The defamation bill... with reference to the McCanns... from P48 in today's 'Observer'

~~~~~
Regulation requires consensus, not a flimsy solution attached to a libel bill

The diffficulty comes with treating Leveson as though it were Old Testament doctrine in some holy war. There isn't, in truth a huge difference between a royal charter approach and statutory underpinning. No one doubts that something pretty draconian will emerge. But fundamentalism of the Hacked Off variety can hinder as well as help.

Lord Putnam and friends haven't assisted one jot by tacking their flimsy version of Leveson's arbitration tribunals onto a passing defamation bill. Real experts think it an abomination likely to be overturned in Strasbourg anyway. Experienced crime correspondents - such as the Guardian's Duncan Campbell - think a deep freeze on contacts between press and police is sure to be used to hide police misconduct. If everything is couched in terms of Murdoch-hating in particular, or tabloid hating in general, where do hundreds of blameleass regional papers fit in? No wonder they're anxious about shoals of fee-hungry lawyers heading their way.

We'll know a bit more tomorrow, as the defamation bill survives - or tragically sinks. But meanwhile there's every reason to grow reflective. Would heightened regulation have stopped phone hacking? Probably, to a degree: though remember the law didn't do the job. Would it have eased the plight of victims in The Christopher Jefferies or McCann category? Certainly not in the beginning, after Jeffries was arrested in the Joanna Yates case or the Mccanns declared suspects in Madeleine's disappearance.

Both of these calls were wrong. Jefferies was entirely innocent: a dud arrest. And the McCann's status was dropped after nine months. But how is a standards board sitting in London supposed to rule quickly about such cases? The police don't always make wrong arrests: grieving parents aren't always what they seem. Remember Shannon Matthews and her mother's tearful TV pleas? How quickly would a regulator have wanted to step in there - and look ridiculous when what really happened to Shannon stood revealed? Press regulation needs agreeing and embracing by all sides, not enforcing so crudely that it's as resented and therefore as frail as its first debacle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The picture above the article was, I suspect, taken some time ago. It shows Gerry looking down in pensive mood and Kate looking away to her left. She is in a short sleeved off-white top with a silver cross and chain worn over it. The picture is captioned:

Would the McCanns really have benefitted from statutory press controls?

I found several sentences interesting. I have refrained from highlighting them as the piece is fairly short. See what you think...



[i]

It makes me cringe to see the McCanns referred to as victims (MY ELBOW!) and linked together with someone like Joanna Yeats' landlord who genuinely did suffer at the hands of the media.

Agreed NBY, but there is a subtle difference in how they are described, and I think that is important.

Both of these calls were wrong. Jefferies was entirely innocent: a dud arrest. And the McCann's status was dropped after nine months.

I seem to remember Clarence saying the McCanns were not hacked . They were there to complain about the Press for which they were paid handsomely.

Hi panda , they were never hacked they were IMO just jumping on a passing bandwagon . They were just complaining about bad press , i dread to think their reaction if the press had really turned on them .

To be frank, I find it really rather surprising that Healy & McCann were (so we are told) not hacked.

halfamo wrote:Hi panda , they were never hacked they were IMO just jumping on a passing bandwagon . They were just complaining about bad press , i dread to think their reaction if the press had really turned on them .

Hi yourself, I remember distinctly Clarence saying they were not hacked, probably in case they had said something incriminating on the phone.
I also remember the Portugese Prosecutor going to Court to ask if the phone calls tracked while they were in PDL could be used in EVIDENCE but the Judge said it would be too intrusive. How can it be deemed too intrusive if the calls have the answer to what happened to Madeleine ????

No, I think I see where Comperedna is going with this and it is quite a turnaround from the usual fawning waffle...first there is the bit about the McCanns status as being "dropped" not that they are innocent and then he goes on to say that there are plenty of parents involved in the disappearance of their children, then jumps on the Shannon Mathews case.

No, I think this is all heading in the right direction

The End Is Nigh wrote:To be frank, I find it really rather surprising that Healy & McCann were (so we are told) not hacked.

And why are you so surprised , i find it surprising that two doctors from some obscure backwater in the East Mids should have their phones hacked . This has always been the problem with the Mcs people some people have IMO always thought them to be more important than they really are .That is why i and many others have never believed in some great goverment coverup.These two IMO are two very lucky people who just happened to know someone who knew someone etc .Their luck is at this time still holding .........but who knows .!!!!

Panda wrote:

halfamo wrote:Hi panda , they were never hacked they were IMO just jumping on a passing bandwagon . They were just complaining about bad press , i dread to think their reaction if the press had really turned on them .

Hi yourself, I remember distinctly Clarence saying they were not hacked, probably in case they had said something incriminating on the phone.
I also remember the Portugese Prosecutor going to Court to ask if the phone calls tracked while they were in PDL could be used in EVIDENCE but the Judge said it would be too intrusive. How can it be deemed too intrusive if the calls have the answer to what happened to Madeleine ????

I have no answer to this maybe by then the Mcs had convinced all that they were the victims and thats why the prosecutor ruled on this :I've never understood why they were allowed out of Portugal but they were as we all know .

@halfamo: Largely, I agree with you about the Cover-up issue. I go further and consider the fact they are "Doctors", "Professionals", "Middle-Class" (Whatever that is) to be irrelevant also. We're all "ordinary" as far as I'm concerned. As Clint once said "If I don't like someone, it's purely personal".

But I am surprised they weren't hacked (so were are told) purely because Journalists tend to have a nose for a lie/scandal etc and there was certainly plenty to sniff at. Still is. So I'm inclined to think that perhaps they were actually hacked, despite the oft-repeated suggestion that they weren't. Nothing about those two ever makes sense.

'Jeffries was entirely innocent'.... Of Joanna Yates's murder he was but he was guilty of wasting police time making up stories about seeing Jo talking outside to men then asking his friends to forget he'd said what he said.

That's the sort of behaviour of the guilty so l don't have any sympathy for him I'm afraid, HE got himself arrested, had he not done so there would have been no lurid headlines.

comperedna wrote:Agreed NBY, but there is a subtle difference in how they are described, and I think that is important.

Both of these calls were wrong. Jefferies was entirely innocent: a dud arrest. And the McCann's status was dropped after nine months.

That struck me too - subtle description! - and grieving parents aren't always what they seem.......

Panda wrote:I seem to remember Clarence saying the McCanns were not hacked . They were there to complain about the Press for which they were paid handsomely.

Hi Panda, I too remember the git Clarence saying that
the mccanns were not hacked, but how does he know?
He himself was hacked so he claimed, so it really must
show that he is, or has been out of the loop.

That's what I meant that I had noticed... susible and others.

The End Is Nigh wrote:@halfamo: Largely, I agree with you about the Cover-up issue. I go further and consider the fact they are "Doctors", "Professionals", "Middle-Class" (Whatever that is) to be irrelevant also. We're all "ordinary" as far as I'm concerned. As Clint once said "If I don't like someone, it's purely personal".

But I am surprised they weren't hacked (so were are told) purely because Journalists tend to have a nose for a lie/scandal etc and there was certainly plenty to sniff at. Still is. So I'm inclined to think that perhaps they were actually hacked, despite the oft-repeated suggestion that they weren't. Nothing about those two ever makes sense.

It is very difficult to know what is fact and what is'nt , in their case i'm not altogether sure whether journos were sniffing deep enough , maybe they bought into the big lie ...that the Mcs were victims of that awful foreign police force .Plus they were doctors and somehow in the eyes of the British press makes them beyond reproach .Shipman being completely forgotten .They , i know not how have led a charmed life since they mislayed their daughter , but hacked or not i live in hope their luck will will run out .

and tigger... straight afterwards discussing another case where the outcome was... different!

I think the McCann's strong individual/personal attempts to muzzle the press have been well noticed by all journos on any paper, tabloid, or broadsheet, or online. Several papers have paid out huge damages to them! What this piece also points out was the time delay between their being made arguidos and when that status was lifted... Were the press to remain totally silent throughout all that time... whatever they happened to find out for themselves? Mind you, they should have been 100% sure of what they wrote if it could have been consisdered defamatory, and not just repeated what some Portuguese tabloids printed as if it were gospel.

Yes, it's that deliciously close juxtaposition - Jefferies<--->McCann<--->Matthews.

And the line we've been waiting a long time to see:

Grieving parents aren't always what they seem.

Just bootiful.

almostgothic wrote:Yes, it's that deliciously close juxtaposition - Jefferies<--->McCann<--->Matthews.

And the line we've been waiting a long time to see:

Grieving parents aren't always what they seem.

Just bootiful.

You've got that right, almostgothic.

The End Is Nigh wrote:To be frank, I find it really rather surprising that Healy & McCann were (so we are told) not hacked.

I dont believe that for one nanosecond. Where did this information come from? oh that's right. Mitchell. Well there you go.

Iris wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:To be frank, I find it really rather surprising that Healy & McCann were (so we are told) not hacked.

I dont believe that for one nanosecond. Where did this information come from? oh that's right. Mitchell. Well there you go.

But unlike many who were hacked, the McCanns were 'forensically aware' from day one, zero hour so to speak. Probably before that time it you take into account the strange coincidences between the 36 hour silence on both Murat's and Gerry's phone, switched off and on within minutes of each other.
'New' mobiles were arranged on the 4th via friends of Payne, later on Clarence Mitchell organised yet more mobiles for them.

The McCanns were well protected against hacking, first by their own efforts and afterwards by governmental agencies.

They may well have been hacked, but no useful information will ever have come from hacking. I think Gerry used the blog to send messages and friends and family to do the same.
I also think they already had other mobiles before 3/5, the mistake they made was to delete calls from their usual mobiles before the PJ arrived.
Amaral says early on that this aroused the suspicion that they were 'forensically aware'.
The photographs of Wright and Gerry by the rocks around the 7th? I've always thought they were trying to find a mobile thrown away on the night of the 3rd.
Both of them standing in the water, using mobiles.
Amaral had great interest in this occasion as well.