Gerry McCann calls for press control laws – and 75% of the public agree

Panda wrote:Morning tigger, it does beggar belief the way the McCanns have garnered such support from people in high places. It is very obvious that the McCanns knew Tony Blair and Gordon Brown which is why they got the VIP treatment and have remained the untouchables from day 1.
With regard to the Fund, can you imagine any Parent, distraught because their child has gone missing, even think of setting up a Fund so soon??????

Panda, I've been looking at the dates for setting up the web site and the fund. First web site May 6th. McCanns's lawyers arrived in Portugal May 11th. They approached the Charities Commission on May 14th and were turned down. The "No Stone Unturned," limited company was incorporated on May 15th.

lisa o'carroll ‏@lisaocarroll

Gerry McCann says Cameron gave his promise to protect the people who were thrown to the wolves like he and Kate were. He shd keep his word


Utter tosh, they courted the press

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/02/nz-sighting-for-record.html#comment-form

good comments from same person 26-31

Thanks matthew

Leveson without the law is no change – Dr Gerry McCann

Posted February 11th, 2013 by Hacked Off & filed under News.

Today, at the Hacked Off conference on the Leveson Bill, Dr Gerry McCann gave the keynote speech on where we are now, two and a half months after Lord Justice Leveson published his recommendations on press regulation. This is his speech in full.

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I don’t often find myself making speeches at events like this. But I’m happy to do so for Hacked Off, because I passionately believe in the cause. And now is a critical time for the campaign.

We are at a crossroads. In one direction, the prospect of lasting change to the failed system of press regulation, based on the painstaking work of Lord Justice Leveson. In the other, attempts to brush the problem under the carpet – to create a fix – so that nothing really changes.

Our elected politicians face a critical choice. They can either do what Leveson recommends – wholeheartedly and properly – or they can turn their backs on the issue, and turn their backs on us, the victims of press abuse.

Kate and I had the misfortune to suffer the worst that the press could throw at us.

• We were labelled as murderers without a shred of evidence.

• Stories were published saying our daughter was dead – over and over again, with no evidence.

• We were subjected to round-the-clock intrusion at a time of terrible stress, with photographers camped outside our door.

• We were intimidated. Our young children, especially, were scared out of their wits.

• My wife’s private diary, revealing her innermost thoughts in her darkest days, was published without her consent.

• Rumours were dressed up as the truth

• and downright lies became front-page news. One newspaper claimed that we sold Madeleine into slavery in order to pay off our mortgage.

The slurs went on for months- despite our best efforts: Meetings with editors, assurances from our lawyers, a letter from the chief constable of Leicestershire police calling for restraint- all ignored. And they continued for the simple reason that there was no-one and nothing with the power to stop them.

People say: ‘Your experience was so unusual, we can’t draw any lessons from it.’ Well I disagree. Our experience was extreme, but it was a consequence of the same sick culture that led to the abuse of many other people, some of whom are here in this room today.

An insatiable hunt for headlines combined with a total lack of respect for other people. The mentality that can turn a family’s distress into cold, hard cash. Profit from misery.

In our case it led to the sacrifice, not only of the truth, but of our dignity, privacy, well-being and most importantly the search for our missing daughter, Madeleine.

I believe we have a responsibility, as decent citizens in a democratic and caring society, to learn lessons from it.

The parliamentary select committee on the media said in 2010:

“The newspaper industry’s assertion that the McCann case is a one-off event shows that it is in denial about the scale and gravity of what went wrong and about the need to learn from those mistakes. The industry’s words and actions suggest a desire to bury the affair without confronting its serious implications, the kind of avoidance which newspapers would criticise mercilessly and rightly if it occurred in any other part of society.”

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.

The reason Kate and I put ourselves through the ordeal of giving evidence to Leveson was simple: Nobody should have to endure what we went through. A system has to be put in place to protect ordinary people from the devastating damage that the media can cause.

When David Cameron set up the Leveson Inquiry he said in parliament: “We must keep the public – and the victims of what has now emerged – front and centre at all times.” And he also said: ‘We will have to be guided by what the inquiry finds.”

When he gave his own evidence to the Leveson inquiry he promised to protect the people who have been thrown to the wolves as we were. We saw this as grounds for hope that we’d see real change.

What Lord Leveson proposed last November is not tough on the press and it’s not a threat to free speech. For me personally, he did not go far enough. It seems to me that the judge did everything he could to make his proposals workable for the newspapers while giving the public some protection.

In the end they get to regulate themselves, which is something very few industries are allowed to do, and which many people felt they had lost the right to do so.

For us and for other victims of press abuses, Leveson’s proposal is the minimum acceptable compromise – and, judging by the opinion polls, the public feels the same way.

But what has happened? Two and a half months on we can see precious little progress towards implementation of Leveson, and we are hearing backsliding words from politicians. This is an opportunity for our elected MP’s, whose reputation with the British public is at an all time low, to redeem themselves. The Leveson report is not something to be negotiated with their friends in the press. Any watering down of the Leveson plan now, whether in a Bill or a Royal Charter or whatever, would be like surrendering to the press and saying the whole Leveson process was a waste of time.

And the idea that Kate and I, and all those other victims, might have relived our darkest days in the full glare of the media, for no good reason, is offensive. If our testimony was in vain, it will be a permanent stain on the reputation of this Government, and I believe that many other families will pay a heavy price in press mistreatment.”

Sometimes it seems as if our politicians just don’t know what the right thing to do is. Just like in the past, they seem to be so compromised by their own relationships with the press that they are unable to see what needs to be done for the sake of the public. And that is exactly what the newspapers want. They want politicians to squabble and manoeuvre, so that they get to carry on business as usual. They need a compliant Government to tiptoe around them and avoid hurting their feelings.

It’s obvious that no one wants the Government to shackle the press. What we all want is a free press –indeed Leveson would enshrine it- but we need a free press which is both responsible and accountable- two values which are in short supply. So that if the press trample on people, they have some remedy.

We need a proper watchdog whose independence and effectiveness is guaranteed. That is what Leveson recommends. He says the press can regulate themselves, on condition that their regulator meets some basic standards. He says what those standards are, and he says there must be an independent body that checks those standards are met. He says that it is essential- not desirable, ESSENTIAL- that the body carrying out the checks is set up in statute, though it must be completely free of political influence after that.

Considering what the press has been doing to people, they should see that as a good deal. All the polls show that is what the public thinks. And it looks as though most parliamentarians think that too.

Leveson without the law is no change. It’s the PCC all over again. It’s the world we know, of newspapers abusing innocent families with impunity. What happened to us would happen to other British families in the future.

It is up to our Prime Minister and our other politicians to prevent that. He promised he would. To keep his promise, all he has to do is follow what Leveson said, and put the Leveson recommendations into law through parliament, without meddling and back-door deals. And without checking whether the press is happy about it.

There can’t be any half measures or compromises. Leveson made many concessions to the press so his recommendations are already a compromise. In fact they are the minimum acceptable compromise for the people who, in the Prime Minister’s words, were “picked up and thrown to the wolves.” That is us. That is Kate and I, and some of the people in this room, and many other people around the country.

I said at the beginning that we are at a crossroads. Please, this time, let’s choose the right road.

http://hackinginquiry.org/news/leveson-without-the-law-is-no-change-gerry-mccann/

OMG is he is asking for trouble...or pre empting bad publicity,then blame it on this speech

chrissie wrote:lisa o'carroll ‏@lisaocarroll

Gerry McCann says Cameron gave his promise to protect the people who were thrown to the wolves like he and Kate were. He shd keep his word


Utter tosh, they courted the press

Shame they weren't thrown to the wolves, literally and not just metorphorically.(sp?). They courted the press wantonly and now want it silenced. His big mouth will hopefully be the downfall of him.

Leveson without the law is no change. It’s the PCC all over again. It’s the world we know, of newspapers abusing innocent families with impunity. What happened to us would happen to other British families in the future.


The PCC did offer to step in but the McCanns wouldn't have got any financial compensation. That's why they chose to go down the legal route.

I'll give St.Gerald full marks for brass-neck and mammoth cojones (And, no, use of the word mammoth is not supposed to engender more Burger puns!)


I'm a bit bemused by the allegations of accusations of murder: Did not the PJ and many doubters concentrate on the possibility of a misadventure occasioned by a fall due to being left alone and disorientated?

That said, some have likened the SY Review Team's composition to be akin to that of a Murder squad.

An insatiable hunt for headlines combined with a total lack of respect for other people. The mentality that can turn a family’s distress into cold, hard cash. Profit from misery.

In our case it led to the sacrifice, not only of the truth, but of our dignity, privacy, well-being and most importantly the search for our missing daughter, Madeleine.




It certainly did didn't it Gerry....the truth HAS been sacrificed for cash...

Well said, Kitti


The Pot calling the Kettle black.

chrissie wrote:Leveson without the law is no change. It’s the PCC all over again. It’s the world we know, of newspapers abusing innocent families with impunity. What happened to us would happen to other British families in the future.


The PCC did offer to step in but the McCanns wouldn't have got any financial compensation. That's why they chose to go down the legal route.

Quite correct as Meyer described at Leveson

A."We act in a complementary way. What I said to Gerry McCann when I first saw him was that this is what the PCC can do for you, this is how we can help. 'If you want damages, if it comes to that, we do not do money. The courts do money, so you're going to have to make a choice.'"
Q. To be clear about that, when did you say that to Dr McCann?
A. In July of 2007.
Q. And the circumstances were what? Was it a meeting?
A. At my house.
Q. Did you make it clear to him that it was, as it were, dichotomous: courts on the one hand, PCC on the other hand, but you can't do both?
A. I made it perfectly plain. Indeed, I handed over some CC literature, and we had a fair discussion, I would say, and I left him, in my view, absolutely clear about the different ways that he could proceed. And indeed, I think shortly after that, briefly, when Ms Justine McGuinness was his press secretary, a complaint was lodged with the PCC against a newspaper but the complaint was not proceeded with.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The tense of this answer is accurate, is it? If you want money, damages, you go to the court, but there is a whole range of other things that "we could have done". In other words, if they didn't go to the court, we could do things, but if they do go to the court, we can't do things. Is that the correct sense --
A. Yes, this was done in -- when is this?
MR JAY: March 2009.
A. Yeah, March 2009, so we had already had, in March 2008, the upshot of the libel action against Northern & Shell, and so we knew what had happened.
Q. But I think the question is directed to what you were saying to Dr McCann in July 2007.
A. In July 2007, I was explaining to him and his press handler what the options were should they believe that they needed to take action against a newspaper, which was quite early days then, because it was before the McCanns were declared arguidos by the Portuguese authorities, which changed the tempo and the rhythm of everything. This was July.
Q. Yes.
A. And she wasn't there. This was Dr McCann, and he left with Justine McGuinness in a noncommittal way. He didn't say to me: "Bingo, I'm going to go to the PCC", or: "I'm going to go to law." He just kept his counsel.
Q. But to be clear, you were making it clear to him it was his choice, that there were two positions he could take which were inconsistent with each other.
A. Yes.
Q. Either go to law or go to the PCC; is that right?
A. That's absolutely right. And then, if I may say this, I saw him again --
Q. Yes.
A. -- more briefly -- I don't know whether you have a note of this -- in February of 2008, by which time they had taken -- I think I'm right, it must have been then -- by which time I think they'd taken a firm decision to go to law, they were with Carter Ruck, and given the nature of what they said was libel, I said to him at the time: "In the circumstances, I think you're doing the right thing." And then I said it in public, that, on 19 March, when I was interviewed by the PM programme.

It wasn't that the PCC did nothing. it was a conscious decision not to engage them having been told they could take action.

"In our case it led to the sacrifice, not only of the truth, but of our dignity ..."


...... said this paragon of propriety who wanted his missus to pose in a swimsuit ......

almostgothic wrote:"In our case it led to the sacrifice, not only of the truth, but of our dignity ..."


...... said this paragon of propriety who wanted his missus to pose in a swimsuit ......

EXACTLY!!! What makes this couple who continue to disrespect their dead daughter think they are worthy of the public's esteem or respect.

The only esteem they have is from themselves (self-regard) and whatever respect they had from decent people who knew little more than that Madeleine had disappeared has faded dramatically of late as those people increasingly detect the odour of rat.

I shall not dignify proceedings by mentioning the rabid supporters of child neglect who ignore all the intelligence, Police files etc. as they do not contribute to their cause.


(Whoops, I just did mention them. I think I may have got away with it, though!)

We were labelled as murderers without a shred of evidence[i]c


No mention of EVER been innocent is there Gerry! as usual just 'there is no evidence to connect us with Madeleine's disappearance"

profit from misery -- yep madeleines misrery the night she was crying for over a hr -- that man if i was dc i would let every paper in the uk print the files for one week solid

methings Mr G McC protesteth too much. the only stains he needs to be concerned about are the ones he and K McC plastered on their reputations by leaving 3 children unsupervised in an allegeldy unlocked apartment in a country which was foreign to them, allowing one of them to disappear. jimo.

profit from misery - what is the fund about, what is the book about?

'The father of Madeleine McCann this afternoon warned the Prime Minister that a “permanent stain” would be left on the Government’s record if it failed to reform the press after making the parents of the missing child relive their nightmare in public at the Leveson inquiry.'

Gerry McCann has forfeited any rights to warn anybody about anything.
He, his wife and his cronies have left a 'permanent stain' on the reputation of this country. They have scandalised its citizens.

As for their 'nightmare' -what about Madeleine's nightmare? What about the twins' nightmares as they get older? What about Amaral's and Bennett's and their families' nightmares? What about Robert Murat's and his family's nightmares? What about other wrongly accused people's nightmares? What about all the nightmares of the little girls who are erroneously suspected of being Madeleine? What about the nightmares of their families having to prove their own child's identity?

Whatever nightmare they would have us believe has affected their lives PALES INTO INSIGNIFICANCE compared with the nightmare world they have imposed on others.

Rant over.


PS. This article's accompanying photo - the sign at the back must be referring to the top of his head.

oh they are playing a very dangerious game -- i think they are ready for grab the money and run -- why bite the hand that feeds them

Is there still a "they"?

They rarely (if ever) appear together and there have been innumerable suggestions they are no longer as one.