This is the very first time I have typed the name Robert Murat in Anorak, writes AGW.
Not the first time I have commented on the situation, but the first time I have actually addressed either the name or the circumstances he found himself in when caught up in the curious and terrible story of the missing child Madeleine McCann.
Twelve months ago I and others in admin. here were concerned re the repeated attempts to libel Murat and the McCanns. We introduced a strict policy and the Moderators worked at breakneck pace to keep up with and edit the flood of not-so-sensible things to write. They did an incredible and exhausting job. None of you will ever know just how hard they worked.
Trial by jury is bad enough, but at least, there, lawyers and judges have format and structure to the Rules of Evidence and proof of guilt. Trial by media has no such frills and the clamour in the Opinion section of this site was deafening.
What ever the awards announced tomorrow in the Murat U.K. libel deal, he richly deserves the compensation he will receive. Not a penny of it will help remove the deep scars and character stain thrust upon him by the British Tabloids (and broadsheets). At present he remains not quite a suspect under the arguido legislation of Portugal. Should he ever be charged and convicted in any matter concerning this case then the settlement is at risk. The same applies to others.
I have a number of friends who decided to become Lotus eaters in Portugal…it happens to be the country which has the oldest alliance of any nation with Britain…but they all now say the affection shown to the British by the people of Portugal, the average person in the marina or bar, the Mr and Mrs Costas and Mr and Mrs de Silvas, has changed dramatically for the worse.
Britons no longer hold the position of trust or tolerance as the bemused eccentrics they were once observed to be. This sad, gross, affair has poisoned the relationships built up over centuries. No amount of PR or cries of “ludicrous” will repair the damage. Each time the Portuguese police are criticised for another alleged failure, the poisoned chalice gets more bitter and is now almost impossible to scour.
Six months ago an Opinions sometimes contributor gave us this to read:
Madeleine….A Media Tragedy…an Anorakian View The headline was mine but the article was SPUDGUN’s
http://www.anorak.co.uk/forums/topic.php?id=873
It remains as lengthy as it was then but I suggest anyone who is interested in a genuine “I told you so” should read it again.
It is a sobering indictment of not just the British Press but the insularity and Johnny Foreigner attitude of the British people. It remains one of the most brilliant summaries of the position as it was six months ago and very little has changed since then. The MCanns were involved in a reputed £50O,000 tort settlement with the Express group and Robert Murat’s claims will be agreed tomorrow.
I was uncomfortable and edgy after perusing SPUDGUN’s piece a second time. Were I less hard-bitten and cynical, I may even have blushed.
I think I regret I did not.
Posted: 16th, July 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Twitterings Comments (88) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- leesmith on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- magnetite on Church Gives Soul Tattoos To Worshippers
- Evie Walton on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- yampster on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- yampster on Join The Campaign For Straight Gay Marriages
July 18th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Six months ago an Opinions sometimes contributor gave us this to read:
Madeleine….A Media Tragedy…an Anorakian View The headline was mine but the article was SPUDGUN’s
http://www.anorak.co.uk/forums/topic.php?id=873
It remains as lengthy as it was then but I suggest anyone who is interested in a genuine “I told you so” should read it again.
OY VEY!!!!!!
There will never be a day in my wildest dreams where someone named Spudgun, who haunted these halls on Anorak for far to long for my American tastes to accept, will ever be praised for saying or doing anything right. I will agree w/ one thing though, along w/ the Portuguese, my disdain for the Brits has only increased tremendously over the past 12 mos; I had never wanted to believe that the arrogance, the self-righteousness and the condescending personalities as portrayed in so many TV Series were true - as they were what we say in the good ol’ USA, ’stereotyping” or worse, prejudice in our zero tolerance nation of all acceptance - where a Black Man and a Liberal Woman can get so very close if not, over the finsh line to the highest position in the US - the Democratic nominee and possbile next President of the United States. Yes, the Brits had Margaret Thatcher - who ruled w/ an iron fist and was the ultimate conservative - half man/half woman (if you can call it that!) but that’s hardly progress or evolution in our open minded books today.
So the Portuguese are not alone, in their disgust for the Brits - to have come in and invaded their tiny country and turned the Tourist Industry upside down along w/ the economy inside out. All because a bunch of selfish, Britsh MD’s - God Help the UK Health Care systems if that is what it’s churning out of Medical Schools over there - had to get drunk, get laid and have fun at the expense of a child’s life. The Portuguese and Madeline are the two victims and all the others in the McCann Party including those who covered up for them back at home - in and out of the public eye - are all culpable for the insurmountable losses. Scotland Yard should know who dunnit - and my guess is - they know all right…..in the US - we would have had everyone of them behind bars w/ their license revoked. And the sad part of all this? Is that the Brits can’t even speak out against one another or the McCanns because of their stifling and archaic libel laws. The MCCanns were able to sue the Tabloids over there and win millions of dollars in all this - truly unfathomable - even OJ didn’t make out that “well”.
God save the Queen….or maybe not??!
M and A
Oh come on, they won exactly £275k each, which is approx $550k,hardly millions
Are you from Texas?
July 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
SpongeBob and Ferdinand
Congratulations to you both for keeping your cool and your dignity.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:34 am
35
Saul Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Bob and Ferdinand, do you find it acceptable to leave young children alone?
I don’t expect an answer, as if you are quoting the party line you are not allowed to digress.
However it limits your chances to comment in a debate
-It limits debate according to your personal constraints. Presumably in your view because they left the children any and all punishment is acceptable.
46
Saul Says:
‘Your experience gives you the title complete twat, along with Bob’
- Clearly I made the right decision to go to bed; such was the quality of the discussion
July 17th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Maria
I agree - to a point.
There was political pressure in the beginning. Not to protect child-killers but to protect the interests of popular British citizens in trouble abroad.
No sinister mega-conspiracy - just what they always do in in similar cases (like the Louise Woodward thing).
July 17th, 2008 at 9:55 am
The Portuguese police will continue to conduct the case as they think proper; they always have. I can’t believe they feel intimidated by British public opinion so that they will not charge the Mcs with any crime for which they have appropriate evidence. ( There should be no charges until and unless there is such evidence. That seems to me to be pretty fundamental to the basic principles of justice in a democratic society.) If they remain convinced of the Mcs’ guilt but have not yet got appropriate evidence, they will, presumably, continue with the investigation until they obtain it.
The UK authorities, PM etc. rapidly withdrew support for the Mcs when they were made arguidos. As chenier frequently reminds us, the UK police, SOCA etc. quite properly did their best to ensure that the essential principles of confidentiality were no compromised when the Mcs were going to apply for full disclosure of the information in the police files. There seemed to be no evidence of political pressure on them to do otherwise.
It is difficult to believe that the British Government would wish to be seen as protecting child-killers or parents who have hidden their complicity in their child’s death or disappearance. It is difficult to believe they would wish to protect such people in the first place. Why? Cui bono? The Government’s reputation would suffer even more in terms of honesty, if that were possible, if it were ever to be known that they had tried to pressurise another country into NOT charging British citizens for a crime they had committed on that country’s territory. As yet, spudgun has come up with no convincing reason why the British Government might want to do such a thing. I have no illusions about what the British Government, or any other, would or would not do, by the way (!!) but I see no reason, in this particular case, for a cover-up. Rather the reverse.
We may be about to see the Mcs charged for one or more crime and, if there is evidence, I do not believe the Portuguese police will fail in their duty for fear of the Brits!
There is no doubt that there has been appalling xenophobia shown in this case, although the worst vilification was saved for Murat and the Mcs. The tabloid disgusting lie-peddling and filth-raking was just that. The story became a soap opera. The papers have had to pay a price for that, although in my view, far too small. They will not have learnt their lesson because it will still have been worthwhile financially to sell more copies and pay up….a bit….. later. Their own reputations are so pathetic anyway that they have little to lose from that point of view. The rags are read largely for sensationalism rather than news anyway.
spuddie also needs to remember now that it is the fact that the gutter rags frequently did NOT, as he claims, say that their stories about the Mcs were ludicrous, or whatever, which led to the apology and pay-out to the Mcs.
In both the Mcs’ and Murat’s case, it would be cheaper for the press to settle out of court than go through the whole litigation process.
I remain amazed that Sky seems to be getting away with it. In my personal opinion some of their “reporting” in the case of Murat was up with some of the worst we saw in the gutter press.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:05 am
‘Give us this day our daily thread’……………and young Mr Anorak has done just that!
July 17th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Ferd
Spudgun wasn’t saying we had to insinuate the McCanns did it - s/he was just saying we should ask the obvious questions, be allowed a variety of opinions and not have to immediately denounce everything anti-McCann (for want of a better expression) as ludicrous and the product of foreign incompetence.
In the end - it’s a court of law that will decide who did it (one day - hopefully) - and opinions are just that.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:58 am
74 chenier Says:
” ‘What angers him most is that British papers have called those stories just as what they were - either fabricated or illegally leaked by police authorities - or both.’
————————————
Ferdinand, in life, just as at the poker table, there comes a time where you required to put up, or shut up.
So please provide the evidence to substantiate the wild accusations in that sentence. ”
The evidence can be found in the Portuguese secrecy laws. Even if the stories were not fabricated, they shouldn’t have been leaked.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Correio da Manha’s headline this morning is that the secrecy surrounding the McCann case is not to be extended and that the lawyers will be able to access the files next week.
Sorry, the full article is beyond me!
http://tinyurl.com/5jjfny
July 17th, 2008 at 8:50 am
73 Karen Says:
” Ferd
The point was that the British press universally refused to criticise the McCanns even when their own statements were inconsistent and their own behaviour was dubious (at times Maddy Mania was like Children In Need Night combined with a religious revival and an election campaign). ”
I do understand criticism of the McCanns media campaign, and of the media for joining this campaign. I feel a bit uneasy to criticise the press for NOT turning on someone without proper reason. Why can’t we criticise the Maddiemania without insinuating “they did it”?
July 17th, 2008 at 8:45 am
77
Karen Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:41 am e
That’s the problem with the media though - on the one hand we need a free press to help make the great and the good accountable and on the other the press can end up persecuting and distorting reality to the point that we don’t know what the g & g are supposed to be accountable for.
*********************
Ne’er a truer word was spoken, Karen. Well said.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Carmen
A good article.
That’s the problem with the media though - on the one hand we need a free press to help make the great and the good accountable and on the other the press can end up persecuting and distorting reality to the point that we don’t know what the g & g are supposed to be accountable for.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:34 am
*girlfriend
July 17th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Malinka and Murats Girlfriends are the other two involved in the libel case.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:32 am
70
Ferdinand Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:20 am
‘What angers him most is that British papers have called those stories just as what they were - either fabricated or illegally leaked by police authorities - or both.’
————————————
Ferdinand, in life, just as at the poker table, there comes a time where you required to put up, or shut up.
So please provide the evidence to substantiate the wild accusations in that sentence.
Or shut up…
July 17th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Ferd
The point was that the British press universally refused to criticise the McCanns even when their own statements were inconsistent and their own behaviour was dubious (at times Maddy Mania was like Children In Need Night combined with a religious revival and an election campaign).
And I don’t see how Spudgun’s views could be more xenophobic when (as far as I’m aware) she or he is the same nationality as the McCanns.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Given that Mr Murat’s apology this morning will be in front of Mr Justice Eady, I thought this was an interesting piece of background information. Note it was written just short of three weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance.
Judges’ decisions need careful scrutiny to protect a free Press
Sunday, 20 May 2007
Mr Justice Eady is beginning to worry me. Is he a friend of a free Press? There are good reasons to believe that he isn’t.
He presided in the recent case involving the Mail on Sunday and Lord Browne, who was forced to resign as chairman of BP. The judge took exception to a lie told by Lord Browne regarding how he met his homosexual lover, Jeff Chevalier, and much of the story came tumbling out. Mr Justice Eady could scarcely have been angrier about Lord Browne’s falsehood.
What seems to have been widely overlooked, however, is that the Mail on Sunday’s original story is still covered by an injunction that has not been lifted by the judge. It has, however, been published in outline both by the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Telegraph. Mr Chevalier alleged that BP, which is Britain’s biggest company, had threatened to move its headquarters abroad, with potentially seismic consequences for some of its employees.
This is the story the Mail on Sunday had originally wished to run in detail until it was injuncted by Lord Browne’s lawyers. Mr Justice Eady’s reasoning for granting the injunction was that Lord Browne asserted the story was untrue, and this denial was corroborated by senior BP employees. The judge believed the chairman of BP, though he subsequently lied to him.
Of course, I have no way of knowing whether or not the story was correct, but it is surely not for any judge to prohibit the publication of a story of this nature on the grounds that it may not be true. No individual was maligned or traduced. It was the word of a source who the newspaper believed against the word of BP. Why shouldn’t the Mail on Sunday be allowed to publish, and be damned if its story turned out to be false? We cannot have judges weighing up the veracity of political or business stories before they are published.
Mr Justice Eady has crept on to my radar too often for comfort. In 2005 he ruled that certain passages of a book by the author Niema Ash about her former friend, the Canadian singer Loreena McKennitt, be removed. The suggestion was not that anything in the book was untrue, but that Loreena McKennit’s privacy had been infringed and the duty of confidence owed to her by her former friend had been violated, though no confidentiality agreement had been signed.
This striking judgment, which has been upheld by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, could have profound consequences for journalists and authors. Public figures may be able to censor what is written about them not on the grounds that it is false but because it infringes their privacy - in particular, their right to have their private life respected as described in Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law in 1998.
The same human rights legislation was interpreted by Mr Justice Eady even more startlingly last December. A prominent figure in the sports world who had had an affair with another man’s wife was granted an order by the judge preventing the betrayed husband from naming him in the media. In other words, a man who had been done a wrong could not speak about it to the Press. There was subsequently a settlement between the two parties, though publication is still prohibited.
Mr Justice Eady’s feelings about a free Press may be judged by his attitude to what is called the Reynolds libel defence. The gist of this is that newspapers which act responsibly, and are reporting on stories of public importance, need not fear libel actions. In the case between the MP George Galloway and the Daily Telegraph (which resulted in damages and costs being awarded against the newspaper) some observers believed that Mr Justice Eady placed new limits on the Reynolds libel defence.
In another libel case, Mr Justice Eady awarded damages to a Saudi billionaire businessman called Mohammed Jameel against the Wall Street Journal Europe, which had alleged that the Saudi Arabian authorities were monitoring the bank accounts of prominent Saudis for evidence of supporting terrorism. Five Law Lords overturned this judgment last October. Lord Hoffman accused Mr Justice Eady of being “hostile to the spirit of Reynolds”. In judge-speak this was a severe dressing-down.
In recent years Mr Justice Eady has presided over some of the most crucial cases involving the Press. While there are no doubt instances when he may have been sympathetic to newspapers - his defenders cite the recent case involving Lord Browne - it is hard to deny that there has been a trend in the other direction, and in particular that he has interpreted the European Convention on Human Rights in a restrictive way. In effect he is developing a privacy law.
Newspapers, so fearless in their criticisms of politicians, are sometimes feeble in responding to over-mighty judges. Let me simply say that I regard Mr Justice Eady as a threat to a free Press, and that this won’t be the last time I write about him.
Tragic story of Madeleine shows media madness
Forty years ago quality newspapers and the BBC would have largely ignored a story such as the one involving the missing four-year-old Madeleine McCann. If I had been writing a Press column then, I hope I would have chided the serious media for their heartlessness in underplaying a deeply affecting story.
We seem to have gone too far in the opposite direction. It’s an important story, which should be properly covered by the so-called qualities. But if China had declared war on Japan, or Russian troops marched into Estonia, the media could hardly have taken such developments more seriously.
The Daily Telegraph, whose newsroom is now largely run by ex-Daily Mail hacks, has gone particularly loopy, with barely a day passing without a piece about Madeleine on the front. One might understand the newspapers’ obsession if there were any real news, but there isn’t. A suspect here, another one there, and that’s about it. Hundreds of thousands of words have been spewed out telling us almost nothing.
Even worse has been the behaviour of broadcasters. Sky News, often indispensable in normal circumstances, has taken leave of its senses. Twice last week BBC1’s 10 o’clock News was introduced by Huw Edwards in Portugal. What kind of madness is this? The only mercy has been that the Today programme’s Jim Naughtie - normally the most peripatetic of presenters - did not head off to the Algarve.
I repeat: this is a dreadful story that should be covered in detail. Madeleine’s parents evidently believe the more the coverage, the greater the chances of the abductor being found, and maybe they are right. But we are surely a half-witted nation with a half-witted media to treat the tragic disappearance of one girl as our forefathers might have responded to a declaration of war.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/stephen-glover-on-the-press-449696.html
July 17th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Remember,it has been impossible to prove the abduction theory
July 17th, 2008 at 8:20 am
51 Karen Says:
” I agree with Spudgun. ”
Fine! Then maybe you can tell me in short what is the gist of his matter, because that has gone missing for me in the lengthiness of his rant.
He writes:
What ensued was something of a most bizarre and unprecedented state of affairs, to witness on one side, the Portuguese reporting on the possible complicity of Kate and Gerry McCann in the disappearance of their daughter, with the British Press on the other side not only refuting those claims, but stating that what was being reported was being fabricated. Then, when it became increasingly implausible that the Portuguese media were fabricating what was being reported, the British media decided it must be the Portuguese Authorities themselves who were doing the fabricating!.
He doesn’t seem to have a problem with the treatment of Mr. Murat for example. That’s not what this article is about.
He either doesn’t really care when Portuguese papers print untrue stories about the Mccanns.
What angers him most is that British papers have called those stories just as what they were - either fabricated or illegally leaked by police authorities - or both.
So maybe the refusal to vilify your fellow citizens based on outlandish press publications bears an element of xenophobia. But SPUDGUNS apparent request to slag of the McCanns is bizarre and even more xenopobic.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Thank you, Carmen.
I woke very early for me and could not get back to sleep
July 17th, 2008 at 8:11 am
62 Thank you Mods and Admin.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I found this on bonsoircanard.blogspot.com.
Oh, Gawd - I think it’s just how most people feel about moi.
I hate Scrappy-Doo and everything he stands for. Network executives need to understand that sometimes a show just needs to take a bow, and exit stage left. If you were on an island with Scrappy-Doo, at first you’d be all, “Ha ha. What a cheeky Great Dane puppy.” But by week two, his over-exuberance and punky little know-it-all attitude would be like sandpaper on your sunburn. And by week three, well, you’d have to put him down. But think about this nightmare: what if you were trapped on a deserted island with ALL the Scrappy-Doos? Cousin Oliver from The Brady Bunch, Olivia from The Cosby Show, those tiny, annoying kid-Smurfs who were shorter, even, than three apples tall. My God, you’d have to kill all of them: puppies, children, and smurflings alike. Next thing you know, you’ve gone from Jedi Knight to a Dark Lord of the Sith, and how freakin’ unbearable would a huge, black helmet be on a deserted island?
July 17th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Rasputin, that is, in my view a deliberately dishonest claim.
Yesterday I quoted Martin Brunt’s comments in January this year on the sudden surge of people claiming to have seen Robert Murat in town on the night Madeleine went missing.
As he noted, none of them knew him, and all of them had seen him in the press and on the telly a hundred times.
The people who did know him, many of whom were searching for Madeleine, said that they had not seen him.
After he had given his statement as to where he was on that night the police went back to all of them and asked them once again whether they were sure they had not seen him.
They were sure.
And you know that very well, and you also know that your 9 against 1 is a lie.
Does it never occur to you that lying is not the best way to advance your thesis?
MODS AND ADMIN
Chenier,
I have edited Rasputin’s post since you replied to it.
His original post was not acceptable.
Thus I have removed his original post from your reply.
I am sorry if this makes it difficult for anyone to understand why you replied in the way that you did.
I am sure that the truly intelligent will be able to figure out what has gone on.
My apologies to you - you type faster than I can moderate at this time in the morning!
Carmen
July 17th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Good morning
53
agw
Too right and so sad
July 17th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Rasputin
It’s perfectly possible that 9 could be mistaken given the massive publicity the case had and Murat hanging round the press all the time (which probably made the Mirror hack think of the Soham case and put the poor sod in the frame).
There were lots of false sightings of Madeleine.
But - and this is terrible - he does look slightly dodgy and prejudice has a lot to answer for.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:53 am
61 Rasputin
Is it correct that there are two men who look alike? Also, a point that is very important, [EDIT] I believe that [EDIT] GMc [EDIT] may have made a [EDIT] phone call elsewhere, and then phone the police re Maddie. IMHO, despite the wins in court, there is still something very fishy.
MODS AND ADMIN
I have edited your post for you Lyn.
Please be careful when making definitive statements to either say it is in your own opinion or give a source.
Carmen
July 17th, 2008 at 7:52 am
agw
I’m glad about that.
I irritate people. I sometimes feel about as welcome as Scrappy-Doo (Puppy Power! 
).
July 17th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Out of the 9 witnesses there is a Barrister, Business woman, several nannies and friends of the victim who all state categorically under oath that they saw him there.
Either the 9 witnesses are [EDIT] in my opinion, possibly [EDIT] lying, [EDIT] or mistaken [EDIT] or the suspect and his alibi are lying [EDIT] or mistaken [EDIT].
So who is @Mistaken@, 9 or 1.
MODS AND ADMIN
I have edited your post for you Rasputin.
Please include a source if you are making definitive statements or make it clear that is is your own opinion.
Carmen
July 17th, 2008 at 7:38 am
59 chenier
Thanks for this. Well, no wonder Mr Murat is in court! What a mess.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:00 am
54
lyn Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Didn’t the girl, either his girlfriend, or former wife of Mr Murat say she was at a church meeting when Maddie disappeared, when in fact she had not been to the church for some time. Was this fact or fiction? IMHO, something is very wrong with the whole situation regarding Mr Murat and all connected.
—————————————————
No…
and that is an excellent example of the tactics which have been employed for over a year now.
The press makes an untrue statement.
The untrue statement is refuted.
The press repeats the untrue statement anyway.
That is is why Robert Murat will be at Court 13 this morning to receive the apologies…
July 17th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Later today, interestingly the paper claims the secrecy period has not been extended.
http://tinyurl.com/5gznlv