Madeleine McCann's Parents Queuing up to Give Evidence at Leveson Inquiry

buildersbum wrote:

Carolina wrote:The McCanns are probably desperate to find out what the police have on them in relation to the phone hacking by NOTW and they must believe that if they are to give evidence they will be able to see the files.

Imo if its true that NI/NOTW were telling their papers to leave the McCanns alone, and that Murdoch was "helping" the McCanns, WHY would they jump on the bandwagon and try and stick the knife in to the Murdochs NI, this just dosen't sit right with me.

Wonder if James and Rupert know what the two child neglecting are upto

Me neither bb, but I can't put my finger on it just yet.

A thought about this rush to give evidence strikes me.

Whilst the telephone evidence gathered by the PJ is held to be inadmissible in court it's still there, it's still real, and dependent on content could be enough to convince the world that the abduction fable is just that - a fable. That's if it ever got out into the public domain, of course.

Wouldn't it just suit their purposes to establish that yes, they may have been hacked, and yes it's just possible that evidence found on their phones may just have been interfered with.

At a stroke, the telephone evidence held by the PJ is discredited. Job done.

I found the following on the BBC news website

"The parents of missing Madeleine McCann want to participate in the judicial inquiry into the phone hacking scandal, a preliminary hearing has been told.

They are among alleged victims who want to be "core participants" in the first part of the Leveson Inquiry.

Core participant status means a person is deemed to be specially interested in the subject and may apply for public funding for legal representation."

So is this another means of topping up the coffers? Perhaps someone can understand it a little more than I do and will explain exactly what this means?

It emerged that Rebekah Brooks as well as a number of victims of media intrusion, including Madeleine McCann's mother, Kate, have offered to give evidence to the inquiry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/06/phone-hacking-james-murdoch-parliament

Eh?
I thought it was both of 'em?
Has Gezza run off again?

Or maybe only one is allowed to be the 'core blimey participant'?

well first of all Joey Jones can have a pint, or a glass of wine, a do nut or bags of sweets whatever for his comments, brave brave man.

Two does this mean that the enquiry will address the xenophobic comments made re the GNR and the PJ, particularly Goncalo Amaral. Will it also address the shameless courting of the Press by the Rothley Rovers (sorry if theres a footie rugby skittle or other sport or hobby team with same name) and the high profile stories relating to sightings of Madeleine, people who saw, think they saw, defectives who mention lawless villages and lairs, but then fizzle out without further comment, particularly the story from Leh, the dna samples and photos of a child, anyone want to guess if these will be mentioned. Or what about the injuctions being overturned, or books being held by solicitors, or the Libel trial or that everyday legal stuff that seems to make the McCs life worthwhile. jimo

Oh and dont ask me because im hopeless, maybe the bewk, where did i read that on the Rovers return to Rothley, Control Risks checked the house and phones for bugs etc., and they were aware that people might hack their phones because wasnt there a rumour that the pink one told the McCs that was happening with the PJ. just what i think i recall, thats all. Oh and did i read that funding for legal representation might be available, jimo

dazedandconfused wrote:I found the following on the BBC news website

"The parents of missing Madeleine McCann want to participate in the judicial inquiry into the phone hacking scandal, a preliminary hearing has been told.

They are among alleged victims who want to be "core participants" in the first part of the Leveson Inquiry.

Core participant status means a person is deemed to be specially interested in the subject and may apply for public funding for legal representation."

So is this another means of topping up the coffers? Perhaps someone can understand it a little more than I do and will explain exactly what this means?

Well spotted dazedandconfused.
How can this avaricious pair suddenly become alleged victims, especially after their own official mouthpiece and propagandist, Mitchell made a public statement doubting their involvement?

Is it safe to assume that this 'Core participant' status will also give their representatives unrestricted access to files as well as access to public funds?

Will Milly Dowler's family who definitely have suffered through hacking, also have a similar status and representation as the McCanns, who over the past 4 years seem to have jumped onto the back of every promising looking milk cow.

malena stool wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:I found the following on the BBC news website

"The parents of missing Madeleine McCann want to participate in the judicial inquiry into the phone hacking scandal, a preliminary hearing has been told.

They are among alleged victims who want to be "core participants" in the first part of the Leveson Inquiry.

Core participant status means a person is deemed to be specially interested in the subject and may apply for public funding for legal representation."

So is this another means of topping up the coffers? Perhaps someone can understand it a little more than I do and will explain exactly what this means?

Well spotted dazedandconfused.
How can this avaricious pair suddenly become alleged victims, especially after their own official mouthpiece and propagandist, Mitchell made a public statement doubting their involvement?

Is it safe to assume that this 'Core participant' status will also give their representatives unrestricted access to files as well as access to public funds?

Will Milly Dowler's family who definitely have suffered through hacking, also have a similar status and representation as the McCanns, who over the past 4 years seem to have jumped onto the back of every promising looking milk cow.

It's scary how they manage to turn everything to their advantage. Will it never end? I sincerely hope Milly Dowler's family get similar status etc and if not, why not?

dazedandconfused wrote:

malena stool wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:I found the following on the BBC news website

"The parents of missing Madeleine McCann want to participate in the judicial inquiry into the phone hacking scandal, a preliminary hearing has been told.

They are among alleged victims who want to be "core participants" in the first part of the Leveson Inquiry.

Core participant status means a person is deemed to be specially interested in the subject and may apply for public funding for legal representation."

So is this another means of topping up the coffers? Perhaps someone can understand it a little more than I do and will explain exactly what this means?

Well spotted dazedandconfused.
How can this avaricious pair suddenly become alleged victims, especially after their own official mouthpiece and propagandist, Mitchell made a public statement doubting their involvement?

Is it safe to assume that this 'Core participant' status will also give their representatives unrestricted access to files as well as access to public funds?

Will Milly Dowler's family who definitely have suffered through hacking, also have a similar status and representation as the McCanns, who over the past 4 years seem to have jumped onto the back of every promising looking milk cow.

It's scary how they manage to turn everything to their advantage. Will it never end? I sincerely hope Milly Dowler's family get similar status etc and if not, why not?

They'll go one step too far one of these days and their greed and arrogance will turn round and bite them.
Milly's family really shouldn't have to apply for funding to be kept in the loop, they've gone through enough already.

Chris wrote:

Wallflower wrote:But if they weren't hacked, why weren't they hacked? That in itself is strange. IMO.


Everyone else from Sara Payne to Steve Coogan to Sky presenters was being hacked. Anyone that the public had the slightest bit of interest in - and we all know how good the McCann family have been for newspaper sales, don't we?

Not necessarily strange. Mulcaire and Goodman were arrested in 2006 and jailed in early 2007. Given that phone hacking was demonstrably illegal by those prosecutions (there was I believe originally some ambiguity in the relevant Act depending whether interception was before or after messages were listened to) there has as yet been no evidence that the practice continued beyond early 2007. It would have been a bold journalist that continued to hack or seek hacking after two had already been jailed.

I must say that this is not the impression I've gained from all of the coverage. Given the fact that Mulcaire and Goodman were willing to take the rap as "rogue reporters" and nobody - not a single other institution in this great country of ours was thought it was worth their while to help poor old Guardian editor Rusbridger to investigate the fact that hacking was in fact much wider than that. Why would other journos be afraid when there was a continued cosy relationship between NI and the police? Or (as far as I can make out) only until a few weeks ago when the story of Milly Dowler's phone being hacked came into the public arena, politicians and police alike were sh!t scared of Murdoch and Brooks and the rest of them.

I remember Hugh Grant saying that he and other celebs like Gwyneth Paltrow always knew - they knew that if they had to call the police or ambulance or something like that - some hack would turn up at the same time. I don't think he said, well, that used to happen, but it stopped sometime in 2007.

From Science Daily

"Some people may have remained quiet because they believed that this was acceptable practice -- perfectly normal for the non-naïve," says UAB social psychologist Rex Wright, Ph.D. "Some people consider you to be naive if you abide by conventional rules of ethics."

The first allegations of phone hacking against News of the World came in 2005 when the Royal Family accused the paper of intercepting voice mails. The investigation led to two resignations and two guilty pleas in January 2007. Many believed the violations extended beyond the Royal Family but the investigation ended.

Four years later to the month the Metropolitan Police announced a new investigation into the phone hacking scandal. The new investigation revealed the phone hacking continued despite the 2007 convictions.

"People might have felt that this was a small price to pay for a very lucrative activity," says Wright, professor in the UAB Department of Psychology. "They also might have believed the odds of getting caught twice were small, especially if police officials were turning a blind eye. They might have had some arrangement with officials that allowed them to continue if they had resignations and convictions on occasion."

almostgothic wrote:It emerged that Rebekah Brooks as well as a number of victims of media intrusion, including Madeleine McCann's mother, Kate, have offered to give evidence to the inquiry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/06/phone-hacking-james-murdoch-parliament

Eh?
I thought it was both of 'em?
Has Gezza run off again?

Or maybe only one is allowed to be the 'core blimey participant'?

It will be interesting to know what evidence they/Kate have to give - in fact, it will be interesting to see if Leveson considers them worthy of inclusion. I read in one of the papers that their counsel were proposing that they were applying because they were a 'notorious case' not because they suspected that they'd been hacked.

Core participants

A number of terms are used for an inchoate group of those who have a special interest in the processes and outcome of a public inquiry. Historically the most common phrase used has been “interested parties”, but some public inquiries have used the term “full participants”. The phrase used in section 5 of the Inquiries Act 2005 and which is taken to have the same meaning is “core participants”. Given the variety of interests that may be covered by the term, and the variable nature of its effect, the precise terminology may not matter. For the sake of consistency, this part will refer to the group as core participants.

Very broadly, those who are likely to be accorded core participant status fall into two categories. The first is those persons who have an interest in seeing that the public inquiry acts thoroughly and perhaps an interest in persuading it to reach a particular view. This category is reflected in sub-sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Inquiries Act 2005, which require the Chairman to consider when designating someone a core participant, whether a person played or may have played a significant role in relation to the matters to which the public inquiry relates or has a significant interest in an important aspect of the matters to which the public inquiry relates. Those who call for a public inquiry to be established, e.g. NGOs and trade unions, regularly fall into this category.

The second category is those who may be prejudicially affected by the public inquiry. This is captured by sub-section 5(1) (c) of the Inquiries Act 2005, which requires the Chairman of a public inquiry to consider whether someone may be subject to explicit or significant criticism during the proceedings or in the report or any interim report. Those who are being expressly investigated under the terms of reference, witnesses likely to be incidentally criticised in the report and those witnesses whose evidence directly is in serious conflict with others may all fall into this category.

The treatment of core participants is a matter for the Panel of each public inquiry. The phrase naturally denotes special treatment and under the Inquiry Rules, the regulations made under the Inquiries Act 2005, they may be granted rights to cross examine and to make opening and closing submissions. They may be given an advance copy of the report for comment. The public inquiry may give fuller advance disclosure of its materials to core participants than it does to witnesses. Public funding may be afforded to core participants for legal representation.

When a person is a witness to a public inquiry it may not add anything to give him core participant status. That is because a witness must naturally be treated fairly, and fairness may require him to be legally represented at public expenses, to be given advance notice of all materials in the hands of a public inquiry which may affect him and be permitted to cross-examine and make submissions. To repeat Lord Scott’s dictum from Three Rivers (No. 6) :“the defence of personal reputation and integrity is at least as important to many individuals and companies as the pursuit or defence of legal rights whether under private law or public law.”. It may be convenient for a public inquiry to have a system for grading witnesses according to whether they may need to defend their personal reputation and integrity and, if so, what facilities should be afforded them for that defence.

http://www.publicinquiries.org/practical_planning_for_a_public_inquiry/core_participants

So, in a nutshell, special treatment.....public funding, advance notice of all materials in the hands of a public inquiry which may affect him/her, allowed to cross examine and make submissions.

Thanks Autumn. Glad you put it in a nutshell at the end, making it easy to understand.

buildersbum wrote:

margaret wrote:Well if they wish to jump on this rickety bandwagon l suggest they offer some irrefutable evidence that they were hacked in the first place.

Because no-one but the McCanns has yet said they were involved.

(Thanks quickfingers)

Here we go more smoke and mirrors, they have never said they were hacked,(Mitchell made out he had!) but seeing them in that que, makes the public think "the McCanns" must have been hacked imo
Why the hell can't these two just F*%k off and get on with their lives, ffs what do they do every night plan what bandwagon they can jump on next to keep their sorry arses out of

well said builders

Thanks Autumn. From your post:

So, in a nutshell, special treatment.....public funding, advance notice of all materials in the hands of a public inquiry which may affect him/her, allowed to cross examine and make submissions.

My gut feeling is that this is important to them.

I wonder which legal representation team we'll be paying for for them? No doubt they will be allowed to pick and choose. Only the best for the Dastardly Duo.

Autumn wrote:
So, in a nutshell, special treatment.....public funding, advance notice of all materials in the hands of a public inquiry which may affect him/her, allowed to cross examine and make submissions.

So they want to find out if there was anything in the hacking probe relating to them and whether it's now been passed onto SY!!!

F*cking chancers.

Quick reminder that Amaral said that he was sure that his phone is being tapped and his computer hacked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFHz1Ty-wW0

Who is doing it? He didn't say.

I posted earlier about the possibility of them introducing a bit of uncertainty into the telephone evidence.

Now I'm wondering if they may be taking this opportunity to avoid appearing in court in the September Amaral hearing?

nospinnaker wrote:I posted earlier about the possibility of them introducing a bit of uncertainty into the telephone evidence.

Now I'm wondering if they may be taking this opportunity to avoid appearing in court in the September Amaral hearing?

How would it save them from appearing in that court case?

nospinnaker wrote:I posted earlier about the possibility of them introducing a bit of uncertainty into the telephone evidence.

Now I'm wondering if they may be taking this opportunity to avoid appearing in court in the September Amaral hearing?

Good points. I saw what you said but personally l wouldn't buy it, although it looks likely that they would try to put some doubt into any phone evidence being held.

Trouble is, they'd be the only people to claim phone evidence was tampered with and they do remain persons of interest in their daughter disappearance...... So to me l'd think 'well they would say that wouldn't they!!'

All things considered maybe they should go ahead, it would even more people doubt them. They really are amateur in their attempts to ridicule evidence against them.

Wallflower wrote:Quick reminder that Amaral said that he was sure that his phone is being tapped and his computer hacked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFHz1Ty-wW0

Who is doing it? He didn't say.

He wasn't sure.

margaret wrote:

Autumn wrote:
So, in a nutshell, special treatment.....public funding, advance notice of all materials in the hands of a public inquiry which may affect him/her, allowed to cross examine and make submissions.

So they want to find out if there was anything in the hacking probe relating to them and whether it's now been passed onto SY!!!

F*cking chancers.

From what I've read, Leveson decides which Core Participants are eligible for public funding - and there is no opportunity for Core Participants to cross examine other Core Participants. Core Participants are there to give evidence - not acquire it. Purely IMHO

They're probably hoping there's some compensation in the offing!

chrissie wrote:Thanks Autumn. From your post:

So, in a nutshell, special treatment.....public funding, advance notice of all materials in the hands of a public inquiry which may affect him/her, allowed to cross examine and make submissions.

My gut feeling is that this is important to them.

Chrissie, how can it be, imo I think they are just pushing the bounderies again, we all believe that the Mcs were protected by Murdoch/Brooks why would they want to stir the pot that the the lot of them are sat right at the bottom of??? why bite the hand that feeds you, it really baffles me, but Mulcare is prepared to drop the Murdochs/Brooks in it, so I suppose the Mcs think,,,Hmm if he can why can't we, they might be something at the end of it for us AGAIN lets get the money magnet out

KeirSimmonsITV Keir Simmons
Hacking: Those given 'core participant' status for Leveson inquiry include McCann's, Hugh Grant, JK Rowling. Max Mosley and the Dowlers
1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply