Re: Latest News

by Texty Fri May 11, 2018 12:02 pm

Hi, AJS. Yes, although the Mail and Paul Dacre are hardly paragons of virtue, Dacre highlighted exactly that point in his speech at Leveson: “who should decide what interests the public – or where the public interest really lies? Judges? Politicians? Is that what Britain really wants.”

He made a few other pertinent comments, including:

“am I alone in detecting the rank smells of hypocrisy and revenge in the political class’s current moral indignation over a British press that dared to expose their greed and corruption”

“The Hampstead liberal with his gilded life-style understandably enjoys the Guardian – a paper that deals with serious issues. But does he or a judge have any right to deny someone who works ten hours a day in a Sunderland call centre and lives for football, the right to buy a paper that reveals the sexual peccadilloes of one of his team’s millionaire married players – a player who uses his celebrity to sell products to him and his children.”

The latter comment highlights the fact that adoption of the Leveson proposals would have given the best of both worlds to certain people who use the press for publicity when it suits them, but don’t like what is printed when it doesn’t suit them.

The Mail also commendably led the way in recent years in opening McCann-related articles to reader comments, and its comment rating system has provided probably the largest-sample regular survey of public opinion on the case

by AJS Fri May 11, 2018 1:54 pm

Well said.

by Watcher Fri May 11, 2018 7:47 pm

Travers wrote:There's some desperate stuff being argued about Totman over on JF.
Can't see his identification as terribly important myself, although certainly a puzzle as to why it's happened at this time.

I have a theory on that - most of the year the papers just print the Tracy Kandleholder crap that's served up courtesy of the PA. However, when the anniversary comes around, they dust off one of their crime reporters who actually does what journalists are supposed to do ie. a bit of digging around. Hence the revelations, which in my opinion can only mean he spoke to the police.

I could be completely wrong, but whenever something newsworthy is revealed, it is never by one of the usual suspects.

by AJS Fri May 11, 2018 9:55 pm

Hi Travers and Watcher.

It's put an ISIS bedpan under a few of the fantasists, hasn't it? They've tied themselves up in so many knots with their own past inventions that they've lost the track as well as the plot.

The nutters are running very satisfyingly amok.

It might be a good idea to stop playing at fantasies, fun though they are, have a good look at the Crimewatch photo and a good look at the latest, poor quality one and say "hm, do I think these match up with JT's description to be found in the various files or tabulated in a recent Bureau" ?

And be grateful for another little brick in the wall enabling us, like the case files, to have another glimpse at things before they are officially produced. See for ourselves.

But they won't do it. Because before they can ever get to that stage they are dangling from the hooks they've hung themselves on: they can't do it because they don't know if he reely, reely is the man Redwood named, but they can't determine that until they've decided whether Redwood reely, reely was telling the truth, and they can't determine that because, as Pat Brown says, Grange itself reely, reely, is a criminal conspiracy. But there is no evidence that can prove that is a postulate that can start the chain of inferences, so round and round they'll go till they feel reely, reely, sick.

I forget who said, in a different context, that people who believe in nothing end up believing in everything. I've tried a hundred times to convince them that once you allow assumptions into inferences whenever you wish you will inevitably and infallibly be trapped in a vicious circle. But, of course, they think that's just snobbish, high-falutin' Bureau BS, instead of a simple warning.

It's painful in a way but it's also a certain amount of fun. Much more to come.

By the way Misty, Antonio here: following your blagging on twitter today you will give the source showing when Jane Tanner denied to the police that she had identified Murat in the van, won't you?

Or rather you won't. Because she never did.

by Arthur League Fri May 11, 2018 10:01 pm

AJS wrote:Hi Travers and Watcher.

It's put an ISIS bedpan under a few of the fantasists, hasn't it? They've tied themselves up in so many knots with their own past inventions that they've lost the track as well as the plot.

As T. says, the timing is the only thing of interest but the nutters are running very satisfyingly amok.

Occam's razor says it might be a good idea to stop playing at fantasies, fun though they are, have a good look at the Crimewatch photo and a good look at the latest, poor quality one and say "hm, do I think these match up with JT's description to be found in the various files or tabulated in a recent Bureau" ?

And be grateful for another little brick in the wall enabling us, like the case files, to have another glimpse at things before they are officially produced.

But they won't do it. Because before they can ever get to that stage they are dangling from the hooks they've hung themselves on: they can't do it because they don't know if he reely, reely is the man Redwood named, but they can't determine that until they've decided whether Redwood was telling the truth, and they can't determine that because, as Pat Brown says, Grange itself is a criminal conspiracy.

I forget who said, in a different context, that people who believe in nothing end up believing in everything. I've tried a hundred times to convince them that once you allow assumptions into inferences you will inevitably and infallibly be trapped in a vicious circle. But, of course, they think that's just snobbish, high-falutin' Bureau BS, instead of a simple warning.

And this is going to happen again and again as more bits and pieces come out.

It's painful in a way but it's also a certain amount of fun. Much more to come.

By the way Misty, Antonio here: following your blagging on twitter today you will give the source showing when Jane Tanner denied to the police that she had identified Murat in the van, won't you?

Or rather you won't. Because she never did.

They spend too long assuming that the investigation and the files are one and the same thing. Only those involved know what was said and what was done.

by AJS Fri May 11, 2018 10:13 pm

Hello AL. I edited my post while you were quoting it so the two don't match. Just so you know why.

Yes, they gaily assume wrongly but at the same time they will not make the common-sense assumptions that keep us all alive day to day. Sometimes very literally.

I knew a man once who said to a labourer who'd come to dig up the pavement to find an electrical fault, "I wouldn't drill there, mate, there's a cable directly underneath."

And the bloke didn't make the common-sense assumption that (like Redwood) he was probably telling the truth and that even if he wasn't it probably would be better to discover more before getting to work.

But he drilled anyway, was blown into the air and died immediately. At the feet of the man who'd warned him.

by Texty Thu May 17, 2018 8:28 am

I see that in his report on Neves being made Director of the PJ (chortle), Mark Saunokonoko says that the ECHR is still processing the McCanns appeal application - wonder if that’s just an assumption in the absence of any announcement either way, or if he actually found out something.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/2018/05/16/15/36/police-chief-with-madeleine-mccann-case-history-new-top-cop-in-portugal

by enyam Fri May 18, 2018 8:23 am

Texty wrote:I see that in his report on Neves being made Director of the PJ (chortle), Mark Saunokonoko says that the ECHR is still processing the McCanns appeal application - wonder if that’s just an assumption in the absence of any announcement either way, or if he actually found out something.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/2018/05/16/15/36/police-chief-with-madeleine-mccann-case-history-new-top-cop-in-portugal

More than likely an assumption,in all probability its in the in tray waiting its turn.

From this chart it looks like they received 26,450 last year.

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_month_2018_ENG.pdf

by Watcher Sun May 20, 2018 4:52 pm

enyam wrote:
Texty wrote:I see that in his report on Neves being made Director of the PJ (chortle), Mark Saunokonoko says that the ECHR is still processing the McCanns appeal application - wonder if that’s just an assumption in the absence of any announcement either way, or if he actually found out something.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/2018/05/16/15/36/police-chief-with-madeleine-mccann-case-history-new-top-cop-in-portugal

More than likely an assumption,in all probability its in the in tray waiting its turn.

From this chart it looks like they received 26,450 last year.

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_month_2018_ENG.pdf

The advice on their website says "You may have to wait a year before the court can proceed with an initial examination of your application"
It certainly won't be viewed as urgent - that is reserved for cases like the recent ones where sick children have been involved. Even if they considered the McCann case had merit, which I highly doubt, they won't consider it if they have already ruled on a similar point of law, which I believe they have. Either way, Amaral is safe from their grasping hands now, so that's the main thing

by Drivel Spotter Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:42 am

Very quiet on here.

I read elsewhere thatTroglodytes live in Bulgarian caves. Think of the one with the bloodlines theory.

by Texty Sat Jul 14, 2018 11:29 pm

Quiet because nothing’s happening - I’d guess next thing will be the six monthly OG funding (or not) ritual.

by Texty Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:40 am

Contrast the Cliff Richard and Brenda Leyland cases - the difference between being a celebrity who could afford to spend £3m on legal proceedings against the broadcaster, and an ordinary member of the public who couldn’t?

by Lyall Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:54 pm

She may not have needed huge cash reserves had she survived the shock of what happened - did Christopher Jeffries have money? I don't know for certain either way but I suspect he didn't, yet he obtained formidable representation (and won, of course). If only Brenda had kept in touch on social media (with the rational heads there I mean, not the numerous nutcases) - the outcome might have been different if she had.

by Lyall Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:02 pm

Difficult to feel anything for the BBC in this case.

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14339807

"Christopher Jefferies is the latest victim of the regular witch-hunts and character assassinations conducted by the worst elements of the British tabloid media," he [Louis Charalambous, Jeffries' lawyer] said.

Mr Charalambous complained that some press reports were intended to "monster" individuals, with a "flagrant disregard" for their privacy and rights to a fair trial.

Difficult to claim the BBC didn't act as recklessly as the worst tabloid media in this case.

As did Sky News a few months later of course.

by Saldo Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:01 am

'WE WON'T GIVE UP' Kate and Gerry McCann ‘may hire private detectives again if Met abandons Maddie search’
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7236708/madeleine-mccann-search-private-detectives-kate-gerry-parents/

Deja poo.

by Texty Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:17 pm

I see the “source close to the McCanns” has resurfaced - has the period of someone’s enforced silence recently expired?

by **GLOBAL MODERATOR** Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:49 am

https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=colin%20sutton

A newspaper twisting facts.Surely not. lol!

by Drivel Spotter Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:55 am

Do you mean the Mirror,a bastion of Mccann support Question

by Drivel Spotter Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:12 pm

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7273738/madeleine-mccanns-dad-to-reveal-his-painful-mental-health-struggle-11-years-after-she-vanished/

Zero comments allowed.For the benefit of the McCann's and their entourage,does the name Brenda Leyland ring familiar?

by Texty Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:57 am

Over the years, one has got used to the steaming piles of ordure churned out by the dying MSM on this case, but this latest death rattle takes some beating: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7281872/madeline-mcann-fund-750k-case/

So many inaccuracies, one doesn’t know where to start, but what I conclude from it is that the day of reckoning for payment of the accumulated costs of the failed litigation is rapidly approaching, despite any “expected” (pfffffffft, so nothing arranged) hearing in Strasbourg which would have no bearing whatsoever on the Supreme Court’s cost payments order.

So

by **GLOBAL MODERATOR** Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:16 pm

Texty wrote:Over the years, one has got used to the steaming piles of ordure churned out by the dying MSM on this case, but this latest death rattle takes some beating: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7281872/madeline-mcann-fund-750k-case/

So many inaccuracies, one doesn’t know where to start, but what I conclude from it is that the day of reckoning for payment of the accumulated costs of the failed litigation is rapidly approaching, despite any “expected” (pfffffffft, so nothing arranged) hearing in Strasbourg which would have no bearing whatsoever on the Supreme Court’s cost payments order.

So

It's another load of rubbish from the Sun.Rally just rehashed rubbish and some wonder why newspaper circulation is dwindling.

by cujimmy100 Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:05 pm

Some seem concerned Goncarlo used the media
'Never stopped him in the past ... did it?'
So,just in case they have forgotten

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mccanns+in+the+media&safe=strict&rlz=1C1EJFA_enGB762GB762&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjksfGExMndAhVIBMAKHZnuBaQQ_AUICygC&biw=1238&bih=655

by Texty Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:01 pm

Oh dear.

“Four victims of intrusion by the UK press have lost a High Court fight against the government over its decision to scrap the second part of the Leveson Inquiry into media standards.

Christopher Jefferies, Kate and Gerry McCann and Jacqui Hames had brought a judicial review against the government’s move.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/leveson-2-inquiry-high-court-ruling-kate-gerry-mccann-christopher-jefferies-media-press-a8659151.html

Chortle.

by Travers Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:41 pm

McCanns sure don't have much luck in the courts Very Happy

by Texty Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:20 pm

Wonder who’ll be picking up the costs.

by Sponsored content