Sunday, 22 June 2008

Now I know what you did last summer...

Madeleine McCann was made a ward of court last summer, according to The Telegraph. Could have been any time between May and September 2007. Clarence Mitchell explained that Madeleine McCann was made a ward of court “on the instigation of Gerry and Kate”. As far as I know, Courts don't act “on the instigation” of anyone. Courts act and take decisions following formal requests, complains and/or accusations from solicitors, lawyers, social services, police and prosecution services.

What does it means, “on the instigation of Gerry and Kate”? The McCann just suggested it, during an informal chat with a Judge or while talking with somebody from Social Services? What kind of formal request was presented to a Court and what kind of arguments were used, to ask the Judge to make Madeleine McCann a ward of court and who signed that request? Did Clarence Mitchell used a wrong word – just a mistake, a lapsus linguae - or a carefully chosen word, when he said “instigation”?

Why did Mr. Clarence Mitchell classified the fact that “some details of court proceedings concerning Madeleine have been made public” as something “regrettable”? Why did the McCann “instigated” the Court to take away from them their parental rights, the custody of their missing child?

6 comments:

Cláudia said...

Do Courts in the UK act “on the instigation” of arguidos? Interesting...
Paulo, we all know...

guerra said...

Eu penso que não é uma lapsus linguae, deve ser uma tortas linguae.

Cláudia said...

Guerra, lol

Anonymous said...

Love Reis's explanation of the 'ward of court' news. You can set your watch by him. Right on cue he infers that the order for Madeleine to become a ward of court came from elsewhere. If that is the case, then why are the British Press going on record as saying the couple's legal advisers requested it themselves? It's a detail they could have left out without a great deal of consequence - but they included it every report in every newspaper. Unless you are of the opinion that this is some grand conspiracy where ALL of the British Press are in on it (how bonkers?) you have to accept some details are likely to be accurate (however confusing) - especially given the fact that nobody seems to be correcting all these 'lies, damned lies' Reis keeps telling us about. Last week he was insisting the European Parliament and Commission had been hijacked by the McCanns. Now he is telling us they are controlling the press, the courts AND the social services. I think the only people who like a good conspiracy story more than Reis are the McCanns themselves - who seems to be the source for all this nonsense (btw 'Claudia' it seems the request was put in prior to the McCanns being made argiodos). The reports say it was weeks after Madeleine went missing. Not months. Which is really what makes this confusing. The order might be explained by seek and find orders and publicity/publication orders which may operate more smoothly if the child is made a Ward Of Court (it may have been that the Secrecy laws in Portugal were at odds with the usual Publication Orders - which grants people the right to publish certain kinds of information pertaining to the child - rights which are covered by Wards of Court)

guerra said...

It appears we have an anonymous with an agenda. We can’t be sure when the ward of court was granted and by whose initiative. Unfortunately there is no investigative reporting in Britain so what usually happens is what Mr. Mitchell says is what is reported as truth. In following this case it has become apparent that most media outlets in Britain are following the beat of one drum. The tactics the British Media have employed to protect this couple is shocking. They have resorted to disseminating racism, xenophobia, lies and spin; they have censored any comment that casts a doubt on the couple or suggested that the police have a right to investigate them, like they have the right to investigate anybody. When Mr. Mitchell contradicts himself, which is often, and it becomes apparent that what he said can’t be true, the media just ignores the obvious and gets behind what Mr Mitchell spews next. According to Reporters Without Borders an organization that monitors the Freedom of the Press around the world the United Kingdom rates 24th among nations when it comes to the freedom of the press, Portugal is 8th . Obviously this organization hasn’t followed this case, because if they did they would realize there is minimal journalistic freedom in the United Kingdom

Cláudia said...

Guerra, only people who are fortunate enough to be able to read and interpret news in several languages (especially regarding this case) are really aware of the pathetic work (for lack of a better word) the media in the UK have been doing.

Anon, since I don't believe a word that comes from CM's mouth, I maintain what I said.