I wouldn't normally feature stuff from Martin, I'm such a little tart of the yard no less, Brunt, but this latest from McCann is a pearl.
Try this bit:
An independent report by Jim Gamble, of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre,
An "independent report" by Gerry McCann's best mucker, Jim Gamble, yeah right. Do you know what that report is worth? about as much as Jimmy's little rubber stamp; and that was before Gamble decided to, or was helped to decamp the CEOP.
I'm not surprised the Home Secretary won't give it to the little bollocks, fuck me! listen how he whines now, can you imagine what the demented fucker would be like with that in his hand? Stroll on!
And you do know don't you, that that is all he wants the thing for, to wave it about and to whingen and whine and cry, "look how not guilty Jim Gamble says we are."
Jesus wept, how these two are still at liberty is beyond me, absolutely and totally beyond me.
Madeleine Petition As Parents Rap Home Sec
Martin Brunt, crime correspondent
Madeleine McCann's parents are launching an online petition to help force a UK and Portuguese joint review of all evidence in the case of their missing daughter.
They hope it can lead to a new police investigation into the girl's disappearance from the family's rented holiday apartment in Portugal three-and-a-half years ago today.
Kate and Gerry McCann also accused Home Secretary Theresa May of offering "words, but no action" to help the search for their daughter.
Mrs McCann said: "Reviews are done in all major investigations, at least in this country.
"The benefits of pulling together different bits of evidence can be enormous but, until that is done, we can't be sure what has been missed.
"You have to ask why it isn't being done in Madeleine's case. What is the block?"
An independent report by Jim Gamble, of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, is thought to back the couple's demand for a review of all the evidence gathered by British and Portuguese police.
The report was commissioned by Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson but not completed until the summer, when Mrs May took office under the coalition Government.
Yet the Home Office refuses to disclose its recommendations to the McCanns.
"There is no reason why the contents of the report can't be made available to us. They say some of it is sensitive, but we are Madeleine's parents for goodness sake," said Mr McCann.
"We've made it clear we will not divulge any of it except to help our own investigators."
The couple met Mrs May in August, but say they were left with little optimism of government help.
Mrs McCann said: "We didn't get answers. We got a lot of words but no action, nothing concrete. I can't get my head around the fact that the Government has given up on Madeleine." blah blah
we are Madeleine's parents for goodness sake," said Mr McCann. For fuck's sake stop.
And this bit: "I can't get my head around...." Can't get your your head around it! I'll tell you something sunshine, you just keep it up, because you're going to end up getting the fucking you deserve.
Or to borrow a phrase, The only justice you will get is what's coming to you.
This is the concluding half of an article by Jon Pilger entitled The BBC is on Murdoch's side. Posted here because I don't want to knock this post (of the last hour) off the front page.
It would appear Journalist, John Pilger is less than little impressed with your hackery Mister Marr.
Blair was embraced by the new BBC corporate class, which regards itself as meretorious and non-ideological: the natural leaders in a managerial Britain in which class is unspoken. Few did more to enunciate Blair’s “vision” than Andrew Marr, then a leading newspaper journalist and today the BBC’s ubiquitous voice of middle-class Britain. Just as Murdoch’s Sun declared in 1995 it shared the rising Blair’s “high moral values” so Marr, writing the Observer in 1999, lauded the new prime minister’s “substantial moral courage” and the “clear distinction in his mind between prudently protecting his power base and rashly using his power for high moral purpose”. What impressed Marr was Blair’s “utter lack of cynicism” along with his bombing of Yugoslavia which would “save lives”.
By March 2003, Marr was the BBC’s political editor. Standing in Downing Street on the night of the “shock and awe” assault on Iraq, he rejoiced at the vindication of Blair who, he said, had promised “to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right” and as a result “tonight he stands as a larger man”. In fact, the criminal conquest of Iraq smashed a society, killing up to a million people, driving four million from their homes, contaminating cities like Fallujah with cancer-causing poisons and leaving a majority of young children malnourished in a country once described by Unicef as a “model”.
So it was entirely appropriate that Blair, in hawking his self-serving book, should select Marr for his “exclusive TV interview” on the BBC. The headline across the Observer’s review of the interview read, “Look who’s having the last laugh.” Beneath this was a picture of a beaming Blair sharing a laugh with Marr.
The interview produced not a single challenge that stopped Blair in his precocious, mendacious tracks. He was allowed to say that “absolutely clearly and unequivocally, the reason for toppling [Saddam Hussein] was his breach of resolutions over WMD, right?” No, wrong. A wealth of evidence, not least the infamous Downing Street Memo, makes clear that Blair secretly colluded with George W Bush to attack Iraq. This was not mentioned. At no point did Marr say to him, “You failed to persuade the UN Security Council to go along with the invasion. You and Bush went alone. Most of the world was outraged. Weren’t you aware that you were about to commit a monumental war crime?”
Instead, Blair used the convivial encounter to deceive, yet again, even to promote an attack on Iran, an outrage. Murdoch’s Fox would have differed in style only. The British public deserves better.
John Pilger homepage, have a wander through the site there is a wealth of stuff to be found there.
A couple of weeks ago I steeled myself to watch Andrew Marr* interview Tony Blair, mass murderer and Christian of the Catholic persuasion. Of all that slithered out of Blair's mouth, only two things I was prepared to accept as true. One of those things. Had the disciples of Islam on the eleventh of September, had the opportunity to murder three hundred thousand instead of three thousand, they would have done so gladly.
And the other? dropping a monumental clanger by implementing the Freedom of Information Act.
Not that he has that much to regret, not if we consider this response from Home Secretary Theresa May.
Home Office response to FoI request concerning meetings and activities undertaken in support of a possible case review McCann Exposure
13 September 2010
Home Office Information Access Team Information Management Service Financial & Commercial Group On behalf of the Home Office Police Powers and Protection Unit (PPPU)
Thank you for your e-mail of 24 March, 2010 in which you ask for the following information
Academic as they are, for it is the reply that concerns us here, the twelve questions can be found at mccannfiles.com. I do not promote liars here.
Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) and we can now provide you with a substantive response to your request.
I can confirm that the then Home Secretary met Mr and Mrs McCann in October 2009. Also present were two members of the Minister's Private Office and a Home Office Official. There were no subsequent meetings between Home Office Ministers or Home Office officials and Mr and Mrs McCann or any representative acting on their behalf, between then and the date of your letter.
I confirm that the Home Office holds some information relevant to remaining parts of your request but that, other than the information provided above, we consider that information to be exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)(a) and (b), s.40(2) and s36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
Furthermore, we neither confirm nor deny that we hold any further information by virtue of Section 23(5) – information relating to an organisation listed in Section 23(3) of the Act. Section 23 confers an absolute exemption from our duty under section 1(1)(a) of the Act and does not require any further consideration. This response should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested is or is not held by the Home Office.
The general policy of the Home Office is not to disclose to a third party, personal information about another person. Section 40(2) of the FOI relates to the handling of personal information under the Data Protection Act. The Home Office has obligations under that Act, and in law generally, to protect the personal data that it holds. Mr and Mrs McCann would have had a legitimate expectation that any meeting with the Home Secretary was a private meeting. We have therefore, concluded that such information as you have requested which relates to Mr and Mrs McCann’s participation in the meeting and any views or opinions expressed, is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOI, on the grounds that the such disclosure would breach the first Data Protection Principle in that it would constitute unfair processing of their personal data. The same exemption applies in relation to the details of Home Office officials present at the meeting. Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption and does not require any further consideration.
Section 31(1)(a) provides that information is exempt if its disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, and section 31(1)(b) if it would potentially prejudice the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, and (in both cases) the public interest falls in favour of applying the exemption.
Sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) apply to information which, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, would if disclosed, be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, or the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation. Section 36 is also subject to the supporting arguments of a public interest test.
Consideration of the public interest test in relation to these elements of the Act is detailed in Annex A.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint, within two months, to the address below, quoting the reference number at the top of this letter:
Information Access Team Home Office Ground Floor, Seacole Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF
Alternatively you can e-mail:
foirequests@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response. As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
I apologise for the very long delay in replying to your request owing to the need to apply and fully consider the public interest test in this case.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Lister
Information Access Consultant
Isn't she a dear, a candidate for joining the flock methinks, but not tonight, soon perhaps.
* Just to say I really enjoyed Marr's History of Modern Britain. You can find it here on Google vids if you haven't watched the thing as yet.
Hard to say which I enjoyed the more, Marr's history of, or The Trial of Tony Blair. (Link updated)
An amazing two minutes if we consider the number of talking points the Woman touches upon. It may even sound a tad familiar towards the close.
Update. Edited and links added at the bottom of the page, where can be found other such sterling examples of reporting, the quality of which we now accept as synonymous with Paul Dacre's Daily Mail.
I confronted the sweaty, corpulent figure in an ill-fitting jacket twice last Friday: the first time at 10am, as he sat slurping coffee and cakes at the Kalahary cafe in Portimao with his colleague, Chief Inspector Guillermino Encarnacao; the second just before 3pm, when the two men made their way from a restaurant to a waiting black Mercedes, in which they were driven 400 yards to meet officials at the courthouse.
The reaction was the same both times: "No speak! No speak!" was all Amaral would say, making a swatting motion as though batting away an insect.
But Amaral's official silence is not the only difference between him and his counterparts in Britain.
In the UK, it is unlikely he would be leading the McCann inquiry at all.
David Rose writing for Paul Dacre's Daily Mail (link below)
It's absolutely true, I read it in the daily Mail.
And I rest my case.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Motivated by this short video posted on the blog of Joana Morais, I thought I might take another look at the Daily Mail's distorted coverage of the McCann affair. Before going further, you might wish to view or re-view this little offering from Dan and his alter ego.
I have on occasions *prior, featured Paul Dacre and his agenda driven specious rag, the Daily Mail. (*Links at the bottom of the page.)
I pick on the Mail for very few reasons, one of which can be found on this recent post under the unapologetic header, Paul Dacre is a Slag. Two words give us two other reasons for my choosing the Mail, they being, subjectivity and objectivity.
On the matter of objectivity, I could say that the McMail has shown not one scrap of it these three years past, but that wouldn't be entirely true. They did manage to exhibit a little when, and proving that they are capable of a bit of investigative journalism when the fancy takes them, which is more the shame, they did manage to exhibit a little when they reported and exposedDave Edgar for what he really is, a front, a useless front in fact.
As I say, I have previously featured the Mail on these unhallowed pages. One such feature was to compile a collage of Kate McCann photographs that had been deliberately chosen and employed by Dacre's Mail. See below.
Amassing such examples was in fact quite easy, doing little more than entering, Daily Mail + Kate McCann, in a Google image search. And laid before me such results, like pearls before swine, a catalogue of woe that would make your heart break; if of course you didn't know otherwise.
So, having gone by the previously described easy route, I thought it might be of interest to see what manner of story accompanied these photographs, photographs that appeared just as phony, just as contrived, and just as wooden as does the subject herself.
In truth, not the greatest of ideas I have ever had, quite tiresome in fact. Making the mistake of starting with contemporary news items didn't do much for the process, so I reverted to the start of this sorry affair and proceeded to wade through all the articles for the first six months.
It was tiresome and it was boring to say the least and it wasn't long before the seriousness wore off along with the novelty. So my choice in what I offer up may not all be in the vain of the deadly serious, somewhere along the line things changed a tad, a slightly more irreverent theme crept in. There is still plenty of stuff that highlights and exposes the Mail's nefarious goings on, but it is a smattering of aforementioned irreverence that accompanies things, something which, if you have clicked on any of the above links, you are already aware.
It was with the same irreverence that I started to note the captions that accompanied the photographs, by gum, I've never seen ascribed, so much "torture" so much "pain" and so much "agony" since... since... since watching Charlton Heston in the Agony and the Ecstasy, which I have to add was the most aptly named film of all time, absolute bleedin' agony to watch and pure ecstasy when it ended.
Nuff said?
I have chopped these screen shots up and married the relevant bits together, various bits of text and captions should be of interest in retrospect.
I had planned on upping the video and text for this performance, but I don't think I could bear it again. It can be found at this link if you must. My view.
Ah the agony puts in an appearance, which is more than Fiona Barton must have done. It says from Praia da Luz, the coal shed more likely, because we all know what the reality really was. Complete with a rare bit of footage of the heartbroken parents leaving the church.
Sick
Tortured, is that what it looks like?
Even the tears are tortured, err hang on a minute, what tears?
No comment.
"In the depths of despair, the McCanns inspire awe" Whatever you say.
"Gone but not forgotten" "praying for a miracle" it would take a miracle alright, one of biblical proportions.
Says Gerry McCann with his eyes shut yet again, just the same as you didn't give your kids sedatives. "The search goes on" FFS! "Kate and Gerry share a quiet moment today" Yes I'll bet it's quiet, about as quiet as this off camera.
Poor old CC being used to hide behind again. Anybody seen CC lately?
Whatever you say, but catch the caption at the bottom it's a cracker, I think I would consider the same if I had scammed as much as this pair.
I don't think you'll find her in the Whitehouse you arshole, but you did meet a comrade in arms, another lying arsehole, Alberto Gonzales, Solicitor General of Ameriki. Have a listen to Gonzo doing his stuff before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you just could not make it up.
Of Gonzo, Bush had this to say.
"It is sad that we live in a time when a talented and honourable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons," Bush said in Crawford, Texas.
Or is it that you are none of these things, but feel that after confessing to being so "horribly wrong" you feel compelled to write in the manner you do?
Or are you, as I fear, just a cunt?
~
From yet another and McCann shill and Mail employee, Fiona Barton. Not by coincidence I don't suppose that this article is featured above, I post below, the relevant part of what is a very long article. No blog link in this, just a direct link to the Mail's story.
~
And finally, of dignity, wouldn't it be nice if the Mail discovered a little, not to mention the parents.
This from the Mail, and yes, the date is correct, and printed under the header-
On Madeleine's fourth birthday, the agony goes on by FIONA BARTON in Praia da Luz Last updated at 12:24 12 May 2007
Blank-faced and hiding behind her hair, she appeared almost catatonic as she stood silently beside her husband, clutching, as always, Madeleine's favourite toy, called Cuddle Cat by the little girl. The Daily Mail, Paul Dacre Editor.
The agony goes on12 May 2007 - Blank-faced and hiding behind her hair, she appeared almost catatonic as she stood silently beside her husband,12 May 2007
~
There be much at this next link, starting with this nauseating drivel, headed.
Madeleine, we're still looking for you. Tell someone who your mummy and daddy are'
And continued in similar vain.
Her father, now 41, reassured the little girl: "Madeleine, we're still looking for you. Tell someone who your mummy and daddy are, who you are."
Kate, 42, said: "We love you very much, Madeleine, and we're not going to stop what we're doing."
And who must we thank for this edifying piece of journalism? why none other than Mirror slag and McCann creature extraordinaire, Rod Chator.
This article was destined to be short lived, this you might remember, was the article that carried the Madeleine/make up photograph. Fortunately the full article, of which you can well imagine, I had a few to say, is posted on the blog. Posted twice in fact, the first being as writ, and the second more in the style of what you may have become accustomed to.
The post then moves on to the Wail to an article that leads off, and I kid you not, as loathsome as it is unbelievable, the Mail treats us to this.
Gerry McCann breaks down as he tells how hunt for Madeleine 'is shaking his Catholic faith'
I confronted the sweaty, corpulent figure in an ill-fitting jacket twice last Friday: the first time at 10am, as he sat slurping coffee and cakes at the Kalahary cafe in Portimao with his colleague, Chief Inspector Guillermino Encarnacao; the second just before 3pm, when the two men made their way from a restaurant to a waiting black Mercedes, in which they were driven 400 yards to meet officials at the courthouse.
The reaction was the same both times: "No speak! No speak!" was all Amaral would say, making a swatting motion as though batting away an insect.
But Amaral's official silence is not the only difference between him and his counterparts in Britain.
In the UK, it is unlikely he would be leading the McCann inquiry at all.
Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry may never be charged with anything, despite their present status as arguidos, or official suspects, and by the end of last week, apparently well-placed sources were admitting that any case against them is circumstantial and weak. Direct link.
~
This story came up when I searched my own blogs for "Daily Mail" it being mentioned just the once in text. I only mention this because generally I'm not too impressed with the results of the in-house search gadgets. The opposite however applies to the article from the link, Madeleine McCann: A Rainbow takes the glitter off the McCann's pot of gold by invariably impressive, Mike Hitchens,
~
This is a Times/Halligen article which I chose for one of the comments left, rather than the story itself. The comment, you might agree after reading, has a certain familiarity of style. Gallery eighty Two
