Madeleine McCann: Allison Pearson Demands And Fact Checking Kate And Gerry McCann
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
Madeleine McCann is retuned to the front pages.
DAILY MAIL (front page): “ALLISON PEARSON ON THE McCANNS… If the Portuguese police had a shred of decency they would now make a public apology to Kate and Gerry”
Page 5: “Now clear out names”
Before the Mail’s columnist can voice an opinion – and what is the case of Madeleine McCann but one of opinion upon opinion – time to go over the fact that has been established in 14 months of reporting (a child is missing) and hear the McCann plead their innocence.
Oh, there is one other fact: the “McCanns are “both 40”. Remember that.
PEARSON: “The Maddie detectives must now apologise”
Now it seems the spectacularly incompetent Inspector Cluesnos are ready to admit they have no evidence against the McCanns
Yeah, those hapless amateurs. If only the Portuguese wooden tops were more like the British tabloid hacks who root their maybes in Portuguese press reports and hunches. What of Robert Murat?
Now, thank heavens, the ordeal of the inquiry is nearing an end. Nothing can make up for the loss of Madeleine, but at least the family can continue their lives without the poisonous cloud of suspicion hanging over them. It’s the least they deserve.
Yes, an apology will remove any doubt. Bring in the PIs. It’ll be over by Christmas. Case closed.
THE SUN (front page): “AS COPS GIVE UP MADDIE HUNT, WE SAY.. NOW CLEAR McCANNS”
Pearson of the Mail demands it. Now the Sun demands it. Can the call be resisted?
Page 7: “Little Madeleine McCann’s parents last night faced the nightmare possibility that they could remain suspects FOREVER”
Says the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell, who may have a job for life:
If the case closes, who will hunt for Madeleine? And if Kate and Gerry’s arguido suspect status isn’t removed they will live under a cloud of suspicion. That is both immoral and inhumane… There are people in Portugal who have been arguidos for decades
Page 8: “End the agony – The nightmare goes on for tormented Kate and Gerry McCann”
“But it is clear to the whole world that they are innocent of any sinister act against their precious little girl”
At least the Sun and its readers know the truth and will not point fingers.
DAILY MIRROR (page 7): “”Maddy case to close with out charges”
Case not closed yet.
The 426-day police investigation into the four-year-old’s case ended yesterday
Case Closed.
Says a source: “If the case is shut without charges being brought, they cannot be arguidos, suspects, any more”.
Tell that to Clarence Mitchell (see above).
What of the facts?
Gerry McCann, a heart specialist, is “39”. Gerry is also 39 in the Sun.
Such are the facts.
DAILY STAR (page 7): “CLEAR THEM”
So says Clarence Mitchell.
Readers learn that police want to “shelves the case”. It is not yet closed.
Kate and Gerry are “both 40”
DAILY EXPRESS: NO MADELEINE McCANN
Is she deemed no longer newsworthy by this esteemed organ? Or are there other reasons for her absence?
Madeleine McCann: Let’s have a heated debate
Posted: 2nd, July 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (2,625) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- June on The Pirelli 2010 Calendar In Artful Nudity (NSFW)
- June on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
- Tony on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
- Cheryl on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
- cheekyappleblossom on I’m A Celebrity: Quitter Katie Price Wanted To Die With Jedward
July 7th, 2008 at 1:19 am
#
2589
Gandolf Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Chenny you got it in one the law is nonsense and the MaCanns legals know it, the effrontery of it, using the law that the court dispenses to have that same court called to public attention to explain its decision,what a boundary over mid wicket.
——————————-
I shall be interested in discovering precisely what order the Mccanns think can be made; it seems blindingly obvious, at least as if you have spent a day reading the legislation, and case law that supports it, but who knows what it really means…
And I must get some sleep, and I hope you enjoyed Gloria,though I suspect that Duncan may make use of that last comment…
July 7th, 2008 at 1:18 am
I didn’t realise you were a Thistle supporter, definitely a grade 1 windylicker.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FZyf1YRZQH8
July 7th, 2008 at 1:17 am
gandolf
But at your age - you shouldn’t tax your brain.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Gandolf
So dim you have to resort to bigotry.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Does your carer know you are about at this time Karen, shouldn’t you be tucked up in your rubber room, awaiting another exciting day of windylickin.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:11 am
2582
yampster
Oh it was bald dear…visible. Let’s move on. What about your spare tyre? Your gear stick is a little loose. Could do with some attention….
July 7th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Poor Gandy doesn’t know the difference between a fact and a theory
And doesn’t know you can have more than one working hypothesis.
Is it old age?
July 7th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Chenny you got it in one the law is nonsense and the MaCanns legals know it, the effrontery of it, using the law that the court dispenses to have that same court called to public attention to explain its decision,what a boundary over mid wicket.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:07 am
2587
Gandolf
Oh, my Humphrey…Let’s get physical
July 7th, 2008 at 1:04 am
I am looking for a song by the late Mr Formby, which I would like to dedicate to Karen, it is that well known hit of his……”When I’m lickin windys”
July 7th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Gandolf, that was nonsense..
However, since I was trying to get some sleep listening to some tracks and worrying about our much loved hippo, it occurred to me that I should share:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj7qfh70gak
Just don’t mention it to Duncan R…
July 7th, 2008 at 12:57 am
So, what’s happening then. I got home about an hour ago. Is there any need for me to go to court tomorrow, or is there a contingency on the way from Anorak? Is it true that the Mcs are on hols and will not be in court?
July 7th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Gandolf
Idiot.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:42 am
The McCanns legals certainly know their onions, lets hope it doesn’t all end in tears.
“Where the court is not satisfied that a parenting order is desirable it must state this in open court and explain why”.
Yes Chenny my dear it does look as if the McCanns team senses they are well in the driving seat, as long as whatever happens is beneficial to Madeleines plight, that is all we can hope for.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:42 am
2581
Bette Davis
It was a fit up. That tyre had another 5k miles in it;)
July 7th, 2008 at 12:38 am
2580
yampster
Oh, but dear..you were not an innocent motorist. You had a bald tyre…remember?
July 7th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Many people have asked, why the McCanns as Maddie’s parents, have not gone out to Portugal and searched for her themselves.
If indeed Maddie has been Ward of Court since July last year is anyone going to ask tomorrow, why the court, acting in ‘Loco Parentis’ has not got off their arses and been out to Portugal themselves to look for her, instead of persecuting innocent motorists like me
July 7th, 2008 at 12:27 am
All gone?
July 7th, 2008 at 12:17 am
nite Chenier
Nite Granny (its years and years and years since I had a granny
) x
July 7th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Night chenier.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Off you go up to bed now poppet ….. sweet dreams .
Luv granny x
July 7th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Night, Noseycow and all…
July 7th, 2008 at 12:15 am
#
2497
jo Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
2491
HOTWATER
Now why am I thinking that’s NOT going to happen?
****
Wot?
They are not woc?
They are woc?
What are you thinking?
Please,share
@@@@@@@@@
I simply meant I don’t think any UK reporter is going to ask searching questions like that. Way I see it, Clarry has already confirmed Maddy is a Ward of Court, so it’s no great leap of faith to confirm the status of the twins.
Gandolf are you sure you mean Parental Orders, they’re to do with surrogacy I thought?
Am I allowed to mention surrogacy? After all it’s legal in the UK so long as it’s not done for profit.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Chenier
No pressure
anyway off to my lovely bed…
A busy morning ahead if I want to have everything done before sitting on anorak trying to find out whats going on in that court room
nite all
July 7th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Chen
pop into M&S on the way
July 7th, 2008 at 12:06 am
2569
Noseycow Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Chenier
So it could be very interesting from a legal precedent point of veiw as well as from a Madeleine point of veiw?
Double the reason to press the shirt imo
————————————–
You omitted another point; I’d have to find one…
July 7th, 2008 at 12:04 am
2553
Gandolf Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
The night is long and the owl is wise, let us see in the morrow if the Parental Orders are up for revise.
——————
Gandy, did you get a chance to look at the two judgements from the Information Tribunal that I dug up?
In particular the:
‘However, where, on a provisional view of the law and the evidence,
information ought probably to be disclosed, then such an agreement
may be contrary to the public interest since the agreement will limit
access and any other interested party will have to issue a further
request. A sequence of agreements designed to buy off unwelcome
publicity would clearly be contrary to the policy of FOIA. A successful
request opens the doors to everyone.’
How farsighted the Chairman was back in December, noting that people might try to use it buy off unwelcome publicity, which is clearly contrary to the policy which lay behind the creation of the legislation
And then the really scary bit:
A successful request opens the doors to everyone.’
July 6th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Chenier
So it could be very interesting from a legal precedent point of veiw as well as from a Madeleine point of veiw?
Double the reason to press the shirt imo
July 6th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
2562
Noseycow Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Chenier - go in your jeans I always envy those who defy convention, and they always seem to carry it off with such ‘a plomb’ (?spell)
========================
Much easier to wander in looking as if you belong, even if you end up perched on the floor because the Court is packed.
It’s been a few years since I last had cases there, so maybe they don’t allow overcrowding any more.
But there is a constitutional issue; the Freedom of Information legislation is part of the wider human rights aspects, and judging from what I disinterred earlier on in the Information Tribunal’s judgement about their declining to take part in PR exercises, it looks to me as if the McCanns lawyers will try to circumvent the entire FOI legislation.
God knows how…
July 6th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Chenier
Mrs T - you’re starting to sound like a … like a… like a GRANDMOTHER