12 May 2012

Rebekah Brooks accused of bullying Government over McCanns



Rebekah Brooks was accused of bullying the Government into ordering a British police investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

by Ross Lydall

QC Robert Jay claimed Mrs Brooks threatened to put Home Secretary Theresa May on the front page of The Sun every day until she ordered a new inquiry into the missing child.

But Mrs Brooks denied she had used threats and said her argument — and that of Maddie’s parents Kate and Gerry — had simply “persuaded” the Tory-led government soon after it took power.

She said: “I didn’t speak to No 10 or the Home Office about the McCanns until after the campaign had been won.”

Mrs Brooks, then News International chief executive, had personally negotiated the serialisation of Kate McCann’s book about her missing daughter for around £500,000. Maddie went missing aged three five years ago on a family holiday to Praia de la Luz.

Extracts were published by The Sun and the Sunday Times, with the Sun campaigning for UK police involvement in a case generally perceived to have been botched by the Portuguese police.

Mrs Brooks said that in a meeting with Maddie’s parents, her father Gerry “said he wanted a UK police review of the case”.

She added: “The McCanns were deeply upset that there hadn’t been a review. We said, ‘We will join forces with you’.”

Mrs Brooks said she personally did not speak to Downing Street or the Home Secretary but believed Sun editor Dominic Mohan or political editor Tom Newton Dunn may have.

It was put to Mrs Brooks by Mr Jay that the Met’s investigation had so far cost £2 million of public money. “Some would say maybe that money might have gone somewhere else,” he said.

Asked by Mr Jay whether she was behind an “implied or exaggerated threat”, she said: “I think the word threat is too strong.” She said “persuasion” was more accurate.

Lord Justice Leveson intervened during the questioning. He asked whether Brooks was involved in a strategy to threaten No 10 in order to obtain a review of the Madeleine investigation.

“I was certainly part of a strategy to launch a campaign in order to get a review for the McCanns,” Mrs Brooks said.

in London Evening Standard, May 11, 2012


Background articles

«(...)Thankfully, Robert Jay was on far better form today than he was against the stonewalling Andy Coulson yesterday. He also seemed far better briefed. Brooks had to deny, unconvincingly, that she had variously demanded that Downing Street order a reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, else Theresa May would be appearing on the front page of the Sun every day until they did; that she did not, as widely reported, tell Andy Coulson that the Sun would not support the Conservatives until Dominic Grieve was moved from his job as shadow home secretary, having had the temerity to say to Brooks's face the Sun's coverage of crime and the Human Rights Act was hysterical; and that she did not in a phone call to Ed Balls demand the sacking of Sharon Shoesmith following the Baby Peter case, else they would "turn this thing on him".

Funny, isn't it, that there all these stories, all apparently untrue, about Brooks using her power and influence to demand things of politicians and yet she didn't believe there was anything inappropriate about the level of contact between the then editor of the biggest selling newspaper in the country and those making the law. She also didn't believe that politicians were trying to get to Rupert through contact with her, which is just about as obtuse as her evidence got. It was fascinating to learn though that David Cameron spoke to her repeatedly about the phone hacking accusations against the Screws, and yet he apparently never spoke to Andy Coulson about it. Very strange.(...)» extract from Obsolete blog, May 11, 2012

The Cameron-Brooks texts begin to leak
The PM told Brooks to "keep her head up" the week she resigned.

David Cameron with former Sun editor and News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks.

by George Eaton

Last week we learned that David Cameron may have texted Rebekah Brooks "a dozen" times a day. Today, courtesy of News International's the Times (£), we learn of some of the contents. An updated version of Times journalist Francis Elliott and Independent journalist James Hanning's biography of the PM, Cameron: Practically a Conservative, reveals that Cameron texted Brooks in the week she resigned as chief executive of News International to tell her "to keep her head up" (not a direct quote).

In a revelation that will certainly brighten Labour's morning, we also learn that such contact then came to an "abrupt halt", with Cameron dispatching an emissary to explain that "Ed Miliband had him on the run." And there's more: Brooks and Cameron texted each other to make sure they were not seen together at the Heythrop point-to-point; Cameron asked the Met to open a review into the Madeleine McCann case in May 2011 as "a favour" for Brooks; and Royal courtiers warned that Buckingham Palace would "think poorly" of a decision to take Andy Coulson into Downing Street.

The case for the defence is put by Oliver Letwin. "If you are on the same side as her (Brooks), you have to see her every week," he explains. "This was how it worked." In other words, the PM courted Brooks no more or less than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. But even if we accept Letwin's assurances, the problem for Cameron is that he was the one standing up when the music stopped.

It's tempting to dismiss the Leveson inquiry (before which Coulson will testify on Thursday, followed by Brooks on Friday) as of interest only to journalists but Rebekah Brooks's name is one that has penetrated the public consciousness. As I've written before, the claim that Cameron texted her a dozen times a day (more contact than most people have with their partner) could permanently reduce him in the eyes of the public. Conversely, as Sunder Katwala notes, there are "as of now, no actual texts/emails to/from Cameron to Rebekah Brooks yet in public domain." So long as this remains the case, No. 10 will hope that it can limit the damage.

in New Statesman, May 9, 2012

David Cameron was 'pressured into new Madeleine McCann inquiry by News International'
The Prime Minister came under pressure from News International to set up the new inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, according to this evening’s BBC Panorama programme - ‘Madeleine: The Last Hope?

In 2011 The Sun printed an open letter on their front page from The McCanns to David Cameron, appealing to him as a parent to agree to a review Photo: PA

The Home Office has declined to explain why they chose to look again at the unsolved case above any other but a source at Number 10 has said that David Cameron “acted as a sympathetic parent.”

In 2011 The Sun printed an open letter on their front page from The McCanns to Mr Cameron, appealing to him as a parent to agree to a review.

But tonight Panorama will claim there was also much more going on behind the scenes to try to influence the Prime Minister.

Downing Street sources have revealed to the programme that influence was being exerted on Number 10 by News International and by The Sun newspaper, as well as by the McCanns.

Within 24 hours of the front page appeal Mr Cameron announced a review could be paid for out of a contingency fund run by the Home Office, reserved for special cases.

The review is already understood to have cost £2 million but the detective in charge is publicly optimistic.

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood believes his team has the best chance yet of finding out what happened to Madeleine.

He tells Panorama tonight: “As a detective, it is a huge privilege to have an opportunity to work on this case. Both my team and I feel that.”

BBC Panorama – Madeleine: The Last Hope? will be shown tonight at 7.30pm on BBC One.

in The Telegraph, April 25, 2012

The Prime Minister’s instruction to the Metropolitan Police to review the Madeleine McCann case is in breach of the draft protocol that is supposed to protect the operational independence of the police

by Lord Toby Harris

David Cameron has instructed the Metropolitan Police to review the case of Madeleine McCann. This is in response to an open letter in The Sun and is entirely predictable in terms of the “pulling power” of News International on Government policy.

However, his intervention drives a coach and horses through the draft protocol issued by the Home Office designed to preserve the operational independence of the Police which says:
“The operational independence of the police service, and the decisions made by its operational leadership remain reserved to the Office of Chief Constable and that Office alone.”
Whilst no-one doubts the desirability of doing what can sensibly be done to find out what has happened to Madeleine McCann, I can imagine that the senior leadership of the Metropolitan Police are not exactly happy about this. It again embroils their officers in a high profile investigation, where the chances of success are unclear, and which will divert limited investigative resources away from other matters.

in Lord Toby Harris' blog, May 13, 2011




Transcript
Extract from page 98 to page 109

Q[Robert Jay Q.C.]. I just wonder whether you sense or sensed -- because we're talking about the past now -- the effect you might have had on politicians. Some of them may even have been afraid of you. Is that true?

A [Rebekah Brooks]. I literally -- like I say, I don't see politicians as these sort of easily scared people. Like I say, most of them are pretty strong, ambitious and highly motivated, so ...

Q. Let's see if we can just take one case study and see whether there's any validity in that case study.

A. Okay, right.

Q. You remember the McCanns serialisation case?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Actually, we have Dr McCann's evidence in relation to this in the bundle at page 57 under tab 6. Do you have that there? We're working from the transcript of the evidence this Inquiry received on 23 November 2011.

A. Right, yes.

Q. If you look at page 57, line 11, the question I asked was: "You talk about a meeting with Rebekah Brooks ..." Are you on the right page?

A. They're not numbered in that way.

Lord Justice Leveson: They are, actually.

A. 57, is it? At the bottom?

Lord Justice Leveson: No, it says 15 at the bottom, but each page has four pages on it.

A. Yes, right. I have it, sorry. Thank you, sir. Yes?

Mr Jay: The question was: "You talk about a meeting with Rebekah Brooks which led to a review of your case, a formal review. Just to assist us a little bit with that, can you recall when that was?"

Dr McCann's answer was:
"I think it's probably worth just elaborating a little bit because it's quite a complex decision-making process. News International actually bid for the rights to the book along with Harper Collins, and one of their pitches was the fact that they would serialise the book across all their titles. We were somewhat horrified at the prospect of that, given the way we had been treated in the past and the deal was actually done with the publishers, Transworld, that excluded serialisation.

"Now, we were subsequently approached by News International and Associated to serialise the book, and after much deliberation, we had a couple of meetings with the general manager and - Will Lewis and Rebekah Brooks and others, and what swung the decision to serialise was News International committed to backing the campaign and the search for Madeleine."

Pausing there, there was going to be serialisation in both the Sunday Times and the Sun, I believe. Do you recall that?

A. I do.

Q. I think this is the year 2010, by which time you were chief executive officer, weren't you?

A. That's correct.

Q. What was the price that you paid for the serialisation? Can you remember?

A. I can't remember, actually. I -- it's hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Q. A million, we've been told.

A. No, it wasn't. It wasn't a million. Half a million, maybe. I can't remember. I mean, I can -- there are ways to find out, but I'm not sure it was a million.

Q. Okay. I paraphrase the rest of what Dr McCann said, because he couldn't take this issue much further. Your intervention was successful in securing a review of the case. Do you understand that?

A. I -- you asked if it was successful and he says it was, yes.

Q. Yes. Can you remember anything about that intervention?

A. Actually, to just go back, the reason I was involved as chief executive was because it concerned two newspapers, the Sunday Times and the Sun. So if you like, I did the deal with Harper Collins from the corporate point of view, and then left it to the two editors, John Witherow and Dominic Mohan, to decide the different approaches.

I had always got on very well with Dr McCann and Kate McCann throughout their incredible traumatic time, and in fact I think they, if asked, would be very positive about the Sun, actually, and in this case, I thought that Dominic Mohan's idea to run the campaign for this review of Madeleine's case by the Home Secretary was the right thing for the Sun to do, and I think the Sunday Times did the book. So my intervention was at that point, as in: was the original discussion with Dr McCann. I don't think I spoke to Theresa May directly, but I am pretty sure that Dominic Mohan may have done.

Q. Let's see whether we can agree or disagree on what may have happened. When you were discussing the arrangements with the McCanns, you asked if there was anything more they wanted. Do you recall that?

A. Maybe, yes.

Q. And Dr Gerry McCann said that he wanted a UK police review of the case. Do you remember him saying?

A. That I do, yes.

Q. Do you remember your answer being: "Is that all?"

A. I may have said it slightly more politely: "Is there anything else before we conclude this meeting?", but -- I don't particularly remember saying that, but maybe I did, yes.

Q. I'm not suggesting to you that it was impolite; I'm just summarising the gist of what you said.

A. Maybe, yes. We had been going through a list of issues that Dr McCann and Kate McCann wanted to be assured of before we went forward with the serialisation, so possibly.

Q. Did you then take the matter up with Downing Street direct?

A. No.

Q. Did you not tell Downing Street that the Sun was going to demand a review and the Prime Minister should agree to the request because the Sun had supported him at the last election?

A. No, in fact I didn't speak to Downing Street or the Home Secretary about this, but I know that Dominic Mohan or Tom Newton Dunn will have spoken to them.

Q. Pardon me?

A. They would have spoken directly to either Number 10 or the Home Office. I'm not sure. You'll have to ask
14 them. Probably the Home Office, I would have thought.

Q. That the Sun wanted an immediate result and that a letter would be posted all over the front page from the McCanns to the Prime Minister asking for a review, unless Downing Street agreed. Did that happen?

A. I think that's how the Sun launched the campaign from memory. It was with a letter, yes.

Q. The Home Secretary was told that if she agreed to the review, the page 1 letter would not run. Do you remember that?

A. No, I don't.

Q. But as the Secretary of State did not respond in time, you did publish the letter on the front page. Do you remember that?

A. I do remember the Sun kicking off the campaign with a letter, yes.

Q. But you don't believe there was any conversation or indeed threat to the Secretary of State? Is that right?

A. I'm pretty sure there would have not been a threat, but you'll have to -- we'll have to ask Dominic Mohan, because, like I said, my involvement was to discuss the campaign in the continued search for Madeleine with the McCanns and to do the deal on the book and to -- they -- because I had done so many campaigns in the past, they
wanted my opinion, but after that I left it to both editors to execute the campaign.

Q. What I've been told is that you then intervened personally, Mrs Brooks. You told Number 10 that unless the Prime Minister ordered the review by the Metropolitan Police, the Sun would put the Home Secretary, Theresa May, on the front page every day until the Sun's demands were met. Is that true or not?

A. No.

Q. Is any part of that true?

A. I didn't speak to Number 10 or the Home Office about the McCanns until, I think, after the campaign had been won, and then it came up in a conversation that I had -- and I don't even think directly with the Prime Minister. I think it was one of his team.

Q. We can find out in due course whether this is true or not, but I must repeat it to you. It is said that you directly intervened with the Prime Minister and warned him that unless there was a review by the Metropolitan Police, the Sun would put the Home Secretary, Theresa May, on the front page every day until the Sun's demands were met. Is that true or not?

A. I did not say to the Prime Minister: "I will put Theresa May on the front page of the Sun every day unless you give me a review." I did not say that. If I'd had any conversations with Number 10 directly, they wouldn't have been particularly about that, but they would have been, if I'd been having a conversation, that the Sun was leading a major campaign with a very strong letter on page 1 to start the campaign, and anyone who knew me would have talked to me -- any politician would have talked to me about it. But I did not say that. I don't know who said I said that, but we're going back to sources again.

Lord Justice Leveson: Could we ask this: were you part of a strategy that involved your paper putting pressure on the government with this sort of implied or express threat?

A. I was certainly part of a strategy to launch the campaign in order to get the review for the McCanns, yes. But I think the word "threat", sir, is -- is too strong.

Lord Justice Leveson: Well, give me another word then for "threat", could you?

A. Persuade them?

Lord Justice Leveson: Persuasion. All right.

Mr Jay: In your own words, Mrs Brooks, define for us what the strategy was.

A. So the McCanns were deeply upset that there hadn't been a review. It seemed incredibly unfair that they hadn't got this review. You only have to read their book to understand the trauma that they go through. So we said, "We'll join forces with you", and Dominic Mohan and his team went away and constructed a campaign. I cannot remember when the idea of the letter came up. It may have even been my idea to do the letter. I can't remember. But the campaign was launched in order to try and convince the government or convince the Home Secretary that a review would be the right thing to do.

Q. Do you know how it came about that the review was ordered?

A. No, I -- I can't remember, I'm sorry. Such a lot has happened since then, but...

Q. You must have been told, Mrs Brooks?

A. I remember Dominic Mohan telling me that the review was going ahead.

Q. That the Sun had won, in other words?

A. He didn't put it in those terms, but he said -- well, actually, I think he said, "The McCanns have won."

Q. The Sun headline on 14 May, front page, was that as a result of its campaign, the Prime Minister was "opening the Maddie files". Do you remember that one?

A. I remember the Sun winning the campaign, the McCanns winning the campaign, yes.

Q. So this is not, you say, a case study then in the exercise of power by you? I'm not suggesting that the end result was right or wrong. Many would say it was right, that there should be a review. I'm just saying the means by which you achieved the objective.

A. But it could be said that a review of Madeleine McCann's case, with everything that had gone on, was the right thing to do. We presented the issue. We supported the McCanns in their determination to get a review. It
21 wasn't new. They'd tried before, before the election, and the election had come into -- and the Sun -- and the Home Secretary clearly thought it was a good idea too, because I'm pretty sure there wasn't -- it wasn't a long campaign. It wasn't like Sarah's Law over ten years. I think it was very short.

Q. Yes, it didn't take very long because the government yielded to your pressure, didn't they? It took all of about a day.

A. Or perhaps they were convinced by our argument.

Q. There are always two sides to the coin here, that of course everybody would say, on one level, money should be spent, but the campaign to date, I'm told, has cost £2 million and some would say maybe that money might have gone somewhere else. It's never clearcut, is it?

A. What, the Madeleine McCann campaign?

Q. No, the operation which started up the review, which was called Operation Grange, I understand.

A. Right, sorry.

Q. Perhaps you would say all you were doing was reflecting the views of your readers. Is that it?

A. I think in that case, it was an issue that we brought to the readers, that we explained to the readers that a review hadn't taken place and that -- we presented the McCanns' story as in the reason why they wanted the review. I think that absolutely chimed with our readership and the campaign was started with a very heartfelt letter and the politicians were convinced our argument, or the McCanns' argument, was correct.

Q. It also chimes with the commercial interests of your papers because this sells copy, doesn't it?

A. Well, campaigns can sell newspapers. I think the serialisation of the book actually was good for circulation for the Sunday Times. I'm not sure how well the campaign was in circulation terms, but they would be a matter of record. It may have been.

Full transcript of morning hearing available here.


35 comments:

  1. Why go to such lenghts and expose yourself dangerously "just" for a missing child? I am sure they could have used their influence for a more useful purpose unless it was not just getting a review but a cover-up.

    The other possibility, that the Murdoch Empire just has a soft spot for the child and her parents is out of the question.

    So if she asked the PM for a cover-up is it possible that this was done just to keep the story going? They would make much more money if the parents would finally be exposed. So why the cover-up? I think it is time the PJ starts looking at the connection to the house Murdoch's son in law had access to through his father and friends in PdL.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bom dia!

    Deduzo que a Rebekka , além de muitas mais coisas, assediou moralmente o Governo de Uk...... Por isso o David andava muito aflito.

    Sai mais barato acusarem-na e bem , do que gastar dinheiro em mudanças no governo.

    Ou.......... será apenas " para inglês ver" e nós também ?

    De qualquer modo , há sempre festa publicitária aos Mcs. durante o fim de semana.

    E, quando será a vez da Nutella ser chamada aos tribunais por andar constantemente a difamar Portugal e um Cidadão Português?

    Já sabem qual o tablóid dela. A data é de 5 de Maio mas hoje " reciclaram".

    Apesar dos prejuízos económicos e morais aos habitantes da PdL , muito gostam os de UK lá irem para ficarem nas fotos. Esta e um esquizo da América do Sul, vivendo aqui ao lado.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not quite J., they've made much more money in 5 years than would do if they had exposed the McCann case as in reality is, if they had exposed the story with the facts that are readily available for those who look for them, that would happen once, they would sell two or three more months of papers, and that would be it. Murdoch has nurtured this story since the very beginning, transforming the case of a missing child in an ugly xenophobic game, into a media circus - their 'campaign' was never about Truth or Justice for Madeleine, but selling. And selling is what they have been doing since May 4, 2007 as you can see from the top collage, the publicity stunts in posters with millions of pounds in rewards, advertising their logos in T-shirts, creating a 'code Madeleine'. Money, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Afer this is published, the McCanns will lose the last friend they had, if they still had one left.
    A terrible economic crisis, also in the UK, and such a lot of money being spent.
    I hope the Met will keep a strong personality and do their work well.
    What is the use of the libel laws in the UK if politicians let themselves be blackmailed?
    I hope the PJ will read this story very soon and stopping helping the Met.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No paper is talking about Kate's new book.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wonder what issues Mr & Mrs McCann wanted assurances on before the serialisation began?? Does anyone know?

    I nearly laughed when Brooks said that SHE probably wrote the letter to the Prime Minister that was printed in The Sun! She must have then or why say it.

    I never buy newspapers now nor read their articles online because I cannot endure the biased McCann stories any longer. I feel insulted by it all.

    Persuaded, not threatened she said with a smirk.........

    ReplyDelete
  7. What a mucky corrupt country we live in. The McCanns, who did not cooperate with the original Police inquiry, are given a taxpayer funded, multi-million pound police review the day after media bully, Rebekah Brooks, strong-armed PM David Cameron. Other parents in a similar position get nothing.
    This review has made the Met look like the McCann hired help but, for some unknown reason, the McCanns are allowed to get away with making fools of everyone. Why are they treated so differently to the rest of the country? It's bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Brooks woman, and the rest of those involved, should be arrested and charged with 'blackmail', because that is what they have used to get their way with Cameron, on behalf of the McCanns.

    Imagine that, putting pressure on a PM and Home Secretary to get what they wanted by MAKING THREATS to them. This has led to the wimp Cameron coughing up millions of tax payers money for a load of bogus 'leads' for the sake of keeping Ms May off the front pages, and led to a PR campaign for the McCanns via the Met, and sales for Murdoch's news organisation.

    Tell us again Mr Cameron, how many millions of our money used so far? How many millions more of our money is going to be wasted on this run around?

    As for Cameron, he should be shown the door quick time, because he is not fit for purpose and has contravened the rules of political involvement in criminal cases. Each day it is further revealed the extent of how disreputable this man is. An absolute disgrace, as is this whole business.

    As for 'opening the files' for the McCanns. Which Files are being referred to here, because the McCanns once took LP to Court to try and get hold of the information they were holding, and it was denied them. They certainly have a nerve those two.

    What about the restricted Files in Portugal? The McCanns have also tried to get hold of them. Is this the McCanns way of gaining access to those desired Files via the 'review', or whatever it is that is really being carried out there, via the wishes of the Met to have 'cooperation' with them? Do we trust the Met would not let the McCanns have access to them if they get their hands on them? Like hell we should trust them, as that could have been one of the further requests asked of Cameron for this pair by his good friend Rebekah, and he obviously could deny her nothing.

    I hope this McCann issue and the blackmail used to get the desired outcome for Murdoch and Co, is not going to rest here. I hope somebody in authority who is not corrupt, rare nowadays by all accounts, will pursue this and bring these people to justice. After all, it is our money that has been handed over for a load of tripe, as will eventually be seen to have been the case from the start. Perhaps Cameron can replace the millions out of his own pocket, because it sure doesn't look like the McCanns will ever use any of theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think what this shows to me is that the case for a review had little merit and I believe that was also the opinion of many in the Home Office.

    That view of course was overridden by Brooks with her so called persuasion. Although I'm not sure I'd call it persuasion when you say you will put the Home Secretary on the front page until the government agrees to review it!

    I think the public will look on this episode with disdain and it will impact badly on the Government's standing in this country. The Tories will lose a lot of votes now people know that Cameron is so obliging in the face of NI's so called "Persuasion"

    ReplyDelete
  10. This case has seen the coming and going of five Prime Ministers, three in the UK, two in Portugal. I don't doubt for a minute the same pernicious Murdoch 'influence' was exerted on the two previous Labour ministers. As to the Portuguese ministers, either they lacked pride and were(are) abjectly submissive or they are, put mildly, cowards.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, no wonder Andy Redwood is only looking at nice safe leads like psychics and visions and Metodo 3. What on earth would happen to Cameron if they actually found out the truth under his watch. What kind of idiot is Cameron to be sending 12 texts a day signed off (as he thought) Lots of Love to this appalling creature. Now he knows that she will just release the text messages if he ever dares to cross her she will get everything she wants for the ghastly McCanns. Brooks obviously recognised in them a pair of truly corrupt fellow travellers.

    ReplyDelete
  12. How strange that this part of yesterday's Leveson Inquiry is not covered in the British press. Not a word about the McCanns that I have read, and yet Lord Leveson himself seemed very interested in what went on between Brooks and Cameron on this issue, as did Robert Jay QC. I wonder if they have been educating themselves since the McCanns got the kid-glove treatment when they appeared there.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is the McCanngate!!! powerful people involved in to deep, so it will take a very long time for the truth to come out:-(

    ReplyDelete
  14. What a lying snake the evil cow is! Karma.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The queation about Oparation Grange and the 2 million pounds, evenual deviation of the money, could be the reaason the McCanns carter rucked Brooks'statement.

    Now I believe for sure Maddie's death was premeditated.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Enfim.... O Cameron e um banana ao servico de varios interesees. Como Brown e Blair ja tinham sido antes.
    Os portugueses e que nao deviam vergar-se aos interesses destes bananas. Infelizmente, parece que a Direccao da PJ e a PJ Porto ja se deixaram vergar e fazem parte do processo de lavagem. Espero que escorreguem tantas vezes no Skip que acabem trocidados pela maquina.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Leveson himself was thought by many to be the wrong choice for this enquiry being as he was appointed by his pal Cameron, and he is a pal of Murdoch and his family, and socialises with the lot of them.

    Slaps on the wrist all round no doubt, and end of. If there was any justice then heads would be rolling all round, and Hunt in particular would have gone by now, but Cameron knows that if he goes, then it is getting closer to him. The whole lot of them are sleazy and corrupt, and service to the people is the last thing on their minds. More like serving themselves and their pals, and favours all round.

    Even though Theresa May was threatened by Murdoch and Co that she would be on their front page for days if they didn't get their way regards the McCanns' 'review', she, like Cameron, texted the Brooks woman and wished her well with the questioning. She knows that if Cameron is rid of, then she wont be far behind.

    It would be great to see that smug look wiped off Rebekah Brook's face, but so far she has evaded charges over the hacking scandal, but being as the Met are involved in the investigation I have no confidence whatsoever in them after seeing the goon they have in charge of the McCanns' 'review'.

    All in all, it is very difficult to know who to trust any more of the corrupt self serving bunch of them. YES, AND MASONS ALL!!

    Given that that one of the main rules of Masonry is that they help one another, the politicians, judiciary and police, should have to declare whether they are Masons, and which Lodge they are associated with, and the women included, as they have their own Masonic Lodges.

    There has been far too many top Masons popping up with assistance for the McCanns, or has nobody noticed this! Just another coincidence of course!

    ReplyDelete
  18. One Team McCann bully who didn't get his own way. Brian Kennedy warns,'they’ll have blood on their hands" after turning down his latest bid for Rangers'.

    VIDEOCELTS

    Sunday, 13th May 2012 by Joe McHugh

    Prospective Rangers owner Charles Green has accused publicity-hungry Brian Kennedy of being a wannabe movie star.

    Green will be named as this week’s preferred bidder for the stricken club despite the media onslaught from Kennedy.

    The Edinburgh-born businessman dominated the headlines on Friday as he warned Duff and Phelps that they’ll have blood on their hands after turning down Kennedy’s latest bid for Rangers.

    Duff and Phelps responded by going into the detail of the Kennedy bid which had factored in income from Europe and claimed money due from the January sale of Nikica Jelavic to Everton as part of the package.

    Picking up on the Kennedy bashing theme Green told the Sunday Mail: “For the last three months I have been working on a deal to save this great club. I have seen what has happened and it has been horrendous.

    “But unlike everybody else who is doing it for their own personal glorification, like Brian Kennedy, we just want to save the club.

    “Kennedy wants to be a movie star and doesn’t want to be a chairman of the club. He thinks he’s Mel Gibson.” :c

    Green had a short and unpopular spell in charge of Sheffield United in the 90′s and has also had an involvement in a football agency.

    Yesterday he held talks with Ally McCoist to get a grasp of the footballing problems that he would face as Rangers owner.

    On Wednesday Rangers will appeal against a 12-month transfer ban imposed by the SFA.

    A number of Rangers players will be able to quit the club in June for reduced fees after negotiating a three month pay cut in March.

    http://videocelts.com/2012/05/blogs/green-makes-mel-gibson-accusation-at-brian-kennedy

    ReplyDelete
  19. Joana, the British government was about to vote a new law, against "no win no fee". The last votes would have been on April the 17th and we never heard of it anymore.
    There was a letter also signed by the McCanns, asking Cameron not to allow that to happen, I mean not to change "no win no fee".

    Was the British government put again under pressure, for sake of the McCanns, and is the Sun behind it?

    Joana, please publish this comment of mine.

    The media in the UK are a scandal.

    Do Kate and Gerry dare to go to that recepcion on May the 25th?
    Will Cameron spit on them?

    ReplyDelete
  20. O silencio e ensurdecedor. Parece-me que nem tudo corre bem no reino de K-hate. Nao era por esta altura que ela deveria estar a revender o velho livro 'Madeleine' acrescentado de um capitulo? Ja nao deveria ter os tabloides ingleses inundados de publicidade enganosa a parecer novo, o que e muito velho?
    Ninguem pegou no bombom e pagou para serializar uma pagina do capitulo?
    Que tera ela para dizer num capitulo que nao se resuma numa frase? 'Lavagem automatica a escala europeia'.
    So falta o Redwood vir a TV dizer que a crianca nunca existiu. Foi tudo uma miragem . Antes que do Fundo ja so vejam o fundo.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Sunday Express say that the Mccanns are sorry they left their children alone,now they should tell what happened to Madeleine because they are involved in losing her and most people believe she died in the flat because of the blood stain on the carpet and the wall,someone tried to clean it but it wasn't done properly and the dogs found it.Mr Smith said he spoke to Mr Mccann who was carrying Maddie but he did not answer and carried on to the sea,the dogs followed the trail. It doesn't matter what stories they come out with the truth will come out one day. Its time Mr Cameron stopped using tax payers money to help the wrong people.What a government we have now.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Personaly, Rebekah Brooks did not care about putting the McCanns in trouble, with the revision. At the end of her dialogue with the judge (or PM?) she admits the commercial aspect of the revision was good for the papers.

    Cameron and Theresa May refused to help Kate and Gerry for a long time, till they stood under pressure.
    I'm sure it was a terrible shock to the McCanns.Imagine Portugal ends up by reopening the case.
    I wonder if the parents knew the kind of pressure Brooks was putting on the government.

    I hope the Yard team is not made up of 30 transsexuals, homosexuals,
    swingers,paedophiles, who could be put under pressure.


    How can one get rid of the British media?
    It seems the McCanns expected to get an answer to their letter several days later or not at all.

    But the answer was there within 24 hours. "Yes, darlings, the Met will help you".And the couple desappeared for a very long time.

    It is known that a journalist is nobody's friend, McCanns!

    They want to sell in order to guarantee their jobs and their salaries.

    What happened to Kate's book that it was not launched? Inconsistencies with Brooks'words?
    Maddie's birthday was last Friday. No articles at all.

    ReplyDelete
  23. still no single word about the McCanns on any newspaper. In my opinion they must be irritated with Brooks.Thanks God they still have Carter Ruck to sue around and I don't understand why they have so little money if The Sun payed them 500.000 pounds last year. I wonder if they got 500.000 indeed. It seems that the UK is full of liers, what a tiring country.I also wonder if Brown and Blair will be asked about their role in the McCanns situation in Portugal, during the months they were living there, and their role in the archiving of the process.How can we write the Leveson process, suggesting this to them?

    Can a journalist interview Mitchell or the McCanns themselves?

    ReplyDelete
  24. In my opinion Rebekah was bullying the McCanns, last Friday, and not bullying the government.
    That is why they vanished, even on Maddie's birthday.
    No word about the girl, no word about the new book, nothing.

    It does not make any difference for Rebekah now. She is about to leave the country.
    The Mccanns are now doing everything to control what she said during the inquiry and they managed to control it.
    No interesting newspaper last Saturday.Only Lots of Love, etc.
    But people know now that the McCanns took part on the blackmail on the government.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Apparently Clarence Mitchell still has political ambitions.
    People have zero trust in politicians anyway but if someone
    like him can become an MP then we really are all doomed :b

    ReplyDelete
  26. The McCanns gave a performance to Rebekah Brooks, playing the role of parents wanting a revision, and she pressured Cameron, knowing that Kate and Gerry were making smoke and mirrors. That smoke was coming from a fire somewhere, a fire with which the McCanns were unecessarily playing since 2008.

    But it is possible that they ever wanted to stop with their noise but that they could not get rid of the media, specially of Murdoch and of Brooks. It is possible that she is the one who manipulated them, not otherwise, convincing them to ask for a revision.She needed to sell papers, with their story and of course with thousends of commercial advertisements, because News of the World and The Sun were selling well.And advertisements bring a lot of money to a paper.

    It is also possible that the McCanns were not aware of how far Brooks was going, with her threats towards Theresa and Cameron.

    I'm sure the couple was manipulated by her too.
    She sounds much more intelligent than Kate and Gerry sound. She has gotten the character of a fox in fables(how do you call it?) of Aesopus (La Fontaine).
    She used Cameron and Theresa May like she uses the McCanns.
    For her own profit.

    I remember Yvonne Martin(see statements): "No media!"
    And the PJ: "No media!"
    But media in 2007 were for the McCanns' convenience, at the beginning.
    And it ren uit their hands.

    Short later they were treated like trash, which they deserved, and they continue being used by the press. They became vulnerable.
    At any moment The Sun can turn against them, if it brings up money.
    Because the media are nobody's friends.

    They all know the truth but they continue making money out of a dead little girl, following the example of her parents, who started the fund short after her death.

    If Kate and Gerry are immoral, why should Brooks be different?
    It was not her child, was it?

    This crime has to be solved otherwise the next government will also be slave of The Sun.

    Is there a way for the British government to crash The Sun, like News of the World was crashed, and their support could come from other news papers?

    ReplyDelete
  27. How come that Clarence Mitchell, an experienced journalist, have even worked for the BBC, did not prevent the McCanns to get in trouble with the Sun and with Brooks?

    With his experience, he could have saved the McCanns of continuing keeping their contact with the media,in 2008, warning them to stop it.

    He probably didn't.
    As I said before, a journalist is nobody's friend.

    Could Mitchell be a dubble agent, working for both sides, motivating the McCanns to continue their smoke and mirrors and at the same time not only being payed by the couple but also being payed by Brooks?

    The fact he did not see Kate's mistakes on her book, like "no clear evidence the parents are not involved in the disappearance", and Kate did not correct it at the end of her story... Mitchell is not a friend, is he?

    I can not believe he didn't notice it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. correction

    the word is double (double agent). I always forget the English language comes from French.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It could not have been an accident, like I thought before.
    Everything was premeditated, imo.
    By both parents.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Of course this story will not remain the same for more five years. It will certainly change because it became boring and papers need new stories.
    Not sightings, not paedophiles,not abduction.
    I agree that the McCanns are carter rucking the British media right now and that they didn't like Brooks' statement at all.

    She put them in worse sheets, getting more British people against them.
    I would like to have seen Gerry's face monday morning, arriving at the hospital.And Kate's face,yesterday in the church, monday morning bringing the siblings to school, shopping at the super market...
    People knowing they are costing a horrible lot of money to the country, while everybody knows that Maddie is dead.
    Do the McCanns have any friend left?

    ReplyDelete
  31. @19 Go to the following site, check the various news that were published about Libel Reform bellow: http://www.libelreform.org/news/524-libel-reform-is-in-the-queens-speech

    @23 http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/280-000-selling-Madeleine-book-released-paperback/story-16052777-detail/story.html and http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-groggy-looking-girl-identical-823747

    @26 «It is also possible that the McCanns were not aware of how far Brooks was going, with her threats towards Theresa and Cameron.» I very much doubt that, they knew, they're not naive.

    @27 (I imagine you are the same person as commentators 23 and 26 for the writing style ) Clarence Mitchell shouldn't be the one checking facts previous to Kate's book being published, Carter Ruck, the McCann's themselves and their book editors/literary agents should have checked every single claim: every xenophobic attack, defamatory comment, every attempt to re-write history, every distortion of the facts, ultimately it is their responsibility. Clarence with his past history as a media spinner can't be a good fact checker, don't you agree? In fact most of his spins regarding the Maddie case can be considered as outright lies.

    ReplyDelete
  32. In my opinion Brook, McCanns, Cameron and May are all complicit. I do not sympathise with any of them or their predecessors. All they care about is power and wealth and nothing about the electorate or readers. Although as far as we are aware; Brooks,Cameron and May have not harmed members of their families!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anon 26

    The idea of a 'review' came from the McCanns, because others were suggesting a 'reopening', and even their lawyer Isabella let that forbidden word slip out, when surely she must have realised that a 'reopening' was the last thing the Mcanns wanted since they could have easily requested it and it would have been granted them.

    It would be interesting to see her answer if somebody were to put that to her, and why her clients did not send a letter to request a 'reopening', as Dr Amaral suggested, and I don't mean a 'reopening' on the McCanns' terms of only investigating 'leads' that involve chasing 'sightings' of Madeleine, or for an 'abductor'.

    ReplyDelete
  34. News Corporation lost their power, at least in the UK.
    This is a wonderful news for the Scotland Yard, being now able to work peacefully.
    No Brooks putting pressure on the outcome of their review. They can be who they are. I read on the Guardian that Rebekah lost her friends last year, when the hacking bomb exploded.
    From a moment to another she became nothing. I expect the investigation on this case will tell more about the McCanns.I still believe their phones were hacked and it is even possible that Rebekah knows where Maddie is buried.I'm sure she knows a lot about this case.
    And I wonder why both McCanns went to Praia da Luz short ago, both, whilst
    years before only Kate went, or only Gerry.
    It could have to do with the Leveson inquiry, perhaps, and it could have to do with Madeleine's grave.Phone hackings scared a lot of people in the UK and Kate and Gerry don't know if they can trust other people.Or better: they know they can't trust anyone.
    Replacing the body could have been the goal of their trip, although it would be extremely dangerous.
    They must have people in Algarve who helped them, probably out of fear for the political lobby around the couple.
    But the time of their political power is over, Brooks is in trouble, other people of News Corporation are concerned about themselves and the McCanns have to replace the body all by themselves. It is not going to be easy.
    And where is Kate's new book, the Errata, and why is she not talking about it? Not daring to request The Sun to back it?
    What a shame! Such an efficient news paper!
    I expect the Met to jump over, from ghosts to reallity, because Rebekah became trash. And Cameron will not put pressure on the Yard, in order to defend the McCanns, who made him ridiculous but fortunately for a short time.
    And last but not least, Tapas 7 can stop fearing the political lobby around the McCanns. They can come forward and tell what they know.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Am I overlooking it or am I confused about a video?

    I am for 99%, or even 100% certain that I saw pictures of O'Brian, Tanner and Payne on the last Panorama(The Last Hope), april 2012, video. It was at the end of the video(program) but I can't find those photos back.

    Did a cut happened? Who can remember it?

    ReplyDelete