Madeleine McCann: No Change, A Tourist Site And Entertainment
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
THE GUARDIAN: “Last night’s TV: Madeleine, One Year On: Campaign for Change”
It’s difficult to keep the visuals stimulating, too. We saw the McCanns at home in Leicestershire; Kate and Jerry talking on the sofa. But you can’t have two hours of sofa, so we joined them in a lot of taxis - in Portugal, London, Washington. And there were plenty of lingering tree shots - leafless, winter trees (this is a sad story, after all). And a flying heron … eh, what’s that about? Maybe the heron is an aguido, too. Does Sir Trevor know?
DAILY MAIL: “Madeleine holiday apartment becomes ’sick tourist attraction’ one year on from her disappearance”
Coachloads of journalists arrive every day. It’s sick.
DAILY MIRROR: “Tourists posing for pictures at McCann tragedy spots”
Pensioner Pamela Fenn, who lives above the McCanns’ holiday apartment, said: “It’s sick.
“They stand outside and then have photographs taken with their children.”
A source close to the McCanns said yesterday: “It’s disgraceful.”
It’s not as if the disappearance of a missing child is entertaining.
The floodlights at Premiership club Everton will be switched on this Saturday to mark the anniversary in a campaign called Light The Way Home.
LIVERPOOL ECHO: “Madeleine McCann: Family prepare for first anniversary of her disappearance”
People around the world are being urged to light a candle, shine a torch or turn on a porch lamp on Saturday night as a gesture of support for Madeleine’s family and friends.
A lighter held in the air?
Robert Murat, the third arguido in the case, is intending to maintain a low profile and will probably stay away from Praia da Luz on Saturday.
He said: “The anniversary is for a little girl who went missing - Madeleine.
“The anniversary is not about us, the McCanns, the PJ (Portuguese detectives) or anything else but a little girl going missing.”
THE TIMES: “Madeleine, One Year On: Campaign for Change; Escape from Alcatraz: The True Story”
Stefanie Marsh: Why must television do compassion? Why, when faced with a captive audience, a prime-time slot and a story that could, if they’d let it, tell itself, must television turn to mush and mutate into a series of treacly Hallmark bereavement cards?…
At one point Gerry McCann admits that his “wife is carrying on in a quasi-real existence”. What she is really doing is falling apart, but too much gloop from the director turned the McCanns’ terrible situation into a guilt trip that made me want to watch The Apprentice instead.
THE INDEPENDENT: “Last Night’s TV: Madeleine, One Year On: Campaign for Change ITV1″
“You can’t always blame the parents,” says Thomas Stucliffe:
They still get a lot of letters, the McCanns, sorting them out into boxes marked “well-wishers”, “ideas”, “psychics” and “nutty”. Incredibly, they also need a box marked “nasty” for messages such as the one that Gerry read out at the beginning of the film. “How can you use money given by poor people in good faith to pay your mortgage on your mansion? You fucking thieving bastards. Your brat is dead because of your drunken arrogance. Shame on you. I curse you and your family to suffer forever. Cursed Christmas. If you had any shame, you would accept full responsibility for your daughter’s disappearance and give all the money back. You are scum.” This heart-warming expression of support had been written inside a Christmas card. The Daily Express, by contrast, chose to print its hate mail on its own front page, confident that there were enough readers out there who would prefer infanticide to unresolved mystery – or to no McCann story at all. And all the time, the McCanns themselves live a life horribly suspended between what might have been and what could happen next, between “if only” and “maybe”.
Posted: 1st, May 2008 | In: Broadsheets, Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (715) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Emily on Miley Cyrus Says Twilight Is A Bad Cult And Zac Effron Is Hot
- susan jones on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
May 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
and so what’s the verdict on last night’s programme. Still C*****, presumably?
May 1st, 2008 at 10:11 pm
evening all, there is a new thread, race ya!!!
May 1st, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Just back on. Having a serious broadband (and telephony issue) - Yes I have paid the bill. Cable cut apparently. Piggybacking my neighbours wireless link.. they are kind people
Can’t Say No - Very interested in your issue with hack attacks. I have had the same myself.. after visiting the 3As site. It may have been a coincidence, but that was the only new site I had visited in some time - I am a creature of habit generally
May 1st, 2008 at 10:05 pm
681
whoops Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
679-Sorry Chenier you’ve really lost me now_Are you saying that Anorak should be the stakeholder on whether I’ve got any financial expertise? Would they want to-and frankly my finances are my own business-didn’t invest in Northern Rock though.
———————————————-
No; you are not sorry.
If you were sorry you would not continue to misrepresent my posts.
As you have done, yet again.
Frankly, if you are so desperate that all you can do is misrepresent other posters, I wonder why you bother.
What’s the point?
May 1st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
679-Sorry Chenier you’ve really lost me now_Are you saying that Anorak should be the stakeholder on whether I’ve got any financial expertise? Would they want to-and frankly my finances are my own business-didn’t invest in Northern Rock though.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pm
#
677
can’t say no Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
sTUPID BASTARD
D’YA THINK THAT SPAMING THIS PC WILL MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE ?
WE KNOW YOUR CONNECTIONS WITH THE TEAM AND M3
————
You gotta laugh at Csn.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pm
673
whoops Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
666-Well what were you suggesting we bet on and anorak be the stake-holder-I am very sorry if I have misinterpreted anything.
I thought we were in agreement that we were responsible for our children whatever-pissed or not pissed-we still took our eyes off the ball if my hypothetical scenario occurred-Sorry I haven’tt got an actual to compare.
———————————————-
Well, you could try reading my post; after all, you were purporting to reply to it.
It’s perfectly clear. What I said was:
‘On the other hand, I would be prepared to wager folding money that you have no professional expertise when it comes to money.
Perhaps Anorak would be our stake-holder?
If you would like to take the bet, that is…’
No reasonable person could construe my comment as suggesting in any size, shape, or form that I was proposing a wager on what happened to Madeleine.
For you to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
And in my view deliberately disingenuous.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pm
CSN
..who
May 1st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
sTUPID BASTARD
D’YA THINK THAT SPAMING THIS PC WILL MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE ?
WE KNOW YOUR CONNECTIONS WITH THE TEAM AND M3
Oh do tell us more
May 1st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
what will me friends say
May 1st, 2008 at 9:44 pm
660 } firestar
i wonder if they have
where is she… lol~ NOT
May 1st, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Well we have seen what the professional types with alleged financial expertise have done to the economy of this country, merchant wankers as they are known.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
666-Well what were you suggesting we bet on and anorak be the stake-holder-I am very sorry if I have misinterpreted anything.
I thought we were in agreement that we were responsible for our children whatever-pissed or not pissed-we still took our eyes off the ball if my hypothetical scenario occurred-Sorry I haven’tt got an actual to compare.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Good night every one.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:33 pm
…it’s dinner time
May 1st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
667
Got it in one.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:30 pm
657 Pat
1 by 1 or are we all one - Trust everything in moderation.
CU later
May 1st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
i meant brandon flowers, not richard branson.
but its taken me nearly a year to not call her branston.
ill get it eventually.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
The problem is that the holy couple and their behaviour is a produce of our society. It is a curse. At the end of the day it is about ethics and this is what I would wish them to apply.
Additional I often wonder if people decide for children because they really wish for the task of being parents or just because life has stopped at a dead end, a desire for something new, a change, …
Being parents involves dealing with (three) crying and tired kids (without a buggy or not), tantrums, renouncing of nights out, having late nights, no sleep, (almost) no hobbies for several years, little time for yourself … Unless you have a lot of money of course and you can pay for someone who takes your duties over. But ultimately the responsibility still stays with the parents. It was their responsibility to be there for their kids.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
653
whoops Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
630-I have no evidence of what happened to Madeleine-but I’m certainly not going to stick a fiver either way-as it seems the final insult to a child-Anyway don’t think Anorak has a gambling licence.
The parents should never have left her and are ultimately responsible for her fate-But let’s look at another scenario. you take your child to a park-lovely sunny day-been really busy and before you know it you’ve fallen asleep-Child in water drowned-Your fault, yes your fault entirely-But would you then want everyone to say…BTW-I think she held it’s head under water-I’d heard her telling child off earlier-Furthermore would you then say you did-Would you like to be hung for a sheep as well as alamb?
———————————————
I object to you misrepresenting my post.
I never suggested having a wager on what happened to Madeleine.
Your claim that I did so is dishonest, and, in my view, deliberately dishonest.
Frankly, the remainder of your post is no better. You seem incapable of ever discussing what might be loosely be described as the facts.
Instead you confine yourself to misrepresenting the views of other posters and asking faux rhetorical questions….
May 1st, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I guess I was just trying,unsuccessfully I might add!, to be sarcastic.
I enjoy reading all the posts but only ever posted once before.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:27 pm
The story of Gerry’s on Skype about Natascha Kuspasch instead of Natascha Kampusch is very funny.
Someboby wrote it here today>
May 1st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
it was channel 9
chris waddle
May 1st, 2008 at 9:25 pm
656 Darby
sorry Private eye is a satirical magazine in UK. They have written a satirical peice on bloggers in the forums and one asks who is Madeleine as you did. They were joking about our names - one blogger being called Rot in Hell_Myra. Does she exist?
May 1st, 2008 at 9:25 pm
#
658
pat Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
i have been told by someone that on the news at eight channel 4 0r 5 the mccs said they are going to sue the internet forums
————
Thought it was 6 or 7…….. or was it 8 or 9? What the hell eh, the point is…….. they defo said it!`
May 1st, 2008 at 9:24 pm
657
i don’t care.
when they send branson a writ i may worry a bit.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:24 pm
#
651
chenier Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
641
AgendaWide Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Uta Hagen
Nice to see you
SteveT
I watched but ITV will be pleased to know I scrolled the adds
Interesting to hear Gerry mention no contact with pj investigation, what about the invitation to attend the reconstruction?
—————————————————–
Gosh, must have got lost in the post…
——————-
Oh yeah…….. not thought of that one!
May 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
you take your child to the park in a foreign country, leave her alone on a bench at night and go out drinking would be nearer the analogy whoops.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
i have been told by someone that on the news at eight channel 4 0r 5 the mccs said they are going to sue the internet forums
May 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Agenta Wilde
I am sorry but I have no idea what that even means