NJH yesterday: “I think it’s genuinely sad that miracle cures (sic) for various ailments seem to have taken Di and Maddie’s rightful place as the Monday “headline”.”.
I see that the Express is running a “Winter Cruise Special”. This from the paper that ran the infamous “£10 Cruise For All Our Readers” promotion . After nearly five years some people our still waiting for their cruise and have been forced to take to paper to the small claims court to get recompense.
Is it only me that thinks that the parents probably did it, and this “search” is little more than a pretty boring PR campaign?
I may be wrong, but there was no evidence of abduction whatsoever. Not even at an atomic/dna level.
You know, I realise that Portugese cops are hapless, greasy, half wits (The portugese police are actually one of top forces in the world. Way better than the UK), who take 3 hour lunch breaks, and drink on the job. However, I’d go with their opinion, over a few newspapers, and the tapas 8.
If you read every one of these articles and appeals:
1: They always start with referring it to a police investigation. To legitimise the parents. There is no police involvement. There has never been. This latest story involves an internet child protection agency, and private investigators.
They get away with “police want anyone to come forward” on the basis that Interpol loosley backs the website/agency.
However, I think you’ll agree, that the story implies that the police are involved in the investigation. They are not.
2: Stories always start with “The parents were cleared by the portugese police of any involvement”. You know, working in PR, I’d tell you that the focus of the stories and appeals are not to find anyone – but to ram that notion into your noggin.
4/10 on housing benefit? So they are implying that 27 million people are on housing benefit.
I’d call that an abject, total lie.
When papers use 1 in 2, 4 in 10, 3 in 8, it usually accounts to the fact that they are trying to fix the figures.
I’d bet all the housing benefits in the world, that the actual 4 in 10 refers to the people that have ever claimed the benefit. Not people actively on it
If 4 in 10 were really on housing benefit the economy would be in a complete mess.. That’s something like 24 million unemployed (since the unemployed are the ones that are most likely to be claiming it).
Of course those kinds of basic maths are beyond the average express reader.
I don’t know whether the parents did it – statistically they’re the most likely to have done so but there’s been no evidence either way.
The way they manipulate the press though I have zero sympathy any more. It’s not about their lost daughter any more it’s about TV appearences, selling the story.. I bet there’s a book in production too.
Have some other ‘newspapers’ (sic) darkened Maddie’s skin in their reproduction of this photofit?
The Star helpfully asks if she’s now a Muslim for example………..
I expect they have chosen hosuing benefit as it can be claimed by people in a wide range of situations: in work, caring, jobseeking, incapacited, and anyone else on a low income.
It does not always pay a person’s entire rent and can be paid in part, down to 50p per week, if the claimant has some income.
The stat is 25% of Londoners claim it, but noting that rent is so high in London most salaries will probably fall under the Mimimum as someone said it is a catch alot benefit, I can even get a small amount and I’m earning nearly 16k, not that I do as it’s only about an extra 20 quid a month.
It is actually a Tory Report, and claims Labour haven’t been able to weed people off benefits dependency, of course they do the report in the worst recession since the war.
As I deal with this kind of benefit on a day to day basis it’s a basic lifeline along with working tax credits for many people in the area of Cornwall in which inequality is so bad that the EU reserves it’s biggest ESF fund for. Housing benefit is actually one of the more fairer benefits, it allows none home owning low earners a chance to at least contribute to society.
As for that Maddie Picture, it’s basically that Picture from about a year or so ago with just longer hair, and it’s fucking strange. I know the Parents still want her back but that picture won’t find her, it looks like someone without talent has mocked it up on photoshop*
NJH yesterday: “I think it’s genuinely sad that miracle cures (sic) for various ailments seem to have taken Di and Maddie’s rightful place as the Monday “headline”.”.
Evidently your disappointment has been noted!
How predictable
I see that the Express is running a “Winter Cruise Special”. This from the paper that ran the infamous “£10 Cruise For All Our Readers” promotion . After nearly five years some people our still waiting for their cruise and have been forced to take to paper to the small claims court to get recompense.
Here we go again…
Is it only me that thinks that the parents probably did it, and this “search” is little more than a pretty boring PR campaign?
I may be wrong, but there was no evidence of abduction whatsoever. Not even at an atomic/dna level.
You know, I realise that Portugese cops are hapless, greasy, half wits (The portugese police are actually one of top forces in the world. Way better than the UK), who take 3 hour lunch breaks, and drink on the job. However, I’d go with their opinion, over a few newspapers, and the tapas 8.
If you read every one of these articles and appeals:
1: They always start with referring it to a police investigation. To legitimise the parents. There is no police involvement. There has never been. This latest story involves an internet child protection agency, and private investigators.
They get away with “police want anyone to come forward” on the basis that Interpol loosley backs the website/agency.
However, I think you’ll agree, that the story implies that the police are involved in the investigation. They are not.
2: Stories always start with “The parents were cleared by the portugese police of any involvement”. You know, working in PR, I’d tell you that the focus of the stories and appeals are not to find anyone – but to ram that notion into your noggin.
4/10 on housing benefit? So they are implying that 27 million people are on housing benefit.
I’d call that an abject, total lie.
When papers use 1 in 2, 4 in 10, 3 in 8, it usually accounts to the fact that they are trying to fix the figures.
I’d bet all the housing benefits in the world, that the actual 4 in 10 refers to the people that have ever claimed the benefit. Not people actively on it
PS.
The Daily Expresses tag line:
“Crusading for a better Britain”.
You know, call me pinickity, but is anyone else really peeved that they use a word like “crusade”.
Bearing in mind a crusade is white christians, trying to do over a load of black muslims.
Crusading to me connotes exactly that. A definite muslim, war sort of thing.
Bearing in mind 99% of their articles are attacking muslims, how can this be some sort of accident?
Hahaha
How predicatble. 4 in 10 on housing benefits actually means:
“FOUR out of 10 households get their rent paid by the taxpayer, IN THE PARTS OF BRITAIN MOST BLIGHTED BY BENFITS DEPENDENCY.”
So, 4 in 10 of people in Stretford are on housing benefits.
Is it just me, or is that actually a pretty mediocre number. Bearing in mind these are areas with 50% unemployment?
“
The parts of Britain most blighted by benefits dependency are the parts of Britain most blighted by benefits dependency?
Who’d have thought?
The first comment underneath the 4 in 10 story. …it’s all them immigrants…
If 4 in 10 were really on housing benefit the economy would be in a complete mess.. That’s something like 24 million unemployed (since the unemployed are the ones that are most likely to be claiming it).
Of course those kinds of basic maths are beyond the average express reader.
I don’t know whether the parents did it – statistically they’re the most likely to have done so but there’s been no evidence either way.
The way they manipulate the press though I have zero sympathy any more. It’s not about their lost daughter any more it’s about TV appearences, selling the story.. I bet there’s a book in production too.
Have some other ‘newspapers’ (sic) darkened Maddie’s skin in their reproduction of this photofit?
The Star helpfully asks if she’s now a Muslim for example………..
I expect they have chosen hosuing benefit as it can be claimed by people in a wide range of situations: in work, caring, jobseeking, incapacited, and anyone else on a low income.
It does not always pay a person’s entire rent and can be paid in part, down to 50p per week, if the claimant has some income.
So it’s really not news.
And I forgot to mention pensioners, who have by far the most generous rules on eligibility.
If that photo’s real, she looks happy enough as she is.
As for “four in ten”, ironic isn’t it that the DE can’t reduce a fraction to the lowest common denominator?
Christo,
Given that the Daily Express’ mascot is a crusades era soldier I suspect that their use of the term and imagery it conveys is wholly deliberate.
Haha, nice one.
The stat is 25% of Londoners claim it, but noting that rent is so high in London most salaries will probably fall under the Mimimum as someone said it is a catch alot benefit, I can even get a small amount and I’m earning nearly 16k, not that I do as it’s only about an extra 20 quid a month.
It is actually a Tory Report, and claims Labour haven’t been able to weed people off benefits dependency, of course they do the report in the worst recession since the war.
As I deal with this kind of benefit on a day to day basis it’s a basic lifeline along with working tax credits for many people in the area of Cornwall in which inequality is so bad that the EU reserves it’s biggest ESF fund for. Housing benefit is actually one of the more fairer benefits, it allows none home owning low earners a chance to at least contribute to society.
The wrong war to pick
As for that Maddie Picture, it’s basically that Picture from about a year or so ago with just longer hair, and it’s fucking strange. I know the Parents still want her back but that picture won’t find her, it looks like someone without talent has mocked it up on photoshop*
*Which they probably did
Perhaps Maddie reads The Express (poor kid) and will get in touch?
One possible look for Maddie down, just several million possiblities to go.
That photo is creepy, she looks like an adult that’s been manipulated to look like a child, the more I look at it the more creepy it looks.
She dosen’t look to bad, for a dead person that is.
Maddie tick
benefit scroungers tick
only immigrants are missing from making it a hat-trick