Madeleine McCann: The Attack Blogs
DUARTE Levy and Paulo Reis write on the Madeleine McCann case:
“Informal contacts” have been made, by some McCann advisers, with companies that own web hosting businesses, in order to raise awareness for the risks of being liable to legal action, due to what they consider the amount of slanderous and defamatory messages being posted at specific public forums. Contacts with other companies may follow, as the McCann legal team is analysing what could be the best way of dealing with individual bloggers.
Their first “target” are those blogs that have reproduced and posted links to documents that were leaked from the investigation files (the PJ final report) and those which translate to English, with regularity, news from the Portuguese Press. Also in the list are blogs with direct quotes, from English translations of the book of Gonçalo Amaral, “The Truth of the Lie”.
Is this true? Anorak’s moderators are working overtime…
July 30th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
First hehe
July 30th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Congratulations, Garth!
July 30th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
3rd
July 30th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
How can the mccs stop the truth from being published. I’m going off now to find the English translation of the Honorable Detective Gonçalo Amaral, “The Truth of the Lie”.
July 30th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Anorak’s moderators are working overtime…
Is this true?
Oh well, better get another case of red in !
July 30th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
What’s wrong with reproducing the PJ report, it concluded there is no evidence against the three former arguidos?
July 30th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Surely at a time like this you should be keeping a clear head?
Your ever vigilant eye might be impaired by the alcohol, you know.
Perhaps you should change that to a crate of Glenlivet, for onward dispatch to old and valued posters…
July 30th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Scarlett
People are supposed to apply for access to the files, as the Mcs’ lawyers are doing.
Do you seriously think it is correct for them to published in newspapers etc? I think it’s a disgrace, especially when they include snippets, selected carefully, no doubt, of Kate’s private journal which she was advised to keep as a therapeutic measure and which contains stuff which no outsiders’ eyes should see. The police saw it; fine. That’s their job. But why should others do so?
Why should you or I know her innermost feelings after M disappeared? None of our business. How would you feel?
Disgusting, in my opinion.
—————-
M&A
Artemis
I cannot see any post in which Scarlett claimed that it was correct for such matters to be published in newspapers, etc.
Please quote the post which you are referring to.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
dont panic anorak , we shall start a fund to fight them in court
July 30th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Maria
Why should you or I know her innermost feelings after M disappeared?
Disgusting, in my opinion.
fucker you are
****
What is disgusting is to spell Madeleine with one M
The mccann woman HAS NO FEELINGS and she has showned it: she did NOT look after Masdeleine properly and was NOT concerned about her safety in the fucking least
Put it in the small thing that you use for a head
July 30th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Maria, I just meant the final report.
Maybe after the Mosley case the questions you raise will be rehearsed in court in due course.
In fact I forsee some landmark litigation arising from the Maddy case as to what should and shouldn’t go on internet forums.
What makes the internet unique is that people can instantaneously put comments etc out in the public domain, editorial decisions are different from those made by TV and newspaper editors. Perhaps you are right that things at time have got out of hand.
Pity though if a legal precedent becomes Maddy’s main legacy…
July 30th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
the legal precident should be NEVER LEAVE YOUNG CHILDREN ALONE
July 30th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Maria
WHERE IS THE POST YOU MENTIONED??? THE SCARLET POST?
YOU disgusting person
Sorry Artermis
I am off now before I receive some arrows in my backside.
SHE pisses me off so much that fucking self righteous idiot of maria,you have no idea
MY GOD!!!
July 30th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Duncan, I think you are going to be in dire need of more than one case…
July 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
as Doris said, “the legal precident should be NEVER LEAVE YOUNG CHILDREN ALONE” and don´t do it a few days until one disgrace happends!
July 30th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Scarlett
I was in no way judging you!! I was just giving my opinion that publishing the stuff before even the Mcs’ lawyers have access to it is wrong, IMHO.
But Portuguese law seems to allow open access to such files by the press. I just find it distressing that something like Kate’s diaries can be published to be read by anyone and everyone. I know little about it but I would have thought there were privacy laws that might also be being broken? I thought the privacy laws were stricter in some other European countries than here?
I agree with you that there will probably be some landmark legislation but I think it’s very much needed, to be honest. Newspapers have to face up to the consequences of what they publish as we’ve seen twice in this case. The internet is relatively new and does probably need some sort of regulation.
I also agree with the poster who says that a main legacy should be never to leave children alone. Sadly, I know from my own work that that sensible rule is broken all the time.
———-
M&A
Artemis
Maria, I have already requested that you identify the post in which you believe Scarlett asserted that it was proper to report such matters in the newspaper.
Either that or apologise for the suggestion that she did.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Maria
First the case was about Maddy.
Then it was about the (former) arguidos and their friends.
Now, it seems, it is about the lawyers…
July 30th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
M and A (Artemis)
Sorry, no, I hadn’t seen that (only that it would be checked in case it was) but I’ve been out or working a lot. May have missed it. I assumed it would be fine.
Doesn’t matter anyway. I made most of the points in talking about it but it just adds a bit of balance.
Don’t worry about looking at it again. It’s not important. But thank you.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Scarlett Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Maria
First the case was about Maddy.
Then it was about the (former) arguidos and their friends.
Now, it seems, it is about the lawyers…
——————————————————————
Agreed.
I wish there would just be a little peace but that’s not likely to happen, sadly.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Worse than the 1665 Great PLague in London,some are …..
July 30th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Artemis
I apologise unreservedly to Scarlett.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
The Attack Blog….. mmm, you soon were good for a new mccFalkland
The Argentinians attacks
July 30th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
__________
John Smith Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
as Doris said, “the legal precident should be NEVER LEAVE YOUNG CHILDREN ALONE” and don´t do it a few days until one disgrace happends!
_________
The legal train seems to be gathering a head of steam, but if what Duarte Levy and Paulo Reiss say is correct, I fear you may be in for a disappointment.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Maria, thank you, apology accepted, I’ve had far worse on here!
July 30th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
First the case IS for Madeleine
Secong First,the case IS still for Madeleine
Third First,the case IS going on to know the truth and make JUSTICE to an INNOCENT little child,called Madeleine,not “maddy” not “M”
I am personally still waiting for the mccanns to come forward and say the truth about her extremely dubious disappearance. They are not bound to any secrecy of justice,they are not arguidos,so what are they waiting for?….. or are there “things” which are not said???
After that and in any case,they can go to hell where they sould not have ever come out
On my life I will not want to hear from them never again
NOT my cup of tea
July 30th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Scarlett
One of the problems is that so many people have acted in a similar way. Where sites use patrolling and baby-listening services, parents often use the same sort of system as the Mcs developed themselves. (That’s assuming that they checked as they said they did, and as the waiter was reported as confirming. I presume the police will have checked that as well?).
I believe a lot of hotels and holiday sites have stopped doing this now as a reaction to the Madeleine case. Someone even said Mark Warner have withdrawn this service from those of their sites where they used to operate it (not PdL). Not sure if that’s true. But it will be a good thing if that happens generally.
July 30th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
# Scarlett Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Maria, thank you, apology accepted, I’ve had far worse on here!
————————————–
Thank you Scarlett! I’m sorry. I just read your post too quickly about reproducing the PJ report and thought you were referring to the papers.
July 30th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
IMO Anorak is in the clear over this.
)
The excesses are always moderated out making it a pleasant place to be (most of the time
Some of the stuff I’ve read on other blogs has been quite vile, aggressive and all unproven, hence I stay with Anorak and ignore the arses and (w)hores et al!
July 30th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Maria,
Like a lot of people I cannot begin to understand the kind of holiday offered at the OC. I saw that Panorama programme where a reporter infiltrated them posing as a nanny. The kids hardly saw their parents all day. It seems that at PDL, Maddy was separated not only from her parents for most of the day, but from her brother and sister too.
I remember my family holidays, myself, my brother and sister were with our parents all day, on the beach, going out into the countryside, visiting interesting places, together as a family.
My mother says if she could relive any particular part of her life, it would be those days.
My mother must be very old-fashioned…
With a tear in my eye, I am >>>>>>>>>>>gone
July 30th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Some politics to take my mind off …politics
The article speaks volume….too high…..?
Born Yesterday, the news as a novel, by Gordon BurnFaber
The Guardian, Tuesday April 22 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/apr/22/1