Madeleine McCann: Blaming Richard Desmond And How To Prevent Another Maddie
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
THE GUARDIAN: “Why the Sunday Express is so unpopular”
ROY GREENSLADE:
I note that the Sunday Express took another sales nose dive last month to record an average weekly sale of just 673,840. Could the continuing circulation slide have anything to do with the readers’ dislike of its scandalous Madeleine McCann coverage? Possibly.
Or has it more to do with the whimsical, but pointless, columns by the paper’s editor, Martin Townsend ? Also possible.
But I believe it has more to do with the growing distaste for its owner, Richard Desmond. In true Maxwellian form a sweaty picture of Dirty Des appeared in this week’s issue (arm around Lulu, poor her) at a charity function arranged by, of course, Desmond himself. Expect another sales drop this month.
OK!, which routinely features its owner Desmond, is the top selling showbiz magazine. Go figure…
METRO: “McCanns hold ‘low-key Maddie birthday party’”
Mr McCann, a consultant cardiologist at Leicester’s Glenfield Hospital, has a number of clinical appointments but he and his wife were due to be together at home for some part of the day.
Such are the facts.
IRISH INDEPENDENT: “7 ways to keep your kids safe on holiday - It’s easy for parents to become too relaxed about their children while abroad, so Shane Dunphy suggests some general rules”
Summer’s here — at last. And all we can think about are holidays in the sun. But no parent can take their children abroad now without thinking of tragic Madeleine McCann.
Tips to avoid another Madeleine McCann include:
- Have a bottle of water with you at all times, and insist that everyone sips some regularly.
- The accepted belief that a child can drown in a couple of inches of water is wisdom indeed, which means that you must be hyper-careful around the pool or on the beach.
- It is always a good idea for the children to have their own funds (within reason), so during the lead-up to the holiday, encourage them to save up for their own special treats during their time away.
Posted: 12th, May 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (369) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
May 13th, 2008 at 5:05 am
Lucifer Prince of Darkness, how ironic.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:13 am
275 Maravilha Says:
” As far as I know, the Tapas 9 was expected to make the reconstruction on next 15th and 16th May .
Does any of you know by chance if it is going to happen? ”
It will be done via internet, with a special virtual reality software.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:08 am
As far as I know, the Tapas 9 was expected to make the reconstruction on next 15th and 16th May .
Does any of you know by chance if it is going to happen?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
273 chenier Says:
” That question has no conceivable relevance to the question of whether it was legally or morally justifiable to leave 3 children under the age of 4 with no responsible adult to care for them. ”
Not quite, but it just came to my mind. We had a case some years ago, where the six year old drowned. For reasons I am too tired to explain, it became an affair. But it strikes me now that the parents haven’t been vilified at all in that case.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
271
Ferdinand Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
264 chenier Says:
” Yes, you probably are. After all, you don’t seem to find a mother leaving small children with no responsible adult to care for them whilst she dines with friends in the slightest bit surprising… ”
———————-
Would you allow a six year boy accompanied by his nine year old sister to go to an open air pool?
———————————–
That question has no conceivable relevance to the question of whether it was legally or morally justifiable to leave 3 children under the age of 4 with no responsible adult to care for them.
In this country you would, to use a well worn phrase, be laughed out of court if you were foolish enough to try to advance it as having relevance to the case of the McCanns.
I see no reason why I should keep a straight face when a judge would laugh…
May 12th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
269 jass:
“The shutters were open, the window was open. Therefore, Madeleine was abducted.”
Unless you assume that the parents are involved, it makes perfect sense.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
264 chenier Says:
” Yes, you probably are. After all, you don’t seem to find a mother leaving small children with no responsible adult to care for them whilst she dines with friends in the slightest bit surprising… ”
Would you allow a six year boy accompanied by his nine year old sister to go to an open air pool?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
267 Ferdinand
Not caught yet
But refer to 259 there may have been wholly innocent reasons for allegedly open windows/shutters on a hot stuffy evening (no matter how unsafe that might be for unsupervised babies and toddlers). So it may not be that important to theories of what happened to Madeleine May 2008, especially in view of Jazz’s post imo.
Night now
May 12th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Ferdinand,
You are so like Garth.
Garth’s only belief in all this seems to be:
“The shutters were open, the window was open. Therefore, Madeleine was abducted.”
He has no other views on any other aspect. Try him, you’ll soon see.
You seem to be much the same.
And, as Gerry himself has recently admitted coming back to the apartment and “trying out” the shutters (as you do, before calling the police) nothing can possibly stand up.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Ferdinand:
Surely it made absolute sense for the McCanns to open the shutters, to make the window seem the entry point?
They didn’t admit to the open patio doors for some time, remember.
But as I say, no-one can trust what they said about the windows/shutters/doors because they, by their own admission, fiddled with the shutters and left fingerprints etc.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
259 AgendaWide Says:
” Then who might have opened the heavy window/shutter? ”
If you are convinced that it makes no sense for an abductor to open the shutters, then it makes also no sense to open the shutters to simulate an abduction. If the shutters are nevertheless open, then it’s either the abductor or the simulator who has a different opinion about the usefulness of this action. If it was a mistake, then either the abductor or the simulator made that mistake - but in either case s/he hasn’t been caught so far.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
260 Ferdinand
Using your legal expertise are these the sort of questions that require arguido/a status?
Night night sleep tight don’t let the mcBugs bite to you, Ade and all
May 12th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Again, the McCanns told everyone they could, by phone or in person (including TV news people and their own families) that it was an abduction, shutters jemmied etc etc.
Yet they STILL let anyone passing into the apartment, to traipse around, leave fingerprints, whatever.
My main question is, WHY has no-one ever asked them why they lied about the jemmied shutters?
It was a huge lie.
The first lie of so many.
Why did our and even the foreign press let it go?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
260
Ferdinand Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
258 chenier Says:
” If a child has wandered off, and you are afraid that you will be blamed for allowing that child to wander off, you might well wish to present the appearance that the child did not wander off, but was, instead, taken. ”
But according to News of the World, Kate found the shutters/window already open. Should that not have been the case, I would have also expected that her first and only concern would have been to find her apparently wandered-off child. Maybe I am wrong about mothers’ priorities.
——————
Yes, you probably are. After all, you don’t seem to find a mother leaving small children with no responsible adult to care for them whilst she dines with friends in the slightest bit surprising…
May 12th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
260 Ferdinand
Ever thought of joining the PJ then you could put these questions directly to K McC and also G. Mc ? Good questions
May 12th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
nite all
the mcbastards still not in jail?
still shitting themselves?
still suffering?
wonderful fun
nite all
fun fun fun
May 12th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Who says the shutters were open?
Gerry.
Who also (in the famous not-denied leak) said he had tried out the shutters and was surprised they didn’t make much noise.
So the shutters could have been anyway - up, down or midway - before the police arrived because Gerry had been by his own admission fiddling with them.
Not what a man who sincerely believed in an abductor would do, surely?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
258 chenier Says:
” If a child has wandered off, and you are afraid that you will be blamed for allowing that child to wander off, you might well wish to present the appearance that the child did not wander off, but was, instead, taken. ”
But according to News of the World, Kate found the shutters/window already open. Should that not have been the case, I would have also expected that her first and only concern would have been to find her apparently wandered-off child. Maybe I am wrong about mothers’ priorities.
Also, how would she later explain the open window, in case the child was found save wandering around in PdL - which after all would have been the most likely outcome if Madeleine had only been wandering off?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
257 Ferdinand
If the windows/shutters were found open as reported
If the windows/shutters could only be opened from the inside as reported
If an ‘abductor’ came into the room to snatch Madeleine from a bed located near the door s/he would have no reason to leap over the hurdle of the twins travel cots and then the second bed with a child in arms to open the noisy window/shutter when s/he could escape through other exits
Then who might have opened the heavy window/shutter?
Perhaps it was a hot, stuffy evening and the Frag(miscre)ant duo or their Tapas friends thought it a good idea - wholly innocently of course and in keeping with their child safety care?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
257
Ferdinand Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
255 chenier Says:
” It seems to me that you are perfectly well aware that the nonsense lies in your claims as to what the dastardly villain must have done, rather than anything to do with whether the shutters were open or closed.
You are incapable of providing any rational explanation for why a dastardly villain should behave as you claim he must have, so you fall back on cries of ‘well we don’t know anything really, do we’. ”
I’m not aware that I made any claims. I thought we were talking about the News of the World article, especially about the the open shutters/window. If we assume they were open, then someone must have opened them, regardless whether this is rational or not. If Madeleine wandered off, I don’t see anyone who would have opened them. From that I conclude, that she probably didn’t wander off.
———————————————–
Your conclusion is irrational.
If a child has wandered off, and you are afraid that you will be blamed for allowing that child to wander off, you might well wish to present the appearance that the child did not wander off, but was, instead, taken.
Opening the windows and shutters would tend to suggest that the child was taken; certainly the very first stories provided by the McCanns family and friends to the media in this country claimed that the child was abducted and pointed to the existence of allegedly jemmied open windows as proof of their claim.
It was only later that the story was changed to the windows and shutters being simply open, as opposed to broken into/out of…
May 12th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
255 chenier Says:
” It seems to me that you are perfectly well aware that the nonsense lies in your claims as to what the dastardly villain must have done, rather than anything to do with whether the shutters were open or closed.
You are incapable of providing any rational explanation for why a dastardly villain should behave as you claim he must have, so you fall back on cries of ‘well we don’t know anything really, do we’. ”
I’m not aware that I made any claims. I thought we were talking about the News of the World article, especially about the the open shutters/window. If we assume they were open, then someone must have opened them, regardless whether this is rational or not. If Madeleine wandered off, I don’t see anyone who would have opened them. From that I conclude, that she probably didn’t wander off.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
231 Matt.
Though the Darwin “Presumed Dead” declaration needed an extra “push”
by Mrs Darwin via the Home Office…
“””Mrs Darwin managed to have him declared presumed dead after persuading
the coroner to make an application to the Home Office to do so without
waiting the usual seven years.”””
Thanks. I didn’t know that, but it helps explain the apparent overlap in the normal procedures.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
250
Ferdinand Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
242 chenier Says:
” You are claiming that the said dastardly villain then navigated across a pitch black apartment in order to deliberately open the shutter and window, generating noise which would probably have woken one or more of the children, plus the lady who lives upstairs, when he could have got on with silently abducting the child.
That’s nonsense. ”
————————-
I can’t follow your line of argument tonight. It seems widely accepted that the shutters were open, so whether it makes sense or not, they have been opened. Or have they not? I would be the last to be surprised if the whole open shutter story where untrue, as so many other stories.
So should we assume the shutters were opened, or not?
—————————————-
I’m not arguing.
I am simply commenting on the News of the World story, and noting the lack of any evidence for your claims.
It seems to me that you are perfectly well aware that the nonsense lies in your claims as to what the dastardly villain must have done, rather than anything to do with whether the shutters were open or closed.
You are incapable of providing any rational explanation for why a dastardly villain should behave as you claim he must have, so you fall back on cries of ‘well we don’t know anything really, do we’.
This may be true of you, but most of us have rather more intelligence…
May 12th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Kate….”Gerry, call me an Ambulance”.
Gerry…”Hokay, you’re an Ambulance”. “Hic”.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
250
yeh right Gerry has one thing to do any he made a complete bollox of it
May 12th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
249
clouseau
With plenty of ice!
May 12th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
244
jass Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
BUT none of that takes into account the dogs’ reaction in the apartment, or the blood spots, or anything like that.
And that can’t be ignored.
However, faintly interesting that Sky is questioning the parents’ rigid testimony.
—————————-
Even more interesting is Sky’s reference to ‘alleged abduction’…
May 12th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
242 chenier Says:
” You are claiming that the said dastardly villain then navigated across a pitch black apartment in order to deliberately open the shutter and window, generating noise which would probably have woken one or more of the children, plus the lady who lives upstairs, when he could have got on with silently abducting the child.
That’s nonsense. ”
I can’t follow your line of argument tonight. It seems widely accepted that the shutters were open, so whether it makes sense or not, they have been opened. Or have they not? I would be the last to be surprised if the whole open shutter story where untrue, as so many other stories.
So should we assume the shutters were opened, or not?
May 12th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
247
nahh Kate does not drink she only has coke
May 12th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
239
whoops Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
236-I thought people justr walked through the reception area-no gate as such-Dunno never been there. i don’t know that staff were actually checking keys-Is it that straightforward?
—————————–
You appear to be overlooking the fact that I was discussing my own home in the context of your claim that you can easily get into secure areas by tailgating or climbing over the gates.
I was merely pointing out that if you tried that here you would find yourself explaining yourself to the constabulary.
Carmen is the person who has visited PDL…