Madeleine McCann: The People Analyses The McCanns’ Holiday
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
THE PEOPLE: “WISH SHE WAS HERE”
EXCLUSIVE Maddie in parents’ hearts as they take the twins on first break without her. Moving pictures of holiday brave McCann family thought would be impossible to bear
The People has no little power and can look into the minds of the MCCanns and actually see what they are thinking.
For Kate and Gerry their three week trip to Canada could hardly be anything but a painful reminder of what happened in Praia da Luz in May last year. And Maddie did not leave their minds for a moment.
Fact.
Not for them the excitement and anticipation of other holidaymakers.
Fact.
Not for them the promise of time free from the stresses of workaday life.
Fact.
Norah, sister of Kate’s dad, said after waving off the McCanns: “They had a lovely time, very relaxing. It was all about them getting away. They really enjoyed being away from the spotlight. We spent a lot of time at the beach. The beaches here are beautiful.”
Fact.
Posted: 13th, July 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (353) | 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 13th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Thats why she grantedthe order in the first place, to help Madeleine, but it appears some sad bastards thought the public interest was more important than a missing child.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
108
chenier Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
‘ despite the fact that Justice Hogg appeared to support them!’
Maria, Justice Hogg is in enough trouble without you dropping her in it even further.
It isn’t her job to support a missing child’s parents.
It’s her job to support the missing child.
A point which has, no doubt, been made clear to her by the President of the Family Division…
_________
Chenier, in all fairness and not getting into semantics with you, when one reads what she said she was supporting the missing child when she was asking or better said pleading with whoever had the child to please bring her back. That is not supporting the child? I’m sorry, Chenier, but to me it is a pity and sad commentary on ways over there that the Judge is being castigated for her words or may be talked to by higher authorities for what she said.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
CHENIER 107:
“Anorak isn’t the tabloid press. We are here to critique it, not emulate it.”
***
But we aren’t supposed to critique lengthy posts by bored posters, are we
Though we might suggest them to get a hobby, instead of watching television.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
102
Maria Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
___________
Good day, Maria. I’m at home right now on leave and have gotten so bored I’m watching TV shows I haven’t watched before. The other day Dr. Phil was on (first time for him) and it was fascinating - it was about the safety of children in schools and are your children really safe. He had two sets of parents on whose young children were literally taken by strangers at their respective schools. The most horrifying one was the one man who walked into a private school and asked for a young child (a girl) by name and the school didn’t ask any questions and released her to him. Yes, he was up to ‘no good’ in taking her. When the mother went to pick her up is when she found out a stranger had been given her child. The police were immediately notified, interviewed everyone, (by the way they were on TV also being interviewed) and then as the one said we immediately put out the Amber Alert, called the news media, TV, radio stations putting the public on alert to find her as soon as possible. Minutes after it was finally released to the public via radio and TVasking their help a call came in, his car was seen, they rushed to where it was parked and found him in the back seat with the young child. She was alive but as the mother said will need much counselling as she does not talk about it and has not returned to school. The other one a young child (male) had been taken from the school by a man who said he was their to pick up a relative and take him home. Now, that was an interesting one and thank goodness not a sad situation when all was said and done. The school once again gave a man a child on his say so…well they gave him the wrong child and he didn’t know that and took the child home on his bike. By the time he got home with the child, found out from the relatives he had picked up the wrong one, the police were already searching the streets. On his way back to the school on his bike with the child the police picked him up.
As was pointed out - strangers can even take children from our schools. Needless to say lawsuits are flying right and left against the two schools involved. The private school refused any interviews for their side of the story but the other school where the young boy was taken from did appear on TV and made no excuses but lots of apologies and changes in their procedures at school in releasing children.
At the schools in this area, not even a non-custodial parent can take a child from the school unless their name is written on the paper all parents must give back to the school by the second day of school as to who does or does not have permission to pick up your child.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
‘ despite the fact that Justice Hogg appeared to support them!’
Maria, Justice Hogg is in enough trouble without you dropping her in it even further.
It isn’t her job to support a missing child’s parents.
It’s her job to support the missing child.
A point which has, no doubt, been made clear to her by the President of the Family Division…
July 13th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
96
Maria Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
chenier
Sorry that I missed your reply to C and C while writing my reply to your previous points. Please do try not to be so childishly petulant and triumphalist. It’s a bit pathetic. We aren’t out on the playground, are we?
——————————————–
Well, I’m not. I fear that you are judging people by your own standards, Maria…
In turn, you might care to remember that my conduct is not your affair; I might tremble if the mods shouted at me, and completely freak out if agw used bold print at me, heaven forbid, but outside those eventualities my withers will remain unwrung. Not, of course, that I am suggesting that you are a jade, much less a galled jade.
I do, however, suggest that you are not interested in the truth.
You repeat, over and over again, the same misleading phrases, the same misleading claims, usually, though not always, in the same saccharine tones, but you never, ever, say anything which would be out of place in the columns of the tabloid presses’ most devoted admirers of the fragrant duo.
Of course, the tabloid press also repeats the same misleading phrases and the same misleading claims over and over and over again, but Anorak isn’t the tabloid press. We are here to critique it, not emulate it.
C&C’s claims about SOCA were twaddle.
So were yours.
Instead of admitting it the best you can now manage is to say that my observations about SOCA shooting down in flames the nonsense about Madeleine being kidnapped to order shows they were involved in working the case. They show no such thing. It is commonplace for specialist agencies to be asked if they have any input, and equally common for the specialist agencies to reply saying no, but adding a friendly word or two along the lines of ‘it’s total bollox’.
I find it particularly worrying that you will go to such lengths to try and slide over the fact that SOCA’s prime charge is countering the trafficking in heroin and cocaine, particularly crack cocaine, which poses the greatest single threat to the UK in terms of the scale of serious organised criminal involvement, the illegal proceeds secured and the overall harm caused.
No rational person could claim that the fact that the gentleman employed by the McCanns to lead the hunt for Madeleine in Morocco was arrested for stealing half a ton of cocaine would not be of extreme concern to SOCA. Nor would the fact that Clarrie persistently briefed that the Moroccan Mafia was willing to assist in the search provided the Moroccan authorities turned a blind eye to some drug runs be greeted with enthusiasm.
And then there’s the bottomless pit of uncheckable alleged bribes for information. Do you really think that people interested in money laundering would not notice this?
As for the disclosure of information, quoting again from the SOCA website:
‘SOCA needs to be able to protect information provided to it from various sources (both within the UK and abroad). The sensitivities surrounding this information are similar to that concerning information about national security. As a result, SOCA is one of the few organisations completely exempt from FOIA.’
There is no way under our law that information can be obtained from SOCA, unless, of course, a Judge decided that the law didn’t apply to her or the McCanns.
In which case that Judge might well find herself, wholly unprecedentedly, having to give a judgement in open Court admitting that the law did, indeed, apply to her and the McCanns…
July 13th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Rona taught me how to dance when we met, she is very very good, we do a very passable Paso Doble, not as good as the pros but good, maybe never again with a temperamental leg…….
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aBUUvgilr_k
July 13th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
91
chenier Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Unfortunately, Cheryl, C&C’s claims about SOCA are based on her unfamiliarity with what that agency actually does.
Try
http://www.soca.gov.uk/
__________
Thanks for the link I’ll read it.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
103
Maria Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm e
Most parents use play groups etc. No problem there.
*************************
Despite the spurious statistics bandied around on here from time to time, most parents haven’t had a child kidnapped.
Those that have, would, I suggest, be rather keener on not letting their children out of their sight.
Wouldn’t you?
Or perhaps you are like me, and wouldn’t have needed a traumatic event to persuade you of the wisdom of keeping an eye on your children.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
97 Carmen
Most parents use play groups etc. No problem there.
I suppose I too can just about get my head round the possibility that they don’t trust that everything has been properly followed up. Kate said that she when she was made arguida, she “realised” that the police had not been looking for Madeleine.
(BTW, I do not for one moment say that is true.)
As to the UK police, I suppose it depends whether or not the Leicestershire police followed everything up themselves or passed it on to the Portuguese police, in which case the Mcs may not believe everything has been well dealt with.
I am only supposing the Mcs’ motives. It is just my personal opinion that this might be the case. I cannot know their motives, any more you can, despite the fact that Justice Hogg appeared to support them!
Their real motives may be to try to see if the police have any real evidence against them. Is that what you think is more likely?
July 13th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
jo
Oh they HAVE succeeded in increasing dramatically the support of MEPs for their declaration on the Amber Alert initiative. They gave their support at the request of groups like PACT, Missing People, Missing Children Europe etc. These groups were not slow to recruit the Mcs to support their long-standing campaign, knowing that the emotional appeal of this particular case could be exploited to good purpose. The Mcs gave their support even though the resulting legislation (if ever there is any!) will not be able to help them.
How do you know Spanish is my mother tongue?
July 13th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Gandolf
I only believe in M3 $$$$$$
….and now I am off for my afternoon ice cream
July 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Wassup…. does anyone believe Dr. Kelly committed sideyways, do you know the McCanns legals very skillfully set up the fund so that no one can be prosecuted for fraud, I wonder if the legal “experts” here are aware of the single sentence in the document setting up the fund is, which accomplishes this point. Perhaps I should email the sainted Lady Justice and find out if she knows, she is rather clever so I am led to believe.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Kate,I know what you did in canada
http://bp2.blogger.com/_3HAnFzHSqqE/R-mo0t6RLHI/AAAAAAAAAxc/aKDAeRNtJo0/s1600-h/floppers.jpg
July 13th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
96
Maria
They have NOT pushed anything…the only thing they have succeded in doing is tiring everybody including their famous incomptetent lawyers.They contradict themselves, and have been successful playing the victims when the ONLY victim is MADELEINE.NO ONE ELSE,will you ever understand this?or do you prefer I tell you in spanish which is your mother tongue?
[edit - dr]
July 13th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Maria,
Am I understanding your point correctly?
[...]The Mcs presumably wish to be sure that all “sightings” and the like have been properly followed up. [...]
Are you now saying that the Mac’s not only believe that Metodo3 are the superior investigators to the PJ, but that they are also to be called in to double check the work of the Leicestershire Police?
I can just about get my head round the idea that the McCann’s might end up so mistrustful of everybody that they would think this, but it doesn’t sit well with their implicit trust in creches for their remaining children.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
chenier
Sorry that I missed your reply to C and C while writing my reply to your previous points. Please do try not to be so childishly petulant and triumphalist. It’s a bit pathetic. We aren’t out on the playground, are we?
I was about to quote the very lines you quote yourself indicating why SOCA would have a particular interest in this case which could, conceivably, have been thought at some stage to have involved child-trafficking. (Unless, of course, you have known for certain from the beginning what happened to Madeleine….??)
Of course, SOCA has good reason to wish to avoid compromising its own and the UK’s law enforcement agencies’ cooperation arrangements with other countries. It is natural that they would wish to safeguard confidentiality. Anyone would accept that. I should think that, quite properly, those concerns could well have impacted on the court’s final decision had the Mcs not withdrawn their application beforehand and reached a compromise agreement with the police. We don’t know for certain what would have happened had they not done that.
Of course, we don’t know either which other pieces of information the Mcs could have “safely” been given which might NOT have compromised the work of SOCA, the police etc. The case did not get that far. The police did not, understandably, wish to be in the position of having to divulge all and any information they happened to have on this particular case…or any other. But we don’t know what stuff is in the files and how much could actually represent a risk of compromising police or SOCA work.
Indeed, should the Portuguese police files be made “public” at some point, this very point will arise again. The Mcs may then have access to some additional information, but to stuff that could compromise SOCA or police work etc???? Don’t think so!
Let’s get real here.
The Mcs presumably wish to be sure that all “sightings” and the like have been properly followed up. It is a desperate hope but an understandable one, if they are innocent. (If they are guilty, this whole thing is just a cunning ruse on their part to try to divert attention from their own crimes. They would be batty to think that would work. It might work with the general public for a time but it would hardly fool the police.) If they are innocent but still desperate to find the truth of what happened to Madeleine, why on earth would they wish to compromise the fight against international crime of any sort? I can’t see why that would be their agenda. Their QC said they did not wish this to become adversarial and the principles involved were fully appreciated.
At least they’ve helped to push the European Parliament a bit nearer creating a consistent and effective response to missing children cases. Guilty or innocent, the Mcs will have done something extremely helpful for the safety of our children. At least, Missing People, PACT etc. believe it will be helpful. And they are the experts; they should know something about the matter.
Even more than you, chenier!
July 13th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
86
Maria
Chenier? spinning? ya must be kidding….SHE reads an awful lot and digests an awful lot of what she reads and her infos are always right….so,about spinning why dont you look in an other direction?
July 13th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Chenier, you do make me smile with your thinking that you are the oracle!
I still hang around police stations, prisons and family courts…. somehow I just can’t give it up completely.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I hope you are not holding your breath in view of tomorrow,are you?
July 13th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Having great great fun reading the last posts
Gimme more
July 13th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Unfortunately, Cheryl, C&C’s claims about SOCA are based on her unfamiliarity with what that agency actually does.
Try
http://www.soca.gov.uk/
July 13th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
70
coolandcalm Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
SOCA are always involved in abductions / kidnappings etc. I’d have been surprised if they weren’t involved….. Serious Crime is Serious Crime is Serious Crime… it matters not a jot which serious crime!
_____________
Thanks, C&C, for what you said above. I didn’t realize what SOCA was or did - involved in abductions/kidnappings, etc. huh! Chenier has said they and the other big guns didn’t want the McCanns getting a hold of the files or information in them.
Could well be a cover-up but not the McCanns and the Tapas…all the ‘big guns’, as we’d call them, over there appeared in court to make certain they only got the 88 files as agreed to; Justice Hoggs was not privy to anything in the files and some have tried to make her look the ‘fool’; and it is said all in the name of public interest …something along those lines. Quite a ’show’ for the public’s consumption that day in court.
Wonder whose arses they are covering or names they don’t want revealed if McCanns lawyers got their hands on those files …
July 13th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
86
Maria Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
chenier
Had already done so when I wrote my last post.
Have also read coolandcalm’s last post now. Any comments or thoughts on that?
Please stop spinning. Try to tackle some of the points and questions put to you by posters who simply don’t accept all you say as gospel!
Your posts tend to present a somewhat one-sided view. Try seeking to present a balanced picture.
On second thoughts, maybe don’t bother. You’re too gifted at the spinning!
——————————————–
Maria,
I wrote a lengthy reply to C&C’s post which for some extraordinary reason you appear to have overlooked.
Do take a look at Post 80.
I tackled every single one of C&C’s points.
All of my comments about SOCA’s activities are taken from SOCA’s own website.
Which you now claim to have read, but which in your previous post you apparently hadn’t since you were relying on items you vaguely remembered from other websites, not that of SOCA itself.
Perhaps you should try reading the SOCA website again since you don’t seem to have grasped the content the first time around…
July 13th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
84, chenier
Hello chenier, thank you, hope you are fine, too!
Am reading and having fun fun fun
July 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
chenier
Remember when I told you to look at Missing People’s website before continuing with your erroneous claims that they didn’t support the Mcs’ Amber Alert declaration??!!
Did you ever do so?
July 13th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
chenier
Had already done so when I wrote my last post.
Have also read coolandcalm’s last post now. Any comments or thoughts on that?
Please stop spinning. Try to tackle some of the points and questions put to you by posters who simply don’t accept all you say as gospel!
Your posts tend to present a somewhat one-sided view. Try seeking to present a balanced picture.
On second thoughts, maybe don’t bother. You’re too gifted at the spinning!
July 13th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
83
Châtelaine Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
CHENIER, re SOCA, I actually find the Fraud and Money Laundring bits interesting too …
——————————————-
I’m pretty sure they do, as well
Even the most generous of souls might jib at the bribes to the Moroccan Mafia, who, I am pretty confident, do not give receipts…
July 13th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
82
BabyJane Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
———–
Thank you, BabyJane!
I hope you are well?
July 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
CHENIER, re SOCA, I actually find the Fraud and Money Laundring bits interesting too …