Re: Sir Clement Freud and links to the McCanns

**Freedom** Sun 21 Aug 2016, 5:13 pm

Do come and join us Sherlock Holmes if you're not already here!

The censor must have Sundays off to let that stay there for so long.

Going back to what is my opinion a complete non-story as regards the Freud's nanny, she is now dead but her son gave a statement to the Exposure programme.

If there was a baby (it wasn't him) he certainly was unaware of it.

Bampots Sun 21 Aug 2016, 6:26 pm

My thoughts too freedom....Freud is a punch bag with little substance.....it only adds to the lunacy of what we know/dont know.....

Andrew Sun 21 Aug 2016, 9:30 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3751869/Paedophile-TV-star-Sir-Clement-Freud-nominated-knighthood-David-Steel-Cyril-Smith-gong.html

Andrew Sun 21 Aug 2016, 9:36 pm

It's interesting how only 3 comments have been allowed through and remain there on the Sun article. 2 of them from this Sherlock person about the McCanns. Fairly deliberate I would say...

poster Sun 21 Aug 2016, 9:47 pm

Birds of a feather flock together.

Kate in her book claims she thought that the letter (letter? Who invites people over by letter in a holiday resort?) from Freud was a hoax.

Which is not only an odd but also a stupid thing to have said.

What kind of person would send a hoax letter if this was a genuine child abduction case?

Just shows how Kate shoots herself in the foot with every single thing she writes. Simply hasn't got a clue about genuine human emotion and appropriate behaviour. GM is even worse.

IMO only obviously!

Andrew Sun 21 Aug 2016, 10:05 pm

I wonder if we have to wait until Lord Steel is also 6 foot under before we hear what he's really been up to.... Or this just the start of the 'exposure' of what's to come...

Interesting.

AndyB Mon 22 Aug 2016, 11:16 am

Freedom wrote:Yes, it certainly is written as if the words "paedo peer" refer to Lord Steel.

They have to refer to Lord Steel don't they? Surely he is the only peer in the article: Clement Freud was a knight and knighthoods aren't peerages as far as I am aware. Or was he given a peerage as well?

**Freedom** Mon 22 Aug 2016, 11:30 am

I hadn't thought of that. I live and learn - there is a difference between knighthoods and peerages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_the_United_Kingdom#Other_honours_and_appointments

**candyfloss** Mon 22 Aug 2016, 12:16 pm

AndyB wrote:
Freedom wrote:Yes, it certainly is written as if the words "paedo peer" refer to Lord Steel.
They have to refer to Lord Steel don't they? Surely he is the only peer in the article: Clement Freud was a knight and knighthoods aren't peerages as far as I am aware. Or was he given a peerage as well?

Well spotted, here are Lord, or Sir David Steel's titles from Wiki. He was a Sir first, then added the Lord later.

Titles and Styles[edit]
David Steel (31/03/1938 to 24/03/1965)
David Steel MP (24/03/1965 to 1977)
The Right Honourable David Steel MP (1977 to 29/12/1989)
The Right Honourable Sir David Steel KBE MP (29/12/1989 to 08/04/1997)
The Right Honourable Sir David Steel KBE (08/04/1997 to 06/06/1997)
The Right Honourable The Lord Steel of Aikwood KBE PC (06/06/1997 to 06/05/1999)
The Right Honourable The Lord Steel of Aikwood KBE MSP PC (06/05/1999 to 01/05/2003; used "Rt Hon Sir David Steel KBE MSP" in Holyrood despite peerage)
The Right Honourable The Lord Steel of Aikwood KBE PC (01/05/2003 to 30/11/2004)
The Right Honourable The Lord Steel of Aikwood KT KBE PC (30/11/2004 to present)

poster Mon 22 Aug 2016, 10:42 pm

Bampots wrote:Interesting couple of comments......leave the first to speak for itself

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1647316/ex-lib-dem-leader-lord-steel-unmasked-as-backer-for-sex-fiend-sir-clement-freuds-knighthood/
3 comments
Sign in

Post comment as...
Newest | Oldest | Top Comments
sherlock holmes
sherlock holmes 7 hours ago
The intrigue deepens if one pays any attention to the Sun's attempt at linking an 82 year old man who was not even in PDL on May 3rd recalls the parents, who lied about events surrounding their daughter's disappearance enjoying a day at Musselburgh races with Mr Steel earlier this year..Of course despite no evidence of abduction, despite the fact the parents lied about the events of their daughter's disappearance and despite the eleven cadaver alerts uniquely to the parents of the one missing child we are reminded by the superb reporting by the Sun and Antonella Lazzeri that Madeleine was abducted and who bases her reporting on two documented liars..

We then add in the fact that Freud's son was married to the daughter of the owner this newspaper and it becomes clear that the child was abducted from her bed while her parents claim they very responsibly and loving neglected her and her two siblings..

It began, as we said, with the parents failing to tell the police the truth in their very first interviews. As the case prosecutor, Mr. Menezes, stated in court, in Lisbon: "the couple lied to police about how long they had left Madeleine alone."
And it ended with the McCanns claiming through their spokesperson that the final report from that same Mr. Menezes concluding the case in August 2008, "cleared" them. That was also a lie, not a misunderstanding, one which they later embellished by claiming that "the courts" had cleared them. Nowhere does the report clear them. Conduct by the parents that amounts to a "suggestive pattern of behaviour", one consistent with a desire for the Portuguese investigation into their child’s death to "fail" clearly emerged to those who looked at the facts of what they said and the contradictions of their actions..

There could be many reasons why the parents felt and acted in such a claimed way, loss of confidence in the abilities of the Portuguese police, lack of belief in their objectivity and the fear that they might be unjustly accused obviously among them. But there is certainly a less charitable case that can be made and then it would be for the court to decide it on the merits of the evidence, including skilled cross examination where no comments are not a legal right..

Interesting! The McCanns would be shredded in court. Their story does not have a leg to stand on and they were so obviously lying right from the beginning as noted by the Portuguese police who did not believe them from the word go. No wonder Detective Amaral was so astonished that the British establishment stepped in to support this unbelievably ghastly couple, in my opinion of course, and their equally unlikable friends. Kate McCann belittling the Portuguese police and Jane Tanner calling them 'Tweedledum and Tweedlee' is just the cheek of the devil given their own entirely unconvincing performances. Narcissists, the lot of them.

They must, imo, have so many enemies now...when will the floodgates open in terms of people who have remained silent who are not prepared to any more...

ETA: I presume that Murdoch will dance to the prevailing political mood in terms of the McCann case....or maybe he has other axes to grind...

Andrew Tue 13 Dec 2016, 5:05 pm

Will just stick this hear as not sure where to put it. (move where see fit, mods)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-4023194/Clarifications-corrections.html

Clarifications and corrections
By Daily Mail
PUBLISHED: 00:00, 12 December 2016 | UPDATED: 00:00, 12 December 2016

An article on 19 June ('Clement Freud drank with Maddie suspect Robert Murat in Praia da Luz bar – and his local pub was dubbed the Plough and Paedo') reported claims in another newspaper that Robert Murat had known Sir Clement Freud in the Portuguese town where Madeleine McCann went missing. In fact, Mr Murat, who was totally cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, never met or had any connection with the alleged paedophile ex-MP. We are happy to make this clear and apologise to Mr Murat for any suggestion he was involved in wrongdoing.

**Freedom** Tue 13 Dec 2016, 5:15 pm

Last post transferred here.

I don't recall reading that The Mail had linked Robert Murat with Clement Freud.

Andrew Tue 13 Dec 2016, 5:19 pm

I just googled 'Robert Murat' and noticed the Sun also issued the same apology back in October:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/clarifications/2076040/apology-robert-murat/

Andrew Tue 13 Dec 2016, 5:22 pm

I think those original articles have been pulled. A quick look and I can't find them anyway.

unreorganised Tue 13 Dec 2016, 7:03 pm

I've been contemplating a thread on the LibDems and the McCanns. Everybody seems to think that their affiliations are to Labour but actually its the LibDems who seem to be up to their necks in it. Stephen Winyard was coughing up hard cash long before Clement Freud entered the picture.

Bampots Tue 13 Dec 2016, 9:07 pm

Dont contemplate Unreorganised......please do.....im sure it would be of great interest to lots of us on here! study

Andrew Tue 13 Dec 2016, 10:27 pm

Absolutely, U. Get one kicked off.

I was intrigued about your comment a while back with the Lib/Labour/Wrest stuff.

Was meaning to look into it some more but I didn't to be fair.

What's your thoughts?

Cheers.

Andrew Sun 18 Dec 2016, 12:19 am

http://portugalresident.com/british-tabloids-apologise-over-maddie-slurs-six-months-on

Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on December 17, 2016
British tabloids apologise over Maddie slurs... six months on

Six months after British tabloid papers printed yet more “lunatic lies” regarding ‘the search for Madeleine McCann, apologies have appeared in two publications.

The Daily Mail and the Sun have both retracted stories that splashed across issues in June suggesting Sir Clement Fred - ‘outed’ as a paedophile following his death - drank at a Burgau pub with Robert Murat, the man awarded substantial damages early on in the inquiry for stories printed about him that had no basis in truth at all.

As the Resident revealed at the time, the stories were “factually ridiculous” (click here).

They not only constituted slurs on Murat and indeed Freud, they implicated a popular local watering hole by dubbing it, without any explanation, the “Plough and Paedo”.

At the time, landlord Robert Hurst told us: “This kind of irresponsible journalism can do no good whatsoever for anyone. Heaven only knows what kind of feeding frenzy will be unleashed next year on the 10th anniversary” - which of course comes early next year, at the start of the high holiday season.

It is also unclear why it took so long for the apologies to appear as it was patent from the outset that the ‘revelations’ were fatuous.

The first came at the end of October in the Sun- whose journalist visited Hurst’s pub, the long-established and extremely popular Pig’s Head, but in no way conducted any kind of interview - and the second in the Mail, last Monday.

Both papers stated that not only had Murat been cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, he had never met Freud.

Indeed the Sun stated: “It was not our intention to suggest any wrong-doing by Mr Murat. We apologise to Mr Murat”.

With Freud ‘out of the picture’ in death, that still leaves the Pig’s Head without any kind of apology.

Robert Hurst tells us he is “working on it” and in contact with the McCann’s legal team.

His main concern, he said, was with the “unsolicited pic of the pub which was placed in the middle of the Sun’s article, with the caption: ‘the pub where Murat and Freud drank’.”

“Such was the disjoined nature of the piece that it led people to think we were the paedo pub”, he added.

natasha.donn@algarveresident.com

hesla Sun 18 Dec 2016, 10:41 am

I am confused as to why Mr Hurst the landlord of the Pigs Head is in contact with the McCann's Legal Team regarding the newspaper arcticles bad mouthing his Pub not the papers themselves or their legal teams. Is this just shoddy reporting or is it suggesting something else?

Guinea Pig Sun 18 Dec 2016, 11:45 am

Yes, that does seem odd.

I don't know if this earlier article has been posted before.

http://portugalresident.com/burgau-pub-landlord-trashes-british-press-for-latest-mccann-%E2%80%9Clunacy%E2%80%9D

Andrew Sun 18 Dec 2016, 8:59 pm

Was it the McCann's legal team that tipped off the Journalists in the first place about it all.

Shift the emphasis back onto RM being an associate of CF....

**candyfloss** Sat 22 Jul 2017, 8:51 am

Robert Murat - An Apology – 21 July 2017

On 19 June 2016 we published an article concerning the late Clement Freud and the abduction of Madeleine McCann (“Paedophile Clement Freud drank in same Portuguese pub as one-time Maddie suspect”).

PUBLISHED: 15:33, Fri, Jul 21, 2017 | UPDATED: 16:22, Fri, Jul 21, 2017
The article also referred to Robert Murat who was totally cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

We would like to make it clear that Mr Murat never met, nor had any connection with, Clement Freud, whether at the Portugal pub mentioned in our article or otherwise.

It was not our intention to suggest any wrong-ding by Robert Murat and we apologise for the harm and distress we caused him.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/831452/Robert-Murat-Apology-21-July-2017

Also in Daily Star....

Robert Murat: An Apology – 21 July 2017

On 19 June 2016 we published an article concerning the late Clement Freud and the abduction of Madeleine McCann (“Paedo Clement Freud ‘went drinking at Portugal pub with Maddie suspect”).

The article also referred to Robert Murat who was totally cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

We would like to make it clear that Mr Murat never met, nor had any connection with, Clement Freud, whether at the Portugal pub mentioned in our article or otherwise.

It was not our intention to suggest any wrong-doing by Robert Murat and we apologise for the harm and distress we caused him.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/631559/Robert-Murat-Apology-21-July-2017

**Freedom** Sat 22 Jul 2017, 9:42 am

Sorry, the mention of wrong-DING in the Express has made me smile!

It certainly was a silly story - par for the course with anything McCann related though.

Mimi Sat 22 Jul 2017, 10:51 am

I didn`t realise he had been `totally cleared`. He was released from arguido status, like the McCanns, but didn`t know the PJ had totally cleared him. I assumed he would be in the same situation as the McCanns, as the Supreme Court stated, never having been cleared.

froggy Sat 22 Jul 2017, 11:18 am

It would appear not - if you can believe the tabloids

Sponsored content