Madeleine McCann: Child Alert, Daily Mail Knows And Fay Weldon
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MIRROR: “McCanns win child alert fight MADELEINE”
Kate and Gerry McCann yesterday won their fight for an EU-wide missing child alert system, in tribute to their daughter Madeleine. A declaration supporting the couple’s plea attracted backing from at least 398 MEPs - more than half the 785 European Parliament members.
Or as the Mail said earlier in the week: DAILY MAIL: “Brussels throws out McCann’s appeal for European missing child alert system”
THE INDEPENDENT: “Cultural Life: Fay Weldon, Author”
Film
I went to see Ben Affleck’s Gone Baby Gone for Radio 3’s Saturday Review. “Emotionally disturbing” it claimed to be, with its echoes of the Madeleine McCann case, and so it was, and a welcome change from the dull, written-to-formula films that pour from major studios. If profit rather than enthusiasm is the bottom line, all you get is variations on what made a profit last year.
On it goes…
Posted: 11th, July 2008 | In: Broadsheets, Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (891) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
- yampster on Dundee Woman Accused Of Ripping Out Lover’s Testes With Her Bare Hands
- KathyM on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Desperate Dan on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on The 14 Ten Most Offensive Google Search Results
July 12th, 2008 at 12:07 am
annie1
That’s what I can’t stand about them - the self-justification. Imagine your kid’s missing and your first thought is still to wriggle out of responsibility.
They do mumble about wishing they’d been there etc but it’s so heavily qualified that they may as well not bother.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Karen - are they also going to warn of the dangers of leaving children alone - they haven’t so far……….
Are they going to admit that they were wrong - they haven’t so far
Are they going to admit that the pj were absolutely right to make them suspects, under the circumstances - they haven’t so far
Are they ever going to realise that THEY are the reason Madeleine went missing
Are they ever going to stand up and own up?
NO - because they are not big enough human beings to admit that they were WRONG on every count.
They would have gained just a grain of respect if they had stood up at the Strasburg gathering and said “There would be NO NEED for an amber alert if every parent in the world held us up as an example of how not to act” “Learn from our dreadful and callous act - and do not let your children out of your sight”
I didn’t hear them say anything like that - the truth, did you?
July 12th, 2008 at 12:02 am
513
Ferdinand Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
What’s the problem? The family judge has asked the police to disclose information. ‘
that is not how i understood it. my understanding is that the lp were served with an order which justic hogg had made and the lp chose to question that order upon which it was taken to court for justice hogg to decide or reconsider or whatever the legal term is.
before the hearing an arrangement was agreed upon between the parties, that the lp hand over some files and the mccanns stop further proceedings. as such the hearing was more a dismissal of the case as the parties had reached an agreement, which the judge agreed to. she also then took the chance to amend the order so that it could not in future be served on the uk police force.
‘The police then has the choice to either give the information, or appeal against the order.’
which they did, hence the hearing.
‘They then have to justify their concerns in court.’
it was more they had reached an agreement with the mccanns and asked the judge to amend the order.
” I don’t think it’s up to the family judge to anticipate the police concerns, even if she might have already expected that not all information can be revealed by the police.’
i think the order was issued way earlier than the 2nd of april this year, orders were issued on the 17th of may last year as the transcript of court proceedings show, so i think it is something she did not forsee, that it would be served on the police.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Jings the wheels aff the barra…. http://tinyurl.com/5qejyh
July 11th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Chenier
But the police in Portugal did not even think it should be publicised at all, publicised in the way that missing chidren are in the UK. The eye argument is up for discussion certainly, and who is to know, but it seems if it had been left to the portuguese police, nothing would ever have been known of Madaleine. A choice to be made… To do all that police tell you, or not
July 11th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
The return of the windylicker……………..
http://www.dca.gov.uk/family/metpol-protocol.pdf
July 11th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Are Kate and Gerry going to recommend that parents lock their door when they leave their children alone in an apartment? They haven’t so far.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
516
SpongeBob Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
512
chenier
Yes, and they McCanns ‘compromised’ and took the 81 pieces of evidence. Scraps, if you will.
But that wasn’t the question, the question was (and bearing in mind that shoe change appeal again) would you not think it reasonable to try? To risk being told off, scolded etc, but with the possible gain of information that might find your daughter?
————————————–
Even though the police told you that not only would it not help you to find your daughter, but also that it would make it less likely that the child would ever be found?
Because the police did.
And the McCanns still tried to force the police to disclose it all.
I appreciate that we are supposing, for the sake of argument, that the McCanns know nothing more about the disappearance of their child than they have told the press. It is, however, difficult to see why the innocent parents of a missing child would insist on doing something which the police told them would make it less likely that their child would ever be found…
July 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
511
Carmen Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
‘Do we know that she was asked to address her order to those specific parties, or was it just a general order that all information should be given up by whoever was in possession of such information? If it was a general order she might have had no inkling of what was to come until the LP squealed…….followed by the roar of the AG…..’
true, but it’s not exactly unknown that the mccanns are arguidos, that they are being investigated as possibly having caused their daughters death and hidden her body and that they are keen to view the files of the investigation..
July 11th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
515 chenier Says:
” The problem is that there is specific legislation governing the disclosure of information which does not allow a Judge to order the disclosure of the information.
That is the problem… ”
But surely this does only apply if there are justified reasons to withhold the information (public interest, ongoing criminal investigation etc.)? After all, 81 pieces of evidence have been given, so it cannot apply to any possible information.
So if there are justified objections, they have to be put forward by the police. It cannot be the family judge anticipating whether the police will raise justified objections.
Mods and Admin
Ferdinand
That would mean in any investigation the suspects would know all the police have against them, and would attempt to fabricate anything to discredit the police,
The 81 pieces had already been passed to the police by the McCanns or their legal team, and were in connection of sightings of Madeleine after May 3rd 2007, not the events leading up to then.
Remember the McCanns are arguidos
The Judge made an error, the House of Lords would not let it pass
July 11th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
So to the West Lothian question, if the LP as certain parties claim, are aware and have seen or have evidence to confirm the demise of Madeleine, are they not bound by the law of the land to impart that information to the court, of which Madeleine is a ward, for if she is in demise, she cannot be a ward, so any case would have no basis in law, the LP and their counsel if in receit of said evidence, would surely be in contempt and perverting the course……..
July 11th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
509
chenier Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
‘But then you have to explain the Wardship and the demand for all the information both taking place on the 2cd April.
Or, to be more precise, Justice Hogg has to explain them both taking place on the same day.
But it’s good to see that Clarrie’s grasp of arithmetic -’a few weeks after Madeleine disappeared’- is almost as good as Gerry’s -a few yards away- …’
hrumpf, i’m chugging along 50 miles behind everyone else i see.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
507
chenier Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
‘According to Justice Hogg’s judgement Madeleine was made a Ward of Court on 2cd April 2008 and the demand that the Leicestershire Police Force disclose all of the information in their files to the Court was made on the same day.’
but didn’t clarence say madeleine had been made a ward of court last year ?the second paragraph seems to suggest a wardship, but no, that wasn’t granted until the 2nd april 08.
i think the application of the 2nd of april resulted from it being served on the lp and the lp refused to comply, hence they went to court.
and so maddie was made ward of court so the application could be served ? as you say the return of the days of fagin ? and clarence lied ?
July 11th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Although this has been a relaxing break, it has been incredibly difficult for Kate and me to have been on holiday without Madeleine- it is all too apparent what is missing
GERRY BLOG -
Surely Gerry me lad, surely it has been blatently obvious “what” has been missing for 14 months - is what he is saying that it has taken a “holiday” to bring home the realisation that they do not now have their eldest child? It would have been preferred if the reference had been to a “who” not a “what” - but hey! the who is now a commodity, isnt she?
July 11th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
513
Ferdinand Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
508 chenier Says:
” According to Justice Hogg’s judgement Madeleine was made a Ward of Court on 2cd April 2008 and the demand that the Leicestershire Police Force disclose all of the information in their files to the Court was made on the same day.
I really doubt that Justice Hogg didn’t notice… ”
What’s the problem? The family judge has asked the police to disclose information. The police then has the choice to either give the information, or appeal against the order. They then have to justify their concerns in court. I don’t think it’s up to the family judge to anticipate the police concerns, even if she might have already expected that not all information can be revealed by the police.
———————————-
The problem is that there is specific legislation governing the disclosure of information which does not allow a Judge to order the disclosure of the information.
That is the problem…
July 11th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
512
chenier
Yes, and they McCanns ‘compromised’ and took the 81 pieces of evidence. Scraps, if you will.
But that wasn’t the question, the question was (and bearing in mind that shoe change appeal again) would you not think it reasonable to try? To risk being told off, scolded etc, but with the possible gain of information that might find your daughter?
July 11th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
511
Carmen Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Chenier
I quite appreciate that the order and the demand were made the same day, but does it necessarily follow that because the order was made, that Hogg would be aware of the use to which it was put so soon after?
Do we know that she was asked to address her order to those specific parties, or was it just a general order that all information should be given up by whoever was in possession of such information? If it was a general order she might have had no inkling of what was to come until the LP squealed…….followed by the roar of the AG…..
———————————–
The order had been made in general terms much earlier on, soon after the disappearance of Madeleine.
It was only on 2cd April that Madeleine was made a Ward of Court and, presumably later that day, the demand was made that the Leicestershire police, as lead agency for the investigation here, disclose over 11,000 items of information to the Court.
I suppose that it is possible that, having gone from 3rd May 2007 to 2cd April 2008 without Madeleine being made a Ward of Court, it didn’t occur to Justice Hogg to ask what had changed to require it then, and she just rubber stamped it.
But that doesn’t look like an improvement career wise…
July 11th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
508 chenier Says:
” According to Justice Hogg’s judgement Madeleine was made a Ward of Court on 2cd April 2008 and the demand that the Leicestershire Police Force disclose all of the information in their files to the Court was made on the same day.
I really doubt that Justice Hogg didn’t notice… ”
What’s the problem? The family judge has asked the police to disclose information. The police then has the choice to either give the information, or appeal against the order. They then have to justify their concerns in court. I don’t think it’s up to the family judge to anticipate the police concerns, even if she might have already expected that not all information can be revealed by the police.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
508
SpongeBob Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
502 Chenier
Fair dos: It might not be amusing to the powers that be, but it is fair enough to try, is it not?
Precedent is just that: to be challenged. They lost, but it was worth a shot perhaps? Put the shoe on the other foot and consider if it was worth it, knowing of course, with that shoe change, that they are innocent.
———————————
As Counsel for the Chief Constable pointed out, the disclosure of the over 11,000 items of information in their investigation files would compromise the criminal investigation seeking to discover what had happened to Madeleine.
Of course, if that was what you wanted to do then it would certainly be worth a try.
A thought which has undoubtedly occurred to the Chief Constable, SOCA and the Attorney General…
July 11th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Chenier
I quite appreciate that the order and the demand were made the same day, but does it necessarily follow that because the order was made, that Hogg would be aware of the use to which it was put so soon after?
Do we know that she was asked to address her order to those specific parties, or was it just a general order that all information should be given up by whoever was in possession of such information? If it was a general order she might have had no inkling of what was to come until the LP squealed…….followed by the roar of the AG…..
July 11th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
506
Carmen Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
‘Sleepless nights in the Hogg household I suspect.’
a huge oversight, yes.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
506
Carmen Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
500
sam Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:00 pm e
495
chenier Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
‘ no judge has previously attempted to drive a horse and cart through the Freedom of Information legislation by means of a secret order.’
but, we don’t know if she did so wittingly, perhaps it simply did not occur to her (or it wasn’t presented to her) that it would be used so.
***************************
I absolutely agree with you Sam, I am sure that she was not deliberately trying to commit career suicide by making a mockery of a nice new and shiny piece of legislation………and she can be forgiven for not thinking that this is the use her WOC order would be put to, it has never happened before as far as we know.
Sleepless nights in the Hogg household I suspect.
—————–
But then you have to explain the Wardship and the demand for all the information both taking place on the 2cd April.
Or, to be more precise, Justice Hogg has to explain them both taking place on the same day.
But it’s good to see that Clarrie’s grasp of arithmetic -’a few weeks after Madeleine disappeared’- is almost as good as Gerry’s -a few yards away- …
July 11th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
502 Chenier
Fair dos: It might not be amusing to the powers that be, but it is fair enough to try, is it not?
Precedent is just that: to be challenged. They lost, but it was worth a shot perhaps? Put the shoe on the other foot and consider if it was worth it, knowing of course, with that shoe change, that they are innocent.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
500
sam Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
495
chenier Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
‘ no judge has previously attempted to drive a horse and cart through the Freedom of Information legislation by means of a secret order.’
but, we don’t know if she did so wittingly, perhaps it simply did not occur to her (or it wasn’t presented to her) that it would be used so.
——————————–
According to Justice Hogg’s judgement Madeleine was made a Ward of Court on 2cd April 2008 and the demand that the Leicestershire Police Force disclose all of the information in their files to the Court was made on the same day.
I really doubt that Justice Hogg didn’t notice…
July 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
500
sam Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:00 pm e
495
chenier Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
‘ no judge has previously attempted to drive a horse and cart through the Freedom of Information legislation by means of a secret order.’
but, we don’t know if she did so wittingly, perhaps it simply did not occur to her (or it wasn’t presented to her) that it would be used so.
***************************
I absolutely agree with you Sam, I am sure that she was not deliberately trying to commit career suicide by making a mockery of a nice new and shiny piece of legislation………and she can be forgiven for not thinking that this is the use her WOC order would be put to, it has never happened before as far as we know.
Sleepless nights in the Hogg household I suspect.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
496-She was 3 years old for God’s sake-she didn’t find herself in any situation-she was put in it-they don’t make decisions at that age they are made for them. she didn’t decide to shoplift or find herself breaking and entering. This dispassionate, objective language IMHO is sheer cowardice and immaturity. Rant over.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
502
chenier Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
492
‘There were distinctly amusing passages during the hearing, but it was obvious that the Chief Constable, Soca and the Attorney General were all distinctly unamused…’
which was ?
July 11th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Jo!
Rebooted and saw your post I have asked you once tonight if you will please e-mail me on anorakcarmen@gmail.com - you are going over the top. I appreciate that you are working in a second language, but you are making some serious misunderstandings here.
Portia was not defending the McCann’s - your abuse of her is uncalled for.
Equally uncalled for is your abuse of a judge in a foreign jurisdiction - you complain about people abusing the Portuguese system, please don’t fall into the same trap yourself. Now cool your heels a little. I respect your passion for this case, but it does not give you a licence to indulge in this sort of behaviour. Carmen
July 11th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
492
Carmen Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
It would be a nice idea to think that it was J Hogg’s ground breaking precedent to bring a little openness into the less than transparent dealing of the Family Court, but I rather think it was the effect of the Attorney General having to step down from his usual perch far above the mucky streets, at an indecent hour before they were aired, in order to settle a matter of public interest……public interest matters must be seen to be dealt with in public.
Had this application succeeded we might have seen a return to the days of Fagin, where every would be villain was accompanied by a suitably young ward of court….in the event of arrest, the youngster scarpers……..followed by an application ‘in the interests of the ward’ for every scrap of information held by the police.
They’d have been selling stripped ’swag’ shirts in Mothercare!
———————————————-
Yes; the public interest had clearly been damaged by the order, therefore it had to be overturned in public.
There were distinctly amusing passages during the hearing, but it was obvious that the Chief Constable, Soca and the Attorney General were all distinctly unamused…
July 11th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
good night portia