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
July 12th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
679…chenier
When did they get back from their holiday in Vancouver ?
July 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
‘Far more interesting than all this Justice Hogg stuff, if that hearing was so significant how come two of the main players didn’t even turn up?!?!?’
Because they’d lost.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Question to Moita Flores in a recent interview:
Do you maintain your conviction that Madeleine McCann was killed in Aldeia da Luz?
His answer:
I do. There are no material conditions to opt for another solution. The mystery lies with one or two of the ten or twelve elements that used to enter that apartment.
I possess little data apart from knowing the location and the positions of each one of the persons that intervened. It is impossible for an abduction to take place under those circumstances. Only as an academical hypothesis.
@@@@@@@@@@@
So there you go, a closed group of “ten or twelve” people who individually or jointly made Maddy disappear. That leaves 1-3 people whose identities have been protected, and I have to say there has been a concerted effort on the forums to divert debate away from this subject. So three cheers for Mr Flores, I’m sure this whole thing will disentangle itself one day.
Far more interesting than all this Justice Hogg stuff, if that hearing was so significant how come two of the main players didn’t even turn up?!?!?
July 12th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
676
Gandolf Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Your avoidance of the substance of the question says it all Chenny….hostile witness.
————————————–
Gandy, I’ve already answered the question over and over and over again. It makes no difference to you because you ignore it over and over and over again, and then you pretend over and over and over again that I haven’t answered the question.
That is deliberate deception on your part, but then I’ve got used to that from you. So let’s try it one last time.
Justice Hogg’s judgement says this:
‘On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.
At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive. She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.’
Justice Hogg’s judgement is directed to the attempt, made on the same day, 2 April 2008, to force the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to disclose over 11,000 items of information in their investigation files; all of the evidence relating to the investigation.
If the Court had already seen that evidence there would have been no point in making the attempt to force the Police to disclose it.
Therefore the Court had not, and will not, see the evidence in the police files. It is forced to make an assumption because it has not seen the evidence.
The attempt to make the police disclose the evidence was unlawful, as Counsel for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire, Counsel for the Serious Organised Crime’s Agency and Counsel for the Attorney General made abundantly clear.
Justice Hogg is in no position to complain about anything; the behaviour of the police was and is perfectly proper, as attested by the presence of Counsel for the Attorney General.
Parliament, of course, might feel it had grounds for complaint in the behaviour of Justice Hogg, but possibly feels that the unprecedented spectacle of a Judge in the Family Division being forced, in open Court, to admit to having tried to drive a horse and cart, in secret, through the provisions of recent and carefully considered legislation constitutes sufficient recompense.
That, and her being required to sit there while Counsel for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire pointed out in no uncertain terms that the actions on and following 2 April 2008 had compromised the ongoing police investigation into a missing child.
The Family Court isn’t supposed to do that sort of thing…
July 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Your avoidance of the substance of the question says it all Chenny….hostile witness.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
673
Gandolf Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I thought that was your job Chenny, with the sainted Lady Justice as your main target, you like to dodge the real question, was our sainted Judge and her court misled by the Leics police, do they have evidence of Madeleine’s demise, which they withheld from the court charged with her guardianship…do tell.
————————————————-
Gandolf,
The ’sainted Lady Justice’ is not my target, main or otherwise.
The poor woman’s got enough problems without adding me to them…
July 12th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
671
Cheryl Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Chenier, in case you demand your usual from me show you hard cold facts, here is the link to many state laws over governing children. You’ll find mine that I strictly adhered to when mine were young under Fairfax County, VA.
—————————————–
That would be the webpage that starts like this:
‘Most States do not have regulations or laws about when a child is considered old enough to care for him/herself or to care for other children.’
Having some difficulties in reconciling that statement with your claim that it shows ‘many state laws over governing children’ …
July 12th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I thought that was your job Chenny, with the sainted Lady Justice as your main target, you like to dodge the real question, was our sainted Judge and her court misled by the Leics police, do they have evidence of Madeleine’s demise, which they withheld from the court charged with her guardianship…do tell.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
665
Lone Pigeon Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
To be honest Cheryl. I don’t know what you’re taking about an ‘out’? What do you mean?
_________
An ‘out’ means you have a really intelligent lawyer who finds a loophole in the law on whatever you are going to be being charged with and you don’t get charged! Why I said maybe their laws are written that intent has to be shown to deliberately neglect your child and it can be shown it was not their deliberate intent, i.e., they checked on the children, etc.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Chenier, in case you demand your usual from me show you hard cold facts, here is the link to many state laws over governing children. You’ll find mine that I strictly adhered to when mine were young under Fairfax County, VA.
http://www2.nccic.org/poptopics/homealone.html
By the way, when TB was saying how he was going to rewrite the laws in the UK governing neglect of children, I offered to send him as many or as few state laws he would need to get ideas from. However, I’ve noted he, in my opinion anyhow, would rather raise money to further persecute the parents than put new laws into effect to stop such acts of neglect and protect little children.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
‘as I have no evidence as to what happened I will not cast aspersions on anyone.’
Gandy, casting aspersions is your raison d’etre…
July 12th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
You see LP the difference with you and me is you claim to know what happened, I don’t, therefore as I have no evidence as to what happened I will not cast aspersions on anyone. You keep mentioning abduction is that your secret theory, the learned Lady seems to have no doubts that Madeleine is alive, do you, does the LP, has the LP misled the Judge whose court is responsible for the ward of court Madeleine McCann, but there again you wouldn’t know, not a surprise.
July 12th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
666
Gandolf Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Some of us BF like to deal with the facts however unpalatable they may be, you amongst others appear to prefer your form of vengeance above justice, what sorry sad individuals. As it stands we have no facts, other than those invented by the lynch mob.
hahahahaha Gandolf you do make me laugh. Sooo much. You ought to have your own TV show. The Gandy show. Also, can you presnt me here now with some facts that an abduction took place? No. You can’t so your argument is flawed completely. Why do you stick up for people that leave kids alone to fend for themsleves ? Poor little blighters…..
July 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
i’ll be in and out so don’t hang around for any replies
July 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Some of us BF like to deal with the facts however unpalatable they may be, you amongst others appear to prefer your form of vengeance above justice, what sorry sad individuals. As it stands we have no facts, other than those invented by the lynch mob.
July 12th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
To be honest Cheryl. I don’t know what you’re taking about an ‘out’? What do you mean?
July 12th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
662
brandon flours Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
oi get digging big daddy
today is driving me nuts - i’ve done nothing yet! I went to homebase and they didn’t have what I wanted. I went to B&Q they didn’t have what I wanted. I’m gonna trim the hedge and I’m in the wrong frame of mind to do it! I’ll probably end up trimming it to nothing so I don’t have to trim it no more! I’ve done nothing but faff about like some old lady! The mini festival is now a no no cos i’ve wasted all bloody long faffing gggrrrr i’m very cross with myself!
July 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
660
Lone Pigeon Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
__________
Lone Pigeon, what they did was very wrong; however, are there laws that governed that without an ‘out’? For example, under Portugal’s laws maybe the fact it was not their intent to deliberately commit neglect and it is written as such they can’t be charged.
Over here at least in my state the very fact they left those wee ones alone they would have been charged by now with neglect of all three - that plain and simple. It is set by ages when you can leave a child alone and by how many hours at each age.
July 12th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
oi get digging big daddy
July 12th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
(my mind)
July 12th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
totally agree Chernier with everything you say
Gandolf - whether or not there is a charge or not doesn’t make one iota of difference in my view. If the law says they did nothing wrong then the law itself is as much as an ass as those who break it. Two wrongs don’t make a right. They left the kids plain and simple and to mind that will always be wrong regardless of what anyone tells me. In a weird way I hope they get off scott free. I hope they become major celebrities and become the epitome of success. It will just give me another excuse to leave this sad and crumbling country run by a load of twits. Unfortunately Britain is no longer Great. It’s a sad and deterioating into a farce. My only bloody problem is that the grass isn’t much
greener anywhere else!!!
July 12th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I wonder why you as an individual are so happy about that gandolph?
Are so passionate ?
weird!!!!!!!!
July 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
LP they wont be charged with NEGLECT, in Portugal intent must be proved for that to stick, ask Amaral he has a law degree from LISBON uni. Our learned Lady Judge would tell you the same, unless she spends her days being a keyboard jockey.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
654
Ferdinand Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
652 chenier Says:
It is, in my view, inaccurate to suggest that refusing to disclose the contents - in this case over 11,000 items of information- of a criminal investigation to a Judge who has unlawfully demanded that those items be disclosed to her, constitutes keeping that Judge in ignorance. ”
Why do you think it was unlawful? A request could be refused to obey, that’s what the police did. They then have to defend their position in court, that’s what they did. That doesn’t mean that the initial request was unlawful.
—————————————–
Ferdinand, I appreciate your outrage at the fact that our legal system differs from your legal system, but bleating on about it really doesn’t help.
Neither does your unwillingness to actually look at what happened on Monday, as epitomised by your bizarre statement that the police had to defend their position in Court.
You can’t be bothered to read the legislation and case law governing Freedom of Information in this country and you can’t even be bothered to read the Judgement.
Instead you make wholly unsubstantiated statements over and over again, as if you feel that if you say it often enough it will make it true.
Get over it.
The McCanns thought they had a cunning plan, and were disabused of that notion, in public, by Counsel for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire, Counsel for the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and Counsel for the Attorney General.
Blackadder was much funnier…
July 12th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
653
Lone Pigeon Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
——————————–
I agree that it gets pretty irritating for those of us who do not regard the McCanns as pressing candidates for beatification to be lumped in with the loonies but that has been the consistent PR since the beginning; it isn’t going to stop now.
As for the double whammy, I don’t give a toss. Anyone following Anorak’s magnificent record of the ups and downs, u-turns and reverse gears on this case can see that the media in this country and elsewhere are perfectly happy to top and tail a press release and call it news.
The reporting of what happened on Monday, with one or two honourable exceptions, was a travesty.
The reporting of whatever happens in the future is likely to be a travesty.
But, thanks to the Attorney General, the hearing on Monday was in public, and I was there.
And I therefore have firsthand knowledge of what was said, and firsthand knowledge is always, and will always, trump Clarrie’s latest essay into creative writing…
Besides, if the Attorney General is affirming a Constitutional principle it’s good to have some citizens there to hear it; these are our civil liberties the Attorney General is upholding…
July 12th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Maria 628….. as if!
July 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
652 chenier Says:
It is, in my view, inaccurate to suggest that refusing to disclose the contents - in this case over 11,000 items of information- of a criminal investigation to a Judge who has unlawfully demanded that those items be disclosed to her, constitutes keeping that Judge in ignorance. ”
Why do you think it was unlawful? A request could be refused to obey, that’s what the police did. They then have to defend their position in court, that’s what they did. That doesn’t mean that the initial request was unlawful.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Meercat - pmsl!
I totally understand that there are more radical views on here. What concerns me is that people like myself who think only of the facts get lumped in with all those who have those radical ideas. What also concerns me is that those who support the abduction idea never ever bend or sway from that argument. I suppose if no charges are brought and the arguido status is lifted from the McCanns then thos people who support them on here will have a double whammy. Not only will they gloat like hell they will also state categorically that the abduction took place whereas all the evidence that we have seen and read about has shown that this was almost impossible. It will be a huge shame if, because of the McCanns actions and lack of help for the PJ, the real story never comes out because the little girl deserves that if nothing else.
On that note - i’m orf down B&Q
See you later Brandon
July 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
648
Maria Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
……Justice Hogg seems to be an ordinary member of the public, from that point of view, since she stated that there was no evidence that Madeleine is dead. If the UK police know of such evidence, they appear to have kept Justice Hogg in ignorance…..
———————————
It is, in my view, inaccurate to suggest that refusing to disclose the contents - in this case over 11,000 items of information- of a criminal investigation to a Judge who has unlawfully demanded that those items be disclosed to her, constitutes keeping that Judge in ignorance.
By the end of the hearing on Monday, having listened to the Counsel for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire, the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney General, she was a great deal less ignorant than she had been…
July 12th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Maria that would make Justice Hogg pig ignorant?