kate and gerry show.

I can't get past Gerry's comment that the press have treated Madeleine's safety with "complete contempt". This coming from parents who left their three children, under the age of four, ALONE to fend for themselves night after night while they were enjoying themselves because it was their holiday too.

interested wrote:I can't get past Gerry's comment that the press have treated Madeleine's safety with "complete contempt". This coming from parents who left their three children, under the age of four, ALONE to fend for themselves night after night while they were enjoying themselves because it was their holiday too.

But did they? we only have their word, and I wouldn't
apply much credence to anything that pair uttered or
that group of pact-pals that spewed the same neglect
story. I don't believe in the neglect yarn, and I think
Gerry when he spouts his 'complete contempt' charge
against the press is indirectly alluding to the same.
His arrogance has him leaving his original script.

Ah, marxman, how quickly we forget!

You are so right to remind us that the Neglect may also have been a contrivance.

I subscribed to that hypothesis myself but am guilty of resorting to mainstream brainwashing thinking.

Wow, these are the only comments Express published

Comments (11)
buddha7:48pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
The "fund" that they set up for **** was actually not a charity fund it was registered as their own private ltd company , they used donations to make payments on their mortgage , they had also stated they would share some of the money with other families of missing children , they have not fulfilled that .They have also used lawyers costing over £4 million I believe to sue and silence anyone that dares to question their account of the incident

246ate5:47pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
I add my sentiments to those voiced here, I too have my doubts about the whole thing.

Shenandoah4:55pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
I question the motives of these two. I always have. Only those with something to hide seek to muzzled the press, whether in Britain or in Portugal. The coverage of their daughter's disappearance was no more than less than would have been expected if some other couple had left their very young children alone while they wined and dined far enough away to be inaffective if some accident happened, and ultimately one of the children had disappeared. The Portuguese have their own idea as to what happened and that does not speak of a kidnapping. Nevertheless, this careless couple now want to turn their negligence into an attack on the British Press. The British Press was shamelessly used and abused by them. Once the **** realized that the media was not in lockstep admiration of them, they raised their voices i hysteria. Get real ****. Many of us recognize your negligence towards your children while on vacation. That enabled any criminal.

DJPJ20133:22pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
Are these two actually for real? Why are they campaigning to restrict our free and democratic rights when a) they were not hacked b) They use the press whenever it suits them c) they were happy enough to have "****" with a small m serialised in the Sun so that we could be treated to daily headlines about their sex life d) the papers are full of non sightings to further dull the memories of them leaving the children to go out drinking.

Shame on them.

buddha2:02pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
I find it strange that the **** have courted the press since day 1 after **** went missing , Kate sold a story to a large paper about how she couldnt make love to Gerry , yet here we have Gerry **** complaining , they were not even hacked and he fronts the hacked off campaign , the Dowler family would have made better spokesperson IMO

MegnMog1:57pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
Their brass neck is unbelievable. Used the press to the utmost when it suited and now? All getting a bit uncomfortable is it ?

Their phones were never hacked either but they seem to be hijacking Hacked Off for their own purposes.

How dare this miserable pair try to destroy our democratic freedoms so that they can present a sanitised image of themselves. My uncle didn't die in the trenches for the likes of you.

Read the Portuguese police files and get a greater insight into why they want supression of a free press

How dare the **** lambast a newspaper, accusing it of showing quote: "complete and utter contempt for ****'s safety. "(Andrew Marr Show today!)

I think you both showed contempt for ****'s safety when you left her in that apartment with her siblings. You followed it up when you advertised her coloboma round the globe against expert advice that she could come to harm. But, Dr ****, you thought it was quote "a good marketing ploy" didn't you?

MegnMog1:57pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
Their brass neck is unbelievable. Used the press to the utmost when it suited and now? All getting a bit uncomfortable is it ?

Their phones were never hacked either but they seem to be hijacking Hacked Off for their own purposes.

How dare this miserable pair try to destroy our democratic freedoms so that they can present a sanitised image of themselves. My uncle didn't die in the trenches for the likes of you.

Read the Portuguese police files and get a greater insight into why they want supression of a free press

How dare the **** lambast a newspaper, accusing it of showing quote: "complete and utter contempt for ****'s safety. "(Andrew Marr Show today!)

I think you both showed contempt for ****'s safety when you left her in that apartment with her siblings. You followed it up when you advertised her coloboma round the globe against expert advice that she could come to harm. But, Dr ****, you thought it was quote "a good marketing ploy" didn't you?

DrGoogleGaspar12:49pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
THE EXPRESS WAS THE only paper brave enough to take on these liars ,NO EVIDENCE OF AND ABDUCTION YET THE SMELL OF DEATH in the flat the car and Kate **** clothes

steg12:45pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
kates hot

WhiffyCuddlecat12:16pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
Why did gerry complain about news of sightings being published? The **** successfully managed to keep news of important developments in two ongoing libel cases, including the fact that they've racked up £288000 in lawyer's fees against an unrepresented OAP, out of the papers. To expect us to believe that they couldn't keep sightings out of the press if they were in any way unhelpful is absurd.

I think the press have been quite generous to this infamous duo and certainly more than the neglectful parents deserve really.

Piecesof811:41am on Sunday, 17th February 2013Report This Comment
Now then Gerry, why don`t you be a bit more thruthful and tell us the REAL reason you want more press control. Quite despicable that you now bite the hand that`s fed you your millions

The End Is Nigh wrote:Ah, marxman, how quickly we forget!

You are so right to remind us that the Neglect may also have been a contrivance.

I subscribed to that hypothesis myself but am guilty of resorting to mainstream brainwashing thinking.

Indeed, 'Neglect' as they so pushed, suited them and them
only. It covered all bases, abduction, no witnesses and gave
them valuable time to stage. Therefore, why all the inconsistant
and unrealistic statements, timelines etc etcm?
Didn't happen the Mccann way.

I noticed that kate did a lot of 'blinking'.Body language experts often say that is a good sign of guilt.

She also looked very rough and tired,think its all catching up with them.

Apart from that what is the point of them ? Their opinions are of no consequence to a Political News show so who got them this bit of air time.

Shows they still have friends prepared to put them in the frame,maybe their other 'friends' may be thinking about that to save their skins '

Lioned wrote:I noticed that kate did a lot of 'blinking'.Body language experts often say that is a good sign of guilt.

She also looked very rough and tired,think its all catching up with them.

Apart from that what is the point of them ? Their opinions are of no consequence to a Political News show so who got them this bit of air time.

Shows they still have friends prepared to put them in the frame,maybe their other 'friends' may be thinking about that to save their skins '

Yes Lioned, they had no need to be there, and we've heard all the same crap before from them. It's getting plain stupid and Gerry looked really pissed off and I don't think he looked at his wife once.

Yep, she was gawping fixedly at him like a Stepford wife, except for the odd moments when she short-circuited and went off on one.
He certainly did not want to be sitting there with her, and he didn't seem to want to pretend that he did.

Last comment ( 12 now) after the article of the Express. Very interesting choice of negative comments by the newspaper.Obvious retaliation:



Comments (12)



Angelita66

8:24pm on Sunday, 17th February 2013
Report This Comment

"Who do this couple think they are? I echo everything that has been said before. A couple whose only claim to fame is that they failed in their parental responsibility to take care of and protect their three small children. They were happy to court the press as long as things were going their way. Hopefully one day we will know the truth and see it in print. We have a right to know - they have cost the UK and Portugal millions of pounds.

and a deluge of negative comments posted also after the article of "The guardian":


"http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/17/mccanns-attack-government-response-leveson"

more than a deluge - an awful lot have been removed

At last, the Nutters have taken over the Asylum

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
Bob Dylan

A powerful piece from Anorak:

Madeleine McCann: Gerry McCann says ‘Madeleine and her safety is often treated with complete contempt’

http://www.anorak.co.uk/348109/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-gerry-mccann-says-madeleine-and-her-safety-is-often-treated-with-complete-contempt.html/

It would appear that the McCanns have lost any Press sympathy and public sympathy, Matthew Parris commented on this a long long time ago in the Spectator.......I bet the McCanns are kicking themselves for wanting to air their views on T.V.

Panda wrote:It would appear that the McCanns have lost any Press sympathy and public sympathy, Matthew Parris commented on this a long long time ago in the Spectator.......I bet the McCanns are kicking themselves for wanting to air their views on T.V.

I don't think they would be kicking themselves, Panda. I think they are narcissistic enough to think of themselves as being always in the right and however many people disagree, they are still right.

almostgothic wrote:A powerful piece from Anorak:

Madeleine McCann: Gerry McCann says ‘Madeleine and her safety is often treated with complete contempt’

http://www.anorak.co.uk/348109/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-gerry-mccann-says-madeleine-and-her-safety-is-often-treated-with-complete-contempt.html/

Merci almostgothic, it's really a must!:


"Madeleine McCann: Gerry McCann says ‘Madeleine and her safety is often treated with complete contempt’



MADELEINE McCANN: Kate and Gerry McCann want Lord Leveson proposals on media regulation be implemented in full.

They should not get their way. Press Freedom means what it says. No buts. Why should journalists be held to ethical and moral standards imposed by others? You only need a access to the internet and an opinion to be a journalist. You might not be a good one, but the public will be the judges.

Why should a human being not need a license to express a view? True, writers must be held to account for what they /we say. But freedom of expression cannot be ring-fenced. You cannot cause offence to no-one.

Does your story interest the public, or is it in the public interest? Submit your copy and the State’s experts will get back to you, in time. Did you pay for the information in an underhand way? Yes, paying for it was how the Thalidomide scandal was exposed. And the MPs expenses. And the match-fixing in world cricket. That’s all “chequebook journalism”, isn’t it. Tawdry stuff. Kiss ‘n’ tells. Not worthy.

As Camilla Cavendish noted in the Times on the work of Sir Harry Evans:

When I finished Sir Harry’s book I was left wondering if he could have broken the thalidomide story today. The contempt of court laws are certainly flouted more readily these days than in his time. But few media organisations have the resources to orchestrate lengthy, complex investigations. And Sir Harry would have to be extra brave to pay his whistleblower £8,000 to get files from Distillers, the company that ruined so many families’ lives. The Bribery Act 2010 makes it illegal to pay for information that could reveal corruption. Had it come into force two years earlier, it would have prevented The Daily Telegraph from paying for the information that exposed the MPs’ expenses scandal.

The journalists job is to print the truth the subject doesn’t want you to know.

Meanwhile, Gerry McCann says the press has ”lost its entitlement to self regulation”.

What entitlement? The hard-won freedoms that people fought and died for are not entitlements. You are not entitled to your opinion. It is your opinion to voice as you see fit. You don’t need to be entitled. That’s what freedom is.

The all-knowing pure-of-deed-and-thought living high about Grubb Street should impose rulings on what the lowly journalists are obliged to report on and how? No scope should be given for different tastes and angles? Just one view will do for all on the day’s news events? Conformity is the byword in Gerry McCann’s world. Diverse opinion will not be permitted. Journalism will be an exercise in box-ticking. This is what he wants?

Says Gerry McCann:

“I think Leveson has been quite generous to the press and more than the behaviour of some sections of the media deserve really. They are getting a last chance at self-regulation which for me was actually a step too far…I feel that the press has lost its entitlement to self-regulation over many, many years and I would have liked to have seen statutory regulation, not self-regulation.”

The McCanns were libelled. They got satisfaction in court. Some sections of the press went too far. They were made to pay. Why are more laws needed?

The McCanns were on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show. He’s the journalist who took out a super-injunction to prevent anyone reporting that he had an injunction banning reporting on his extra-marital love life. You want more of that? You want that to be made routine? Prove the public needs to know to the license givers and then you can report it. Is it tittle-tattle or important? Is it in the public interest because the public are interested in it? Don’t bother wondering about it, because the powerful are deciding for you.

Mr McCann, of Rothley, Leics, added:

“We still have episodes where things are published which we’d prefer not to be.”

Sure. There are people who aren’t all that keen on the McCanns, who choose to see in them a middle-class couple who got better treatment than a working-class couple or the unemployed and poor might have gotten for leaving their young children in a room in a foreign resort while they went drinking. Indeed, Mr McCann may even trigger opposing views when he says:

“Madeleine and her safety is often treated with complete contempt.”

You and the BBC can quote him on that.

Comments are closed. The UK libel laws are fierce. Too ruddy fierce. And we have shallow pockets.





Anorak

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:It would appear that the McCanns have lost any Press sympathy and public sympathy, Matthew Parris commented on this a long long time ago in the Spectator.......I bet the McCanns are kicking themselves for wanting to air their views on T.V.

I don't think they would be kicking themselves, Panda. I think they are narcissistic enough to think of themselves as being always in the right and however many people disagree, they are still right.

Hi AnnaEsse,
They might be narcisstic and think they can walk on water after 6 years of manipulation but there was no smiling or easy look about either of them and the only time Kate spoke was to criticise the Press....big mistake Kate.

Narcissistic definitely and zilch self-awareness. They really do have no idea how they come across to an increasingly sceptical public.
And that's despite all their rehearsals and their pre-arranged scripted questions.
But they keep on doing it because, like the appalling Mr Punch, they think that 'that's the way to do it'.

If it wasn't for the tragedy which began this saga, and the fact that they are so damned unlikeable and annoying, their 'performances' would screamingly funny to watch.

almostgothic wrote:Narcissistic definitely and zilch self-awareness. They really do have no idea how they come across to an increasingly sceptical public.
And that's despite all their rehearsals and their pre-arranged scripted questions.
But they keep on doing it because, like the appalling Mr Punch, they think that 'that's the way to do it'.

If it wasn't for the tragedy which began this saga, and the fact that they are so damned unlikeable and annoying, their 'performances' would screamingly funny to watch.

They just don't come across as educated and articulate doctors.

As if they desperatly tried to climb the highest possible, to gain the most powerful and respectful positions before the huge tide of the truth come and suround them.
If they act like that, it's imo because they fear future events that could lead to the truth. Without this fear, they would carry on with their ordinary lives and nobody would hear from them anymore.

They have long since convinced themselves they've done no wrong.Infact wouldn't have taken much convincing as it comes natural to them.
It was all Madaleine's fault.

I agree they are not particularly intelligent,just got lucky with their connections.

They are no better than the 'slobs' who think they have a divine right to benefits.

Just goes to show that driving ambition and a very narrow outlook coupled determination and a complete lack of self knowledge or empathy can get you quite a long way in the medical profession today.

A shunned Cardiologist and a failed GP?

Open to comments. Only one but eloquent:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mccanns-reject-royal-charter-compromise-compromise-witherow-says-it-has-real-teeth