The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Mm11

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Regist10
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Mm11

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Regist10

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Page 10 of 16 Previous  1 ... 6 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by aiyoyo 27.01.14 12:19

Okeydokey wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
 

@ okeydokey "And yet - she declares them innocent....."
Err......where is the evidence for that ?  

@ Justice Hogg
"Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today."

It would be interesting to know who (apart from Mccanns) was/were included in the application.   IFGL or Mccanns lawyers ?
This might have an impact on the WOC.




The evidence that she is declaring them innocent while - REMEMBER! - they were still officially arguidos in Portugal:


Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.

On 17 May 2007 Madeleine's parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. [Hogg accepts the McCann account - clearly she accepts that they do not know the whereabouts of Madeleine and are incapable of recovering her themselves. ] I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.

On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, [She clearly takes the side of the McCanns against Amaral and other PJ officers on this - she is dismissing the dogs' evidence and the DNA evidence] it is presumed Madeleine is alive.

She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.

The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine [Clearly implies they cannot have any knowledge of the circumstances of her disappearance.] . Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.

The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine's parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.

The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.

I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout.

I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.

I will make the Order by Consent as sought. In particular paragraph 1 of the Order made on the 22 May 2007 shall be varied with the words:

"The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court".

It may be noted that neither of the Parents is present today. I let it be known last week that providing their legal team was fully instructed neither parent need be present, and I would not criticise or bear any ill-feeling towards them if they chose to stay away. It was my decision as they have suffered enough, and I wished to ease their burden. [This clearly identifies the McCanns as victims]

I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine.

I urge anyone who has any information however small or tenuous to come forward now so that further enquiries can be made.

There is, of course, as least one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine, and where she may be found.  [Since Hogg already accepts the McCanns' search is genuine, this is a further exoneration - it cannot refer to them. Its effect is heightened by the next "purple prose" passage. Since she knows the McCanns, she cannot be referring to the McCanns]

I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom no doubt misses and grieves for. Whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt, remorse or even cares about the hurt which has been caused to an innocent little girl: whether that person has a faith and belief, and what explanation or justification that person will give to God.

I entreat that person whoever and wherever you may be to show mercy and compassion, and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found.

I hope and pray that Madeleine will be found very soon alive and well.

I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court.

The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.

okeydokey,
With due respects that's only your interpretations.
While it is fair to say Justice Hogg took things at face value which is inevitable since the Mccanns were neither arrested nor charged for any crime, it is not quite correct to say she "declares" them innocent.  If you've seen official declaration by Judge Hogg that the mccanns are innocent, please post it up.  Otherwise it is plain obfuscation on your part.

That's very silly. If you are saying that the statements in bold can be reconciled with a belief that the McCanns may have knowledge of the fate of their child, then you have to show why you think that, not just assert. I have explained why I think those statements all imply that persons other than the McCanns have knowledge of the fate of their child - and that is, given this was a statement in formal court, a declaration of innocence. For the avoidance of doubt, there was absolutely no requirement on Hogg to make any of those statements.  She had only to decide on whether the McCanns had the right to access the LP files, in line with the original court order requiring official agencies to aid the McCanns. She could have done that without any of those references.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Personal view has no place in a Court of Law regardless.
What you think about the case has absolutely nothing to do how Justice Hogg should conduct her job.
She's obliged to be objective, to state the situation as is, without interpreting guilt or innocence.
The matter before her was WOC, whereby to approve or to not approve she's to justify her reasons and  to state her reasons for it.  
All those things you see listed are her reasons for allowing the application.  
You may not agree with it but that's how the law works.

When you say "for avoidance of doubt" - for whose sake though?  That is subjective. And, it won't be and can't be subjective to your view or press or public view.
From the Mccanns and their lawyers' (probably joint applicants) point of view, equally the "avoidance of doubt" applies, hence Justice Hogg list of reasonings.

You may not agree with her, that is your perogative.  That said, there must be a rationale behind the dissent.
If you're saying the Judge has no right allowing parents of missing child to force Police to hand over evidence, then that's a different argument altogether.
But it's simply inaccurate to say she "declares" them innocent.  To me nothing was implied, she was stating the inevitable, which it was at that stage.

At the time of application in May 2007, the Mccanns were not arguidos.
There obviously was revised documents submitted in April 2008 (assuming it to be withdrawal of certain things from the application) judging by this declaration "The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine's parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.

So it appears there has been a climb down on Mccanns' part. I can only surmise at the reason behind their withdrawal ie not wanting to draw attention to themselves for the wrong reason.  
IIRC, the LP made it known to Justice Hogg that there were elements to suggest the Mccanns were not in the clear, hence the "reached an accommodation" remark.
LP cant/wont release anything to them apart from those data handed over by the Mccanns and their solicitors in the first place, effectively refunding them those items.  In other words they didn't get what they wanted.

It's a colossal waste of time and resources this silly game that the Mccanns play but they will try anything if they can get away with it, as we know, but this
one backfires big time.  If not for this WOC, we would not have  known LP's comment about them.
It's the Mccanns self goal.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe 27.01.14 13:29

Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (2007): “While both or one of [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance”.

Has Andy or any of 'sponsored balloon, fund raiser for McCanns', BHH, (Andys boss) 'elite' team ever asked this chap about what he meant by stating this?
avatar
jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by diatribe 27.01.14 15:12

ultimaThule wrote:

 as citizens of the UK, we are free to engage in open debate here and elsewhere:




Oh the irony, I wonder if Tony Bennet would concur with your sentiments. In any event, even if the above were true, I don't consider being able to say what one wants as long as one does as one is told constitutes living in a democracy.

As for the illusion of elected governments, when one has the choice of basically three parties where there isn't a scintilla of difference between their policies, that is tantamount to a totalitarian state. With regards to all your examples which I presume you consider to have more oppressive regimes, there wouldn't be one thing that was permissable or legal in the UK that would not be so in any of them, but there would be many things that would be legal and permissable in the aforementioned that are banned here.

For instance, an iraqi citizen wouldn't be risking a mandatory 5 yr. sentence for possessing a blank firing pistol, they also would not be risking having their money confiscated if they preferred to deal in cash. They also wouldn't have to stand out in the freezing cold like a pariah if they happened to want to smoke a cigarette, or be under surveillance every time they strayed out of their private abode. Oh, and they wouldn't have to suffer the indignity of paying £6 plus per gal. for their gasoline.

They may not even have to suffer the indignity of being force fed on a daily basis with untalented, nauseous, ugly celebrities either. However nauseating and misleading Saddam Hussein's propaganda may have been, it didn't even come close to that which is served up by the meeja in the Big Brother Surveillance State of the Peoples' Republik of Britain..
avatar
diatribe

Posts : 602
Activity : 608
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Liz Eagles 27.01.14 15:22

diatribe wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:

 as citizens of the UK, we are free to engage in open debate here and elsewhere:




Oh the irony, I wonder if Tony Bennet would concur with your sentiments. In any event, even if the above were true, I don't consider being able to say what one wants as long as one does as one is told constitutes living in a democracy.

As for the illusion of elected governments, when one has the choice of basically three parties where there isn't a scintilla of difference between their policies, that is tantamount to a totalitarian state. With regards to all your examples which I presume you consider to have more oppressive regimes, there wouldn't be one thing that was permissable or legal in the UK that would not be so in any of them, but there would be many things that would be legal and permissable in the aforementioned that are banned here.

For instance, an iraqi citizen wouldn't be risking a mandatory 5 yr. sentence for possessing a blank firing pistol, they also would not be risking having their money confiscated if they preferred to deal in cash. They also wouldn't have to stand out in the freezing cold like a pariah if they happened to want to smoke a cigarette, or be under surveillance every time they strayed out of their private abode. Oh, and they wouldn't have to suffer the indignity of paying £6 plus per gal. for their gasoline.
Have you considered moving to Iraq?
Liz Eagles
Liz Eagles

Posts : 10944
Activity : 13351
Likes received : 2216
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest 27.01.14 16:34

jeanmonroe wrote: [...]  'sponsored balloon, fund raiser for McCanns', BHH, (Andys boss) 'elite' team  [...]
***
I see Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe regularly referred to as a fund-raiser for the McCanns. Today I decided to finally seriously going a bit into the matter again, only to find out that the ONLY reference of BHH with McCanns is a mid June 2007 announcement, that he's [whilst still leading Merseyside police] going to lead a sponsored balloon-release in Liverpool. I have not found one single follow-up article about the him and this balloon-release, nor have I been able to find any photograph documenting this "fund-raising for the McCanns" affair. Instead I found articles about the release of 100 [not 1,000] balloons, witnessed by Kate's parents.

ETA if anyone has better documentation and/or photos, I stand corrected ...
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe 27.01.14 16:53

Châtelaine wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote: [...]  'sponsored balloon, fund raiser for McCanns', BHH, (Andys boss) 'elite' team  [...]
***
I see Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe regularly referred to as a fund-raiser for the McCanns. Today I decided to finally seriously going a bit into the matter again, only to find out that the ONLY reference of BHH with McCanns is a mid June 2007 announcement, that he's [whilst still leading Merseyside police] going to lead a sponsored balloon-release in Liverpool. I have not found one single follow-up article about the him and this balloon-release, nor have I been able to find any photograph documenting this "fund-raising for the McCanns" affair. Instead I found articles about the release of 100 [not 1,000] balloons, witnessed by Kate's parents.

ETA if anyone has better documentation and/or photos, I stand corrected ...

The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police - Bernard Hogan Howe WILL LEAD the release of balloons on the highest point of Liverpool inner city on Mossley Hill Field at 1400 BST.

AND

The balloons will COST a pound to sponsor and ALL MONEY WILL GO TO the Madeleine appeal FUND.

IF that's NOT being associated with 'fund raising' for the McCanns, Madeleine appeal 'fund' i don't know what is!

Unless, of course, BHH is so 'mean' that he, personally, did not/would not actually pay a small wee pound to 'sponsor' a single balloon at a balloon launch he led.
avatar
jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest 27.01.14 17:17

jeanmonroe wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote: [...]  'sponsored balloon, fund raiser for McCanns', BHH, (Andys boss) 'elite' team  [...]
***
I see Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe regularly referred to as a fund-raiser for the McCanns. Today I decided to finally seriously going a bit into the matter again, only to find out that the ONLY reference of BHH with McCanns is a mid June 2007 announcement, that he's [whilst still leading Merseyside police] going to lead a sponsored balloon-release in Liverpool. I have not found one single follow-up article about the him and this balloon-release, nor have I been able to find any photograph documenting this "fund-raising for the McCanns" affair. Instead I found articles about the release of 100 [not 1,000] balloons, witnessed by Kate's parents.

ETA if anyone has better documentation and/or photos, I stand corrected ...

The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police - Bernard Hogan Howe WILL LEAD the release of balloons on the highest point of Liverpool inner city on Mossley Hill Field at 1400 BST.

AND

The balloons will COST a pound to sponsor and ALL MONEY WILL GO TO the Madeleine appeal FUND.

IF that's NOT being associated with 'fund raising' for the McCanns, Madeleine appeal 'fund' i don't know what is!

Unless, of course, BHH is so 'mean' that he, personally, did not/would not actually pay a small wee pound to 'sponsor' a single balloon at a balloon launch he led.
***
Jeanmonroe, if you read my post again, you'll see that I suggest the MSM announced what they thought he would do AND that afterwards there was no sign, that he did do it. In fact, the whole one thousand sponsored balloons turned out to be one hundred released by children, witnessed by Kate's parents. Who were very busy distributing posters and balloons in the weeks afterwards. Also bear in mind, that this was June 2007, just a month and a bit after Madeleine's disappearance and no indication whatsoever yet that there might be more than an abduction of a beautiful little girl in a faraway country ...

So, unless, someone brings me proof, I refuse to accept Sir Bernard to be a "fundraiser" for the McCanns and hence discredited to be supervising an investigation into her disappearance.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by ultimaThule 27.01.14 17:21

Châtelaine wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote: [...]  'sponsored balloon, fund raiser for McCanns', BHH, (Andys boss) 'elite' team  [...]
***
I see Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe regularly referred to as a fund-raiser for the McCanns. Today I decided to finally seriously going a bit into the matter again, only to find out that the ONLY reference of BHH with McCanns is a mid June 2007 announcement, that he's [whilst still leading Merseyside police] going to lead a sponsored balloon-release in Liverpool. I have not found one single follow-up article about the him and this balloon-release, nor have I been able to find any photograph documenting this "fund-raising for the McCanns" affair. Instead I found articles about the release of 100 [not 1,000] balloons, witnessed by Kate's parents.

ETA if anyone has better documentation and/or photos, I stand corrected ...
The only article I can find after a quick search is this one: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/McCanns%27+anguish+over+%27cruel%27+publication+of+letter.-a0165207876 which indicates that the wee one was doing his own PR back in June 2007.
ultimaThule
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Activity : 3376
Likes received : 7
Join date : 2013-09-18

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by diatribe 27.01.14 17:28

aquila wrote:Have you considered moving to Iraq?

Iraq wouldn't be my destination of choice, Aquila, although it may have been prior to the US and their oppressive aircraft carrier's intervention in 1991. I merely used Iraq as an example, (it could so easily have been any one of the other states quoted)  that the people in the aforementioned have as many if not more civil liberties accorded to them than the 'subjects' of the UK.

I don't know your age or how long you have resided in the UK, if at all, but most residents of this septic isle if informed 30 yrs. ago of what life would be like in 2014 might have stated something on the lines of, ''Nah mate, coultn't never 'appen 'ere, ave annova cup a tea.'' Had the valliant young men who sacrificed their lives in the battle of the Somme or on the Normandy beaches known how their much cherished freedoms were going to be eviscerated in the future, they'd have probably stayed at home.

NB. The very fact that a tyrant such as Rupert Murdoch can dictate to a puppet Prime Minister how to utilise his police force tells you everything you need to know about this country.
avatar
diatribe

Posts : 602
Activity : 608
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Dr What 27.01.14 18:27

Where is the British equivalent of the Washington Post? Where are all the 'print and be damned' editors? Freedom
 of speech and expression is now only really to be found on the various web sites.The  mainstream Press has been neutered, afraid to upset certain firms of solicitors who threaten libel action.If what is printed is accurate and can be evidenced, then why not 'print and be damned'?

I am re-reading an account of the Watergate affair.It eventually lead to the downfall of the US President.There are not many similarities to the McCann affair, except one.The Washington Post,when it started to publish articles that implicated persons who were closer and closer to President Nixon in criminal activities, was threatened with all sorts of legal actions if it continued to print them.It did continue to print them and the stakes were very high.The Washington Post was proved correct in it's dogged approach in revealing the truth.It smelt a rat and went after it.The rat turned out to be Nixon himself.

There are so many aspects of the McCann affair that are not printed.The Press, perhaps, are scared to print even factual aspects.Anything that is printed seems to reflect the views of the 'spokesman' for the McCanns.The Press could have continued to act as a vehicle of investigative journalism but it has chosen not to.Instead the McCanns, a tawdry and evasive couple, have been allowed to dodge and duck any serious questioning about their actions and behaviour when their daughter went missing.
The Press could have helped to stop this nonsense.It chose not to.
avatar
Dr What

Posts : 249
Activity : 286
Likes received : 35
Join date : 2012-10-26

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by ultimaThule 27.01.14 18:51

'Publish and be damned' is one thing if facts are to hand to substantiate what rolls off the press, but when it comes to contempt of Court for breaching an injunction or other Order it is, indeed, a brave editor who publishes with the sure and certain knowledge they'll be seeing the inside of a prison cell for what may be a very long period - and an equally brave newspaper proprietor who permits them to commit such a folly.
ultimaThule
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Activity : 3376
Likes received : 7
Join date : 2013-09-18

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Dr What 27.01.14 19:17

Aren't the facts contained in the official Police files on the case sufficient? The Gaspar statements?
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?
avatar
Dr What

Posts : 249
Activity : 286
Likes received : 35
Join date : 2012-10-26

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by diatribe 27.01.14 19:34

ultimaThule wrote:'Publish and be damned' is one thing if facts are to hand to substantiate what rolls off the press, but when it comes to contempt of Court for breaching an injunction or other Order it is, indeed, a brave editor who publishes with the sure and certain knowledge they'll be seeing the inside of a prison cell for what may be a very long period - and an equally brave newspaper proprietor who permits them to commit such a folly.

Bit of a contradiction here, Ultima.


ultimaThule

 ''as citizens of the UK, we are free to engage in open debate here and elsewhere:''
avatar
diatribe

Posts : 602
Activity : 608
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by diatribe 27.01.14 19:39

Dr What wrote:
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?
The only things 'free' to the British people are to deify force fed meeja products and work to sign IOU chits at the end of each wk.
avatar
diatribe

Posts : 602
Activity : 608
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by ultimaThule 27.01.14 20:23

Dr What wrote:Aren't the facts contained in the official Police files on the case sufficient? The Gaspar statements?
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?
If an injunction barring the publication or transmission of certain files or documents is in force, anyone found to be in breach of the Order will be held to be in contempt of court.

I don't perceive any great reluctance on the part of the UK press to 'take difficult issues on', but when those issues relate to specific individuals who may have engaged in criminal activities the press in general avoid publishing any material which may subsequently prejudice or prevent a trial in a Court of Law.

I share your frustration but I take consolation from knowing that, when apprehended, the perpetrators of heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann will be unable to claim that the UK media has prejudiced their right to a fair trial.
ultimaThule
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Activity : 3376
Likes received : 7
Join date : 2013-09-18

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Mirage 27.01.14 21:01

ultimaThule wrote:
Dr What wrote:Aren't the facts contained in the official Police files on the case sufficient? The Gaspar statements?
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?
If an injunction barring the publication or transmission of certain files or documents is in force, anyone found to be in breach of the Order will be held to be in contempt of court.

I don't perceive any great reluctance on the part of the UK press to 'take difficult issues on', but when those issues relate to specific individuals who may have engaged in criminal activities the press in general avoid publishing any material which may subsequently prejudice or prevent a trial in a Court of Law.

I share your frustration but I take consolation from knowing that, when apprehended, the perpetrators of heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann will be unable to claim that the UK media has prejudiced their right to a fair trial.
Injunction understandable. But why go the other way and denigrate GA? That is also prejudicial to a fair trial ie: that guilty parties will be seen to have been maligned according to the way GA and the PJ have been portrayed in the press, thus prejudicing a future jury. There is a real risk that guilty parties may be found innocent because the public have been flooded with biased reportage over many years.
avatar
Mirage

Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Okeydokey 28.01.14 0:25

Mirage wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
Dr What wrote:Aren't the facts contained in the official Police files on the case sufficient? The Gaspar statements?
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?
If an injunction barring the publication or transmission of certain files or documents is in force, anyone found to be in breach of the Order will be held to be in contempt of court.

I don't perceive any great reluctance on the part of the UK press to 'take difficult issues on', but when those issues relate to specific individuals who may have engaged in criminal activities the press in general avoid publishing any material which may subsequently prejudice or prevent a trial in a Court of Law.

I share your frustration but I take consolation from knowing that, when apprehended, the perpetrators of heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann will be unable to claim that the UK media has prejudiced their right to a fair trial.
Injunction understandable. But why go the other way and denigrate GA? That is also prejudicial to a fair trial ie: that guilty parties will be seen to have been maligned according to the way GA and the PJ have been portrayed in the press, thus prejudicing a future jury. There is a real risk that guilty parties may be found innocent because the public have been flooded with biased reportage over many years.

Quite. The UK media have no excuses whatsoever. They have connived in our whole constitution being undermined. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic - but when you think about all the tactics they use, it is almost an understatement.
avatar
Okeydokey

Posts : 938
Activity : 1013
Likes received : 31
Join date : 2013-10-18

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by plebgate 28.01.14 5:01

We live in a free country - I don't think so.
avatar
plebgate

Posts : 6729
Activity : 8938
Likes received : 2123
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Tangled Web 28.01.14 9:36

Okeydokey wrote:
Mirage wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
Dr What wrote:Aren't the facts contained in the official Police files on the case sufficient? The Gaspar statements?
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?
If an injunction barring the publication or transmission of certain files or documents is in force, anyone found to be in breach of the Order will be held to be in contempt of court.

I don't perceive any great reluctance on the part of the UK press to 'take difficult issues on', but when those issues relate to specific individuals who may have engaged in criminal activities the press in general avoid publishing any material which may subsequently prejudice or prevent a trial in a Court of Law.

I share your frustration but I take consolation from knowing that, when apprehended, the perpetrators of heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann will be unable to claim that the UK media has prejudiced their right to a fair trial.
Injunction understandable. But why go the other way and denigrate GA? That is also prejudicial to a fair trial ie: that guilty parties will be seen to have been maligned according to the way GA and the PJ have been portrayed in the press, thus prejudicing a future jury. There is a real risk that guilty parties may be found innocent because the public have been flooded with biased reportage over many years.

Quite. The UK media have no excuses whatsoever. They have connived in our whole constitution being undermined. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic - but when you think about all the tactics they use, it is almost an understatement.

I agree. It appears 'fair game' to destroy GA based on absolutely nothing (well, lies fed to them by the McCann's), yet not a bad word can be said about the McCann's. I just can't get my head around how it ever came to this. The papers should publish the PJ files and allow the public to decide for themselves. They would only be publishing fact. What a sorry mess this is and at the heart of it, the probable death of an innocent 3 year old girl. Shame on then.
avatar
Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Activity : 319
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Doug D 28.01.14 10:04

I may be being naive, but if I was a newspaper editor looking to boost sales, I would already have signed up GA exclusively & be ready to print the whole lot as soon as the Court Case finishes, anticipating a positive outcome, especially having being seen to be so effectively silenced over the last few years from printing anything other than 'controlled news'.

Surely this is why we are getting so many bullshit stories from TM over the last few weeks to try & pre-empt & damage limit this eventuality, with plenty more TM broadcasts in the pipeline ready to be given to the competition.
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3716
Activity : 5283
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by mysterion 28.01.14 10:17

The MSM Knee-jerk defence of the McCanns is not unusual. They frequently run articles about foreign police forces daring to accuse upstanding Brits of crimes. As the case develops, the police are accused of incompetence and the whole judicial system is denegrated. Why do they do it? Because their readers like to think of themselves as honest and superior to "Johnny Foreigner". The more vulnerable the accused, the more they ramp it up.
avatar
mysterion

Posts : 361
Activity : 403
Likes received : 14
Join date : 2013-11-08

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Mirage 28.01.14 10:26

mysterion wrote:The MSM Knee-jerk defence of the McCanns is not unusual. They frequently run articles about foreign police forces daring to accuse upstanding Brits of crimes. As the case develops, the police are accused of incompetence and the whole judicial system is denegrated. Why do they do it? Because their readers like to think of themselves as honest and superior to "Johnny Foreigner". The more vulnerable the accused, the more they ramp it up.
I always find it amusing that the Establishment like to apologise for our Empire days, then proceed exactly as before. Bit like the Catholic confessional - shades of the late, great Dave Allen.
avatar
Mirage

Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by diatribe 28.01.14 13:47

plebgate wrote:We live in a free country - I don't think so.

Precisely and most poignantly over the past 30 yrs. Whilst the laws have been torqued up to protect the rich, famous and powerful, the laws to safeguard an ordinary accused person's rights have been dismantled piecemeal to the extent that they are now barely existent.

Libel laws, super-injunctions, political correctness etc. are entirely confined to the domain of the rich and powerful, tools with which to beat the dissidents with enquiring minds. We witnessed a classic example of this when the Daily Mail accused the so called Eltham 5 of murdering St. Stephen Lawrence whilst challenging them to sue if they were innocent, safe in the knowledge of course that they would never be able to fund a libel action.

Contrast these libel and gagging laws with the CJA(Criminal Justice Act) where peremptory juror challenge has been abolished(except of course in the case of celebrities, the rich and powerful et al, ie. The Maxwell bros. where instead of standing in the dock, they were allowed to sit with their advocates as well as selecting their own jury) Unanimous verdicts introduced whereby a defendant requires at least 4 jurors to give them the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to 1. The abandonment of the so called 'right to silence' whereby guilt inferences can be drawn from a refusal to incriminate oneself. Previous convictions disclosed to jurors and lets have it right, one would have to have 12 pretty discerning people to discount the fact that because a person has committed a criminal offence in the past, it probably means they are guilty of the one they are currently being tried for. Pre trial disclosure of an accused person's defence and lest we forget, the abolishment of the Double Jeopardy ruling which had been in existence since the Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede in 1215. A statute incidentally, that was able to survive the tyrannical reign of the Tudors, but unable to endure the Coach and Horses being driven through the justice system by Nulabor.

Take into account the aforementioned and annex it to the POCA 2002 which reverses the burden of guilt, the erosion of legal aid to the extent whereby it is in the financial interests of criminal lawyers to persuade their clients to accept a guilty plea and it isn't difficult to understand why the CPS, although only requiring a 50% chance of conviction to prosecute, manage to maintain an 83% rate of conviction. The irony of such programmes as 'Banged up abroad' with their hypocritical johnny foreigner injustice insinuations never fails to amaze me, particulay when coming from such an overt Police State as the UK. The McCanns were very fortunate indeed that the 'disappearance' of their daughter didn't occur within the confines of the UK jurisdiction, because far from raising funds from the gullible public to finance their newly found fame, they would undoubtably have been languishing in HM's veritable institutions taking doctrines in day time TV.

I don't know whether others have noticed or for that matter care, but the total disarmament of the British people by Nulabor in 1998 coincided with the further armament of the police. Why, one could be excused for asking, would the gov. consider the further arming of the police necessary when it had disarmed its subjects. Some may state it is a coincidence that since the 1998 Firearms Act, the most draconian legislation ever imposed on the British people has passed through parliament and been entered onto the statute books, others may be a tad more sceptical. My personal opinion is that as long the soaps keep running on time and the proletariat are allowed to continue voting on who is banished from the Big Brother house, the Sun brings them their favourite celebrities on a daily basis, who cares about civil liberties and when the gov. make it mandatory to have CCTV in their bathrooms and toilets, their children micro chipped at birth, etc. etc. etc. so what, every other aspect of their lives is being tracked with their mobile phones, credit cards, CCTV, what difference does it make if they're being spied upon whilst conducting their ablutions.

But of course none of this will ever happen here, after all, we're a democracy and a shining beacon for all those oppressive states with torrid human rights records which Thulma so instructively described to us. McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 2935609547


I understand most of what transpires on this planet, but there are two aspects that totally escape my comprehension. The first being, why are the UK ruling elite going to such extremes to protect a couple of low ranking members of the medical profession. The second being, why do the UK ruling elite so vehemently detest their own people whilst treating them with such utter disdain. Perhaps like Dr. Mengales, they consider them to be a weak and captive audience only worthy of conducting inhumane experiments upon to test their resiliance, if so they've surpassed their remit and accomplished their goal many yrs. ago.
avatar
diatribe

Posts : 602
Activity : 608
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by jeanmonroe 28.01.14 15:19

diatribe:
The first being, why are the UK ruling elite going to such extremes to protect a couple of low ranking members of the medical profession.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wouldn't have the GMC, local MP, or any of the 'great and good' that 'knew' the trusted and well respected great doctor, Dr Harold Shipman, having a bad word said against him!

Of course, after the truth about him came out, i would seriously think you'd be extremely hard pressed to find a single one of the 'great and good' to having a good word to say about him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3391897.stm

Controlling and dominating

During their interviews with him a highly confident Shipman denied all charges.

Detective Chief Inspector Mike Williams said: "He was an arrogant type of individual to deal with. And I don't say that lightly.

"I've listened to the interviews, and he certainly wanted to control and dominate the interview and the officers, at times belittling them. He was treating this as some sort of game, a competition, pitting his, what he considered to be his superior intellect, to those of the officers who were interviewing him."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"self considered superior intellect" (I'm a consultant cardiologist, my wife is a GP) "belittling people" (ask the dogs! Sandra)
"controlling or dominating" (I'm only answering questions i have vetted, not any 'off' official line, or i'll storm out of interview)  "arrogant" (say no more!)"

Does the above 'analysis' remind you of anyone we 'know'?
--------------------------------------

"we're smarter than DCI Andy and his whole 'team', nah, nah, nah, nah, nah"
avatar
jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 10 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Okeydokey 28.01.14 17:06

Tangled Web wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Mirage wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
Dr What wrote:Aren't the facts contained in the official Police files on the case sufficient? The Gaspar statements?
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?
If an injunction barring the publication or transmission of certain files or documents is in force, anyone found to be in breach of the Order will be held to be in contempt of court.

I don't perceive any great reluctance on the part of the UK press to 'take difficult issues on', but when those issues relate to specific individuals who may have engaged in criminal activities the press in general avoid publishing any material which may subsequently prejudice or prevent a trial in a Court of Law.

I share your frustration but I take consolation from knowing that, when apprehended, the perpetrators of heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann will be unable to claim that the UK media has prejudiced their right to a fair trial.
Injunction understandable. But why go the other way and denigrate GA? That is also prejudicial to a fair trial ie: that guilty parties will be seen to have been maligned according to the way GA and the PJ have been portrayed in the press, thus prejudicing a future jury. There is a real risk that guilty parties may be found innocent because the public have been flooded with biased reportage over many years.

Quite. The UK media have no excuses whatsoever. They have connived in our whole constitution being undermined. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic - but when you think about all the tactics they use, it is almost an understatement.

I agree. It appears 'fair game' to destroy GA based on absolutely nothing (well, lies fed to them by the McCann's), yet not a bad word can be said about the McCann's. I just can't get my head around how it ever came to this. The papers should publish the PJ files and allow the public to decide for themselves. They would only be publishing fact. What a sorry mess this is and at the heart of it, the probable death of an innocent 3 year old girl. Shame on then.

I suspect there may well be a court order in place preventing publication of the PJ Files in the UK Media.
avatar
Okeydokey

Posts : 938
Activity : 1013
Likes received : 31
Join date : 2013-10-18

Back to top Go down

Page 10 of 16 Previous  1 ... 6 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum