Madeleine McCann: People Smugglers, A Small Fridge And Child Alerts
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE - STOLEN BY PEOPLE SMUGGLERS.”
“Missing Madeleine McCann may be in the hands of North African people smugglers. Police in Morocco, investigating a reported sighting, believe they have identified a link with a ruthless gang of traffickers.”
Remember when Madeleine was in “the clutches” of Moroccans, and how the gang turned out to be a couple of farmers and their daughter?
Now: “The breakthrough came a few weeks after Madeleine went missing when a Spanish tourist reported seeing a blonde girl matching her description being dragged along by a scruffy, Arab-looking woman in the town of Zaio.”
Spanish tourist Isabel Gonzalez has told the world how she saw a blonde toddler in Morocco. Not Bouchra Benaissa. Another blonde Moroccan.
“The alarm was raised in May by 60-year-old Spanish tourist Isabel Gonzalez who said: ‘The girl I saw was blonde, with pale skin, whereas everyone else in the area is dark-skinned and dark-haired.”
Well, not everyone. Remember Bouchra Benaissa..?
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE BODY KEPT IN FREEZER.”
THE SUN front page: “MADDIE COPS IN SICK SLUR.”
“COPS MOST SICKENING SLUR YET” – “MADDIE’S BODY KEPT IN FRIDGE.”
“Maddie parents mark 150 days”
“McCann’s gagged by cops” – “A friend of the McCanns said: ‘It is madness. We are being forced to inhabit a fantasy world in which we can increase public awareness of Madeleine’s disappearance and urge the public’s help through a poster campaign, but her own parents cannot help in this because of the legal status attached to them. It is so frustrating - Madeleine’s own mum and dad are not allowed to speak about her.’”
So they have anything to say that is not said through their spokesman, Gerry’s blog and friends, and to the police?
DAILY MIRROR front page: “MADELEINE SENSATION – NEW SUSPECT IN STAIRWELL.”
“A British tourist seen ‘hiding’ in a stairwell outside Madeleine McCann’s apartment on the night she disappeared was being investigated last night.
“The new suspect, stocky and wearing two-tone glasses, was spotted by an Ocean Club worker just 12 metres from the flat. The employee, who did not want to be named, exclusively told the Mirror: ‘I’ll never forget him.’”
DAILY MAIL: “McCanns gagged from answering claims they dumped Madeleine’s body in Spain.”
•Portuguese papers claim Kate McCann killed Madeleine while Gerry played tennis
•Couple ‘then hid the child’s body in a fridge and later disposed of it in Spain’
•McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said the reports were ‘utterly ludicrous’
These are the “latest lurid allegations”.
“A family friend ridiculed the suggestion that Madeleine’s body could have been stored in a fridge, saying: ‘Have you seen the size of the fridges in those apartments? Of course they did not stuff her in a fridge.’”
THE TIMES: “Kate and Gerry McCann’s friends refute ‘missing hours’ claim as smears continue.”
“The parents of Madeleine McCann have pleaded for an end to the distressing smear campaign that has suggested that they may have killed their missing daughter…
“It was claimed yesterday that police in Portugal believe that Kate McCann killed Madeleine while putting her to bed at their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz between 7pm and 8.30pm on May 3 and then hid her corpse in a fridge, with the help of friends.
“The respected Diario de Noticias newspaper said that officers believed that Mrs McCann accidentally killed Madeleine while her husband was playing tennis.”
Stop the smears. But read all about them first.
THE GUARDIAN: “EU plan for missing child alerts.”
Oh?
“Portugal will next week call for the creation of an EU-wide alert system for missing children, five months after Madeleine McCann disappeared from a holiday resort in the south of the country. The move has been welcomed by the McCann family.”
So she was taken across boarders?
“In a statement released through Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman, Madeleine’s father, Gerry, said: ‘If this is true, we would very much welcome it as it would be a major step in the right direction. We feel it would be vital in protecting other children and their families. Kate and I have consistently campaigned to effect change throughout the EU to help protect children.’”
But Madeleine McCann might not have been stolen. Is this just another instance of people jumping on story to promote their pet cause?
DAILY TELEGRAPH: “Madeleine McCann’s parents may face jail.”
No, not for child neglect.
“Kate and Gerry McCann could face 12 months in prison if they speak out to defend themselves against a slur campaign in Portugal because of the country’s strict secrecy laws, it is claimed.”
Says Clarence Mitchell: “Each and every one of these nonsensical allegations causes real pain and hurt for both Gerry and Kate.
“We just hope that everyone can see these ridiculous rumours for what they are.”
September 29th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Perhaps first?
September 29th, 2007 at 8:34 am
?
September 29th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Young lady, Miss Madeleine McCann. You are late back from the ball.
With whom have you danced?
Your parents say you did not dance with them.
The Mysterious Abductor perhaps danced with you.
It is only you who know…
With whom have you danced?
September 29th, 2007 at 8:39 am
How “ludicrous”…
Can you spot the ten alternatives (taken from the Mac Microsoft Office thesaurus) for this popular McCannism word in my Mitchell-style rant below?
How absurd to accuse the innocent Kate McCann of being a “cold fish” and an “ice maiden”. Such a ridculous suggestion just shows how ridiculous some of the stories about the McCanns have become. The daft idea that Kate would hide Maddy’s body in a freezer just shows how farcical this smear campaign has become. The personal attacks on Philomena, with reference to “Comical Philly” are simply outrageous. It is preposterous to claim the McCanns would be so foolish as to invent an abduction to cover up their own dubious actions. Anyone who suspects the McCanns is just plain stupid.
Answers later, folks and what’s the odds on Dimmo Mitchell starting to use some of these alternatives instead of his beloved “ludicrous” from now on.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:45 am
4 Ade…
Trismegistus loves a good word game…
The root word is “ludicrous” from root “ludic” meaning “to play”
I could only find 9… please enlighten me as to the 10th!
absurd
ridiculous
daft
farcical
outrageous
preposterous
foolish
dubious
stupid
September 29th, 2007 at 8:48 am
I tried getting o brien images and they’re now gone
September 29th, 2007 at 8:51 am
5 Trismegistus
Yep you are correct nine. I counted the original ludicrous in the list to make 10… so it’s only nine alternatives
Let’s see if Comical Mitchell starts using ‘em. Looks like he adopted my body in the freezer suggestion…
September 29th, 2007 at 8:54 am
6 brandon…
Image here:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.le.ac.uk/ua/pr/ebulletin/enterpriseandinnovation/researchteam.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.le.ac.uk/ua/pr/ebulletin/enterpriseandinnovation/bestof.html&h=254&w=414&sz=25&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=-ZIQ7TG4LAf3wM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drussell%2Bo%2527brien%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN
September 29th, 2007 at 8:54 am
6 brandon,,,
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.le.ac.uk/ua/pr/ebulletin/enterpriseandinnovation/researchteam.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.le.ac.uk/ua/pr/ebulletin/enterpriseandinnovation/bestof.html&h=254&w=414&sz=25&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=-ZIQ7TG4LAf3wM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drussell%2Bo%2527brien%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN
September 29th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Ade 7…
“”Each and every one of these nonsensical allegations causes real pain and hurt for both Gerry and Kate.” — The Egregious Clarence Mitchell
Woohoo number 10 - “nonsensical”
September 29th, 2007 at 8:55 am
6 brandonflowers
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.le.ac.uk/ua/pr/ebulletin/enterpriseandinnovation/researchteam.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.le.ac.uk/ua/pr/ebulletin/enterpriseandinnovation/bestof.html&h=254&w=414&sz=25&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=-ZIQ7TG4LAf3wM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drussell%2Bo%2527brien%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN
September 29th, 2007 at 8:55 am
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2005320001-2007421076,00.html
not really round faced though
September 29th, 2007 at 8:56 am
sorry for multiple posting - it seemed like it wasn’t working ;-(
September 29th, 2007 at 8:58 am
10 Trismegistus
Hahaha send it to Microsoft…
September 29th, 2007 at 8:59 am
I love the way the papers are getting around the risk of libel action from the very rich backers! Look at this totally ludricous thing Johnny Foreigner is saying…. Excellent, well done ‘the press’ (once known as ‘the free press’ but now accepted as free only when discussing anyone who actually gets money for tax credits).
I have to say that the idea that Clarence is a media expert is “Ludicrous’ - I wonder what the headlines would be if there wasnt a threat of libel?
How about ‘Ludicrous changes in story lines to defend against new theory’ said a friend distant from the Mccanns but close to the PJ’.
I dont know why Clarence doesnt just say ‘Anything which is said about the Snow (Ice Queen) White and the Seven Tapas Dwarfs (and the ‘handsome’ Prince - makes up the 9) which I dont like should now be referred to as ‘Ludicrous’.
Hey just realised, wicked witch, step daughter (well, not genetically connected) goes missing after eating ‘laced’ apple, intellectual dwarves, handsome prince…hmmm nope damn it, doesnt work!
September 29th, 2007 at 9:00 am
10 Trismegistus
nonsensical does link back to ludicrous in Office…
September 29th, 2007 at 9:02 am
15 Ian
Headline news: “katiepoo and gerrykins are innocent”
Now that really IS ludicrous…
September 29th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Is there a kinda bandwidth limit on words? You know like on web sites (here, for example) when the bandwidth limit gets exceeded and we all have a forced rest.
I think “ludicrous” is getting near its bandwith (usage) limit. If we put ludicrous in each post I reckon we could tip the worldwide limit and force Comical Mitchell to use a different word…
Like “comical”
September 29th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Carer’s attitude
The carer’s attitude to the social worker is of significance. ‘I just popped out for 5 minutes to get medicine for the sick baby.’ will evoke a different professional response from an avoidant reaction such as ‘Go across the road and see Mrs X who hits her kids.’ Adcock and White (1998, pp140-1) provide an excellent method of evaluating parental responses to professional intervention referring to seven possible reactions and how these may be risk assessed.
Every time they attend a child left home alone the police send a referral to social services informing that a child has come to notice. Though parents say the incident was ‘one-off’, it must be considered that even an isolated incident can constitute significant harm to a child. Social workers will need to decide the extent of the risk. Whether or not the action was deliberate or unintentional is also important to consider. The impact on the child may be equally harmful but a carer who says the train from work was delayed and is obviously very anxious about the safety of their child will evoke a different professional response from one who seems uncaring and is absent because of an erratic lifestyle , such as one associated with drug misuse, which places their needs above those of the child. In the first case it would be important to check out the details
What safeguards are in place for the child left alone?
Does the child know how to use a telephone, do they have credit on their mobile or can they contact a neighbour in an emergency? Is the child of sufficient age and understanding to know what might constitute an emergency such as a smell of gas or the sound of a smoke alarm? A strong test of a child’s comprehension of how to keep themselves safe is whether or not they open the door to you as a social worker. A reluctant child may indicate that they know that you are a stranger and they have been told that they should not let you in.
Children locked in rooms while alone must alert you to significant risk of harm.
The law
The Children Act 1989 requires intervention if children are suffering actual or likely significant harm. There is no law which states at what age a child can be left home alone. That there is such a law or agreed age limit is a misconception that is made by professionals and non professionals alike. The relevant legislation is The Children and Young Person Act 1933 which is relevant to ‘anyone over the age of 16 who has responsibility for a child under that age and wilfully neglects or exposes the child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health’. However, for the police to pursue a prosecution the situation usually has to be extremely severe such as young children left alone while their parent goes on holiday.
It is far more common for social workers to be addressing less clear situations of harm and having to make judgements about whether or not to treat the case as ‘child in need’ (S17 CA 1989) or a child in need of protection (S 47 CA 1989). In Scotland it is against the law to leave children alone under 12 years old. The UNCRC Article 35 states that state parties should take measures to prevent the trafficking of children for any purpose. A new offence of trafficking children for forced labour was introduced in the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004.
The statutory guidance
Views of what age children should be left alone for a short period range from 6 to 16 years (Christopherson, 1983 in Garrett, 2001, p646).Police guidance says that Common sense must apply and the child be capable of looking after itself. (www.met.police.uk/askthemet/480.htm) whereas the London Child Protection Procedures refer to a high threshold of evidence of neglect if a child is abandoned or left alone for excessive periods ( LCSB 4.2.23) The consequences of children left alone can be very serious indeed and the question must always be considered as to whether the child should be the subject of Section 47 enquiries.
The NSPCC recommend never leaving babies or young children alone for any length of time or most children under 13 years for more than a short period. They recommend no child under 16 years be left overnight. (NSPCC, 1993). However, it must be questioned whether it is advisable to place any age limits at all which might distract from case specific decisions.
It is usually police who first become aware of a child left alone, make an assessment of any immediate risk to the child, intervene to protect and refer to social services.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Multiple again sorry I’ll be more patient next time…
September 29th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Clarence ought to realise that a lot of the allegations could be met by the Tapas 9 admitting to the 14 bottles of wine. Thats probably why they have seen all these abductors crowding into the apartment (its a wonder they didnt wake the kids up…ah yes thre was a reason for that. I forgot).
They were all intoxicated (upper middle class medical types dont get pissed) so of course they can’t recall who was where and when. A friend of mine (yes, a friend close to me instead of the Mccanns!) said that I was being unfair blaming the Mccanns for neglect, as the kids couldnt have wandered off or hurt themselves accidentally, they were sedated! Seemed to think that exonerated anyone from charges of neglect!.
I still dont see how come that Headteacher gets fined £20,000 for failing in his duty of care (of a three year old - what the heck was a three year old doing in school?) and yet parents who leave their kids alone in an allegedly unlocked room near a road in a ‘foreign’ country and go out for the night (six times?) is not considered ‘neglectful’ and is treated by everyone as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ (now everyone is a lawyer!). The Mccans should admit neglect and ask for forgiveness - then we can all focus on finding Maddie, as we would not longer consider them as irresponsible parents, but as ‘unfortunate’ - having lost a lottery they were playing.
What bothers me is all the parents out there who think leaving your kids like this is ’something everyone has done’. Geez!
September 29th, 2007 at 9:13 am
What are you people on? Are you a pub quiz team? Sounds like you having lots of fun - shame Madeleine isn’t.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:16 am
20
see 17
who’s fault is that ?
September 29th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Dogs sniff the boot of the car
other theories blown apart
A mystery this case remains
after much hard work and many games
Where oh where could Madeleine be
maybe in time we will see
September 29th, 2007 at 9:19 am
May I be so presumptuous as to engage you all in a game of “Guess That Indo-European Root?”
Inspired by Ade’s synonym game.
There are 9 words derived from the same Indo-European root as the word “ludicrous” in the following sentence.
To win, name the 8 words used in the paragraph below derived from the same Indo-European root as “ludicrous”. For extra credit, give the Indo-European root.
The parents constantly allude to the incompetence on the part of the foreign police. These denials allow them to continue to elude justice. They insist that they have not colluded with their fellow holiday-makers. The “Leave No Stone Unturned Fund” is not a delusion, they assert, but rather a concerted effort on their part to find their daughter. Many believe that this is an illusion, designed to create an interlude in the PJ’s investigation of them as the prime suspects. One senses a prelude to a great tragedy… But any prolusions made by the Portuguese press seem to be met with threats of legal action from Team McCann. Will we ever be able to determine the truth?
To win, name the 8 words used in the paragraph above derived from the same Indo-European root as “ludicrous”. For extra credit, give the Indo-European root.
This is a pretty easy one, so tuck in!
September 29th, 2007 at 9:22 am
24 lisa
Maddy is long dead.
I’m having great fun watching those responsible squirm before they go to jail.
That’s the least Maddy deserves.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Lisa, its not a shame, its a crime. In my view (and I suspect the majority of right thinking people) that crime began with neglect.
If you dont like people discussing it (perhaps you agree with Clarence - who recieves a substantial income to have his opinion) then you might simply not bother reading it.
Not a pub quiz team, frustrated and sometimes angry people who believe in free speech and are seeing it crushed by upper middle class people with powerful financial backers - ultimately that kind of thing ends up like Hitlers Germany or regimes like that in Burma.
I only just found this place and have enjoyed immensely the humour and repartee, but all based on a fundamentally caring attitude about the dreadful position that this neglected child has been placed in.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:25 am
26 Ian - Well said.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:28 am
23 Patricia…
Great doggerel…
:) more please!
September 29th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Watch gmtv, bbc news or read the mail if you find our anger toward those
responsible a tad sarcastic at times
we dont get a voice in the media because their too scared of being sued by their very rich backers!!!!
luckily Anorak loves it as they’re based in America and their laws are different
so go and watch Lorraine Kelly or something as nauseating and arse licking for the pr mc canns , maybe another bogus sightings on tv.
Justice for madeleine!!!