16 March 2010

Trafigura & Carter Ruck Versus Freedom of Speech


The video below presents the censored by a super-injunction BBC Newsnight report 'Dirty Tricks and Toxic Waste in the Ivory Coast'. Trafigura and Carter-Ruck have mounted a desperate campaign to stop the media from reporting on the illegal dumping, which is said to have caused vomiting, choking and skin eruptions in some 100,000 people and killed at least 12 Ivorians.


The United Nations Special Rapporteur Prof. Okechukwu Ibeanu concluded in a report on 3 September 2009 that:

"On the basis of the above considerations and taking into account the immediate impact on public health and the proximity of some of the dumping sites to areas where affected populations reside, the Special Rapporteur considers that there seems to be strong prima facie evidence that the reported deaths and adverse health consequences are related to the dumping of the waste from the Probo Koala."

On behalf of Trafigura, Carter Ruck solicitors have used a 'super-injunction' to prevent the publication of a Trafigura report (the Minton report) into this and to prevent both the reporting of the injunction and the reporting of a parliamentary question. As well as the injunction against the Guardian, the firm issued a libel writ against BBC2’s Newsnight, which also reported on the dumping, and threatened journalists from Norway, the Netherlands, Estonia and The Times.

In December 2009 Trafigura and their lawyers Carter Ruck were able via a super injunction to remove the BBC Newsnight documentary (broadcast on 13 May 2009) from the BBC online page and to force apologies from the BBC: «The BBC withdraws the allegation that deaths, miscarriages or serious or long-term injuries were caused by the waste and apologises to Trafigura for having claimed otherwise»

Today Wikileaks published BBC’s 39-page defence against the Trafigura libel suit.

This document was submitted to the UK's High Court by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in September 2009, as a Defence against a libel claim brought against them by the oil company Trafigura. A May 2009 BBC Newsnight feature suggested that 16 deaths and many other injuries were caused by the dumping in the Ivory Coast of a large quantity of toxic waste originating with Trafigura. A September 2009 UN report into the matter stated that 108,000 people were driven to seek medical attention. This Defence, which has never been previously published online, outlines in detail the evidence which the BBC believed justified its coverage. In December 2009 the BBC settled out of court amid reports that fighting the case could have cost as much as 3 million pounds. The BBC removed its original Newsnight footage and associated articles from its on-line archives. The detailed claims contained in this document were never aired publicly, and never had a chance to be tested in court. Commenting on the BBC's climbdown, John Kampfner, CEO of Index on Censorship said: "Sadly, the BBC has once again buckled in the face of authority or wealthy corporate interests. It has cut a secret deal. This is a black day for British journalism and once more strengthens our resolve to reform our unjust libel laws." Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN, said: "Forced to choose between a responsible broadcaster and an oil company which shipped hundreds of tons of toxic waste to a developing country, English libel law has once again allowed the wrong side to claim victory. The law is an ass and needs urgent reform." Now that this document is in the public domain, the global public will be able to make their own judgement about the strength of the BBC's case. in Wikileaks


Trafigura meanwhile has paid out $200 million to the government of the Ivory Coast, and in London settled for £30 million a joint action made by the 31,000 Ivorians who claimed Trafigura was responsible for their illnesses.

Timeline

August 2006, Trafigura dumps toxic waste in and around Abidjan, Ivory Coast. According to a UN report, over 100,000 Ivorians seek medical help for breathing problems, vomiting and skin eruptions, 15 die. Trafigura maintain that the material discharged was harmless.

7 September, Trafigura commissions its scientists to investigate the possible effects of the dumping, this is known as the Minton report.

14 September, the Minton Report is sent to Trafigura. According to The Times the report said that Trafigura's oil waste was potentially highly toxic and "capable of causing severe human health effects", including death.

13 February 2007, Trafigura pay the government of Ivory Coast an out-of-court settlement of $200 million, but accept no liability.

March 2008, the Ivorian Court of Appeal say there is insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges against the company.

3 September 2009, UN special rapporteur for toxic waste Prof. Okechukwu Ibeanu finishes his report on the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast.

11 September 2009, Carter Ruck solicitors obtain a 'super-injunction' in the High Court on behalf of their client Trafigura to prevent The Guardian from publishing the Minton report.

16 September, The Guardian and BBC publish internal emails between Trafigura employees, "This is as cheap as anyone can imagine and should make serious dollars … Each cargo should make 7m!!"

Mid-September, Trafigura issue libel threats against The Guardian and BBC via Carter Ruck.

23 September, Trafigura agree to compensate 31,000 claimants around £1,000 each. The payout offer amounts to a total of around £30m. The original claim was for £100m, which would have given the claimants around £3,000 each.

Trafigura refuse to accept liability as part of the settlement. The waste, the company said: "could at worst have caused a range of short-term, low-level flu-like symptoms and anxiety".

1pm, 12 October, The Guardian contact Carter Ruck solicitors with a copy of Paul Farrelly MP's parliamentary question, telling them they intended to publish the question.

Mr Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

Carter Ruck responded the same day. Alan Rusbridger's recollection of events as follows is thus:

"their letter unequivocally asserted that the Guardian would be in contempt of Court and sought an immediate undertaking that we would not publish.

The letter also stated that Carter-Ruck did not even accept that the publication by Parliament of Mr Farrelly's question placed the existence of the injunction in the public domain!

We took leading counsel's advice on this letter. She advised us not to publish, but to return to court to seek a variation in the order."

13 October, The Guardian bring a formal challenge to the 'super-injunction' before Mr Justice Sir Michael Tugendhat; Index on Censorship also write to the Judge, but because it is a 'super-injunction' do not know the content of the injunction, the party who served it, or its function.

7.30pm, 16 October, Carter Ruck write to The Guardian advising that it is "released forthwith" from any reporting restrictions relating to the 'super-injunction' placed on the Minton report. The Guardian publishes the Minton report.

18 October, the Speaker of the House of Commons confirms the adjournment debate will proceed.

19 October, a meeting between Carter Ruck and parliamentarians.

sources : Libel reform campaign, Index on Censorship, English Pen and Richard Wilson's blog Don’t Get Fooled Again

Related:

BBC: Trafigura Statement

How the Trafigura story unfolded - in the Guardian

A year of gagging - on Index on Censorship


Richard Wilson: Calling all bloggers – Help beat the gag on the BBC

Ian Dale: BBC Caves in to Carter Ruck Threats Over Trafigura Film

Wikileaks: BBC Newsnight's "Dirty tricks and toxic waste in Ivory Coast", 15min video, 13 May 2009

Wikileaks: BBC deletes important story on toxic waste dumping in the Ivory Coast after legal threats, 12 Dec 2009

Wikileaks: Updated secret gag on UK Times preventing publication of Minton report into toxic waste dumping, 16 Oct 2009

Wikileaks: Minton report secret injunction gagging The Guardian on Trafigura, 11 Sep 2009

Wikileaks: Minton report - Trafigura toxic dumping along the Ivory Coast broke EU regulations, 14 Sep 2006  - not working updated link to the Minton Report PDF

BBC Censored Newsnight page - archived in PDF


86 comments:

  1. Lawyers who take on immoral causes, like that of the McCanns, should face consequences.

    If they knew they ran that risk, they would think twice before taking on clearly immoral causes.

    The judiciary, not the lawyers, should interpret and apply the law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. At the moment, the internet is wonderful!

    It will ultimately be silenced, we must make the best of it - and think of an alternative - maybe something like the old dial in bulleting boards?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Disgraceful.

    They would not be able to get these injunctions unless the judiciary were willing to grant them.

    Something has to be done about this. It has been going on for too long. Years ago Robert Maxwell was able to get injunctions and threaten to sue anybody who tried to tell the truth about that evil man.

    It was the 'little people' who paid. In that case the employees who worked at the Mirror who lost their pension money they had been paying in for years.

    Do these 'Honourable' Justices give a damn?

    Presumably not, as they are still more than willing to slap on the injunctions, and now the super injunctions.

    When is this going to end to allow truth to be revealed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The irony of it is Robert Maxwell managed to get himself buried on the Mount of Olives, a sacred place like that.

    What a joke kind of thing is that!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kevin Halligen's association with both the McCanns and the Trafigura cover-up MUST be investigated.

    In both cases the man has been used by the British government, in my opinion.

    Why haven't the McCanns sued him? It is obvious why they are covering up the Trafigura atrocity, but what is being covered up in Portugal?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon 5

    Yes, Halligen is associated with both.

    What kind of a small world are we living in?

    I hope Halligen will talk and spill the beans about what he has been up to.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Post 5- We need to keep an eye on Halligen's extradition hearing- on March 26th,I believe. Alan Johnson will have his hands full with this AND he McCann case review/scoping exercise/ sexing- up the dodgy dossier. If he actually re-opens the case, I will vote Labour again, but I won't hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The UK is the place to go to get your injunction, that is fact. The right price and a sympathetic Judge and heh presto. If the likes of the BBC can be silenced then the truth is nothing. Its one thing getting an injunction against lies and defamation but when the bare truth that affects the lives of thousands then it is criminal IMO. It will only get worse I fear. Maxwell lived his whole life threatening people and using the Law via writs and injunctions. Lawyers love money and winning, democracy is nothing to them.

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Mirror - does that rag pay pensions?

    What about all of our pensions - contracts which are being torn up and re-written and there is nothing we can do about it.

    To think that out forbears fought and gave their lives supposedly for freedom. What a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A little off subject but important nevertheless, since this is being reported in the foreign, but NOT UK, press: the paedophile issue, getting child victims to 'swear secrecy' in cover up of catholic priests' abuses of children: years of crime are finally becoming increasingly exposed.

    http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3024%3Airish-cardinal-who-protected-paedophile-priest-says-will-only-quit-if-pope-asks&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=64&lang=en

    http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3025%3Achurch-suspends-paedophile-priest-whom-pope-benedict-helped&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=64&lang=en

    ReplyDelete
  11. The BBC lie too, so lets not fool ourselves into thinking that the BBC being silenced is a great tragedy for freedom of expression/speech.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If the UK is the place to go to get an injunction then Portugal has to be a close second.

    That injunction on Sr Amaral's book is a disgrace. The judges being willing to silence free speech on the strength of the McCanns' bleats.

    Those judges should also do some reading. Sr Amaral was only repeating what is already in the public domain in the Files that can already be read by the public.

    Is she willing to ban the Files as well if the McCanns do a bleat on that?

    Have they got a doctor's note when they go see these judges in private? Is it that which swings it for them in their favour. Kate can't eat, sleep, etc. because of the book?

    ReplyDelete
  13. What would stop this banal uncivilised protection of criminal interests in the UK, for that is what it really is, would be the introdution of a clear 'public interest' defence in libel law, and an independent jury decision. As in criminal law there must be checks and balances in civil law that protect legitimate public interest issues and a jury to see fair play. Justice must be seen to be done. Super injunctions need to be outlawed. The UK is still in the Dark Ages in this field of law.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Poster number 2 is sadly correct.
    The internet will eventually be government controlled and censored.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Carter-Ruck lawyers and any others involved in trying to silence people who are exposing the dumping of toxic waste. Should be taken to the worst areas, and made to clear it up themselves. BY HAND!



    An Englishman

    ReplyDelete
  16. Where is Straw who promised to fight for freedom of speech in the UK?

    ReplyDelete
  17. 11 You do not think it is a great tragedy that we the licence payers for the BBC get to line the pockets of Carter Ruck and Trafigura for the BBC's "crime" of putting a programme on that was trying to tell us the truth? That the media in the UK are controlled by the likes of Carter Ruck and their foul clients?

    Well I do!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Speaking about Halligen, I hope the media will ask him what happened to people's money that was gaven to the Fund, in order to find Madeleine.
    The media were the ones which did the most to motivate people to give.
    Without the media, the McCanns would not have become rich.
    And Madeleine would have been found by now.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The fact that Trafigura paid out Two hundred million dollars to Ivory Coast surely proves their guilt, so why did the BBC back down?

    With the likes of Carter Ruck being allowed to hold to ransom anyone daring to question their rich clients, it is no wonder people don't trust the legal profession. How do they sleep at night not giving a damn about the outcome of this tragic event.

    The BBC should not have backed down but should have shown a bit of backbone and gone ahead with their broadcast. They were always the bastion of British broadcasting but I'm afraid are now a laughing stock.

    ReplyDelete
  20. http://www.libelreform.org/sign

    Everyone ought to think about signing this petition. It is about time carter ruck was carter rucked!

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The irony of it is Robert Maxwell managed to get himself buried on the Mount of Olives, a sacred place like that."

    I went up there a couple of years later to look for his grave.
    I coudn't find it.
    Apparently it is in his wife's name !!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. a full page article in todays express about our libel laws which bring the British justice system into disrepute throughout the world urges us to sign on www.libelreform.org/sign

    ReplyDelete
  23. BBC reporting is full of innaccuracies - they didnt, for example, correct the reporting of the PJ as releasing the 'irrelevant sightings' file (which, incidentally, provide to be full of irrelevant sightings!).

    Incidentally, I hope that the Portuguese judiciary take note that the McCann's lawyer who won the extended injunction has been proven wrong about the content of the file - she claimed it was full of real sightings that ought to have been followed up. She therefore won on false pretences. Also Kate McCann told the world how she used her 'faith' in - errr..... God or Catholicism or something (she didnt make it entirely clear!) to gain the strength she needed and also how happy she was now (she didnt have to listen to dreary old music anymore) so this again proves the lie of the 'libel' case - the injunction should be quashed!

    ReplyDelete
  24. the french writer of a recent book must have been refering to our justice system and media when he wrote in his book that the british preach fair play to the world while not at the same time playing fair themselves

    ReplyDelete
  25. pr@missingpeople.org.uk

    http://www.missingpeople.org.uk/news-and-events/press/detail.asp?dsid=2413

    Tell them why they should think twice before linking themselves with the McCann's.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Here we have an interesting article which could explain why the Tapas gang refused to do a reconstruction of the fateful night, and why Mccann wanta to see all the PJ files, but I'd like to know the source. Worth a read.

    http://thentherewere4-mccannunravelled.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  27. Annon 20

    I have just signed the petition at

    www.libelreform.org/sign

    According to the site so far 42786 have signed. I have sent the link to everyone i know and, like you ,would ask everyone on who reads this forum to also sign. It is VITAL that the libel laws in this country are reformed. There is far TOO much unnecessary gagging in this country....none of it in the national interest, you only have to look at the Mccann case...it has got to stop

    ReplyDelete
  28. Speaking of freedom of speech, the Daily Mail edited my remarks re comments about the child from Pakistan. A reader had suggested the McC's hadn't received any support from the government or probably money. I wrote that they did and that perhaps if the mother had answered questions and they had returned to do a reconstruction, the child might have been found. The part about reconstruction and answering questions was cut when comments printed. It completely changes what I wrote although they didn't change any words. Grrrrgh! I've had it with the British media.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It was a BBC reporter who lied about Amaral swearing at the McCanns in January lest we forget. I wonder if the PCC have resolved that dispute. Anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Further to my last post, I think Ofcom would be the body dealing with the BBC's lies about Amaral.

    ReplyDelete
  31. His real name wasn't Robert Maxwell, he changed it to that to make him sound like he was from UK. I used to think he was Scottish!

    It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't even Jewish. He was a con artist. He fell off his boat after a heart attack and when the game was up. Handy, because then he didn't have to stand trial.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This morning´s Correio de Manha on-line edition said that Goncalo Amaral would face questioning today regarding the McCanns´ accusation that he infringed secrecy laws. The report has now disappeared. Does anyone have any news?

    ReplyDelete
  33. @14.

    I've been thinking that for some time. Infact, I've thought since May 3rd 2007, that the UK Government have used the McCann 'Abduction' farce as a launch-point towards silencing The Internet. For the first time in the history of mankind us 'little' people have a tool - The Internet - whereby we can discuss our disbelief of certain subjects rationally amongst ourselves.

    People talk about the McC's having 'help' from MI5/ MI6 and the like - but I don't buy any of that. More like the McC's spun a fanciful tale on the Government and the Government knew that they could use the case to silence the media - and hopefully The Internet. The press have already been silenced on this case and KEEP pushing the 'Abduction' agenda with ZERO evidence.

    That's right: ZERO. The only 'evidence' is JT's sighting - and JT is extremely unreliable for anything and clearly has 'issues' regarding the truth - and what KM 'saw and knows'. THAT'S THE WHOLE BASIS FOR 'ABDUCTION'. Any 1st-year Lawyer, fresh out of University and wet-behind-the ears would destroy such nonesense on the stand.

    20 or even 15 years ago, the McCanns would have got away with spreading the 'urban myth' that MBM is alive and well - and who would have known better? With the release of the PJ Files over The Internet, even a simpleton like me, can sit in my living room and realise that the 'abduction' story is a nonesense. So what DID happen then?

    I think Joana has hit the nail on the head here - as has poster 14. I've thought it the past 3 years. The sad death of MBM is being used by those in power who FEAR the 'little' people finding out the truth - about anything and want to supress OUR freedom.

    May the truth one day be known.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jo, is it true the conviction against Goncalo in relation to Cipriano has been quashed by the judge?

    If so that is just fantastic news!!

    xxxx

    ReplyDelete
  35. 22, thank you for warning us.
    I just signed it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I've read on these forums that Gerry is reputed to have said...

    "We're f***ed"

    I think after leaving the Police station. If true I find that quite significant. Can this be verified or is it just another wild internet rumour?

    ReplyDelete
  37. @ post #36, IIRC that comment was published in a British broadsheet paper as reported by a "friend" apparently quoting Gerry.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anon 36

    It was supposedly 'WE'RE FOOKED' that Gerry said to someone after being questioned.

    It sounds like that may be true because the McCanns certainly don't want that case reopened.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Apologies to all but Slightly OT

    Annon 28

    Furthur to your comments about the daily mails editing of your remarks
    I too have had my comments edited a few times and IMO it was not necessary, an example for you.... the case that came to court a few weeks ago when that police dog handler in Nottingham let his two dogs die in the back of his car on the hottest day of the year 2009. well in my remarks on the daily mail site i called the man an idiot.....nothing more harmful than that, yet the mail still cut that from my comments. I can assure you that what i really wanted to call this man is completely unprintable so i kept it polite and merely called him an idiot..............!!!
    You can all of course see that if the word idiot offends their delicate sensiitivities, what hope for any real debate/opinion/honesty/truth.............none i fear

    ReplyDelete
  40. 36 I saw that comment we're fuc%ed on a comedy sketch produced by someone like himself or the American bloggers. Not everything should be taken too seriously, but the smirk on the solicitor's face was excellent and the look on Gerry's face certainly fitted the comment!

    I keep hearing about the NPIA or ACPO giving Gerry a standing ovation but have never actually seen that, could someone provide me with a link, please? Ta ! I wonder if CEOP gave him one too :-))) I was expecting Clarence to lucidly explain to us how impressed all those distinguished experts were with such an insightful and genuinely sad and distraught lecture from Maddie's obviously loving and caring daddy. I expect he pointed out to them it could have been worse those Portuguese Paedos could have taken all three of them and that really would have been just too awful, as it is only Maddie I can take comfort from thinking about her in the situation she finds herself in. Those distinguished guests would understand just how he feels, I am sure.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anon 26

    Let's hope there is some truth in that because Clarence Mitchell says the opposite and that they are all united in their statements.

    But then, as the PJ says about him 'he lies through every tooth in his head' so why should we believe Clarence.

    It sounds like they are afraid, and with all that changing of stories, how can the PJ believe any of them, except Diane Webster who has only told the one story.

    As for Gerry not checking on the kids, there are two statements from people who worked at the Tapas and they say that he was gone for about half an hour, returning around 10pm when Kate left and then everybody else immediately left, except Diane.

    Half an hour means that he must have left about 9.30pm Is that the real time that he was talking to Wilkins?

    That half an hour from 9.30pm to 10pm would also coincide with the sighting of the Gerry lookalike by the Smith party at about 9.45pm.

    The two witnesses also say there was another man who came back and had his food reheated. Diane Webster mentions about O'Brien returning and them recooking a steak for him because she was talking to him when he returned. So he had been gone for a while by the sound of it.

    Seens like there is a good chance that Jane may change her story of what she actually saw, if anything. If there was no sighting of a bundleman at the same time she allegedly saw Gerry talking to Wilkins, then that means Mr Smith is in the picture with his sighting.

    No wonder the McCanns are seeming a tad bit worried, and have Clarence issuing a statement saying no way did Jane libel Murat.

    If this goes to court who knows what may come out.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Annon 36


    Here is the article. The Times no less!

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2414796.ece

    Second Paragraph:


    Beneath his unflinching exterior, Gerry was in a state of turmoil and fury. “We are being absolutely stitched up by the Portuguese police,” he had told a friend after his wife Kate had earlier been named a suspect after hours of interrogation. “We are completely f*****, we should have seen this coming weeks ago and gone back to Britain.”

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous 11 said... 'The BBC lie too, so lets not fool ourselves into thinking that the BBC being silenced is a great tragedy for freedom of expression/speech'.

    This is true. The BBC are not paragons of virtue or guardians of the morale high ground. They can be as ruthless with the truth as a butcher at Easter, should the fancy take them.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I sent an email to Express asking them to take profit of next elections by pressuring the British government to give freedom of expression to the media and to everybody.
    The media are the most powerful weapon a country has gotten.

    ReplyDelete
  45. A very sad case happened in Holland last week.
    A 12 years old girl disappeared at 5.30 pm last Wednesday and she was found dead yesterday, buried in the garden of a neighbour, two houses further than her home.
    The killer is a policeman, 26 years old.
    The Dutch police could work freely, without any obstructions.
    Within one week the case was solved.
    Her parents don't come from England and the Dutch Prime Minister's name is Balkenende.
    And it really makes a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anon 45

    There also is another difference, namely the person that committed a crime. The policeman in Holland gave himself up to the police. I have no words for his gruesome deed, but at least he has a conscience.

    Dutchman

    ReplyDelete
  47. If the bundleman sighting by Jane Tanner is discarded and the Smith sighting comes to the fore, then the question to be asked is were any of the Tapas friends missing from the table at around the time of 9.45pm that night.

    According to two independent witnesses who worked at the Tapas there was only one man missing at that time. That was Gerry McCann.

    According to Gerry McCann the check he did was much earlier than that at around 9.05pm, and he does not mention leaving again later to do another check.

    According to other witnesses Jane Tanner never left the table.

    The case of Murat V Tanner and questioning of Jane Tanner may lead to the truth and a reopening of the case.

    Let us hope this libel case against the Tapas people is allowed to proceed by the judges.

    ReplyDelete
  48. To #32 and #34, if you search under - Gonçalo Amaral - in the Correio da Manhã search box(pesquisa), on the top of the newspaper's front page ( right-hand side), you'll be able to access the articles on those subjects. I just did it and this is what I got:

    "Gonçalo Amaral: Não vai a julgamento"(18/03)
    "O tribunal de Faro decidiu não pronunciar o ex-coordenador da PJ Gonçalo Amaral no processo movido por Leandro Silva (padrasto de Joana), que se queixava de tortura."
    (rough translation: - G.A: will not stand trial. The Faro court has decided not to indict the ex-PJ coordinator in the process filed by L.Silva, Joana C.'s stepfather who complained about torture)


    "Gonçalo Amaral: Responde a queixa"(17/03)
    "O ex-coordenador da PJ Gonçalo Amaral é hoje interrogado na Directoria de Faro, numa acção disciplinar por violação do segredo de justiça. A queixa, em Janeiro, foi dos McCann."
    (rough translation - G.A. answers to complaint - the ex-PJ coordinator G.A: is to be questioned today in the Faro directory(of the PJ) in a disciplinary action on the breach of the secrecy of justice. The complaint, from January, came from the McCanns)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Sorry, this is off the subject, but
    Watch Sky News, on now
    Father of Claudia Lawrence, (British woman, missing for 1 year.)
    Watch his "blink rate" . - Very slow.
    Watch his facial expressions - trying to hold back tears, trying to keep on top
    Watch the film of him holding posters - sad, down, trying to hold on to hope.
    No smiling, no laughing, no flowers, no balloons, no multi million pound fund to pay his mortgage, no suiing of everyone in sight.
    This is a man who has lost a daughter. And who in intelligent enough to realise the ghastly truth that he will probably never see here again.

    On the other hand, there is apparently another way of dealing with a daughter who has disappeared. .......

    ReplyDelete
  50. Posts 45 and 46

    If that was the UK it would be kept from the public or not disclosed fully as "not in the public interest". The UK authorities like to keep the British public under control and criminal acts by Police, Doctors, and other professionals are kept low key, so that the confidence of the gullible public in professionals is maintained. The mass murderer Harold Shipman was only detected because he tried to do a solicitor out of her inheritance and the General Medical council knew he was into drugs since the early seventies and should have been struck off for good even then. Cover ups and injunctions which pass as democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  51. http://www.anorak.co.uk/242791/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-shannon-matthews-cops-join-the-new-hunt.html

    I've run out of things to say about this case as it is so breathtakingly wrong in all its aspects!

    ReplyDelete
  52. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/126788

    CEOP involved? Oh dear, is this the beginning of the whitewash? - evidence cleanse?

    The McCann's are 'delighted' - oh dear! Not only cuddlecat going in the washing machine then!

    ReplyDelete
  53. 47 Any investigator worth his or her salt will soon realise that Gerry McCann, in saying he didnt see either abductor or Tanner, is trying to explain why Wilkins didnt see Tanner of abductor.

    Tanner has placed him in the same 'scene' as abductor so that they cannot have been the same person - in short, an alibi for Gerry.

    Lets hope the latest news regarding CEOP and the guys who investigated Shannon Mathews is not just the beginning of a whitewash by CEOP (having invited Gerry along to speak about his expereince as a father who has lost a child, they do not seem to be unbiased!).

    The McCann's are saoid to be 'delighted' - which I guess they would ahve to ssay anyway. As it was they who are purported to have kicked off the action (we are told they have anyway!) then it has all the hallmarks of a whitewash attempt.

    Luckily the people on blogs such as these are not easily duped, so I doubt a whitewash will be truly successful, and they already have the UK public domain under control, so they can only lose ground - not gain it.

    Interesting times ahead!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Thank you to all those who answered my "We're f****d" quiery and poster 42 you nailed it completely!

    It's not as significant as I thought it might be as its said in the context of:

    We're f****d they are framing us.
    rather than
    We're f****d they are on to us.

    Having said that the McCanns do have a history of saying one thing and doing or meaning another...

    "We are co-operating with Police" (whilst refusing to answer Police questions)

    "We are happy to come back to Portugal at the request of the Police" (then hiring an extradition lawyer)

    "We could explain how we know for sure that Madeleine was abducted but we can't because of our arguido status! (and when released from arguido have nothing new to add that they hadn't already said on the subject and make it clear that they refuse to entertain any discussion that may relate to their guilt)

    And more recently: giving the impression that they want the case to be reopened grabbing some positive headlines but in reality making it very difficult to decipher just what it is that they actually want with the "review" they are requesting (or if indeed they want anything substantial at all).

    And using the "sightings" that they claim have not been investigated as a club to beat the Portuguese Police with yet when put on the spot struggle to recall a couple of "sightings" that they themselves have been able to take seriously.

    There are many more examples.

    For me, if someone tells me they think it is going to be a sunny day but then go and buy themselves an umbrella - the umbrella means more to me than their words.

    But the "we're f****d" comment has to be labeled as an irrelevant quote used out of context like so much other stuff related to this case, despite the fact that Kate and Gerry predict sunshine for the rest of us whilst having an umbrella tucked under their armpits.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I'm #48, and I have no idea how and why that little pink "thing" got into my post, just before the word "pesquisa"!It should be C: Manhã search box(pesquisa).
    I have often tried to include one or another of those in my posts but have never figured out how to do it(I'm a bit of a computer illeterate, lol)and now, out of the blue, one appears in my post! I'm baffled!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Slightly OT

    For those interested in the Hollie Greig case, there is an interesting read in todays Scottish Press and Journal with the heading
    'Sheriff gets court order to silence abuse claim'
    Why haven't the other British papers featured this story??
    Suggest you read it before it gets pulled

    ReplyDelete
  57. So Yorkshire Police, with all their experience of a FAKED ABDUCTION (Shannon Matthews) are now going to look into the case of Madeleine McCann. Fascinating. I wonder if the McCanns are really as "delighted" as they are said to be.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anon 56

    What's betting that if he had been Joe Nobody he would not have got it!

    What has been happening in that case is disgraceful. One law for them and one for the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It all fits into place now. McCann cozy with the CEOP and invited to speak. Its all done and dusted already if its true the Yorkshire Police are to get involved. They will only review I guess what is put in front of them ie not the real facts, and give the McCanns a clean bill of health UK style and where were those nasty in the real world PJ cops going accusing the nice respectable McCanns?

    Where have the UK cops been in the last 3 years and doing what? I suspect its a way of getting what else is in the PJ files, as no doubt the Yorks Police will request info from the PJ. We all know it will go no further no matter what the Police see or find. Just hand it all over to McCann and Carter Ruck. Hurry G McCann needs to know.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Thanks for that info anon 27 I hope all my people are adding to that number.
    Anon 25 I have just sent them an email explaining why I will not be supporting them and telling them I thought it was an insult to the other runners to have the mcscams there and treated like minor celebs - I await a reply!!!

    ReplyDelete
  61. I know it is the Daily Star ....
    BUT..
    "Detectives worked out her disappearance was a plot to claim reward money dreamed up by her mum Karen, 34, and stepdad’s uncle Michael Donovan, 40, who were jailed for eight years"
    The McCanns are delighted ?
    Not sure whether they could use the words, "Very, Very Afraid" in public.
    Look out for more bruises on Kate's upper arm

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anon #59

    Let's say, "hypothetically" if they had disposed of the body in such a way that it could never be found, they would of course welcome any new line of inquiry knowing full well that it would go nowhere.
    Remember the "find the body and prove we did it".

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anon 56

    'The Press and Journal' where it has been made known the 'Sheriff gets court order to silence abuse claim'


    Tried without success to post this
    Q- Is an interdict in Scotland, the equivalent to a super-injunction in England?


    An Englishman

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dont forget, linking the 'review' with the Shannon case may be a clever ploy. It carries a risk in that the general public will make the connection - faked abduction/Madeleine McCann. However, when these supposed experts (they have one highly visible case associated with them - anyone heard of them before?) have 'reviewed' the case and announce the McCann's and their friends 'innnocent' the public will say 'well, there it is, if these police think the McCann's are innocent, they must be'

    I hope this is not the plan, time will tell. The one good thing is that the people here will not be so easily fooled - and I hope people will spread and remember what I have said!

    Unless there is a real investigation and real answers to the many questions the case raises, I for one will not be persuaded by any 'silly games' played by Alan Johnson and his fellow 'allowance claimers'!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anon 42 Thanks for that information.

    So does this mean that no matter what evidence the investigators provide to prove the McCanns guilty, they will be screaming to the last they have been stitched up.

    No doubt there will still be some ready to believe them.

    Maybe even the Prime Minister himself would, if they could get to talk with him.

    They are obviously effective bleaters, that's why Sr Amaral still has the injunction on his book which flies in the face of freedom of speech.

    All done behind closed doors of course, so nobody to contradict them because nobody knows what they say exactly to get what they want.

    ReplyDelete
  66. 59 Yes I think you have it right. As I said above, very clever manipulation and proves Government complicity.

    We need to watch this very closely - I can assure the McCann's and Government that they will not whitewash this - far too many clever people watching (just read the comments on this and other blogs over the months and years!).

    Madeleine McCann - only the truth will do!

    ReplyDelete
  67. #56 and #63, and, if you google for Angiolini + Hollie Greig you get some very interesting but worrying details...people getting threatening letters from a scottish law firm, in the best Carter-Ruck style, on behalf of the said Angiolini woman!

    ReplyDelete
  68. I hope that these 'experts' that were lucky enough to stumble on Shannon are not going to be used to whitewash the McCann's.

    I don't think there is now any doubt of the McCann's mendacity, or they would have clarified their stories (for example the woman Healy would have explained how she knew for certian that Madeleine had not wandered off, but couldnt tell us because of 'judicial secrecy' which ended years ago now!

    I imagine the Home Secretary (fresh from screwing up the Health Service) will have put in place a whitewash mecahnism second only to that which Himmler may have employed!

    ReplyDelete
  69. 65 People already ask exactly who the disgusting pair are and that outcome is only likely to add fuel to the fire. Just how do they think they are going to force the PJ to hand over the files without due process? The negative publicly isnt something the Clan McCanns would want if they had half a brain between them.It can hardly be a review or investigation thats secret whats the point- that wouldnt clear their names the only reason for a secret enquiry or investigation would be any use is if its investigating them.

    I have every faith in the PJ not to give up on Madeleine dont think they are going to hand their investigation over without a fight.
    Think its twerp and his overactive imagination again thinking if he gets his wishes printed they'll become reality. Come on Gerry pull the noose tighter Ive every faith in you catching yourselves!

    ReplyDelete
  70. Don't forget everyone you can still sign the petition to get the libel laws changed in the UK (amount of signatures so far 43044)
    by clicking into the following link

    www.libelreform.org/sign

    Let us all put a stop to this nonsence

    ReplyDelete
  71. Will the South Yorkshire police also be requiring us to totally ignore the findings of Eddie and Keela (their very own dogs) just like the McCanns want us to do?

    Are they agreeing with the McCanns that their dogs are 'ludicrous', or are they only 'ludicrous' when they say that Madeleine is dead?

    Are Eddie and Keela only reliable in cases other than the McCanns?

    Will the powers that be require us to say night is day if the McCanns so wish it?

    We shall see!

    ReplyDelete
  72. 46, Dutchman,

    At the moment I heard about the disappearence ot that Dutch girl, her mother came home and could not find her, I suspected her parents, because of the McCanns.I got the same feeling about the boy, abducted in Pakistan, who came back to England today, with his father.
    I thought his father had killed him.
    I felt the same when Mari Luz disappeared in Spain.
    It will take me a very long time to start believing parents of missing children.
    Fortunately I'm not working for any police.
    I would not believe any parent.

    ReplyDelete
  73. 66 The truth, we know, is terrible, but you are right, we will not tolerate any cover up!

    ReplyDelete
  74. 41 Good post.

    My understanding is from reading Diane Webster, firstly she is saying that Jane did not leave the table until she went to relieve Russell, so that must have been around 9.45/50, as you say that would coincide with the Smith sighting. But crucially so far as Murat is concerned it confirms that Jane is telling lies to alibi Gerry/Russell.

    I am not certain I have this right but it seems that Jane is giving the wrong direction for the way the abductor must have been walking, towards Murat's house, but if we believe the Smith sighting, he would have gone in the opposite direction to head towards the beach. I also understand and again I am not certain I have this right, but it would seem the police officer is questioning Diane very carefully about the routes that would be taken. I gather he is establishing that in order to access the front of her apartment to go and check on her children she would not have walked straight up the street as she is indicating, she would have turned off down the walkway because that was quicker.


    I bet Janey is quaking in her boots, but feel sure UK will be putting the blockers on the Murat case so they can proceed with the criminal case and that is what is now happening. I do think things are very different now with our change of Home Secretary, I mean Jacqui Smith I would not trust her further than I could thrown her. She even claimed expenses for her husband to watch dirty movies, I mean erm did she need to keep him safely occupied. Probably said enough! But look Jacqui without fear of libel I can say you are a dishonest liar and lost your job!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Poster 26 gave a really interesting link.

    I've just read it and, if true, things could fit into place re the Smith sighting and Tanner's egg man red herring.

    Aunty anti

    ReplyDelete
  76. http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.1921961/brittisk-specialpolis-tar-upp-fallet-med-forsvunna-maddie

    By Sofia Johansson
    Thursday, March 18th, 2010

    LONDON. Maddie McCann's disappearance is being investigated again.

    Now experienced police kidnapping investigators are to take up the case again.

    It is the police team that managed to find the kidnapped girl, Shannon Matthews, 9, after she disappeared in February 2008, which will now go through the investigation of Maddie McCann's disappearance again.

    Police files will be examined

    The team from the police in West Yorkshire, HMET, is to review the Portuguese police files.

    The decision has been taken after Maddie's parents had a meeting with the British Home Secretary Alan Johnson in which they asked him to take up the case again.

    - "It's hoped we can clear the decks and start over again," says a source, according to the Daily Star.

    Madeleine McCann disappeared from the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in Portugal in May 2007.


    They are doing absolutely everything they possibly can to avoid to ask the Portuguese authorities to re open the case themselves....An other spin....there will be more

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anon 76

    Yes, of course they would like to clear the decks and start again.

    With them no longer as suspects of course, and the dogs completely forgotten.

    Has this kind of thing ever happened before in history, where people who are top of the list as suspects themselves have hijacked a police investigation and dictated to the police what they want done.

    It literally beggars belief, and unless Portugal can find some way of reopening this case it looks like the McCanns are going to forge ahead with their agenda, and along with it the destruction of free speech in both the UK and Portugal.

    ReplyDelete
  78. it doesnt matter from which county a police force is chosen to reopen an enquiry ...are there not freemasons in senior positions in all our police forces throughout the land

    ReplyDelete
  79. Does anyone know, will the British police be able to 'force' the PJ to hand over the evidence they hold for this 'review'? Is it being done without the PJ involved? If that is the case, what is the point? I think CEOP's involvement is very suspect, given that the father / former suspect is very close to Jim Gamble, head of CEOP. I just see this as useless spin, but I hope the PJ hold onto their evidence until such time they are allowed to re-open the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Will there soon be a situation where every police force in Britain has been involved in the McCann case?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Clear the decks and start over again clearly does not mean a review, it means a new investigation. Obviously as part of that investigation they will be reviewing everthing that has been done so far.

    I believe the Home Secretary wants a result on this case, and yes, there probably is political impetus given the election. That is why I am expecting some pretty rapid progress.

    It is time to stop pussyfooting with the TAPAS gang, get them in and really grill them as suspects, not witnesses so that direct allegations can be made. Yes, they would then have the right to silence, but, in UK law, if they do not properly explain evidence that is put to them, adverse inferences of guilt can be drawn at trial. So the right to silence in UK is not very helpful to criminals! By this stage Yorkshire will already have a vast amount of evidence to assess and that gives some very clear indications IMO as to what happened on that holiday. LP may have felt their hands were somewhat tied but now CEOP has just given this case to Yorkshire alone, there will be no ties. Surely we all want a result no matter who gets it? That result will vindicate both Portugal and LP I am quite certain in confirming the McCanns involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine, but maybe not in the way many have been thinking and in a way whereby they can finally be brought to justice.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The British Police have no jurisdiction in this case. The PJ do, so Alan Johnson, a no-brainer. Ask the PJ to RE-OPEN.

    ReplyDelete
  83. L.P. Vindicated for witholding Gaspar statements for 5 months and allowing Tapas crew to read each others' statements. I hope not Viv!

    ReplyDelete
  84. Poster 73

    Concerning the Mccann case, it is a pity you are not working for the police. :)

    Dutchman

    ReplyDelete
  85. @14

    If you want to stop government interference into the internet - please help stop the digital economy bill that is being rushed through by Peter Mandelson - under the pretence of protecting copyright for the entertainment industry, this bill has the power to curtail free speech on the internet without court proceedings. It is one of the greatest threats to civil liberty in recent times.

    http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1597057/let-kill-digital-economy-bil

    http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

    "It's time to show MPs what we think about the Digital Economy Bill.

    As it stands now, the Bill, if passed into law, will allow disconnection, web blocking and could well see the death of open wifi.

    Come along to the ORG demo on Wednesday, 24 March at 17:30, and protest against disconnection and censorship on the internet.

    We'll provide placards, just bring some black tape for gagging or blindfolding yourself.

    Disconnection is collective punishment. It is unacceptable. It is unfair and it is disproportionate.

    The demo will be held at Old Palace Yard (opposite Parliament, next to Westminster Abbey)"

    ReplyDelete
  86. Joanna you have succeeded where the media have been silenced there is a grave injustice against Amaral, but time is immaterial the mccanns have involved too many people and this will ultimately be their downfaall, they will not continue because they have brought religion into their argument and are now dealing with a much greater force that will not allow them to win, it cannot in the name of humanity they will be brought to justice. As the Lord said 'suffer little children to come unto me'. We are on this Earth but for a short time but history will show these two McCanns for what they really are.

    ReplyDelete