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
- eggman on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- agw on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- yampster on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
July 12th, 2008 at 12:59 am
553 sam Says:
” considering what you’ve posted gandolf then it makes sense, what the judge perhaps did not forsee is that the mccanns would become arguidos in the investigation concerning the disppearence of madeleine. ”
I don’t think the arguido status matters at all in this case.
An arguido has the right to know what evidence is being held against him. This kind of information was not what the Mccanns were interested in, since their lawyers know it anyway.
It was about the other evidence, i. e. the evidence in connection with the possibility of an abduction. The Mccanns have no access to this kind of evidence, since this is not evidence against them.
Moreover, the information could have been given to the court, and not to the McCanns, should the arguido status have been seen as a problem.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Sam you are getting there, the question is, does as some claim the LP have the full belt and braces as to why the McCanns are arguidos, do they have or have they seen evidence that says Madeleine is dead ie FSS results. Have they allowed a high court Judge to make a statement knowing that they have evidence to have prevented the judge from making that statement, or as stated previously is the Judge correct and there is no evidence to prove Madeleines demise. Contempt in this case would be very very serious.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:54 am
547
SpongeBob Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Chenier
There are certainly aspects given re missing children: photographs, ages, details of family etc that are released by the press in the UK. The tabloids are testament to that. for example Sarah Payne and similar cases. It is just the release of the eye information that we are disagreeing on, as not much other info re Madeleine, according to many critics, was given?
————————–
Released by the police to the Press, I think you will find. If you listen to the LSE podcast Kelvin McKenzie does a good rundown on how the police here manage publicity on cases. Crime reporters tend to do what they are told by the police here, since otherwise they will be cut out of the loop.
But no police force here accepts that it is a good idea to dump info into the media in the way that the McCanns did, hence Richard Bryan’s comments on that very topic.
I appreciate that the McCanns like to slide over that point, but it is, nevertheless, the truth…
July 12th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Gandolph,
One day you will see your errors.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Sam perhaps you should bone up on, when and why decisions relative to a ward of court MUST be explained in open court.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Do you think the WOC court action was just to force the issue of whether the Leicestershire Police beleived Madeleine is still alive?
July 12th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Gandolf
All they wanted was to make a missing person a ward of court and without the outcome of a trial - the evidence couldn’t be described as compelling since it’s obviously spots of blood or inconsistencies in statements - something the PJs need to prove before any British judge needs to take it into account.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:47 am
considering what you’ve posted gandolf then it makes sense, what the judge perhaps did not forsee is that the mccanns would become arguidos in the investigation concerning the disppearence of madeleine.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Chenier
The question still is: is it not reasonable, given the English systen of law re. precedents, to challenge the law?
July 12th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Steve t another windylicker, you have no idea who or what I support, as you wouldn’t know justice if it kicked you in the arse that figgers, have a nice life…herbert.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:44 am
533
sam Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 12:10 am
514
chenier Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
‘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.’
perhaps it was then requested by the mccanns, the 2nd april was when the application was made to lp, presumably because they had not complied with the order or chosen to dispute it, to dispute it they need to go to court, then it becomes necessary to make madeleine a ward of court (which makes justice hogg the wardian ?) as the proceedings are in her interest. ?
——————————–
A Ward of Court usually has someone called a Guardian ad Litem appointed to do the legal donkey work.
The problem that Justice Hogg has is that she either knew why the Mccanns, having spent almost 11 months without Madeleine being made a Ward of Court suddenly needed it- ie. to put the legal boot into the Leicestershire police- in which case she is responsible for attempting to circumvent Parliament’s express provisions, in secret, or she didn’t bother to ask, in which case she failed in her duty.
Either way it really isn’t the sort of thing to bring lustre to her CV…
July 12th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Gandolph,
Please can you explain your total support for the McCanns.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:42 am
525
Gandolf Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
The return of the windylicker……………..
http://www.dca.gov.uk/family/metpol-protocol.pdf
it says: ‘the protection of children is where one of the exceptions may be made’
i presume you mean that ? and the police argued, quite successfully it seems, that the publics’ interest is greater.
as chenier and others say, such an order could set a precedence which is unthinkable; that a suspect could, via a ward of court, seek information from the police force in an ongoing investigation involving themselves.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Chenier
There are certainly aspects given re missing children: photographs, ages, details of family etc that are released by the press in the UK. The tabloids are testament to that. for example Sarah Payne and similar cases. It is just the release of the eye information that we are disagreeing on, as not much other info re Madeleine, according to many critics, was given?
July 12th, 2008 at 12:33 am
You have been listening to Chenny to long Karen, a high court judge is just that and if you have any brains you don’t withhold relevant information from them. The McCanns legals are extremely astute, a lot more than keyboard punchers chugging on their pomagne bottles, and pontificating bollox.The LP could find themselves between a rock and a hard place, believe it.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:29 am
524
Karen Says:
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.’
no, apparently that’s a fire hazard.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:27 am
521 Mods and Admin
” 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 ”
Maybe, but I thought this would be up to the police to be put forward, as it indeed happened. A family judge is not a criminal judge. How can the judge formally know that there are objections, at the time she askes the police for information?
July 12th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Gandolf
It wasn’t an inquest or a request for a death certificate and there’s no body and no outcome of a criminal trial - so the Judge would have no right to assume Madeleine was dead regardless of any evidence.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:26 am
539
Gandolf
I’d luv to kiss ya but I just washed my hair…
July 12th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Nite everyone - hope you all have a good weekend. Now that I know the coast is clear and I am not likely to bump into anyone to spoil it for me - Im off to Ireland for a long weekend. Hope when I get back - there will be a bit of news. Hey you know what? I remember saying exactly the same thing 6 months ago!!
God bless!
July 12th, 2008 at 12:24 am
526
SpongeBob Says:
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
————–
Actually, you will find that the police in this country don’t disclose information about missing children in the way you seem to imagine that they do.
The system here is almost identical to the Portuguese system, so I’m a bit baffled as to why you are claiming otherwise.
I assume you are aware, for example, that the UK charity Missing People will not agree to give any publicity to a missing person, child or adult, without the police’s agreement.
I assume that you are also aware that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Richard Bryan, the most senior police officer in this country with responsibility for missing children, has said that police here would rather use other investigative techniques to trace children before going public and potentially alerting abductors.
I really don’t think there is any evidence to support the claim that the Portuguese system is different to ours, but obviously if you know of any I would be happy to see it…
July 12th, 2008 at 12:16 am
I have licked mer windaes than windowlene!
July 12th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Now who are you pretending to be Gandhi or Adolph? You can’t have your cake and eat it. You cant be half a “great soul” and half a “dictator”
July 12th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Where is all the learned legals when you need them to answer a simple question……did the LP withhold evidence of Madeleine’s demise and fail to inform the Judge and the court, or is the learned lady judge correct and there is in fact no evidence to that effect of Madeleine’s demise………any takers ?
July 12th, 2008 at 12:11 am
521
Ferdinand Says:
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.
———————
Ferdinand, there is comprehensive legislation in this country regulating the disclosure of information; if you look back at my posts during the days preceding the hearing on Monday you will see that I discussed it at some considerable length.
The legislation provides not only the circumstances in which information may be legally disclosed, but also the form that any application must take and the route by which any individual may appeal against any refusal to disclose the information.
You must have overlooked my incredibly interesting comments on this topic…
The problem, as far as Justice Hogg is concerned, is that she, unlike you, is supposed to know the law. She is supposed to be aware that she has no power to override the legislation laid down by Parliament governing the disclosure of information.
She is also supposed to be aware that attempting to do so brings the law into disrepute and is clearly damaging to the public interest; hence the insistence that the case be heard, unprecedentedly, in open Court and that the public hear why the attempt to force the police and other law enforcement agencies to disclose information relating to the investigation is unlawful.
You may not see that as a problem, but the Attorney General did…
July 12th, 2008 at 12:11 am
SteveT - the is probably because they are NOT the parents of an abducted child - if that kid had been taken - like they say she was - there would have been no way that they could have conducted themselves in the way they did - and the re-construction? they would have been begging for it, not dismissing it - in my opinion anyway!
July 12th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Gandolf
Stop calling yourself a windylicker - you’ll get low self-esteem.
Still - we’re glad you returned.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:10 am
514
chenier Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
‘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.’
perhaps it was then requested by the mccanns, the 2nd april was when the application was made to lp, presumably because they had not complied with the order or chosen to dispute it, to dispute it they need to go to court, then it becomes necessary to make madeleine a ward of court (which makes justice hogg the wardian ?) as the proceedings are in her interest. ?
July 12th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Run that by me again annie, what is your opinion of events………..lickety lick!
July 12th, 2008 at 12:08 am
In my opinion the McCanns have not acted as the parents of an abducted child. The sooner they are in court to explain their actions the better.