Madeleine Mccann
- Thread starter Colin Phillips
- Start date
Bar the Bull
At the Start
Newspapers apologise to McCanns
Press Association, Wednesday March 19 2008
Two newspapers have published front page apologies for a series of articles about the parents of missing Madeleine McCann.
The Daily Express and Daily Star, which are both published by Express Newspapers, have also agreed to pay a "very substantial" sum to the Find Madeleine fund.
The apology is understood to relate to articles published about Kate and Gerry McCann in the two daily newspapers and their sister titles, the Sunday Express and the Star on Sunday.
The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "An agreement has been reached with the Express Newspapers but I cannot go into detail before a hearing at the High Court."
The McCanns are understood to be "pleased" that an agreement has been reached.
The apology in the Daily Express says the newspaper takes the "unprecedented step" of making the apology on its front page.
It reads: "We do so because we accept that a number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up. We acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance."
The Daily Star publishes a similarly-worded apology.
Madeleine, who turned four shortly after she disappeared, went missing from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on May 3 last year while her parents ate dinner at a nearby tapas bar with friends.
Kate and Gerry remain officially suspects, or arguidos, in the Portuguese police investigation but they strenuously protest their innocence.
Press Association, Wednesday March 19 2008
Two newspapers have published front page apologies for a series of articles about the parents of missing Madeleine McCann.
The Daily Express and Daily Star, which are both published by Express Newspapers, have also agreed to pay a "very substantial" sum to the Find Madeleine fund.
The apology is understood to relate to articles published about Kate and Gerry McCann in the two daily newspapers and their sister titles, the Sunday Express and the Star on Sunday.
The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "An agreement has been reached with the Express Newspapers but I cannot go into detail before a hearing at the High Court."
The McCanns are understood to be "pleased" that an agreement has been reached.
The apology in the Daily Express says the newspaper takes the "unprecedented step" of making the apology on its front page.
It reads: "We do so because we accept that a number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up. We acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance."
The Daily Star publishes a similarly-worded apology.
Madeleine, who turned four shortly after she disappeared, went missing from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on May 3 last year while her parents ate dinner at a nearby tapas bar with friends.
Kate and Gerry remain officially suspects, or arguidos, in the Portuguese police investigation but they strenuously protest their innocence.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
There was a chap from the Press Association on the box last night saying that these full and front page apologies were unprecedented.
He said, the usual newspaper apology tended to be brief and tucked away at the bottom of Page 5.
He said, the usual newspaper apology tended to be brief and tucked away at the bottom of Page 5.
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
Well, well...the gutter press finally having to make a grovelling apology for their disgraceful excesses. Those who were so eager to accept and spread the disgraceful nonsense of the tabloids should also hang their heads in shame but I doubt that they will. They will, no doubt, have moved on to the next targets of our "lynch mob" society.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
I see people are now picking on Heather.
K
Kathy
Guest
Everybody is entitled to voice their opinion on this forum. Much as the three of you continually like trying to put certain people down about their opinions, which I find extremely sad, I hope it is not going to stop anybody giving an opinion whether you three agree with them or not.
Get over yourselves.
Get over yourselves.
You might want to read the whole thread back sometime Kathy, or at least from page 5 on August 7th onwards. There is only one voice consistantly speculating that the parents did it (even though you include a barely convincing caveat to some of the posts by way of disclaimer), the others are laced with inuendo. Only one person seemed to offer you any support in your theories, and no end of different posters have tried to harness and rebuke you for some of the more wild speculation you've indulged when you had absolutely no grounds for doing so.
If we've all dabbled in the Maddies mystery to a greater or lesser extent, I'm afraid you've been our 'Express Group' contributor Kathy.
The idea that lazy journo's with no story to file, would prefer instead to sit in Tapas bars getting pished with their Portugese colleagues and invent stories before filing their copy (and expenses claims presumebly) is frankly abhorent. It transpires that they seem to have invented (not even exaggerated, or even had a sniff of a truism in it), the story that the parents had sold her because they were in money trouble.
Andrew Neil on Ch4 news was interesting. He applauded the parents stance and said the only way members of the public can get justice from the media and print press is through the courts. In his opinion the top range of journos had got better at their job and produce better quality than ever, whilst the bottom end had got worse
K
Kathy
Guest
Isn't odd that Maddie has still not been found, but certain people that have expressed only an opinion (excuse the pun) have now been hung out to dry. Those papers that have had to state a public apology were because they ran over 100 stories saying that the McCann's did it. Is that what I am being accused of too? Please explain.
I don't think anyone is hanging you out to dry Kathy, for expressing a knee jerk opinion oiled by the British media (I accept that in mitigation)
Your alacrity to seemingly accept, and dispense with an uncritical view though, is a matter of the record (I might even use the word enthusiasm rather than alacrity?) especially as quite a few posters cautioned you about doing so.
I witnessed a snapshot of lurid headlines on the TV tonight that had the Express group's grubby finger prints all over them, and was frankly shocked. It isn't my paper of choice (as I'm sure you're aware) but "They did it, we can prove it" I'm sure you'd be happy to condem in the light of today's admission?
I do feel however, having re-read the thread, that you'd have been better served had you shown less, enthusiasm for leaping on to popualist ideas? and presenting them in they that you have?
Any one who's read my periodic ramblings will be aware of the disdain in which I hold the fourth estate. Just scissors and pastings clippings and suspending your critical faculties by proxy does you no credibility (imo). I accept you stopped short of making a direct accusation. But then you'd have to have McCririck levels of intelligence to do so (which you don't).
There's a world of difference between informed speculation and hypothesis building, and simply reproducing the 'rumour of today'
Observation ?
Your alacrity to seemingly accept, and dispense with an uncritical view though, is a matter of the record (I might even use the word enthusiasm rather than alacrity?) especially as quite a few posters cautioned you about doing so.
I witnessed a snapshot of lurid headlines on the TV tonight that had the Express group's grubby finger prints all over them, and was frankly shocked. It isn't my paper of choice (as I'm sure you're aware) but "They did it, we can prove it" I'm sure you'd be happy to condem in the light of today's admission?
I do feel however, having re-read the thread, that you'd have been better served had you shown less, enthusiasm for leaping on to popualist ideas? and presenting them in they that you have?
Any one who's read my periodic ramblings will be aware of the disdain in which I hold the fourth estate. Just scissors and pastings clippings and suspending your critical faculties by proxy does you no credibility (imo). I accept you stopped short of making a direct accusation. But then you'd have to have McCririck levels of intelligence to do so (which you don't).
There's a world of difference between informed speculation and hypothesis building, and simply reproducing the 'rumour of today'
Observation ?
Colin Phillips
At the Start
In my opinion, the McCann's are still guilty of 'neglect' and I am surprised that apparently no action has been taken over that.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
At the time I was genuinely shocked that our society had come to this.
I reflected at the time about what it says about us as a society, when we are so willing to try people in the papers. I was actually a bit depressed about it all.
Of course, maybe the McCanns are the epitome of all evil, but I would prefer a bit more evidence before idle speculation about a family who have gone through so much.
Show me where I hang you out to dry, Kathy.
I reflected at the time about what it says about us as a society, when we are so willing to try people in the papers. I was actually a bit depressed about it all.
Of course, maybe the McCanns are the epitome of all evil, but I would prefer a bit more evidence before idle speculation about a family who have gone through so much.
Show me where I hang you out to dry, Kathy.
Well I read through almost all this thread last night, and I have to say Warbler that you yourself have been as guilt as anyone of peddling groundless speculation in this thread. IN fact I've found some of your offerings among the most offensive [of many it has to be said]. Most of your posts towards the end of last year seemed to be written on the assumption that the McCanns had accidentally killed Maddy then hidden the body - a hypothesis for which there is no evidence whatever, all the forensic 'evidence' being contaminated beyond any meaningful value.
This is of course the assumption on which the Portuguese police have acted to cover up their own incompetence. They themselves planted all the stories in the Portuguese press which were then repeated ad nauseum in the worldwide media - and in particular fed to the British tabloids. The Mail to its credit kept investigating this chain of events and pointing up that there was little if any substance at all in these stories [eg the forensic 'evidence' form the flat - which had been let out to other people, amazingly, before it was properly investigated] - and the Scenic, from which any traces found have since been reported to be so infinitessimal as to be worthless. Clumps of hair? --- nooooo, never existed. The Mail found a clear chain of people who had been planting all these stories.
I've felt all along that the McCanns have been hoisted on their own petard in trying to use the media to the extent they have, and some of that manipulation has been distasteful, but I'm sure they have had nothing to do with Maddy's disappearance.
The history of crime is full of incidents in which the Police - or one particular policeman - got it into his head that a certain person was responsible for a murder or disappearance, and attempted to make the facts fit - sometimes at the expense of ever finding the true culprit. I believe this case is one of those; but Portuguese national pride will now make it all but impossible to find out what really did happen. The original offending officer has since been scaked - but has now been allowed to publish a "novel" peddling his poisonous assumptions.
In particular the Portuguese have always been very reluctant to investigate the paedophile networks which have apparently been operating unmolested in the country for many years, the countyry's insane 'secrecy' laws giving them a huge degree of protection form scrutiny. The failure of the police to act immediately and to seal off the borders and ports is unforgivable; they didn't even attend the scene til an hour after the child vanished.
It's hardly surprising if the McCanns were angry and hostile from the start, however culpable their own assumption that the children would be safe within the complex a hundred or so yards away from them given the regular upping and downing of *all* the parents to check the kids. As I've said before, many parents relax their ususal vigilance on holiday, I know my own did.
This is of course the assumption on which the Portuguese police have acted to cover up their own incompetence. They themselves planted all the stories in the Portuguese press which were then repeated ad nauseum in the worldwide media - and in particular fed to the British tabloids. The Mail to its credit kept investigating this chain of events and pointing up that there was little if any substance at all in these stories [eg the forensic 'evidence' form the flat - which had been let out to other people, amazingly, before it was properly investigated] - and the Scenic, from which any traces found have since been reported to be so infinitessimal as to be worthless. Clumps of hair? --- nooooo, never existed. The Mail found a clear chain of people who had been planting all these stories.
I've felt all along that the McCanns have been hoisted on their own petard in trying to use the media to the extent they have, and some of that manipulation has been distasteful, but I'm sure they have had nothing to do with Maddy's disappearance.
The history of crime is full of incidents in which the Police - or one particular policeman - got it into his head that a certain person was responsible for a murder or disappearance, and attempted to make the facts fit - sometimes at the expense of ever finding the true culprit. I believe this case is one of those; but Portuguese national pride will now make it all but impossible to find out what really did happen. The original offending officer has since been scaked - but has now been allowed to publish a "novel" peddling his poisonous assumptions.
In particular the Portuguese have always been very reluctant to investigate the paedophile networks which have apparently been operating unmolested in the country for many years, the countyry's insane 'secrecy' laws giving them a huge degree of protection form scrutiny. The failure of the police to act immediately and to seal off the borders and ports is unforgivable; they didn't even attend the scene til an hour after the child vanished.
It's hardly surprising if the McCanns were angry and hostile from the start, however culpable their own assumption that the children would be safe within the complex a hundred or so yards away from them given the regular upping and downing of *all* the parents to check the kids. As I've said before, many parents relax their ususal vigilance on holiday, I know my own did.
I'm sure you'll accept (unless of cause you're an avid Express reader) that context is everything. If this is the post you're referring to, then I'm sure anyone would realise my use of the phrase "It doesn't stack up to my mind" and the sarcastic tone that follows, can only be reasonably interpreted as casting more than just a hint of doubt on their guilt. The context of the conversations doing the rounds at the time was that they'd done it and there was no shortage of people leaping on that bandwagon. I'm clearly expressing the view, that I don't think they have, even though the whole sorry affair was throwing up rumours and contrary evidence at the time. To suggest I was posting under the "assumption" that they had, is to over-look that I was de-bunking the likelihood and is disingenious to put it mildly.
I accepted that if clumps of her hair had been found in the tyre well of the hire car were true, then that would take some explaining. FWIW, I still believe it would. But then again I use the phrase "might or might not have been found" which is hardly passing a definitive judgement, and certainly displaying an element of open mindedness on the possibility, without rushing in to believe what was being reported. It transpires that this was another Express driven falsehood, even though they ran a headline "We can prove they did it"
One of the most distateful aspects has been the constant finger pointing through "friends" of the McCanns at Murat. Another (suspicious I felt) story leaked out a few weeks ago
In Media terms they have effectively been guilty of what they feel they have suffered
Is this right?
In Media terms they have effectively been guilty of what they feel they have suffered
Is this right?
I don't know if there is a 'right' way, but there's probably a host of 'wrong' ways and as a society the media present them to us to moralise and judge (usually with a text vote, premium rate phone number, or banal radio 5 journalist leading with an inflamatory question).
I've wondered a couple of times what might have happened in the first week if an excitable Sunday Mirror journalist hadn't intervened and bubbled up Murat? There would have been a lot of time wasted at a critical moment in the inquiry going up thsi blind alley, and her intervention was based on nothing more than she thought him a bit odd, and he reminded her of Ian Huntley. The evidence against him never looked strong to me, but I distinctly remember some fellow journo appearing on the customary radio 5 phone in the next day praising the profession for its diligence, thoroughness and all round professionalism. Yeah... right shrug:: Shame she didn't have any evidence to substantiate her hunch, but it meant the Mirror group were able to lead the headlines for a week. I don't remember the same journo stepping forward later on to condem her, or the profession, for pedaling a crock of ill thought out, flimsy, prejudicial shite that only blew the enquiry off course
I've wondered a couple of times what might have happened in the first week if an excitable Sunday Mirror journalist hadn't intervened and bubbled up Murat? There would have been a lot of time wasted at a critical moment in the inquiry going up thsi blind alley, and her intervention was based on nothing more than she thought him a bit odd, and he reminded her of Ian Huntley. The evidence against him never looked strong to me, but I distinctly remember some fellow journo appearing on the customary radio 5 phone in the next day praising the profession for its diligence, thoroughness and all round professionalism. Yeah... right shrug:: Shame she didn't have any evidence to substantiate her hunch, but it meant the Mirror group were able to lead the headlines for a week. I don't remember the same journo stepping forward later on to condem her, or the profession, for pedaling a crock of ill thought out, flimsy, prejudicial shite that only blew the enquiry off course
Worth rembering too that despite the demands by McCann for Murat to "answer questions" she and her husband refused to answer FORTY questions from the portugese police and then fled to england the next day
Any sign of Murat fleeing the country?
Any sign of Murat fleeing the country?
Any sign of the newspapers paying £500k to Murat since he has been attacked to a much higher degree? Maybe if you get a slick publicity machine the law applies whereas an innocent but poor man is still hung out to dry?
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Oh, cmon, Desperate Dan. Can anyone show us unequivocal proof that the McCanns are innocent, come to that unequivocal proof they are guilty? No - because neither can be proved beyond doubt at this stage.
Therefore everyone is still in the dark.
Therefore everyone is still in the dark.
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
I have now seen the light. Yes, your well-argued, compelling response has convinced me. Mea culpa, mea culpa.
I will be taking out a subscription to the Daily Express and sending them a hefty donation to help their legal costs. I urge all fair minded forumites to do likewise. It simply aint fair for this great English institution to be slaughtered because of a mere 110 "grotesque defamations".
As for the McCann`s. Come on, own up. We know you did it. There`s no smoke without fire. We know the "holiday"was really a drunken wife-swapping orgy. We know you either killed Maddie or sold her. It was in the papers. Shadow Leader, Kathy, Desperate Dan, the Daily Express and the Portuguese Plod can`t all be wrong!! Tell us where the body is or who you sold her to!
McCANNS OUT!!!!!
Legal Disclaimer: Any "grotesque defamations" in the above were intentional and any complaints should be referred to my learned friend, Ardross, who will ignore them.
I will be taking out a subscription to the Daily Express and sending them a hefty donation to help their legal costs. I urge all fair minded forumites to do likewise. It simply aint fair for this great English institution to be slaughtered because of a mere 110 "grotesque defamations".
As for the McCann`s. Come on, own up. We know you did it. There`s no smoke without fire. We know the "holiday"was really a drunken wife-swapping orgy. We know you either killed Maddie or sold her. It was in the papers. Shadow Leader, Kathy, Desperate Dan, the Daily Express and the Portuguese Plod can`t all be wrong!! Tell us where the body is or who you sold her to!
McCANNS OUT!!!!!
Legal Disclaimer: Any "grotesque defamations" in the above were intentional and any complaints should be referred to my learned friend, Ardross, who will ignore them.
K
Kathy
Guest
Desperate, when you have quite finished being a little churlish, can you just highlight all the postings from me, where I said the McCann's did it? Please take your time. Just post them up, in their fullness so I can just check again that you are not on another witch hunt - and just the proof that I have said they are guilty.
This thread has been discussing news items from various forumites that were in many of the newspapers and on the main daily news.
A few of you had an obsession with anyone that reads The Daily Mail but you have now switched to having an obsession with anyone who reads the The Daily Express. I know you won't believe this but I don't read The Daily Express and only read the Mail on line - as I do with many other publications.
This thread has been discussing news items from various forumites that were in many of the newspapers and on the main daily news.
A few of you had an obsession with anyone that reads The Daily Mail but you have now switched to having an obsession with anyone who reads the The Daily Express. I know you won't believe this but I don't read The Daily Express and only read the Mail on line - as I do with many other publications.
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
You have never said the McCanns did it. I was trying to inject a bit of nonsense into the thread. For the record, neither you, SL,me, the Daily Express or the Portuguese Plod have ever said they did it but merely repeated ridiculous "grotesque defamations" based on rubbish. I rest my case.
K
Kathy
Guest
You rest your case? I don't think so.
What right have you got to say what we can or can't discuss on this thread? Until one of the moderators say that someone on this thread has over stepped the mark then I am afraid you will have to get use to people being allowed to say what they want and discuss any aspect of the Madeleine case they want to.
If you and a couple of others find this thread in any way offensive, you don't like the content, the way the discussion is going or feel that people are just spouting verbatim what they read in The Daily Express..... do me a favour and JUST STOP READING IT!!!! Simple eh?
As for injecting a bit of nonsense into this thread. You certainly got that bit right!
What right have you got to say what we can or can't discuss on this thread? Until one of the moderators say that someone on this thread has over stepped the mark then I am afraid you will have to get use to people being allowed to say what they want and discuss any aspect of the Madeleine case they want to.
If you and a couple of others find this thread in any way offensive, you don't like the content, the way the discussion is going or feel that people are just spouting verbatim what they read in The Daily Express..... do me a favour and JUST STOP READING IT!!!! Simple eh?
As for injecting a bit of nonsense into this thread. You certainly got that bit right!