This week, we have received a polite notice that we should desist from referring to, or indeed inferring the existance of, rogatory letters being considered by the Home Office. This 'request' has been passed to all organs of the news media.
I haven't quite got to the bottom of how and why this has come about and I'm not sure if I will. It is possible that there is a deliberate effort to avoid uninformed speculation on the timescales involved, or the process being followed and that the Home Office want to deal with this quietly, methodically and professionally without undue external influence or interference. It is also possible that they'd rather that the public at large didn't know that such things existed and continued to believe in fairies. I don't exactly know the route that this request has taken to reach us either, but nevertheless it does explain why there is almost no mention of the rogatory letters in the British media.
We have been instructed (by 'we' I mean the media in general, rather than my particular arm thereof) to refer to the Portuguese police as hoping, or wanting, to question, or clarify some aspects with, the Tapas 7 and make no mention that an official process is underway to facilitate this. Hence, you will not see any reference to these letters, nor any further speculation as to why they are taking some time to be authorised in the papers or on TV news from this point on into the foreseeable future.

thank you for that - we had wondered

let us hope it is simply that Jacqui Smith doesn't want to be bombarded with e-mails again

thanks kgmc that explains a lot.
I, for one, am extremely unhappy about emails etc. being fired off to the Home Office, it won't help and may hinder the process by irritating the mandarins in power.

Thanks for that kgmc. Good to hear from you again.

And I, for one, am extremely unhappy that it seems our Home Office is gagging the press, and denying the public information on the status of the Rogatory letters.

I SHALL be emailing!

thanks and welcome back

And why should any media respect this request if they disagree with it (assuming it exists and that you are not just posting this for effect).

Indeed so. I'm not suggesting that there is necessarily anything untoward in what's been done, per se. It is fair to assume that the Home Office were not best pleased with the reports last month that they were deliberately holding up a process which few people fully understand and which must be followed to the letter (no pun intended) if subsequent prosecutions are to follow based upon it.
However, it does feed the fires of those who would like to suggest to the great British public that the Portuguese police are inept and that if they wanted to reinterview anyone then they could and should just do so. There is a complicated legal procedure to be followed, which is the direct result of the McCanns leaving Portugal when they did and the failure, or inability, of the Portuguese authorites to prevent them from doing so.
Silencing discussion in the mainstream media of this point and the resulting interminable machinations, is hardly informing the public at large. But that's not really what the media exists to do nowadays it would seem.

kgmc2007

how unusual is this kind of 'instruction' from the government?

Kgmc - many thanks for that. It's common sense, really, and what should be expected. We certainly don't want Caplan et al having any excuse for advising his clients not to co-operate.

I assume you mean that question as some kind of a joke?

Thanks for the update kgmc2007 - great to hear from you again

kgmc good to have you back!

What is your opinion on the Daily Express deleting its online articles on the McCann case, please?

Well, it's stretching it a little to say it comes from 'The Government' as such, or at least not in a way that could be directly attributed. If Quark wishes to e-mail them, that's his prerogative, but he is unlikely to receive any admission or acknoledgement that such a directive exists.
This leads me to the rather silly comment from Mistaken. The media depends on certain channels of information. If these channels are closed, then in the words of Chris Morris 'you've lost the news!'. It is not in the interest of any editorial hierachy to bite the hand that feeds them, even if they (Chris Morris time again) 'don't like it, but I'm going to have to live with it'.
To suggest that such an instruction could simply be ignored, if it came through certain channels, is to fail to understand the most basic workings of the media.
In answer to the general question, it happens all the time, but it doesn't happen without someone with some significant influence requesting it.

I don't really have an opinion to proffer. Suffice to say that The Express decided that discretion was the better part of valour and didn't fancy any more legal bills. They have been the most willing of all the newspaper groups to question the approved line on the McCanns, but they are unlikely to be so brave again.