"

As you quite rightly infer 'preparing' can only worry a suspect who the police know are not a flight risk, perhaps due to being really high profile with relation to this case.

After 'finding' tannerman, who knows what the police may do next...

by plebgate 13.01.14 21:21

Aoife wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
I am talking about directly referenced quotes. Newspapers (Nor anyone else) can be 100% accurate 100% of the time. We do not know whether the Mccanns were 'wrongly' anythinged- arguido does not equal suspect. But when a trusted media makes a referenced and undenied statement, that should be worthy of belief, else we have nothing to discuss.

Aoife you are saying arguido does not equal suspect. Kate McCann says so in her book, surely she knew the meaning, her solicitor would have explained it.

Chapter 9
p. 134
para 2

" We soon found out that Murat had been made an arguido. This
formal status meant he would be officially treated as a suspect in
the crime."

SUSPECT
So you are quoting Kate McCann as an expert on Portuguese Law then. I would not have thought that was a trustworthy source.

Arguido is roughly equivalent to a person being interviewed under caution in England- not necessarily a suspect, but having been given certain defined rights to support and to silence.

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................EH. Not sure I understand this. CF did not say that Mrs. was an expert in Portugese law as far as I can see.

Surely her solicitor would have explained what Arguido status meant and he should be an "expert" on the law in Portugal.

by marconi 13.01.14 21:28

as far as I know, the Guardian is a very serious news paper or am I wrong?

by Guest 13.01.14 21:37

loopzdaloop wrote:

As you quite rightly infer 'preparing' can only worry a suspect who the police know are not a flight risk, perhaps due to being really high profile with relation to this case.

After 'finding' tannerman, who knows what the police may do next...

Quite. If they are interviewing for evidence (which I believe to be true, (arrest schmest)) these witnesses need to be 'just real enough' to make that happen.

by Guest 13.01.14 21:50

marconi wrote:as far as I know, the Guardian is a very serious news paper or am I wrong?

They would like to think they are. But when they write incomprehensible rubbish like this I can't take them seriously:

"Portuguese police, who once falsely treated the parents as suspects, reopened their investigation in October last year, more than three years after it was shelved."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by bobby18 13.01.14 21:56

Dee Coy wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:

As you quite rightly infer 'preparing' can only worry a suspect who the police know are not a flight risk, perhaps due to being really high profile with relation to this case.

After 'finding' tannerman, who knows what the police may do next...

Quite. If they are interviewing for evidence (which I believe to be true, (arrest schmest)) these witnesses need to be 'just real enough' to make that happen.

In any future prosecution trial, wouldn't the person have to be 'real enough' to provide witness testimony and be cross-examined?

by Guest 13.01.14 22:02

bobby18 wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:

As you quite rightly infer 'preparing' can only worry a suspect who the police know are not a flight risk, perhaps due to being really high profile with relation to this case.

After 'finding' tannerman, who knows what the police may do next...

Quite. If they are interviewing for evidence (which I believe to be true, (arrest schmest)) these witnesses need to be 'just real enough' to make that happen.

In any future prosecution trial, wouldn't the person have to be 'real enough' to provide witness testimony and be cross-examined?

Certainly. I worry how they are going to produce Crecheman when the McCanns call him. I'm sure they'll find a way.