13 Mar 2009

THE PRESS ANSWER BACK TO ARGUMENTATIVE GERRY MCCANN

I have to be fair and say there is nothing pale about his new hair colour, all that pale grey stuff, went whoosh!


Daily Mail

13 March 2009

Jan Moir

Gerry's complaints leave a bitter taste

How strange it was to see pale, pugnacious Gerry McCann back in the news this week. It serves as a reminder that while the world has moved on for the rest of us, time stands still for him.

For the McCann family, the clocks stopped nearly two years ago, on that terrible night in the Algarve when their three-year-old daughter slipped from public view and has not been seen since.

In their quest to find Madeleine, the desperate McCanns invited the world's Press into their lives. It was a relationship that was doomed to sour.

Grievance: Gerry McCann has complained about the Press

For months, the McCanns' efforts to keep their daughter's plight high on the news agenda were intense. Far from shrinking from the oxygen of publicity, what they feared most was the muffle of public apathy. In the process, they became experts at manipulating the media to their own advantage.

At one point, Mr McCann even returned to the family home in Leicestershire to tie his own yellow ribbon to the teddystocked Madeleine shrine that had been hastily erected in the centre of the village.

Then and now, watching Gerry McCann walking the red carpet of his grief, as knowing as a Cannes film star, can be an uncomfortable experience.

This week, Mr McCann took the opportunity to air his grievances about the Press and its treatment of his family in front of the House of Commons Culture Select Committee.

For what possible purpose? Certainly, some bad judgment decisions were made by the more excitable newspapers, who have been punished with hefty libel payments and widespread approbation for their troubles. Surely that is an end to the matter?

No. Mr McCann is not finished complaining. Yet the more and more he complains about what happened in the aftermath of his daughter's disappearance, the more I feel he is attempting to assuage his own guilt for failing to be there when she needed him most.

Still, it's not his fault that these useless Select Committees, stuffed with the third rate and the Parliamentary walking wounded, give an indulgent platform for anyone with a grievance.

48 comments:

viv said...

Pugnacious of course means argumentative, combative, a highly accurate description for Gerry McCann.

Madeleine "slipped from the public view". This is the first time we have heard such an honest description from the Press and I think he has really pushed his luck now.

Long gone are the days when they are prepared to repeat his allegations of Madeleine being abducted by some gang of paedophiles, gone are the days of them even being prepared to just say she "disappeared".

Now we hear what the press really think, this man is an actor, with aspirations of grandeur just like a Cannes Film Star, we do not forget he wanted book and film deals worth £10M and for that he was prepared to make sure Maddie
"slipped from the public view".

When Gerry went into combative mode against a press he found he could not control, he made his biggest mistake.

As this cleverly written article confirms they can make honest comments about him, that surely cannot be described as libel!

xx

viv said...

Note, no criticism of Kate McCann, none at all. That is fair IMO.

xx

viv said...

Helpful transcript of the Paxman interview. It is interesting that we did not seem to get all of this, the first part appears to have been cut.

Notice how Gerry states, we were heartbroken and then quickly corrects himself to show some empathy with Madeleine, not that he has any of course. What a sickening play actor!


Gerry McCann pre-recorded interview with Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman.

Transcript - thanks to Reggie Dunlop (3 Arguidos)

Jeremy Paxman : Well earlier I spoke to Gerry McCann. I asked him if he'd been shocked by how the media had behaved.

Gerry McCann : It's more than shocked ... ur ... we were heart ... ur ...we felt that there has been a complete disservice done to our daughter, who is still missing. And that is the thing which is hardest to actually forgive. .... er .... There was no regard for that. There was no regard for the feelings of both Kate or myself, ... er ... our other children, in fact, our wider extended family.

Jeremy Paxman : Do you think you were naive?

Gerry McCann : I th ... it ... Of course we were naive in that ... in the sense that we have never been exposed to the media previously and I ... I think, though, that we were better protected than menemy ... than many, Jeremy.

Jeremy Paxman : But then you had this entire media circus ....

Gerry McCann : It really was a circus.

Jeremy Paxman : .... camped out, around you, but you collaborated with them when it was convenient to you, didn't you? And you would announce photocalls and whether or not you'd be speaking that day - or maybe tomorrow or the day after. D'you .... d'you think to some degree you .... you reaped a whirlwind?

Gerry McCann : (smiling) We reaped a whirlwind? - No, (cough). I presume you're taking a very much a "devil's advocate's" position here on what you're doing. We have very clear objectives of what we wanted, and any parents would take the opportunity of trying to get information into the investigation that might help find their daughter. And that's what our clear objectives were. .... Um .... I think the one thing we'd probably do slightly differently is the .... the dividing line between 'when does media covering a story ... er ... on a daily basis' which happened and did discuss today about the aspect of when .... um .... we finished our trips ... er .... particularly to Germany, Holland, Morocco, where we felt there might be information relevant, we stayed on in Portugal because emotionally we were not ready to leave, and we felt closest to Madeleine there, and we fully expected, at that point, the media attention to die down, and .... and it didn't. And I think, with hindsight, we probably should have drawn a much clearer line in the sand, and even about being photographed.

Jeremy Paxman : We, the consumer, of course, see this scrum of photographers and cameramen and reporters surrounding a couple to whom a terrible thing has happened, and we only see it from one side, but what's it like when you're on the other side?

Gerry McCann : It's very intimidating, particularly when you've never experienced anything like that before and I have to say when I came back from the Police station, .... er .... on Friday the 4th of May and saw the mass of media ... er ... internationally gathered, I ..... it fills ..... the prospect of having them .... um .... door-stepping, invading your privacy, raking up anything from, y'know, your school days to potentially university, to things that have absolutely no relevance in the ongoing search, filled me with dread.

Jeremy Paxman : Do you draw a lesson about what aught to be done? I mean, it's a very broad question, but do you draw a lesson?

Gerry McCann : I mean ....Simplistically - and it is simplistically because the regulation and the law surrounding it and self-regulation is clearly is quite complex, and what we would call for is some move - and if it is a backward step ... We want more responsible reporting and we want accountability for what's written, particularly when it has the potential to seriously damage .... er .... peoples' lives, and I don't know how a family who were less supported than we were could have coped, because we had a point very, very close to completely breaking.

Jeremy Paxman : Can you tell us finally, what's happening with the search for Madeleine now?

Gerry McCann : I think that one thing, today, we would like to re-emphasise is the search for Madeleine is very much ongoing. ... Um ... We have .... er .... a lot of activity going on behind the scenes .... er .... We will become public with the activity when feel we need more information in a specific area . But ... er .... Madeleine's fund is ... er ... funding an ongoing search. We're very, very keen to work with the authorities both here and in Portugal, to try at the very, very least to find Madeleine and find who took her.

Jeremy Paxman: Gerry McCann, thank you.

Gerry McCann : Thank you.

viv said...

Let us hope Weary is right and that Kate is not reading the 3As laying into her, otherwise it might just push her too far. I can understand people laying into him, he is asking for it, but do they stop to really consider what impact they may have on her? I don't think they care, perhaps if she commits suicide they can all congratulate themselves on their sensitivity.

Post subject: Re: Where was Kate?
New postPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:38 pm
On Parole

Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:34 pm
Posts: 1025
It might be much simpler. She may simply have gotten fed up with being married to the pathetic, self-pitying, angry, not-so-bright-after-all, obsessive, sociopath she's married to. She may actually have read the DVD and seen that all her friends like her just fine, but at least some of them don't like Gerry very much at all. She may have read the David Payne thread here and though "wait a second, that fits with something Gerry and David said even before that . . . . " I mean, no matter what secrets you shared, would YOU want to be married to the bozo who thought it would be a good idea to go to the Select Committee and who gave Paxman that sneer? I can't imagine that anyone would, and if Gerry has completely lost sight of the fact that he wanted to go on the holiday and she didn't, that he said it would be "all right" and she went reluctantly, that he insisted on having fantasies of grandeur and power and showing the press who's who so they followed his agenda . . . I think she has had it with following Gerry and Clarence's plans, which haven't served her well. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be cooped up in a house with that self-pitying husband she was fighting with already. Maybe things aren't terribly harmonious at Rothley Towers. Most marriages don't survive the loss of the child; they're not arguidos anymore, and maybe she figures it's time to go.

Wizard said...

Hi All,

Reggie Dunlope’s transcript is reasonably accurate he just missed the introduction to the interview. For accuracy I post below. This transcript was done using the written subtitles which are available on this interview. My original transcript therefore was more accurate but missed out the ums and ers.

Voice Over introduction. What about the case of a person who actively courts the papers, although for most understandable of motives, only to end up at the centre of defamatory stories. A person like Gerry McCann, father of Madeline.

Quote from McCann cut in. “Madeline, I believe, was made, was a commodity, and profits were to be made. As far as I could see having front page news stories or indeed any stories in newspapers on a daily basis, was not helpful to the search. Undoubtedly we could have sue all the newspaper groups, I feel fairly confident about that. That wasn’t what we were interested in; we were interested in putting a stop to it, first and foremost, and looking for some redress, primarily with an apology.”

Voice over continues. Few media outlets emerge with credit from coverage of Madeline’s disappearance, including the portrayal of the McCann’s friends and neighbours in Portugal, according to one seasoned watcher. We shouldn’t restrict this to newspapers, television and radio also. They were jumping on Mr Murat the neighbour, haranguing him, and also hare hanging the families it was a very difficult situation. It became such a huge international story that the interest that the McCann galvanised ran out of control. That is wholly wrong. The development of a privacy right is going to begin to curtail those types of stories, and it is only when that right comes into force, and is being enforced, that we will begin to see the potential impact that such a privacy law could have on what you might all stories in the public interest. The old editors’ motto, publish and be dammed, looks rather more threatened in Fleet Street tonight.
Start of face to face interview.
Paxman. “Earlier I spoke to Gerry McCann, I asked him if he had been shocked by how the media behaved?”
Then as the 3A transcript.

Wizard said...

Who advised Gerry to give his views to the parliamentary sub-committee? It was such poor advice imo. Why would anyone want to raise the hackles of the press and bite the hand that fed the world the parent’s theory of an abduction?

It has been suggested that this is Machiavellian manoeuvres to alienate the McCanns from the press and stop any further coverage by them of the Madeleine story. This of course would allow the matter to drop from the public’s gaze and let the McCanns get on with their life whilst the public have been saturated with information that fed the story of their innocence.

Well a cleaver but oh so risky strategy if true. Can anyone be so delusional to think this would work? Biting the hand that feeds you to put an end to the now unwanted food supply?

Or is this Gerry’s ego gilding the lily? I find it hard to believe his two co-conspirators at the committee meeting (Tudor & Mitchell) really were there to give their blessing to such an ill advised strategy.

nancy said...

Hi Wizard,

Gerry waited until all the media coverage came to a standstill before coming out with his personal opinions on their behaviour. Maybe he's missing the limelight!

As you say though, if he was advised to do this it was very bad advice and the media won't forget what he has said in a hurry!

They were very happy in the beginning and lapped it up to help them get their scam and the Madeleine Fund well on the road to success, without a thought as to how it would harm their daughter.

Maybe he feels things are coming to a sticky end for them all and is complaining now about the media stories so he can claim unfair exposure and therefore unfair trial, if it ever comes to that!

I hope the pair of them and their tapas pals are shaking in their shoes now with the press starting to hit back - and not before time!

They've tried to silence the media at their peril in my opinion!




Nx

Wizard said...

"Maybe he feels things are coming to a sticky end for them all and is complaining now about the media stories so he can claim unfair exposure and therefore unfair trial, if it ever comes to that!"

Good point Nancy!

viv said...

Wiz thanks for a better transcript of that important Paxman interview where Gerry was asked some very challenging questions and did get that look from Paxman like he was studying a strange new animal in the zoo, that he found utterly curious.

Nancy, I think that was an excellent comment and cannot help but wonder if that is what a certain person's campaign and literature are all about?

In cases where the defendant is trying to say there has been adverse media coverage, so cannot get a fair trial, the court will generally say, but that was a long while ago and the public/ jury members have forgotten about that.

Who is it who is desperately trying to get the so called death theory to hit the papers, again etc. I think a certain place, when reading it, delves ever deeper into farce and none of those corny schemes get their feet off the ground, desperate and pathetic!

xx

viv said...

He can try as much as he likes but the British Press were warned by LP in October 2007 and they will not start reporting on the death theory or other aspects of the evidence in this case, no matter how hard they try.

Does TB seem bothered or humiliated when another silly scheme comes to nought, no, just like Gerry, he moved on to the next one!

xx

viv said...

It is a like a creeping malaise, building to a crescendo of sick cult-like hero worship of a discredited and dishonorable man, riddled with prejudices, who continues to try and build up a following of stupid people who think they personally can get justice for Maddie, or downright dishonourable people, with just one agenda, to do the complete opposite. Fortunately the Police/government etc treat them with the contempt they deserve:

http://the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=29559&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

bath theory said...

Jeremy Paxman : Can you tell us finally, what's happening with the search for Madeleine now?

Gerry McCann : I think that one thing, today, we would like to re-emphasise is the search for Madeleine is very much ongoing. ... Um ... We have .... er .... a lot of activity going on behind the scenes .... er .... We will become public with the activity when feel we need more information in a specific area . But ... er .... Madeleine's fund is ... er ... funding an ongoing search.


The above says it all...er..urm

bath theory said...

Just seeing that picture one week after Madeleine went missing of pure elation and joy on their faces is all the evidence required in the court of the common man. No parent under the circumstances they wish us to believe they were in, would be able to act that way if they truly thought their duaghter had been abducted and was in the hands of dangerous pa*do**iles. So why the smiles? not hard to work out is it.

viv said...

There are some who have not left in protest and who are clearly able to see the truth. I would just disagree with the bit about what he is doing is honourable. I sent him the legal judgment in R. V Tracy Andrews explaining about how adverse comment can prejudice a trial. As a former solicitor did he take a look at this and accept what he is doing is wrong and could help to get the Mcs off? Well, no, of course not!

Ferretmama
Post subject: Re: Three Cheers For Tony Bennett
New postPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:26 pm
Local Lag

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:51 am
Posts: 981
Location: Oh no T_Q made me a foe!
GoodForYou wrote:
If you believe the McCanns have avoided answering questions, you must believe there is a reason for that. Do you think there is a "wholly innocent" reason? Or do you think there is a crime that is being concealed? It can be only one of these two possibilities.


Hi GFY, don't misunderstand me, I do not think the McCanns are innocent in any way, shape or form. I do not beleive that they murdered Madeleine but I beleive they know exactly what happened to her. What I would hate to see is that they be 'hounded' (as they will see it) to the point that they, for whatever reason, mental stress, unfair trial, and are unable to stand trial and answer for their actions. I totally believe a crime was concealed and I believe both Kate and Gerry McCanns are a pair smug liars.

I think what Tony is doings is admirable but I fear that the McCanns could manipulate it to their favour. JMO.

viv said...

Hiya BT

That lots of activity behind the scenes is one of their stock phrases isn't it?

Kate used it in the first interview with Jane Hill to explain why they did not even bother to go out looking for her. They waited three weeks to even hire a car!

Gerry used it to explain how his idead for a European version of Amber Alert had meant months of work "behind the scenes".

So we know full well what behind the scenes means now, don't we. It means they are not looking for her they are pursuing their wider political agenda, to try and get themselves out of trouble.

I am convinced British Police have a different idea to that and this explains the latest desperate and silly campaigns. Oh the press were all against me, 3 As were going through all the evidence and ridiculing us, oh woe is me!

xx

viv said...

BT, even before Gerry burst into wide amusement, when Paxman accused him of colluding with the press when it suited him. Do you notice that pleased little glint in Gerry's eye, as he repeated "a circus". It is not difficult to imagine what was going through his mind. Yes, I masterminded a media circus and this is what will get me off.

I really do not think so, Gerry!

xx

ICantThinkOfAName said...

An update as there seems to be a pause in the real reason for the blog.

The dream has died. Georgie Boy is up for sale, There have been so many problems to overcome, most out of our control that tensions have built so that while we remain friends the special relationship with my lady friend is no more.

I am retreating into myself at the moment but hopefully will return to my normal, recognisable self.

Best wishes to all who continue to post for justice for a defenceless little girl.

To be continued..........

viv said...

Hiya ICTOAN

I am sorry your relationship has broken up and hope to see you back with us posting when you are feeling a bit better.

Take Care

Justice for Maddie!

Vivxxx

viv said...

A catalogue of disasters in the Baby P case, the full extent of which was covered up. To top it all Ms Shoesmith now claims she was treated less favourably than a man would have been and wants £1M for "sex discrimination and unfair dismissial that made her ill". Let us hope the Employment Tribunal give her just what she deserves, a big costs bill!

Baby P boss in £1m sex bias claim as we reveal explosive report Ed Balls refused to make public

By Simon Walters and Daniel Boffey
Last updated at 10:24 PM on 14th March 2009

* Comments (0)
* Add to My Stories

* Vital legal meeting delayed for six weeks
* Interim care order agreed but not issued
* Baby P returned to his home though dogs were still there
* Social workers did not believe mother had live-in lover
* And now disgraced council boss could win £1m in claim for 'sex discrimination'

An attempt to cover up the full horror of the death of Baby P was exposed last night after a secret report on the blunders that caused the tragedy was leaked to The Mail on Sunday.

The report shows how the true scale of incompetence by the authorities - and the appalling injuries suffered by the little boy - were censored by the disgraced social services chief blamed for the tragedy, with the full backing of the Government.
Baby P

Victim of abuse: Baby P died in August 2007 aged 17 months

Schools Secretary Ed Balls has refused pleas to publish full details of the Serious Case Review of Baby P's death in August 2007. But The Mail on Sunday has learned that it shows:

* A vital legal meeting that failed to decide to take the child out of his home days before he died had been delayed for six weeks because of 'workload pressures' - and was a shambles when it took place.
* It was agreed there were legal grounds for issuing an 'interim care order' to withdraw the child six months before he died - but nothing was done.
* Instructions not to let the child return home until dogs had been removed from the house were ignored.
* Police were accused of letting their investigation into child abuse claims 'drift'.
* Social workers did not believe the mother had a live-in lover - even though she announced she was pregnant in a parenting class that they told her to attend.
* A doctor who failed to notice Baby P had a broken back believed the boy had been sent for treatment because of his 'behaviour' - not child abuse.
* When the police officer in charge of the case changed, the new officer was not told of Baby P's background.
* Health, welfare and legal experts missed vital meetings to discuss the child's welfare.

The Serious Case Review was supervised by sacked Haringey social services chief Sharon Shoesmith - who, it can be revealed, is accusing the council of sex discrimination over her dismissal and could win as much as £1million if successful.

The review was completed last November after Baby P's mother, boyfriend and a male lodger were convicted of causing or allowing the baby's death.

However, it has never been made public. Instead, an 'executive summary' - in effect a censored version - was published.

The decision not to publish the full report was supported by Mr Balls, who said it could deter people from co-operating with investigations into similar cases. However, critics say it is a cover-up.

The Serious Case Review shows how the summary played down the catalogue of blunders by the authorities - and watered down the scale of brutality inflicted on the child as a result of their failures.
Ed Balls

Schools Secretary Ed Balls refused pleas to publish full details of the review of Baby P's death

One key aspect of the full report concerns a legal review held on July 25, 2007, a week before Baby P died. It was called to decide whether to apply for a care order to remove the child from the mother's home and whether to launch a police investigation.

The summary suggests it was conducted properly. Yet the Serious Case Review shows the legal advisers who had been dealing with the case were not present and a 'locum' lawyer who knew none of the background details dealt with it.

She merely 'noted the medical report and details of the police investigation - no proper minutes were taken', says the report. It says the scandalous six-week delay in organising the meeting was caused by 'workload pressures'.

Furthermore, those present appeared unaware that as early as December 29, 2006 - weeks after abuse of Baby P was first suspected - police had agreed that the threshold for issuing an interim care order had already been met. 'Meeting decided threshold had been met but it was not worth pursuing,' it states.

The summary suggests the authorities could not be blamed because the toddler's mother had 'co-operated with child protection plans'. This is contradicted by the uncensored version.

It reveals that after the child was briefly withdrawn from the house, social services were advised that he should not be allowed back with his mother until dogs had been removed from her home. The advice was ignored.

At last year's trial, it emerged that there were a number of dogs in the house and that the mother's lover treated Baby P like a dog.

The full report states: 'Jan 21. Police objected to presence of dogs in the child's home. A meeting was convened to discuss the child's return home but no paediatrician was present.

'Jan 26. Child went back to live with his mother.'

In addition, the mother 'disappeared' for a week in July, weeks before Baby P died, without telling the authorities.

The failure to realise that the mother's boyfriend lived with Baby P is also laid bare. The full report says Baby P's father told the authorities 'he was convinced the child's mother had a boyfriend. The mother denied the allegation the next day. The father's claim was not properly checked'.

The mother announced she was pregnant when she was sent to parenting lessons by the council. Yet social services were still unaware she had a lover.

The report says police allowed the investigation into Baby P to 'drift' and when one officer was replaced by another, case notes were not passed on.

'No photographs were taken of child's injuries when police visited. Investigation drifted for two months. Specialist doctor emailed police re calling an independent review but received no reply.'

It was decided in March that there should be an urgent 'paediatric assessment' but it did not happen until two days before Baby P died.

When it did occur, the doctor failed to spot that Baby P had a broken back and believed the child had been brought in for treatment because of his 'behaviour' - not suspected child abuse.

The summary says there was 'extensive involvement' of professionals in the months up to Baby P's death. But the full report says they were missing from vital meetings and did not speak to each other.

'June 4. Meeting held to discuss child. Police and child protection people there but no doctors or medical experts.

'June 8. Case review meeting. Agreed case was urgent but no health professionals present. Legal review did not happen until six weeks later.'

Most harrowing of all, the full report contains more details of Baby P's injuries including 'haematoma [internal bleeding], scabs, blood marks, an infected finger, hives [a skin rash] and blueish bruises'.

Last night Fergus Smith, the independent child welfare expert who wrote the Serious Case Review, called for all such reports to be published in full.

He did not comment on the Baby P report, but said: 'These reports should be in the public domain, suitably anonymised to protect those involved and frontline staff.'

A source close to the inquiry said: 'Getting information from Haringey was like getting blood from a stone. The inquiry team contemplated walking out.'

A Haringey Council spokesman said: 'Publication of Serious Case Reviews is governed by statutory guidance. Any change is a matter for the Government.'
Sharon Shoesmith

'Scapegoat': Lawyers say Sharon Shoesmith is in line for a huge payout if she wins her tribunal claim

Details of the full report were revealed as it emerged that Mrs Shoesmith, the head of children's services who was sacked over Baby P's death, is claiming that she was the victim of sexual discrimination by Haringey.

In combining a claim for unlawful dismissal with an allegation that she was treated differently because of her gender, Mrs Shoesmith, 55, stands to maximise her potential level of compensation over the loss of her £133,000-a-year job as Haringey's Director of Children and Young People (DCYP).

There is a £63,000 cap on unfair dismissal payouts but there are no limits on compensation for discrimination claims.

Should Mrs Shoesmith be successful, she would be eligible for a year's loss of earnings leading up to the tribunal date, loss of future earnings and further compensation for her alleged 'injury to feelings and for personal injury'.

She has put no figure on her claim but the total payout could potentially surpass £1million, according to experts in employment law.

John Quigley, of William Sturges Solicitors, said: 'If she won hands down it could be a huge payout on the basis that she is only 55 and she would otherwise have had ten more years of employment and salary.'

Mrs Shoesmith was dismissed without notice last year after the review of the case ordered by Mr Balls.

The review blamed Mrs Shoesmith, who had 1,000 staff and oversaw an annual budget of £100million, for 'insufficient' management oversight. She subsequently lost an internal council disciplinary hearing in January over her sacking.

In her claim, lodged at Watford Employment Tribunal and seen by this newspaper, Mrs Shoesmith says she has 'suffered and continues to suffer from clinically recognised psychiatric illness and has had suicidal thoughts following the severe stress and trauma caused by the termination of her employment'. It alleges that there was no lawful reason for her dismissal.

She claims the disciplinary procedures she went through were unfair and that her fate was predetermined by the intervention of Mr Balls in a televised Press conference in which she was described as 'not fit for purpose'.

Mrs Shoesmith further claims she was 'unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of her gender' in that she was replaced by men as both Chairperson of the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) and as DCYP.

The submission adds: 'The claimant will say that she was treated less favourably by the Council than a man would have been treated in similar circumstances in that she was summarily dismissed from her job without compensation whereas a man would not have been so dismissed.'

She claims that she was made the 'scapegoat' for Baby P's death.

Mrs Shoesmith is also claiming breach of contract in the High Court, where she could win a year's salary for the council's failure to pay her in lieu of notice.

Mrs Shoesmith declined to comment. A spokesman for Haringey Council said: 'We will contest all her claims vigorously.'

viv said...

What a shocking article from this Conservative Member of the Select Committe, even suggesting Mossley should sue for libel and then give the damages to the McCann Fund. Words absolutely fail me, if he knew anything at all about this case he surely would not be saying that!

I note it was also a Conservative McMillen Scott, who took the McCanns to Brussels. Whoever said getting rid of Gordon Brown will bring justice better think again!

The Blue Blog
Shock and awe at the Culture Select Committee
Nigel Evans MP, Friday, March 13 2009
Nigel Evans

On Tuesday I attended both sessions of my select committee dealing with the sensitive and prickly issue of Press freedoms and privacy of individuals.

Our morning session had Max Mosley as a witness, followed in the afternoon by Gerry McCann, father of the missing Madeleine McCann. Two very different people and two very different issues.

There has been an Amazonian rain forest felled to print journalistic responses to both sessions, and its fair to say that McCann got the deserved sympathy whilst Mosley got a panning.

Whilst the Daily Mail's Stephen Glover gave a reluctant admiration for Mosley for not inclining to "lie low", I felt that Mosley was on a mission and part of that mission was to do anything other than fade from the public scene.

Appearing live on Sky and inserts into the BBC Mosley used the hearing to promote changes to the law which would protect future "private" transgressions from hitting the front pages, pages 2,3,4,5 and in his case....pages 57, 58, 59 and 60.

Committee members were furnished with facsimile copies of the News of the World editions splashing the details Mosley's antics with prostitutes at the orgy he attended. Memories fade, I know, but maybe the newspaper copies were a little unecessary.

It's fair to say that the lucid and lewd descriptions of the said event was still fairly fresh in our minds... and will be for some time to come.

And that was his rub. (There are no intended puns in any of this article!) He felt that his dignity had somehow been compromised by the revelations of what he had done. If I got the drift right, he didn't seem to have any problems with the orgy or much else that had gone on at the orgy, but he did take exception to any mention of the word Nazi.

He sued in court and won damages on the privacy angle but has yet to make his mind up as to whether to sue for libel damages. He didn't want to seem to be going over the top.

His defence of his father only confused the affair. Oswald Mosley, the fascist friend of Hitler and other leading Nazis fathered Max many moons ago. He spent the war interred. I am proud of my father's involvement during the last war, but then again he was fighting FOR the British.

Max thought that his father might have gone over the top at times.....indeed, but as I said in the committee, to say that was taking understatement to a new level.

The fact is that if Mosley really wants to test this case I feel that he should look to sue for libel. If he has been libelled, that is.

It wasn't our task to re-test the court case already passed. Our task is to get to whether Mosley and the like need protection from the press. At times I thought Mosley better needed protection from himself.

McCann was completely different and had the entire sympathy of the Committee and the journalists looking on. He too had won a court case and deservedly so. His compensation had gone to the fund to find his missing daughter. Some of the press had been appalling to him, Kate and the family.

Certainly the protection demands for Gerry and Kate are somewhat different than that for Mosley. They had been libelled and had gone to court. Mosley can do the same using conditional fee arrangements meaning if the loses then he pays nothing.

If he wins he may gain substantial sums of money.

I have only got one suggestion here. If he does go down that route.... how about giving the damages to the McCann fund?

At least some good will then have come about to assuage all our consciences.

As far as the committee is concerned we have much more work to do... but who ever said politics is boring never sat in on our sessions last Tuesday.

The case continues!!!

Wizard said...

Hi Viv and All,

The baby P case. Sixsmith has a staff of 1000 and a budget of £100M to oversee. With such a large staff I just wonder how hands on she could be with individual cases. She would have to rely on the reports of her staff to flag up anything that needed her urgent attention as it wouldn’t have been in her remit to make family visits. The question I would ask is - was she really made aware of the situation – I think the answer is no she wasn’t with staff reporting to her (if that was the case) who were incapable of reading a situation correctly. You can well bet there wasn’t just one social worker involved here there would have been many with no continuity of people who visited that family. With new caseworkers having to read back the notes made by previous colleagues. Put into the mix the time factor and they probably never read the file properly before they visited because of lack of time. The buck has to stop somewhere so Sixsmith was blamed and made a escape goat but really the people who were at fault are still working for Haringey and no doubt will continue to employ the same strategy as before, even under new leadership. Sixsmith’s predecessor ran before she was pushed, now Sixsmith has been pushed will her successor be anymore successful I doubt it because it would mean sacking most of the 1000 staff and adopting a new strategy. Social services should be removed from Haringey’s care as they are incapable of running it due to lethargy, low expectations and poor recruitment strategies.

In reality how can someone fresh from university with a degree in social work and limited life experience be just handed a backlog of files and told to get on with it. Most of these individuals do not have children themselves and have no hands on experience but are put into a situation where experience, let alone common sense, is needed.

St. Ann’s Hospital imo should be shut down the standard of care they offer is appalling. It doesn’t surprise me that a doctor there failed to notice a broken back. St Ann’s isn’t a very fashionable hospital and no doubt does not attract the best qualified people a lot of who cannot even speak English which I would have thought one of the most basic essential requirements for a doctor practicing in England.

It is just my opinion of course, but I now believe anything with Haringey in its name title means you cannot expect a good let alone high standard of anything.

Apologies for my rant.

Wizard said...

Mosley should sue for libel and give the proceeds to the Madeleine Fund.

The ‘twat’ that said this is another example of an individual who wheedled their way into positions they are not fit to hold. This is a classic example of lack of research on the ‘twats’ part and a gross lack of common sense. These types of individuals are the same as the ones that help run the country – it’s quite frightening when you think about it.

Wizard said...

Well this takes the biscuit!
To use a phase by a well know poster on 3A's. No doubt Charles Skinner will be 'p##sing on our backs and tell us its raining!!

SPIN DOCTOR FOR BABY P COUNCIL

Sunday Express
TRAGIC: Baby P
Sunday March 8,2009
By Ted Jeory
A CRISIS-HIT council is to borrow a leading spin doctor ahead of fresh revelations in the Baby P scandal.
Haringey, in north London, has secured the services of Charles Skinner, the £100,000-a-year head of communications at nearby Tower Hamlets Council, on an emergency month-long secondment.

Mr Skinner, 57, a favourite of former Tory Home Secretary Michael Howard, was in charge of communications at Haringey until 2007.

Friends said that, had he been in place when the Baby P case broke last November he would have ensured a full public apology from Sharon Shoesmith, the council’s head of children’s services who was eventually sacked.

The appointment came as Children’s Secretary Ed Balls revealed last week that Lord Laming’s report into state of the country’s social services would be published on Thursday.

Mr Balls is understood to be “worried” about Lord Laming’s inquiry, with criticisms expected for both his department and Haringey Council.

Baby P was found dead in his cot in August 2007 aged 17 months. He had suffered more than 50 injuries over eight months.

Baby P’s mother, her boyfriend and their lodger, Jason Owen, were convicted of causing or allowing the death of a child.

They were due to be sentenced next month, but that has been postponed for legal reasons.

Lord Laming was asked to review social services nationally and to examine his own recommendations from his inquiry into the death in 2000 of Victoria Climbie, another child who died in Haringey.

Wizard said...

Ohps...I've just noticed my mistake I did mean Shoesmith and not Sixsmiths as quoted. Sorry.

bath theory said...

This 'Whoosh, clunk' wording that was used on that Panorama interview

Whoosh - is that the sound a hand makes as it goes through the air ?and clunk - is that the sound something makes when it hits something else hard ?

Surely the sound of a paedophile entering a flat through a window with blinds that had not been tampered with would not be woosh , clunk?

Or have I missed something?

Wizard said...

THE PRESS ANSWER BACK TO ARGUMENTATIVE GERRY MCCANN

Todays article by India Knight doesn’t seem to suggest the press have got the message at all and still fawn over the McCanns. I’ve copied the full article below - her opinion on the McCann case is half way down. I may have got this wrong but didn’t someone say she lived in Crouch End. London Borough of Haringey again home to the loony left and the ill informed!

February 15, 2009
Even a child isn’t spared by the nameless internet poisoners
India Knight
Say you’re at a party. You’re introduced to someone for the first time. In the course of conversation this complete stranger says something you don’t agree with. What do you do – keep quiet? Roll your eyes and move the conversation on? Find someone else to talk to? Do you try to convey your point of view? Stamp your foot a bit? Leave the room?
Or do you tell them they’re a mentally retarded freak and cast wild aspersions on their personal life, sexual quirks, domestic set-up, the physical attractiveness of their children, meanness to animals and so on? Do you tell them they’re so sexually undesirable they could crack a mirror at 20 paces? That they’re such a repulsive wreck you wouldn’t be surprised if their wife/husband had zillions of affairs? And then do you crank it up a notch, just to make sure?
No, you’re thinking. Of course not. I’d never do that. To which I say, not so fast. What if you were anonymous? Invisible? Would you alter your behaviour? Remember, nothing terrible has happened. You haven’t just witnessed someone beat up somebody else or hurt a child. All that’s happened is that someone has said something you don’t agree with. It has annoyed you, but it is completely irrelevant to your well-being. Still no? Well, you clearly have never posted a comment on any website, then.
I am grateful to Martin Belam’s blog at currybet.net, in which he writes about a story that appeared in a newspaper last week. A 13-year-old girl had gone to school wearing a skirt that was too short. Her teacher told her she looked like a “slut” and said that skirt “does nothing for your cellulite” (Yeah, I know – nice). The newspaper that reported this story identified the child and named the school she attends. Like all newspapers, it encouraged readers to comment on articles. They did so in their dozens. Many agreed with the teacher: the girl did look “like a slut” (“and dumpy too”) and what was the world coming to?
So now you have a load of anonymous adults, fuelled by moral outrage and what they see as their own impeccable rectitude, hiding behind pseudonyms, calling a named child a slut. The child had been reduced to tears by the teacher’s initial outburst. Let’s just hope she didn’t check to see what the marvellous great British public had to say. Belam wrote to the Press Complaints Commission, quoting clause 6 of its code of conduct, namely that “young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion”. It brushed Belam off because a child being called a slut by a load of adult strangers didn’t personally affect him.
Anonymous online commenting means that the public’s disinhibition is out of control in some quarters. It takes effort to write a cross letter: you have to get the paper, the pen, compose the letter, find a stamp and then a postbox – by which time you’ve calmed down and can’t necessarily be bothered. Online, your bile can be shared in seconds and you can say all the things you’d never dare to say “in real life”. Except it is real life. One “quality” newspaper’s website is filled with strange people calling other people names and deriding their opinions with a nastiness that verges on psychosis. Amusingly, the newspaper prides itself on its liberal credentials. All I can say is that it has some spectacularly foul readers.
All this became evident during the weeks following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, where her mother’s character was demolished online: she was too pretty, she was not sad enough, she was weird and behaving weirdly, she killed Madeleine herself – she’d know how, being a doctor. The poisonous posters were, of course, anonymous (these being, someone said last week, the insects of the internet world, scuttling around under stones).
None, I imagine, would have dreamt of saying any of these things to McCann face to face; just as one assumes the people speculating online about when Jade Goody’s going to do us all a favour and die would stand outside her house to let her know their views. I doubt they’d even be comfortable expressing them if doing so involved posting a real address and having it published for all to see. Equally, the people calling such and such a celebrity “fat” or “skanky” or “diseased” might be less likely to do so if their comment involved being photographed themselves, looking gorgeous in their gorgeous homes.
Anonymity online has its uses: people who helpfully leak material in the public interest that would otherwise be suppressed obviously can’t sign their entries. The better gossip sites would grind to a halt if the insiders they rely upon were named. But the people I’m talking about neither run websites nor act in the public interest. They just delight in the ease with which they can be unspeakably vile.
They do it because no one’s going to catch them doing it and also because there is a strange perception that if you are in any way in the public eye – if you’re good at acting, say, or can carry a tune – then you somehow deserve to be abused. You can “take it”. You’ve put yourself “out there” (by being good at your job), ergo you are fair game: you have no feelings or insecurities. If the commentators are properly stupid, they will tell themselves that being financially secure and having a nice life means some hapless celeb can “take it” even more. Do these people go and abuse their bosses because they live in bigger houses and drive flashier cars? Of course not; they’d wet their pants at the idea.
I know a lot of female newspaper columnists; none can bear to look at the readers’ comments below her articles online. It’s a shame, because it would be nice to enter into debate with the non-loony element, or to have one’s views broadened, or even to have a bit of human interaction. But life’s too short to have a beautiful day ruined by the demented rantings of complete strangers – and we’re cynical hacks, not teenage schoolgirls.
People should think twice before pressing the send button. They might also bear in mind that anonymous commenting’s days are numbered, according to my more techy friends: “Open identity is the future and it’s on its way.” This means no more adults calling children sluts and that’s okay by me.
+ I wrote sniffily about Twitter a few weeks ago, saying it was needy and megalomaniacal and plain weird for any sane person to spend the day posting random thoughts onto a public site. I’d like to eat my words. I was completely wrong: Twitter is amazing.
I’m relatively new to it, but it does three things brilliantly. One, it reminds you that people, complete strangers, are basically clever, funny and nice. This may seem a small thing but it’s an important and life-affirming one, especially with the amount of anonymous bile elsewhere online: Twitter puts you in a good mood.
Two, it’s an incredibly useful resource, which is why some people even use it as an alternative to Google; aside from the fact that Twitterers are everywhere and often break news as a result, you can ask a question – where to have dinner in Minsk, whether the baby’s rash is sinister, if an exhibition is worth seeing, or whatever else you like, from politics to engineering via making noodles and the finer points of construction – and know you’ll get succinct, informed replies.
Three, it makes you feel connected in a way that is hard to describe but that I’d miss terribly if Twitter died overnight. My hippieish streak finds it beautiful to have these little insights into other people’s lives. Two weeks ago I’d have called that interest prurience. But there’s a difference. So: total U-turn. Come and say hello. I’m @indiaknight.

Di said...

Hi All

Wizard

I am surprised Clarence did not apply for the spin Dr post, he has certainly got the experience needed for the job.

India's article is very disappointing regarding the McCanns, especially as we thought the media just might be getting a backbone at last.

I am concerned about open identity on the internet. Surely that will leave many people very vulnerable to identity fraud at the very least.

ICTOAN

Great to see you back, but very sorry things did not work out for you.

Take care.

viv said...

Hiya Wiz

I do agree with much of your comments regarding Haringey. But when a person is put in charge on £133,000 per year it is her job to change those systems and procedures that allow everything to go wrong. It is her job to make sure staff know what their role is and that she has regular meetings with managers to flag up the problems on specific cases. If she has managers that do not communicate with her and hopeless systems and procedures then that is her fault.

I know from my own ET case that I was blaming managers close to me at work for not making reasonable adjustments for disability but the ET placed the blame, in the end, where I thought they would. Right at the top with the two most senior managers taking the blame. They knew all about my case and did nothing to change the discrimination.

As far as employing young social workers fresh from university with no life experience. I entirely agree. I can recall, newly qualified and young probation officers demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of domestic violence and on many occasions actually siding with the violent man who was manipulating them also to his point of view.

I think the other major problem is the bureaucracy this government have been repsonsible for continuing to introduce. Social workers and probation officers have to spend a huge amount of time, sitting recording and analysing on a computer so they can prove they are doing their job properly. If they do not produce all those computerised records they are in trouble under a performance management system. They do not measure your performance by working with clients they measure it by the amount of stuff you write on a computer. So the really bad social workers are considered the really good ones!

There is no easy solution to all of this. The government have brought out community support officers to replace the police who are sitting doing mountains of paperwork, they have brought out probation service assistants to go to court and see offenders and so it goes on. Training and experience have to to up and sitting at a computer filling out endless forms has to go down!

viv said...

Hi Wiz, it is a good example of the Tory mentality isn't it? If these people say they are upset about the loss of the daughter, then of course they are. They are nice tory type of people, the sort we should be supporting! I do not need to read the so called evidence against them, they are just my sort of people and money is important of course they should get whatever is on offer. Mr Mosley too, even though I personally do not like the man with his dirty little habits!

I am afraid that yes, just like Shoesmith, these are the sort of people who wheedle their way into positions of great power, but have the morality of a sewer rat!


Wiz said:
Mosley should sue for libel and give the proceeds to the Madeleine Fund.

The ‘twat’ that said this is another example of an individual who wheedled their way into positions they are not fit to hold. This is a classic example of lack of research on the ‘twats’ part and a gross lack of common sense. These types of individuals are the same as the ones that help run the country – it’s quite frightening when you think about it.

viv said...

Hi Wiz

Unfortunately the secondment of Mr Skinner to spin for Haringey and Mr Balls just demonstrates the same things going on as happened in Madeleine's case.

It is not what happened to an innocent little child that really matters and getting to the truth of that. What matters is protecting the reputations of those who so miserably failed that little child. There is nothing to choose between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party as to the extent to which they utilise such devices for the political expediency of public opinion and keeping themselves in power.

When will they ever learn that we would admire a government who just honestly admitted mistakes were made, but they were going to try and change things. Mr Balls has just caused everyone to lose confidence in him!

viv said...

Wiz, the Indi article is dated February not current and she is just full of hot air!

xx

Di said...

Hi Viv

Your last paragraph, we would admire a government who admitted their mistakes. Well said, yes I would and I am sure most people would as well.

I am glad you pointed out the Indi article was February, that has given me a lift :o)

viv said...

Hiya Di,

It is the same principle in the Mc case isn't it? The public really turned against them because they have tried to blame everyone but themselves for what happened to Madeleine? Blame the predator who took her, blame the police, we are sick of hearing it, particularly when there is no evidence of any predator! Just evidence of Gerry hanging around and carting her off.

So far, I think it is true to say that we only have two major media outlets that have attempted to put the reverse spin on the Mcs. The Daily Mail pretty strongly and Jeremy Paxman. I think the BBC have always tried to balance the pro and the anti position against the Mcs. The Panorama show they wanted to put on was one in which only their version of events would be portrayed but the BBC insisted a more balanced version be produced. Paxman equally asked questions that showed Gerry in a bad light as well as a good one. Saying he colluded with the press when it suited him, what are you doing to look for her were very bad. But how has all this affected you was balancing the equation and letting him give us his spin.

When you think about it this is what the Daily Express and the Daily Mail were doing to avoid criticism. With almost clockwork timing one day there would be a pro Mc article and the next day an anti one. Much of what the Daily Express produced was almost a facsimile of what the Mail wrote the day before. It is just that they went a bit further than the Mail, who were clever in putting the true facts out about the Mcs, but avoiding a libel action at the same time! Facts, not conclusions and allegations, that is what will save a paper.

xx

Wizard said...

Hi Viv and Di,
I’m very pleased to hear that India Knight's article was old.

Honesty and politics don’t seem to go hand in hand. Would we really believe an honest politician or think they were just spinning us a line? It’s a new concept to get our heads round – an honest politician!LOL

viv said...

Di, Just found another media report that is not exactly Pro-Gerry on 3 As:

ProfMoriarty wrote:
There is a piece in today's Sunday Life in Belfast on McCann testimony, negative, but it's not online yet.


Here it is:

Irresponsible? That’s rich, Gerry

GAIL EDGAR

MADELEINE McCann’s father Gerry blasted the media coverage of his daughter’s disappearance when he attended a Parliamentary committee last week.

Mr McCann says his family “have been the focus of some of the most sensationalist, untruthful, irresponsible and damaging reporting in the history of the press”.

And he criticised the fact that the coverage focused on what he called the ‘Kate and Gerry show’ rather than the search for Madeleine.

But let’s look at the facts. Yes, the McCanns were defamed by some newspapers — and received huge payments for the Madeleine Fund in return. But it’s also true that they courted the media and by doing so succeeded in raising more awareness of their little girl than the parents of any other missing child in history.

While my heart goes out to them for the loss of little Madeleine — a loss that they will never get over — it astounds me that Gerry can talk about the irresponsibility of others without any hint of irony.

Of course the media focused on Kate and Gerry.

Madeleine had vanished — but her parents were speaking at press conferences, appealing for information about their little girl, meeting the Pope, and going jogging.

And for a time they were official arguidos. To ignore this part of the story would have been irresponsible. As for Madeleine becoming a commodity?

Newspapers highlight issues that are in the public interest, often exposing wrongdoing, often changing people’s lives for the better. They are a vital part of democracy.

But they don’t do it for free — they’re a business after all.

And anyone who doesn’t understand that is just being naive.

We’re all guilty of bad judgement at times. And Gerry of all people should understand that.

Wizard said...

With the Express articles I think they gambled and threw caution to the wind thinking the McCanns would be arrested. This did not happen and they paid the price.

The McCanns long honeymoon period with the press is over because of Motor Mouth’s ill advised lampooning of them last week.
More articles like the balanced Mail one last week will start to appear.

I do think there is a strong possibility the KM could be in crises, maybe I’m wrong but these are the vibes I’m picking up. Can’t really back that up but things seem off.

Viv, with Haringey Council I just hold my hands up in despair, a year or so ago they lost control of education in the borough and the government stepped in and out sourced it to a private firm because their performance was so poor. Housing and social services imo will go the same way. They are a Labour control council and although councillors get voted in under the Labour ticket, imo many are not new Labour or even old Labour they are the lunatic fringes of the far left.

viv said...

Hiya Wiz

Gerry told us way back in July 2007 or was it June! that what he was interested in focussing on was the "wider political agenda".

So, in the very early stages of losing his daughter, he was moving on to become part of using political expediency to manipulate the public and believe a lie. And he has never looked back over his shoulder, has he?

xx

viv said...

Hi Wiz, I think the Daily Express did buy into the concept that the Mcs, probably Kate, had killed Madeleine and the gone into elaborate cover up mode. You are probably right in thinking they assumed they would be arrested and so nothing would come back on them.

But it seems clear to me this whole concept of they killed Madeleine is just a myth, with no evidence base to back it up. The wiser papers just continued to report something far more sensible, the police believe they are involved in the disappearance of their daughter. There is quite clearly evidence to back that up and so they did not back themselves into a corner. When you look at the terribly damaging articles The Daily Mail wrote, I think it speaks volumes the Mcs did not choose to sue them. They did not because it was honest and balanced reporting of the truth. We know full well how money grabbing Gerry McCann is and how he likes his side of the story to dominate. Therefore if they had any legal cause of action whatsoever against other papers who did print the evidence like The Mail, The Times etc, you can bet he would have sued them. But Mr Tudor would have said, well no Gerry, we cannot back you on that one. Remember, his firm will only take on a case under a conditional fee agreement if they know damn fine they are going to win!

I think it is the same with Goncalo Amaral, much of what he writes is simply the truth from the investigation, and then, his own conclusions on where that evidence takes him and so there is no legal cause of action. This is not to say that I agree that a former police officer should have done this, or that his conclusions on the evidence are correct. But the Mcs clearly have a passionate hatred of Goncalo, if they could have sued him, they quite obviously would have done.

I have always thought that the press are not on the side of Kate and Gerry McCann at all as some people insist. They are on the side of what makes a good story to sell newspapers, whilst, at the same time, avoiding writing anything that would give the Mcs a legal cause of action against them.

I have also thought that the press can be pretty horrible to someone who tries to take them on and get on the wrong side of them. The classic example is what the Daily Express did to Lord Archer, costing him £1.5M and a four year jail term.

Gerry has that sort of personality where he thinks he is invincible and no matter what he tries to do, he will win. That is an unhealthy attitude to take, but I am concerned about the Select Committee and whether we are going to get an honest view from them!

xx

Wizard said...

Viv,
Amaral chose the wrong time to launch his political career and if McCann thinks he can project himself into the political arena he is going to be very disappointed. What political opponents love is finding fault and digging up dirt on their political adversaries. They would have a field day with Gerry unlike the press they do their work behind the scenes so Carter Ruck’s services could not be used to shut them up.

On second thoughts perhaps Gerry should go into politics.

viv said...

Wiz, if the loony left are in control in Haringey that says it all, Remember Hatton!

viv said...

Wiz

I do think Amaral was over optimistic in thinking he could be successful with his book whilst at the same time sailing into politics. I am sure he was prevented from doing that for political expediency!

xx

Wizard said...

Viv you say. “Gerry has that sort of personality where he thinks he is invincible and no matter what he tries to do, he will win.” I agree with that but I also think at times he is so deluded he thinks he is telling the truth.

Wizard said...

Yes I do remember Hatton - where is he now I wonder.

viv said...

Wiz, in relation to Gerry, I think we already have a form of justice.

When you see him rapturously smiling outside The Whitehouse and hear of his plans to make £10M from film and book deals there can be no doubt, all his sickening plans came to nought.

Neither the Labour or Conservative party would take this man on IMO. What of career advancement in the NHS? I think so far as fame and fortune are concerned he has well and truly cooked his own goose.

I also feel that there is probably something terribly wrong with Kate. She was a potential high wage earner. Thanks to Gerry he lost out on that one too!

xx

viv said...

Wiz, there are areas of what Gerry says that he clearly does have such distorted thinking he believes he is telling the truth.

Most particularly his oft repeated suggestion that Madeleine could be held captive with paedophiles but not have suffered any serious harm.

You know where that attitude takes me in relation to my thinking about what Gerry is capable of.

Paedophiles do not see any harm in their behaviour or even if they do they will minise and justify it to themselves and anyone who has to listen to them.

viv said...

After his explusion from Labour, Derek Hatton pursued a career in the media, hosting a Liverpool radio phone-in and appearing on various TV talk shows. He also became an after-dinner speaker and at one time even modelled menswear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/12/newsid_2511000/2511839.stm

You could almost write the script for Gerry McCann, that is if he does not find a cell awaiting his at some future stage! It is all downhill, now, Gerry x

Wizard said...

Many years ago at uni a friend had a placement year at the Richmond Institute and sat in a number of sessions with paedophiles and the therapy they were receiving. She couldn’t get her head around their attitude. They would agree that they were wrong in what they did because the law said so but morally and emotionally they thought nothing wrong with their behaviour because they truely loved children. To break through their beliefs is almost impossible – it’s the way they are. Very sad and dangerous but true.

viv said...

Hiya Wiz

One of the most basic things I learned about risk assessment with offenders is that until such time as they can develop victim empathy and truly understand that what they did was wrong, they will remain a very high risk to the public.

What you say about sex offenders is completely true of their attitude towards their offending and that is why it is so difficult to reduce the risks that they pose. So many come out of prison and just do the same thing again, they have no true insight into their behaviour at all.

They are conning and manipulative and know they need to avoid the law, but see no reason why they should avoid their sickening behaviour. They are particularly horrible offenders to have to listen tobut you can often hear the same sentiments expressed by serious domestic violence offenders, well the bitch asked for it etc. They just think they have a god given right to control others, and it is very difficult to change those ingrained beliefs.