Sceptics beliefs ?

[Eleanor]

Crikey, already over 30,000 posts, and none of them worthwhile, according to your opinion.  I'm sure you have heard the phrase 'The Devil makes work for idle hands'?
If you have something solid to post on this subject, here is your last chance.

Otherwise it is Davel v Sutton.

Sutton wins by a KO.

Don't chance your arm on this one.  I still have my arm to lose..

[Eleanor]

Don't chance your arm on this one.  I still have my arm to lose..

And I'll tell you what.  I'll be riding shot gun, underneath the hot Sun, feeling like someone.

[G-Unit]

"So we can't rely on witnesses, statements, media reports or experts. How on earth did anyone manage to decide that the McCanns committed no wrong?" is a question possibly better addressed to the Attorney General of Portugal who lifted the McCann suspect status from them after due consideration of the evidence.

The Attorney General's Office announced the archiving, but the decision was made by the public prosecutors;

"The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos"

Their ruminations and conclusions can be found in the files;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The Supreme Court Judges pointed out the problems with that report in 2017.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

The document was by no means as clear cut as was suggested and believed by some.

[G-Unit]

A skill I know I possess and something that you don't seem to have considered

In my opinion you are simply airing your opinions about your 'skills' and about the McCanns.

[Mr Gray]

The Attorney General's Office announced the archiving, but the decision was made by the public prosecutors;

"The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos"

Their ruminations and conclusions can be found in the files;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The Supreme Court Judges pointed out the problems with that report in 2017.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

The document was by no means as clear cut as was suggested and believed by some.

I think it's extremely clear cut... No evidence... Insufficient evidence... Same difference  ..I expect the, ECHR will explain it

[G-Unit]

I think it's extremely clear cut... No evidence... Insufficient evidence... Same difference  ..I expect the, ECHR will explain it

If they acceot the case and if that question needs to be addressed I expect they will.

[Mr Gray]

In my opinion you are simply airing your opinions about your 'skills' and about the McCanns.

And IMO I'm stating facts...

[Eleanor]

In my opinion you are simply airing your opinions about your 'skills' and about the McCanns.

I

It is so often difficult to do this.  I try not to do so.  But then I don't give much of a poop  of what any of you think of me.

I'll  tell you what.  Brietta and Rob and I do our best  under very limited circumstances.  None of us have the last word.

Talk to The Hand if you think that you are being badly treated.  But then so many of you do. 

What a bunch of wimps so many of you are.

[The General]

I

It is so often difficult to do this.  I try not to do so.  But then I don't give much of a poop  of what any of you think of me.

I'll  tell you what.  Brietta and Rob and I do our best  under very limited circumstances.  None of us have the last word.

Talk to The Hand if you think that you are being badly treated.  But then so many of you do. 

What a bunch of wimps so many of you are.

Fair one.
I think the title of the thread almost invited a further driving of the wedge between two steadfast factions.
Maybe we all need a cyber hug and get on with it.....

[Mr Gray]

Fair one.
I think the title of the thread almost invited a further driving of the wedge between two steadfast factions.
Maybe we all need a cyber hug and get on with it.....

Agreed

[Brietta]

Fair one.
I think the title of the thread almost invited a further driving of the wedge between two steadfast factions.
Maybe we all need a cyber hug and get on with it.....

I think the title of the thread gave the opportunity for sceptics to explain why they are sceptics and give a concise analysis of their beliefs to enable folk like me to understand what they are on about.

Particularly if I can remember that far back without checking the OP ... in particular the attitude towards the present investigation here and in Portugal on behalf of Madeleine.

Seems there is a case to be made that sceptics may be few on the ground if there are any at all and huge objection to the suggestion there are 'beliefs'.

So I disagree regarding the thread.  I think it was an opportunity for enlightenment and understanding which has been rejected.  But there have been interesting snippets nonetheless.

[Eleanor]

I'm struggling to see any connection between G-Units post & your reply.

Have you been drinking?

Oh God, not that old chestnut.  I struggle to see any point to your comments at all, ever.
 
Have I been drinking?  Of course i have.  How else do you think I cope with your vomit inducing remarks.  You aren't even clever.  I mostly ignore you.  But don't take me on Sweet Cheeks.

[Erngath]

I think the title of the thread gave the opportunity for sceptics to explain why they are sceptics and give a concise analysis of their beliefs to enable folk like me to understand what they are on about.

Particularly if I can remember that far back without checking the OP ... in particular the attitude towards the present investigation here and in Portugal on behalf of Madeleine.

Seems there is a case to be made that sceptics may be few on the ground if there are any at all and huge objection to the suggestion there are 'beliefs'.

So I disagree regarding the thread.  I think it was an opportunity for enlightenment and understanding which has been rejected.  But there have been interesting snippets nonetheless.

Thank you Brietta.
You have explaned exactly my motive for starting this thread.
From time to time I do wonder what keeps sceptics so committed to their variety of beliefs in parental complicity in Madeleine's disappearance.
So much of their commitment  to their belief in complicity seems to depend on concerns which do not as yet seem to have aroused the same suspicions in both current police investigations.

[The General]

I think the title of the thread gave the opportunity for sceptics to explain why they are sceptics and give a concise analysis of their beliefs to enable folk like me to understand what they are on about.

Particularly if I can remember that far back without checking the OP ... in particular the attitude towards the present investigation here and in Portugal on behalf of Madeleine.

Seems there is a case to be made that sceptics may be few on the ground if there are any at all and huge objection to the suggestion there are 'beliefs'.

So I disagree regarding the thread.  I think it was an opportunity for enlightenment and understanding which has been rejected.  But there have been interesting snippets nonetheless.

From what I can distill down from it, there is this view of a stereotypical sceptic who all believe all of the same facets and are equally vociferous and immovable, like the Borg, assimilated and speaking in unison.
It really isn't like that at all. From what I see there are diverging views on various aspects even amongst us sceptics.
It's a bit harsh to suggest that 'we' have 'rejected' an opportunity for enlightenment and understanding  - I think if you read back you will find that we were badgered incessantly from the get go as soon as we opened up. I personally faced the indignation of a public text-flogging for revealing one of the reasons that made me sceptical - so we're invited in, then hoofed around like an abductee in a Moldovan shipping container. (That's a joke, please delete as usual)
But I'm stupid enough and old enough to get on with it, but I'm glad you found the exercise useful.

[Eleanor]

Fair one.
I think the title of the thread almost invited a further driving of the wedge between two steadfast factions.
Maybe we all need a cyber hug and get on with it.....

Yar, that could be okay..But don't hold hold your breath.