The last video taken of Madeleine McCann.

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps, as a moderator. you could answer the question asked? The post being questioned made no attempt at all to conform with the thread topic.

I have gone back through the links provided by the quotes and I would say it was your post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg474776#msg474776  that threw the discussion into disarray IMO.

The debate gets heated, and it is important IMO not just to restrict that debate.

[Robittybob1]

If the post had been deleted on sight then pages wouldn't have been taken over. as a mod I am asking the question. any answer- any time ?

If we are going to promote the rules...



"Trying to defend this is futile and unrealistic in a debate."  Is that your opinion?

Yes! Due to observation. However, this thread is a testament to that.

"This was due to TV showing  the video clip and Gerry saying a notty word."

It was shown on TV and  it is illegal, as has been explained,  to use profanity in news clips. [research the telecommunications act 2003]- I have already quoted  earlier on in the thread.

HENCE why I said ".It has been explained as to why the audio would be removed."

It was explained at the time from a question who would remove the audio.

So are you saying that the sound track on the Reuters one was original?

Are you saying the AP clip was on TV so they had to remove any profanity (even if it was barely audible)?

[G-Unit]

I have gone back through the links provided by the quotes and I would say it was your post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg474776#msg474776  that threw the discussion into disarray IMO.

The debate gets heated, and it is important IMO not just to restrict that debate.

No it wasn't, imo. I was discussing videos, not the trimming of bushes.

[Miss Taken Identity]

So are you saying that the sound track on the Reuters one was original?

Are you saying the AP clip was on TV so they had to remove any profanity (even if it was barely audible)?

why would reuters lie? I have yet to see a cite which claims the video had NO audio.

I am NOT saying the AP clip was removed - I am saying IF there was profanity it would have to be removed  before being broadcast-due to the law here in the UK.

Please note I was replying to the question why would anyone remove audio! and put it back on...

[Robittybob1]

why would reuters lie? I have yet to see a cite which claims the video had NO audio.

I am NOT saying the AP clip was removed - I am saying IF there was profanity it would have to be removed  before being broadcast-due to the law here in the UK.

Please note I was replying to the question why would anyone remove audio! and put it back on...

Your points are noted and I tend to agree.  What I can't do is verify what appeared on TV in the UK.  I was not there to see it.

[slartibartfast]

If the post had been deleted on sight then pages wouldn't have been taken over. as a mod I am asking the question. any answer- any time ?

If we are going to promote the rules...



"Trying to defend this is futile and unrealistic in a debate."  Is that your opinion?

Yes! Due to observation. However, this thread is a testament to that.

"This was due to TV showing  the video clip and Gerry saying a notty word."

It was shown on TV and  it is illegal, as has been explained,  to use profanity in news clips. [research the telecommunications act 2003]- I have already quoted  earlier on in the thread.

HENCE why I said ".It has been explained as to why the audio would be removed."

It was explained at the time from a question who would remove the audio.

I would say that the problem for mods is that as a mod you flick between threads to see what is being said. If you look for last unread then it can take you straight to an off topic post which may appear as a valid comment but from another thread. No excuse but a fact of life.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I would say that the problem for mods is that as a mod you flick between threads to see what is being said. If you look for last unread then it can take you straight to an off topic post which may appear as a valid comment but from another thread. No excuse but a fact of life.

Thanks for explaining Slarti. So if we members notice a topic going on a wander can we highlight this to have it brought back.
 I know some posts pop in and out and is interesting to watch what it throws up. But Mods can start up a new thread if they think it is interesting enough? OR is that just John who can do that?.

Back on topic of topic.

I really can't see any issue with Gerry saying a f word. Perhaps not in front of the children, but I think he was being 'funny' for the camera , by saying he was not there to enjoy himself.

[slartibartfast]

Thanks for explaining Slarti. So if we members notice a topic going on a wander can we highlight this to have it brought back.
 I know some posts pop in and out and is interesting to watch what it throws up. But Mods can start up a new thread if they think it is interesting enough? OR is that just John who can do that?.

Back on topic of topic.

I really can't see any issue with Gerry saying a f word. Perhaps not in front of the children, but I think he was being 'funny' for the camera , by saying he was not there to enjoy himself.

Yes, please report. Anyone can start a new thread which would be assessed and approved by a mod.

[Robittybob1]

Yes, please report. Anyone can start a new thread which would be assessed and approved by a mod.

And it is fun too to see the thread you started grow.

[IndigoJ]

Thanks for explaining Slarti. So if we members notice a topic going on a wander can we highlight this to have it brought back.
 I know some posts pop in and out and is interesting to watch what it throws up. But Mods can start up a new thread if they think it is interesting enough? OR is that just John who can do that?.

Back on topic of topic.

I really can't see any issue with Gerry saying a f word. Perhaps not in front of the children, but I think he was being 'funny' for the camera , by saying he was not there to enjoy himself.

i also took it that he was being funny for the camera, amazing that people think otherwise and then try to make out this video has some relevance to his daughter's disappearance !

[Robittybob1]

i also took it that he was being funny for the camera, amazing that people think otherwise and then try to make out this video has some relevance to his daughter's disappearance !

Family dynamics often have a large bearing as to what happens.