Dr ROBERTS:NOT IN MY CHILDREN's LIFETIMES...

By Dr Martin Roberts
13 February 2013

NOT IN MY CHILDREN's LIFETIMES...

...would I wish to see Dr Gerry McCann's, or for that matter his wife's voice influence the legislation of this land. And no, I am not just an envious forker. I'm forking angry. Angry that anyone should attempt to gain social or other advantage at the expense of a child's life (see Shakespeare's Henry V, Act 4 Scene 7). Let it not be forgotten that Gerry McCann the orator is one and the same person as he who, since early May 2007, has done more to ensure that his missing daughter stays missing than he has ever done to repatriate her.

For the benefit of those who might need reminding:

Action


PJ instruction – 'No media!'

Portuguese legal requirement – judicial secrecy.



Early reports of sighting in Malta



Appeal for information via a web site


McCann response

Alert UK broadcasters

Disclose details to David James Smith

Embark on campaign of 'phone calls home on 07/09/2007

Visit Spain

Illegally deploy private investigators

Fly home after questioning and appoint an extradition lawyer

Incorporate a faux contact button

Etcetera, etcetera.

Gerry McCann has, it seems, spoken of his fears that David Cameron might be prepared to water down the proposals of the Leveson enquiry. "If our testimony was in vain it would be a permanent stain on the reputation of this government," he said.

As permanent a stain, no doubt, as once appeared on a pair of child's pyjamas six years ago. Almost. Still, it would be on this government's reputation. Unlike the previous administration of arrivistes, who have the McCanns personally to thank for the stain on theirs; not one but two Labour prime ministers saluted the McCann flag. Small wonder then that the campaigning doctor is tilting at the other side. He obviously knows on which side his bread has been buttered.

Apparently Dr Gerry McCann and his wife Kate have been harassed by newspapers which made "profit from misery." Unlike Kate McCann's novel, Madeleine, which, as much a work of fiction as anything else, largely excludes the subject it purports to discuss and proudly announces via a 'flash' on the book's jacket, 'All royalties donated to Madeleine's fund.' (That's the fund which has been paying for those two 'searchers' long since given their P45s). Strange, but there appears to be no itemisation of 'author's royalties' within the company (i.e., the fund) accounts. As others have pointed out, 'book income' (after publication) doesn't seem quite the appropriate definition. Perhaps someone should break it gently to Transworld publishers that, should any or all of these royalties have actually gone elsewhere, then they could find themselves to have been party to mis-representation, since the inducement to purchase was clearly printed by them and not affixed to the product subsequently.

But we are considering profit from misery are we not? Would anyone care to weigh the misery of the McCanns against that of their missing daughter, who benefits not one iota from book sales, who never got to tour Europe, holiday in Canada, visit the USA or Scandinavia? And never will.

He said: "To keep his promises all he (Prime Minster David Cameron) has to do is follow what Leveson said and put the Leveson recommendations into law through parliament without meddling in back door dealing and without checking that the press is happy with it."

All he has to do? Sounds a tad more complicated than posting a letter to the Portuguese Justice department requesting they re-open the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. Whatever happened to 'We would be more than happy for the case to be reopened?' 'More than happy' is clearly not happy enough for some. And what’s all this about 'back door dealing?' Is Dr McCann speaking from experience here?

Referring to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the media (2010) Dr Gerry, who believes his 'phone has never been hacked, told his audience at the Hacked Off Conference:

"Three years later, I see little remorse, no contrition. Sections of the press are still in denial. The sick culture has not changed, and they can't be trusted to change it of their own accord.

"If you look at the reporting of the Leveson Inquiry and the behaviour of some newspapers since then, it's clear that they aren't sorry and they still think they should not have to answer to anyone when they publish harmful lies and distortions."

This coming from someone who clearly took the hypocritic oath.

Six years after the McCanns as good as admitted child abandonment, but nothing else, there is little remorse, no contrition. It's clear that they aren't sorry and they still think they should not have to answer to anyone when they publish harmful lies and distortions (such as resulted from their joint performance before the Leveson inquiry - see 'Digging Beneath the Surface,' McCannFiles 28.11. 2011, and that poor excuse for a 'tear jerker' written by Kate).

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Thanks matthew.......an excellent article.!!!!

This paragraph caught my attention<
"Perhaps someone should break it gently to Transworld publishers that, should any or all of these royalties have actually gone elsewhere, then they could find themselves to have been party to mis-representation, since the inducement to purchase was clearly printed by them and not affixed to the product subsequently"

Thanks matthew!

Dr Roberts - what a fabulous piece!

"And no, I am not just an envious forker. I'm forking angry."

Indeed.
And the world gets angrier by the day.

But Jackboot Gerry, fuelled by his incurable narcissism and endgame desperation, brays and whines on and on ...and on and on ... and on and on ......

oh Dr Roberts, how eloquently put, im forking angry too! Why on earth did the people at Hacked Off let him be the spokesperson.

tanszi wrote:oh Dr Roberts, how eloquently put, im forking angry too! Why on earth did the people at Hacked Off let him be the spokesperson.

Probably because he was a recognisable 'name' and a sob-story 'name' to boot.
Most of them, I'd guess, had never ventured into the dark underbelly of McCann World.
It's probably too late to drop him now - at least without enduring a massive, vein-bulging hissy fit like the one that took him away from the Lisbon courthouse so unexpectedly ...

But it's their bed - they'll have to lie on it.

oh i agree, i would really like at least one of the founder members of Hacked Off to read the PJ files.

tanszi wrote:oh i agree, i would really like at least one of the founder members of Hacked Off to read the PJ files.

Ironically they must believe what they read in the newspapers

Panda wrote:Thanks matthew.......an excellent article.!!!!

This paragraph caught my attention<
"Perhaps someone should break it gently to Transworld publishers that, should any or all of these royalties have actually gone elsewhere, then they could find themselves to have been party to mis-representation, since the inducement to purchase was clearly printed by them and not affixed to the product subsequently"

Yes, I picked up on that. Excellent point.

I have never seen the good Doctor so angry! But judging by the fact that both Yahoo News and even DM are leaving negative comments on is promising.
The cracks in the dam are beginning to show.

Thank you Dr. Roberts -

matthew wrote:

tanszi wrote:oh i agree, i would really like at least one of the founder members of Hacked Off to read the PJ files.

Ironically they must believe what they read in the newspapers

I don't think the Dowlers are publicity hungry or indeed power hungry.So they were never interested. But Hugh Grant seems to have been entirely swept aside - it was his idea in the first place as I understood it.

Didn't they (G and HG) have the faces of the Hacked Off group projected on the Houses of Parliament a few months ago? Who paid for that bit of vanity?

I've been puzzling over the "hypocritic oath".

Is it irony, or a mistake?

The Medical Profession take the Hippocratic Oath.

I'm leaning slightly in "Dr.Roberts" favour for this being a deliberate error.

The Medical Profession take the Hippocratic Oath.

Learnt something today so i obviously thought he was implying G Mc was a forkin hypocrit

i have used that comment hypocritic oath to a few doctors, specifically mentioned the bit that says do no harm, so yes i think it was not only deliberate, but appropriate. jimo

The End Is Nigh wrote:I've been puzzling over the "hypocritic oath".

Is it irony, or a mistake?

The Medical Profession take the Hippocratic Oath.

I'm leaning slightly in "Dr.Roberts" favour for this being a deliberate error.

I'm sure it's a mistake, just like in McFund wrote: Mr Amoral... just an innocent mistake If mcs makes mistakes, can happen to anyone.. right

Is gerry mccann megalomaniac? -> "If our testimony was in vain it would be a permanent stain on the reputation of this government"
Just asking ... just wondering...

Gerry could have had help from his Friends, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in nominating him for Labour
Candidacy.

You can certainly tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps......

Not Born Yesterday wrote:You can certainly tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps......

Yep, if you lie down with dogs, then you can't complain later when you get fleas.