Thursday, May 29, 2008

Should the McCanns be subjected to a media blackout?

Should the McCanns be subjected to a media blackout?

Watching the Breakfast News on BBC1 this morning there was a report on a genuine case of abduction. And when I heard that the abductors had asked for a media black out, I could not help thinking 'what a pity there was not a media black out in the McCann case'. Gerry and Kate McCann are still maintaining that Madeleine was abducted. Even though the evidence does not support this version of events.

Perhaps, the big tent on the McCann media circus is being pulled down by the PJ?

Yesterday, It was being reported that the PJ would not now be conducting a reconstruction because the PJ wanted all the Tapas Bar 9 to take part and 4 of them refused to return to Portugal. They are Jane Tanner, Russel O'Brien, and Rachel and Matthew Oldfield. Apparently, they are all concerned that they will be prosecuted for child neglect because, like the McCanns, they left their children unsupervised whilst out binge drinking.

Today, it is being reported that the PJ are seeking to prosecute the McCanns for child neglect.

Children and animals tend to get people all emotional. However, it is necessary to put aside all such emotions in the McCann case. The McCanns spin doctor, Clarence Mitchell, is claiming that their legal advice in relation to the McCanns conduct is “well within the bounds of responsible parenting”. I beg to differ, because the question is 'Is it safe to leave children under 4 years of age unsupervised?'.

My challenge to you all is to find on the internet support for the McCanns position that it is safe to leave children under 4 years of age unsupervised.

Under both English and Portuguese law it amounts to child neglect and/or child abandonment. If the McCanns lawyers are stating otherwise, I would argue that they should be sued for providing negligent legal advice.


Nunyaa said...

Leaving their child alone is the one thing they are obviously guilty of. As for the rest, like I said, public opinion does not mean they are guilty. People have been wrongly convicted on circumstantial evidence. I wouldn't like to speculate as I wasn't there and neither was the rest of the public.

jmb said...

I certainly don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about their guilt as regards a "kidnapping" but it certainly was reprehensible to leave those children alone. Why they cannot at least admit that I do not understand.

CherryPie said...

I feel the same way as jmb about this one. I don't understand why they want to be in the media quite so much though!

Ginro said...

Well my ex-wife would happily leave a four year old unattended, but then my ex is a certifable psychopath, something that the McCanns do not appear to be. Idiots for leaving their child alone, (which they have admitted they shouldn't have done) but I wouldn't think they were psychopaths.

I'm with Nunyaa on this. The day evidence is provided proving that they are guilty then I will believe they are guilty. Until that day, should it ever happen, they are innocent. I've seen far, far too many people judging and condemning others on the basis of nothing more than ignorance/stupidity, prejudice, bigotry, and the desire to find a scapegoat no matter who the target to ever be comfortable with public opinion on such matters.

jailhouselawyer said...

nunyaa: "Leaving their child alone is the one thing they are obviously guilty of", you say this, but the Mccanns claim that they have done nothing wrong.

From the outset, the McCanns decided to play to the media to put across their version of events. Some will say that this was wrong. However, the version of events conflicts with the evidence. This is what is wrong in this case.

My mind is able to read information and file it away, and when I read a conflicting piece of information a light goes on in my brain and alerts me to this conflict. By piecing all the conflicts together it informs me that something is not right about what I am being told.

The role of a spin doctor is to sell a version of events. An innocent person does not require a spin doctor because the truth stands up on its own, whereas a liar tries to support a weak story.

Cherrypie: It's about controlling minds. The McCanns set about convincing people of their innocence before they had even been accused of anything. The best form of defence is attack. They took a gamble, and I would say it has not paid off. It has backfired.

ginro: Don't forget it was the McCann camp who found the scapegoat Robert Murat.

Nunyaa said...

I would say the McCanns have a spokesperson because they are getting hounded by the public and the media looking to blame when if there was real evidence as you say, they would of been charged by now.
There is only theories, real hard proof evidence brings charges, not public opinion.

Anonymous said...

I don't set myself up a judge and jury in this case, so make no comment on the fact that they left their children unattended ~ I'm not familiar with the resort, I don't trust any of the media reports (on just about anything, let alone an emotive case such as this), and I don't think I am the moral guardian of the nation.

However, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that they were negligent. I would still say that the abduction of their child is a separate matter. If I leave my front door wide open, and my house is robbed, I may be foolish, but the robber is still a thief.

As for the parents alleged involvement in her disappearance ~ I'd rather have innocent until proven guilty than trial by media.

Anonymous said...

The uK media coverage has really been to provide them with a platform to present and build their defense. Had journalists refused to be used in this way, it wouldn't have happened. They did not, so the UK public got Kate and Gerry's Roadshow. It has been very sad to watch and the ugly tactics used, show that it is about 'winning and profit' and not at all about the truth and a missing child.

Nunyaa said...

Are there comments missing from here?

Wolfie said...

Yes, my comment has been deleted. It seems that Mrs McCann is fair game for harsh criticism but not the Mr Jailhouselawyer.

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

C#mon, Wolfie, you know the blog rules - you were the one who sprang to my defence over them some time back. :)