what the mcanns have broken up???

wish theyd whoosh the lot, seems it wasn't the only bit of the article she got wrong. jimo. polite, whos a f****** t*ss** then. if she calls that polite theres no hope at all. ji,o

So was it whooshed because:

a) They haven't split up.
b) They have split up but didn't want anyone to know.
c) They have split up but wanted to announce it at a time most advantageous for themselves.

almostgothic wrote:So was it whooshed because:

a) They haven't split up.
b) They have split up but didn't want anyone to know.
c) They have split up but wanted to announce it at a time most advantageous for themselves.

the smart money is on option (c

It wasn't a very accurate article. Hotel room?? So I didn't take it as definite.

Carolina wrote:I was just about to put that link on and you beat me to it. It wouldn't  be surprising that their marriage broke up, even if they were innocent, a loss of a child often pushes parents apart. She and Gerry did their best to ruin Gonçalo Amaral's life and marriage, now they can pay for it.

Yes Well said   

Great tweet!

Syn0nymph ‏@Syn0nymph 22m
@KatyFBrand Got a great topic for your stand up routine... 'Revisionist history, is it a good thing? Ask me next week' #telegraph #mccann

dutchclogs wrote:

Carolina wrote:I was just about to put that link on and you beat me to it. It wouldn't  be surprising that their marriage broke up, even if they were innocent, a loss of a child often pushes parents apart. She and Gerry did their best to ruin Gonçalo Amaral's life and marriage, now they can pay for it.

Yes Well said   

karma's a bitch

They split up ages ago.

Going to be a big problem sorting out custody of the kids,how on earth would you choose the most suitable parent ?

omg lioned that is a question.

Wow to this,,

If they have split due to the pressure it will be tough to harmonise when interviewed by Scotland yard

oh this is more grist for the Libel trial is it not.

Marriage broke?
or
McCanns broke?

It was FUNd while it lasted.

Certainly, both have been morally bankrupt for the last 6 years!

Katy Brand ‏@KatyFBrand 52m
Sincere apologies for the error in my @Telegraph  #mccann piece yesterday.  It has now been rectified.


Well there you are, folks.
It was just an error after all.
And it's now been Rucktified.

which error was she talking about, the one where she said K was polite and dignified. oh that one!

To me the whole article is the biggest error it's possible to make!
 
Ms Brand is best known as a comedienne - I wonder if she was trying to prove how funny she is. It doesn't work for me, dear!
 
http://www.katybrandofficial.com/
 
I have sent her an e-mail with links to the new e-book - http://freepdfhosting.com/9099bef539.pdf - and the report into the Fund - http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html

Lioned wrote:They split up ages ago.

Going to be a big problem sorting out custody of the kids,how on earth would you choose the most suitable parent ?

Lioned, they are proabably fighting about who DOESN'T get custody with their parenting skills! Baby sitting would enroach into 'me' time!

Katy Brand has tweeted, "The brief ref to #mccanns marriage was based on her own book detailing their difficulties. My wording was poor & so was edited."

Deary me.
There's a whole world of difference between 'marriage difficulties' and an actual 'marriage break up'.
How a professional writer could take a giant leap and extrapolate one from t'other is beyond me.

Interesting that she did her genning up for the piece from The Bewk.
That explains a hell of a lot ......

Carter-Ruck must be earning their keep. That makes twice lately that "corrections"/revisions/edits had to be made; Martin Brunt's and Katy Brand's.

A couple of hours ago, Katy Brand tweeted, "It was not factually incorrect, just worded badly."

Within the hour, Clarence Mitchell tweeted (to her), "It was factually incorrect. Period."

The Pink One Has Spoken.

interested wrote:Katy Brand has tweeted, "The brief ref to #mccanns marriage was based on her own book detailing their difficulties.  My wording was poor & so was edited."

I wonder did she read page 129 of KM's book.

Should she reply to my e-mail sent yesterday, I'll ask her that - plus other unsavoury comments from Kate like loving and pleasing her and looking her up and down in the same way that the paedo abductor might have done - and also the gutter language used about people doing their best to find out what happened to her daughter.

interested wrote:A couple of hours ago, Katy Brand tweeted, "It was not factually incorrect, just worded badly."

Within the hour, Clarence Mitchell tweeted (to her), "It was factually incorrect.  Period."

Pity Mitchell hasn't tweeted that, without a scintila of evidence or proof, the 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann is just a theory her parents have, and, when the papers say Madeleine was 'abducted' that is in fact, factually incorrect. Period!
Strangely, Mitchell does not tweet and insist the papers, correct their 'factually incorrect' statements about Madeleine being 'abducted'!

jeanmonroe wrote:

interested wrote:A couple of hours ago, Katy Brand tweeted, "It was not factually incorrect, just worded badly."

Within the hour, Clarence Mitchell tweeted (to her), "It was factually incorrect.  Period."

Pity Mitchell hasn't tweeted that, without a scintila of evidence or proof, the 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann is just a theory her parents have, and, when the papers say Madeleine was 'abducted' that is in fact, factually incorrect. Period!
Strangely, Mitchell does not tweet and insist the papers, correct their 'factually incorrect' statements about Madeleine being 'abducted'!

What's even more strange is that the McCanns, their family, including 'loud mouth' Auntie Phil, as well as Clarrie and their Tapas mates, have never made one public statement regarding the former PJ Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida's report. Where he states Madeleine died in the apartment and the McCanns were responsible for cadaver occultation. He also stated that the whole group, lied from the beginning. One would have thought that if Tavares de Almeida was lying, the McCanns and the rest of the group, would have been shouting from the rooftops that he was lying and more to the point would have sued him. The fact that they have all stayed silent, speaks volumes.

Scotland Yard should bear this in mind, when they say the McCanns and their friends, are not amongst people of interest to them.  Scotland Yard should be also asking themselves, why the McCanns are supposedly going to sue Goncalo Amaral, for stating in his book, what is written in the files, when they aren't going to sue Tavares de Almeida.

Silly me, I forgot, that Scotland Yard know all there is to know about the McCanns and their mates, but they have an agenda, to keep telling the public they are not of any interest to them. I guess this bunch of 'Muppets' think that if they say it long enough, they will brainwash the public into believing them.