Who are they?
Who are they?
...how do you hope to achieve your aim if the case is closed unsolved? What will be your next step?
Who are they?They are the people who say they are fightng for "Justice For Maddie" but who are also hyper critical of the current investigation and who feel it should come to an end asap.
They are the people who say they are fightng for "Justice For Maddie" but who are also hyper critical of the current investigation and who feel it should come to an end asap.
They are the people who say they are fightng for "Justice For Maddie" but who are also hyper critical of the current investigation and who feel it should come to an end asap.
Perhaps they are pinning their hopes on the PJ solving it ? Some seem to have forgotten but they have re-opened the investigation.
Then it shows just how stupid these people are
Why ?
If you don't know why you never will
Well I don't know but you seem to. Would you mind explaining ?
Perhaps they are pinning their hopes on the PJ solving it ? Some seem to have forgotten but they have re-opened the investigation.Ah, so these Justice Campaigners don't care about the cost of a further investigation borne by the PT tax payer, just so long as the chances of a McCann conviction are marginally higher...?
Ah, so these Justice Campaigners don't care about the cost of a further investigation borne by the PT tax payer, just so long as the chances of a McCann conviction are marginally higher...?
...how do you hope to achieve your aim if the case is closed unsolved? What will be your next step?
Now that you've told us where they are may I suggest that you go and ask them Alfred.
So the only outcome to this case that you think would be worthwhile is if the McCanns get banged up at the end of it? Never mind who actually dunnit as long as the McCanns are punished?
That would be the icing on the cake and worth every penny ?{)(**
Now that you've told us where they are may I suggest that you go and ask them Alfred.I'm asking the ones here, I didn't specify where they hung out. I think you'll find that a few members of this forum claim that there raison d'etre is "Justice For Maddie" as well.
So the only outcome to this case that you think would be worthwhile is if the McCanns get banged up at the end of it? Never mind who actually dunnit as long as the McCanns are punished?
You are 100% convinced they dunnit then?
Only when they are found guilty.
You are 100% convinced they dunnit then?
Not 100%, but I'll only change my opinion when the authorities convict someone else for Madeleine's disappearance and probable demise.And if they do that will that not also be money well spent, or a bit of a let down and not worth the time and expense, in your view?
And if they do that will that not also be money well spent, or a bit of a let down and not worth the time and expense, in your view?
Do stop trying to put words into my mouth, there's a good chap.Do try and read the question - I gave you an option: money well spent or a big let down and waste of money and time? I asked for your view, I did not put words into your mouth.
I'm asking the ones here, I didn't specify where they hung out. I think you'll find that a few members of this forum claim that there raison d'etre is "Justice For Maddie" as well.
Probably no stranger than people who actively search these sites out just so that they can criticise them
I'm just wondering about the mentality of folk whoOMG, I thought I'd heard it all but that really is sick. 8(8-))
(a) set up a poll on FB and
(b) actually participated by voting on the likeliest place for Madeleine McCann's burial site.
One of the options for the apparently intellectually challenged to tick in response to "where Maddie is BURIED" is Still Alive.
Some of them actually selected that.
Do people really do that?
*&*%£
Probably no stranger than people who actively search these sites out just so that they can criticise them
OMG, I thought I'd heard it all but that really is sick. 8(8-))
Amazing how coy and defensive people become when some of the excesses of these sites are exposed to the light of day.
One can only assume there is a general realisation of how sick they actually are.
Trying to tar everyone with the same brush again Brietta. How very 1939 of you.*Irony Klaxon* Read what you've just written and then read your signature line. Egg very much on face methinks.
*Irony Klaxon* Read what you've just written and then read your signature line. Egg very much on face methinks.
Not in the least Alfie. My signature refers to the supporters and all those who took part in the hounding of BL. For the record I believe that the vast majority of people who support the McCanns are decent, empathetic people. Brietta was referring to those that don't as one homogenous, evil group much, it has to be said, like the propoganda the Nazis disseminated against the Jews in the 1930s.
I hadn't read your signature until just now.It's funny Faithlilly should bring up Nazi propagandists because I am always put in mind of Adolf in full-on rant whenever I read one of the Stud Muffin's more choleric blog entries.
Now why is it you feel the necessity to compare me to a Nazi propagandists? Didn't you know ... Je suis Juif ??
It's funny Faithlilly should bring up Nazi propagandists because I am always put in mind of Adolf in full-on rant whenever I read one of the Stud Muffin's more choleric blog entries.
It's funny Faithlilly should bring up Nazi propagandists because I am always put in mind of Adolf in full-on rant whenever I read one of the Stud Muffin's more choleric blog entries.
I see him more as a Horwich than a Hitler.
I see him as someone who wanted to be a journalist but was nowhere near good enough...so now he peddles his wares for nothing on the net...@)(++(* 8((()*/
@)(++(* 8((()*/
As William Penn mused "The jealous are troublesome to others, but a torment to themselves"
Don't be that person Alfie 8(8-))
Not in the least Alfie. My signature refers to the supporters and all those who took part in the hounding of BL. For the record I believe that the vast majority of people who support the McCanns are decent, empathetic people. Brietta was referring to those that don't as one homogenous, evil group much, it has to be said, like the propoganda the Nazis disseminated against the Jews in the 1930s.
I hadn't read your signature either until now Faithlilly, how dare you!!! Who do you think you are to say that about all who support the parents of a missing child? I am here because I care about Madeleine and want her found. Brenda Leyland posted nasty tweets, her name was among many others who do the same. Brenda Leyland was ashamed of what she had done she was also mentally fragile, something Martin Brunt could not have known.
Your war with anti and pro's is your problem, but don't you add me into your nasty opinion of all who are here to find out what happened to Madeleine.
If you didn't take part in the hounding of BL then my signature is not directed at you Lace. As I have already said I have no problem with people who believe the parent's story, some of my friends do, or post in a supportive manner but that's a far cry from the rabid group who targetted Brenda Leyland and hounded her to her death. Those individuals reside in a moral vacuum where only one view is tolerated, any dissenters are viewed as subhuman and any action, no matter how abhorent, is tolerated as long it hurts 'the other side'.
If you didn't take part in the hounding of BL then my signature is not directed at you Lace. As I have already said I have no problem with people who believe the parent's story, some of my friends do, or post in a supportive manner but that's a far cry from the rabid group who targetted Brenda Leyland and hounded her to her death. Those individuals reside in a moral vacuum where only one view is tolerated, any dissenters are viewed as subhuman and any action, no matter how abhorent, is tolerated as long it hurts 'the other side'.
Not in the least Alfie. My signature refers to the supporters and all those who took part in the hounding of BL. For the record I believe that the vast majority of people who support the McCanns are decent, empathetic people. Brietta was referring to those that don't as one homogenous, evil group much, it has to be said, like the propoganda the Nazis disseminated against the Jews in the 1930s.
In that case you need to reword it.
Firstly I didn't write the quote. Secondly no rewording needed.
I am not on twitter, however I read there sometimes. I read some of Brenda Leylands tweets and as far as I can see she give back as good as she got.
When you take part in a war on twitter it is entirely upon your head, Brenda Leyland knew what she was doing she hounded a girl off twitter from what I read on there and was quite jubilant with what she had achieved.
Twitter wars are one thing. What was done to BL is something else entirely.
Lace if you were not part of the group who hounded BL, and I don't believe you were, I don't know why you would want to identify yourself with them.
Twitter wars are one thing. What was done to BL is something else entirely.
Lace if you were not part of the group who hounded BL, and I don't believe you were, I don't know why you would want to identify yourself with them.
Are you saying that you are excluding Tweeters as 'hounders?
Are you saying that you are excluding Tweeters as 'hounders?
I can stand back and see the full picture.
BL on twitter practically living as a different person to how she was perceived in her village. Venting her anger about the McCann's with others who felt the same.
Though it went far far over the top from just debating the McCann case. Someone comes along who they believe is Amy the nanny from the OC. BL posts nasty messages to her even calling her a prostitute, the girl leaves BL is glad happy that this girl is 'scared'.
Pro's give her some of her own treatment she argues back.
Some of the tweets are to the McCann's and the twins.
Someone is very worried how these tweets are escalating out of control, not just BL but others as well. This person cannot live with the fact that some nutcase could well go and carry out what is being tweeted.
This person takes the tweets to the police.
A journalist traces BL down, she gives her real name on line so that is easy to do. He confronts her as 'sweepyface' not her real name, her address is not given. Later he is packing up when BL comes back and invites him into her home. BL knew Martin Brunt as she had tweeted to him many times.
BL with a mental condition that made her moods swing up and down then hides away from all the attention. Who knows then what else went through her mind as there were many other things going on at the same time. BL decides to end it all.
You see how could any one have known the outcome of all this? No one could have, no one is to blame.
We are adults and there is an on off button on your computer.
What happened to BL is something else entirely.
Only to those deluding themselves that black is white and seeking to present the perpetrator as the victim IMO.
I can only hope that you are never targetted in the same way as BL Lace.
I can only hope that you are never targetted in the same way as BL Lace.
So who did BL hound to their death Benice ?
I'm asking the ones here, I didn't specify where they hung out. I think you'll find that a few members of this forum claim that there raison d'etre is "Justice For Maddie" as well.
Seems Brietta and Alfred disagree as to where these Campaigners can be found.
I can stand back and see the full picture.
BL on twitter practically living as a different person to how she was perceived in her village. Venting her anger about the McCann's with others who felt the same.
Though it went far far over the top from just debating the McCann case. Someone comes along who they believe is Amy the nanny from the OC. BL posts nasty messages to her even calling her a prostitute, the girl leaves BL is glad happy that this girl is 'scared'.
Pro's give her some of her own treatment she argues back.
Some of the tweets are to the McCann's and the twins.
Someone is very worried how these tweets are escalating out of control, not just BL but others as well. This person cannot live with the fact that some nutcase could well go and carry out what is being tweeted.
This person takes the tweets to the police.
A journalist traces BL down, she gives her real name on line so that is easy to do. He confronts her as 'sweepyface' not her real name, her address is not given. Later he is packing up when BL comes back and invites him into her home. BL knew Martin Brunt as she had tweeted to him many times.
BL with a mental condition that made her moods swing up and down then hides away from all the attention. Who knows then what else went through her mind as there were many other things going on at the same time. BL decides to end it all.
You see how could any one have known the outcome of all this? No one could have, no one is to blame.
I agree with all you have posted except for the last five words.
Brunt and his producer were out of order. They targeted a woman on her own in the most despicable way and I for one have no problem in blaming them for Brenda's death.
Sky could have pursued this issue in a much more sensitive way but no, they went for the sensational factor and now a woman is dead!
Sorry?? ... what on earth gives you that idea? IMO some of them may even be fellow posters here, they abound in all corners of the internet, not in the thousands they would have us believe ... just a rump of sad individuals each one with many faces.
BL tweeted Martin Brunt John, how do you know she didn't agree to see him? she didn't seem at all surprised when he turned up. BL didn't have to invite him into her home either did she? He didn't name her, her address wasn't given out. Why couldn't Brenda have dealt with it? she believed all she had said so it was all her own opinion and she could have said so. A neighbour had said she had voiced her opinion in the village shop.
All she would have had to say is 'no comment' and got in the car.
Why didn't he tweet her back?
We know from Brunts own testimony to the Coroner's Court that he and his cameraman hung around waiting for her to emerge from her house. We also know from the Sky footage that Brenda was shocked to find him there confronting her. After she composed herself she did invite him into her home for a discussion off camera.
The facts stand, Brenda invited him to get in touch but he ignored her. He then went about creating some sensational TV by doorstepping her completely out of the blue denying her the opportunity to agree to being on camera or a chance to prepare some response.
In my book what he did was LOW, VERY LOW INDEED.
This thread concerns the activities of a deplorable Facebook group ... and there is really quite a lot that can be said about them ... Mrs Leyland can be discussed on the thread set up to do that.
It seems that one of our members is reluctant to take that on board ... I do not wonder why.Kate threatened with death
Kate McCann received a death threat over the internet, which is being treated with special care by British police, due to the fact that the mother of Maddie, missing child in 2007 in Praia da Luz, Algarve, go run the London Marathon event next month.
According to the English press yesterday, the threat of death to Kate, 45, consists of a profile of the social network Facebook, the web, whose identity remains to be determined.
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/kate-ameacada-de-morte.html
Why didn't he tweet her back?
We know from Brunts own testimony to the Coroner's Court that he and his cameraman hung around waiting for her to emerge from her house. We also know from the Sky footage that Brenda was shocked to find him there confronting her. After she composed herself she did invite him into her home for a discussion off camera.
The facts stand, Brenda invited him to get in touch but he ignored her. He then went about creating some sensational TV by doorstepping her completely out of the blue denying her the opportunity to agree to being on camera or a chance to prepare some response.
In my book what he did was LOW, VERY LOW INDEED.
Why engage with a journalist on line John? If you are worried that a journalist might turn up at your house then stay away from them.
That's what journalists do, they want a good story, I am sure Brenda knew what journalists were like as she wasn't naïve was she?
Brenda Leyland came across as a very strong opinionated woman on twitter who tweeted Martin Brunt, no one could foresee the consequences of confronting her.
As William Penn mused "The jealous are troublesome to others, but a torment to themselves"Who on earth do you imagine I am jealous of? You? The Stud Muffin?? Is this another example of your self-delusion?
Don't be that person Alfie 8(8-))
Seems Brietta and Alfred disagree as to where these Campaigners can be found.How do you work that one out? I said I did not specify where they hung out, something you claimed I did, but I never. Are you trying to incite fisticuffs between me and Brie, or what? @)(++(*
Rubbish.
How would you like to outed on National TV and in the press, AS A TROLL HOUNDING THE MCCANNS, or for that matter for any other reason ?
Would you enjoy that ?
Sorry?? ... what on earth gives you that idea? IMO some of them may even be fellow posters here, they abound in all corners of the internet, not in the thousands they would have us believe ... just a rump of sad individuals each one with many faces.
I won't be as I wouldn't post nasty threats and hound innocent young girls on the internet, it is not something I would do.
Can I ask you something Faithlilly? If that girl who was hounded off the internet had committed suicide how would the people hounding her have felt? After all, no one knows if this girl has mental health issues.
Awful I'm sure but I have seen no remorse from anyone involved in BL's hounding. In fact I believe one rather callous individual actually went to her inquest.
Further this was not simply about some rather silly nonsense on Twitter. This was a woman's reputation being torn to
shreds every fifteen minutes on national TV just because she disbelieved the McCanns and wasn't afraid to say so. Now tell me truthfully Lace do you really think the punishment fitted the crime ?
You choose to look only at those. That's your decision.
I very, very much doubt the McCanns give them much thought.
Brietta I have told you what happened in relation to the story above. Why are you trying to make more of it than it actually warrants ? Good propoganda ?
Awful I'm sure but I have seen no remorse from anyone involved in BL's hounding. In fact I believe one rather callous individual actually went to her inquest.
Further this was not simply about some rather silly nonsense on Twitter. This was a woman's reputation being torn to
shreds every fifteen minutes on national TV just because she disbelieved the McCanns and wasn't afraid to say so. Now tell me truthfully Lace do you really think the punishment fitted the crime ?
Rubbish.
How would you like to outed on National TV and in the press, AS A TROLL HOUNDING THE MCCANNS, or for that matter for any other reason ?
Would you enjoy that ?
Awful I'm sure but I have seen no remorse from anyone involved in BL's hounding. In fact I believe one rather callous individual actually went to her inquest.Specifically who amongst the McCann supporters hounded Brenda Leyland to her death, in your view? Name names and describe what form this hounding took.
Further this was not simply about some rather silly nonsense on Twitter. This was a woman's reputation being torn to
shreds every fifteen minutes on national TV just because she disbelieved the McCanns and wasn't afraid to say so. Now tell me truthfully Lace do you really think the punishment fitted the crime ?
Awful I'm sure but I have seen no remorse from anyone involved in BL's hounding. In fact I believe one rather callous individual actually went to her inquest.
Further this was not simply about some rather silly nonsense on Twitter. This was a woman's reputation being torn to
shreds every fifteen minutes on national TV just because she disbelieved the McCanns and wasn't afraid to say so. Now tell me truthfully Lace do you really think the punishment fitted the crime ?
I don't suppose they do now. Too many lies in the water under the bridge. One becomes hardened to it eventually. Although some of it still upsets me from time to time.
Awful I'm sure but I have seen no remorse from anyone involved in BL's hounding. In fact I believe one rather callous individual actually went to her inquest.
Further this was not simply about some rather silly nonsense on Twitter. This was a woman's reputation being torn to
shreds every fifteen minutes on national TV just because she disbelieved the McCanns and wasn't afraid to say so. Now tell me truthfully Lace do you really think the punishment fitted the crime ?
Rubbish.
How would you like to outed on National TV and in the press, AS A TROLL HOUNDING THE MCCANNS, or for that matter for any other reason ?
Would you enjoy that ?
So going to The Inquest is a sign of hounding. How does that equate with Sonia Poulton and others of her ilk?
Oh, I know. They did this in the name of Justice. One rule for them and another for McCann Supporters. Same old same old. Free Speach, but only for them.
I'd say you get bored with it, because the ringleaders Sky News (and allies) decided to ignore when they picked on Brenda instead certainly are very boring, ineffectual people.
I'd be considering why the ringleaders are always ignored if I were you.
What? What ringleaders? Unless you are talking about Brenda Leyland, who was a ringleader and who did turn out to be an ineffectual person, poor soul.
Although you are right to some extent. I do get bored with the same old same old. Unfortunately, not often enough. I still do occasionally get deeply upset by the mindless cruelty.
What? What ringleaders? Unless you are talking about Brenda Leyland, who was a ringleader and who did turn out to be an ineffectual person, poor soul.
Although you are right to some extent. I do get bored with the same old same old. Unfortunately, not often enough. I still do occasionally get deeply upset by the mindless cruelty.
Of course, Elanor. Plus ca change........
She was not and never was a ringleader - as was agreed by most reasonable people at the time (before we found at she was dead anyway, at which point some people immediately began seeing the affair through ideological eyes).
What? What ringleaders? Unless you are talking about Brenda Leyland, who was a ringleader and who did turn out to be an ineffectual person, poor soul.
Although you are right to some extent. I do get bored with the same old same old. Unfortunately, not often enough. I still do occasionally get deeply upset by the mindless cruelty.
Police have opened an investigation into the threats, which, The Sun says, have been registered as death threats. Scotland Yard have also been notified of the threats and a spokesperson confirmed they too were investigating the posts.
McCann is planning to take part in the marathon to raise money for the charity Missing People and sources close to her say the threats will not dissuade her from competing.
Meanwhile, the McCann family spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said: "It is a disgrace that people can say such things around an event which is designed to help others. The trouble is that it is very hard to stop these people. They hide away behind their computer screens, blogging away."
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/madeleine-mccann-mother-death-threat-disappearance-facebook-447011
It is my understanding that Ms Basher received a police caution from Devon and Cornwall police as a result of her harmless little joke.
I'm glad you are OK with that.
Then your understanding is wrong Brietta. Ms Bashier had an amicable chat with one of her local boys in blue, expressed her regret and was told not to do it again.
That you are using the Sun as a source says it all really.
Ring leader of what? I thought she was largely a one-woman campaign.
So going to The Inquest is a sign of hounding. How does that equate with Sonia Poulton and others of her ilk?
Oh, I know. They did this in the name of Justice. One rule for them and another for McCann Supporters. Same old same old. Free Speach, but only for them.
I remember vividly the absolute "shock horror" I experienced when I first encountered the activities of these people, and as for anyone 'falling' for the Lizzie Taylor videos ... unbelievable ... I had her sussed not quite immediately, but as soon as I got over my puzzlement.
I don't quite know what type of personalities indulge themselves in such vile nonsense ... but before I encountered them I was a much more innocent person.
I met them in the raw on Yahoo and my disgust for them actually knows no bounds.
According to who?
I didn't think it was much worse than the thinly disguised biblical quote about pricks someone used a while ago.
Did Sonia play a part in BL's demise then ?
Says me.ah, well given a choice between believing you and believing the Sun newspaper, I'm with Rupert every time ;-)
Then your understanding is wrong Brietta. Ms Bashier had an amicable chat with one of her local boys in blue, expressed her regret and was told not to do it again.
That you are using the Sun as a source says it all really.
You're talking about a much larger phenomenon there than just the twitter-facebook hardcore.
I know Sheila Basher received a police caution ... if you wish to represent that as a cosy little chat that is entirely up to you.
She failed to get the same support from the page owner ... funny that.
**snip
Other disgusting messages included the suggestion that people lining the streets to watch the event should wear masks depicting Madeleine's face.
The owner of the page claimed to be allowing the messages to show how 'depraved' posters were. The anonymous Facebook user wrote: "Watching over the diseased and perverted minds of those who troll and attack the family of missing Madeleine McCann, I in no way endorse what these vile people are doing and saying. I am showing how depraved they are."
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2013/03/18/kate-mccann-abused-online-by-vile-internet-trolls-missing-madeleine-mccann/ (http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2013/03/18/kate-mccann-abused-online-by-vile-internet-trolls-missing-madeleine-mccann/)
I don't remember a "Justice For Sheila" campaign - was there one?
Yes, Even HideHo, give her her due, made her apologise, on Facebook.
Sheila Basher
Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 13:28
I apologise to Kate Mccan for My stupid comment I posted on this group about getting a gun and shooting Her ,It was a silly comment not meant with malice ,And I am positive People Who know Me understand it was a comment posted in the haste of the moment and would not be a threat !!And after it was posted I realised it was a really dreadful thing to say !! And once again I openly apologise to Kate Macann!!
ah, well given a choice between believing you and believing the Sun newspaper, I'm with Rupert every time ;-)
I know Sheila Basher received a police caution ... if you wish to represent that as a cosy little chat that is entirely up to you.
She failed to get the same support from the page owner ... funny that.
**snip
Other disgusting messages included the suggestion that people lining the streets to watch the event should wear masks depicting Madeleine's face.
The owner of the page claimed to be allowing the messages to show how 'depraved' posters were. The anonymous Facebook user wrote: "Watching over the diseased and perverted minds of those who troll and attack the family of missing Madeleine McCann, I in no way endorse what these vile people are doing and saying. I am showing how depraved they are."
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2013/03/18/kate-mccann-abused-online-by-vile-internet-trolls-missing-madeleine-mccann/
Yes, Even HideHo, give her her due, made her apologise, on Facebook.
Sheila Basher
Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 13:28
I apologise to Kate Mccan for My stupid comment I posted on this group about getting a gun and shooting Her ,It was a silly comment not meant with malice ,And I am positive People Who know Me understand it was a comment posted in the haste of the moment and would not be a threat !!And after it was posted I realised it was a really dreadful thing to say !! And once again I openly apologise to Kate Macann!!
I don't remember a "Justice For Sheila" campaign - was there one?
Why didn't he tweet her back?
We know from Brunts own testimony to the Coroner's Court that he and his cameraman hung around waiting for her to emerge from her house. We also know from the Sky footage that Brenda was shocked to find him there confronting her. After she composed herself she did invite him into her home for a discussion off camera.
The facts stand, Brenda invited him to get in touch but he ignored her. He then went about creating some sensational TV by doorstepping her completely out of the blue denying her the opportunity to agree to being on camera or a chance to prepare some response.
In my book what he did was LOW, VERY LOW INDEED.
No because fortunately she's still alive.Surely that's beside the point? Or are you of the opinion that it's OK to highlight an individual's anti-social behaviour in the media unless that person then goes on to kill themselves, at which point it then becomes not OK?
You don't KNOW Brietta you have been told. I presume it was *cough* before your time so what you have heard is merely hearsay.
You really will have to do something about that ***cough*** if left unattended it can develop into all sorts of really nasty complications.It's caused be *Irony Klaxon* overuse.
Shiela wasn't 'made' to do anything she apologised willingly.
i agree and i think mcann supporters who still bash her even though she is dead are VERY VERY low indeed what do they want blood??
Did Sonia play a part in BL's demise then ?
The myopia is surprising that doesn't see the connection between whatever drove BL to her untimely (self-inflicted!) demise and the pressures heaped on the McCanns as innocent victims of an abductor's act in addition to the abuse heaped upon them from many quarters of the internet
Says you. But,
After Basher’s comment was picked up by the UK media her threat was finally deleted from Facebook and group administrator known as ‘Hi-De-Ho’, left Basher in no doubt; apologize publicly for that or you are banned from the group for jeopardizing our operation.
Just to be factual; As the last people to see the child the McCanns were quite properly investigated. No evidence of the McCanns involvement was found. No evidence of an abduction was found. No evidence that the child wandered away was found. No evidence of Robert Murat's involvement was found. Hence the archiving of the investigation.Gosh you can't stay that! Are you trying to incite a riot 8(0(*
Gosh you can't stay that! Are you trying to incite a riot 8(0(*
As well as the 'still alive' option included the poll conducted by the FB group regarding possible burial sites for Madeleine McCann is the option that “both parents ate her”.
I don't really know what adjective fits that "sick"? or maybe "insane"?
As well as the 'still alive' option included the poll conducted by the FB group regarding possible burial sites for Madeleine McCann is the option that “both parents ate her”.There probably are people who believe this. I recently saw a post somewhere that had a photo composite showing Fred and Rosemary West, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, and Kate and Gerry McCann all in the same picture. I mean, that's rational isn't it.
I don't really know what adjective fits that "sick"? or maybe "insane"?
Just to be factual; As the last people to see the child the McCanns were quite properly investigated. No evidence of the McCanns involvement was found. No evidence of an abduction was found. No evidence that the child wandered away was found. No evidence of Robert Murat's involvement was found. Hence the archiving of the investigation.
There probably are people who believe this. I recently saw a post somewhere that had a photo composite showing Fred and Rosemary West, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, and Kate and Gerry McCann all in the same picture. I mean, that's rational isn't it.
There probably are people who believe this. I recently saw a post somewhere that had a photo composite showing Fred and Rosemary West, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, and Kate and Gerry McCann all in the same picture. I mean, that's rational isn't it.
Just to be factual; As the last people to see the child the McCanns were quite properly investigated. No evidence of the McCanns involvement was found. No evidence of an abduction was found. No evidence that the child wandered away was found. No evidence of Robert Murat's involvement was found. Hence the archiving of the investigation.
Strawman yet again.
What I find interesting about the two posts I have made on this particular poll about where Madeleine McCann may be buried ...
(a) she is alive
(b) her parents ate her ... is that no-one has asked me for a cite.
I think that rather goes to indicate that mine is no "straw man" argument.
You are arguing against positions that no one here holds. Strawman.How I wish that I could tell you what I KNOW.
It makes you wonder why being a doubter is so strange.
Those who have doubts have knowledge. They have read the available evidence and can quote it. Those who believe.... believe. As there is no evidence to support their belief they attack the doubter's intelligence, accuse them of all sorts of nasty motives and of being part of some vile group or other. When that doesn't work they attack the evidence as being mistranslated etc. That's how it looks to me anyway.
There are certain things "believers" are not permitted to post or discuss here or elsewhere. The only evidence the sceptics have is what the Portuguese allowed the people to have.
Special knowledge eh? I've seen that claimed before. You don't need to discuss the case then, just sit back and smile smugly.
You are arguing against positions that no one here holds. Strawman.
Those who have doubts have knowledge. They have read the available evidence and can quote it. Those who believe.... believe. As there is no evidence to support their belief they attack the doubter's intelligence, accuse them of all sorts of nasty motives and of being part of some vile group or other. When that doesn't work they attack the evidence as being mistranslated etc. That's how it looks to me anyway.
Those who have doubts have knowledge. They have read the available evidence and can quote it. Those who believe.... believe. As there is no evidence to support their belief they attack the doubter's intelligence, accuse them of all sorts of nasty motives and of being part of some vile group or other. When that doesn't work they attack the evidence as being mistranslated etc. That's how it looks to me anyway.
I suppose it must be a blessed thing to be granted the gift of faith but I think one must first of all consider the reality of the situation as we know it to be.
In the real world …
where is the evidence that Madeleine McCann's parents had any involvement in her disappearance?
… simply does not exist.
No blood
No DNA
No body fluids
No chunks of hair
Cadaver dog 'alerts' totally misinterpreted, exaggerated and unsupported by forensics
I am intrigued by the 'doubters' need to descend into insult and innuendo quite simply because they have a paucity of anything approaching fact with which to present their case ... which is why we see the constant repetition of the transference of blame from the perpetrator/s of the crime to the victims of the crime. Odd to say the least.
No evidence of abduction, waking and wandering or parental involvement. You choose to believe one of the possibilities I don't. I don't insult anyone and I haven't accused anyone. I accept that there are people on both sides of the debate who behave badly, you concentrate only on those who have doubts and behave badly. According to you they are;
'sad individuals, intellectually challenged, nasty, pitiless, vile' they 'spread lies and vile nonsense'.
No evidence of abduction, waking and wandering or parental involvement. You choose to believe one of the possibilities I don't. I don't insult anyone and I haven't accused anyone. I accept that there are people on both sides of the debate who behave badly, you concentrate only on those who have doubts and behave badly. According to you they are;no evidence against the McCanns...what right do you or anyone have to suggest they are complicit in any crime..none...you are a disgrace
'sad individuals, intellectually challenged, nasty, pitiless, vile' they 'spread lies and vile nonsense'.
Those who have doubts have knowledge. They have read the available evidence and can quote it. Those who believe.... believe. As there is no evidence to support their belief they attack the doubter's intelligence, accuse them of all sorts of nasty motives and of being part of some vile group or other. When that doesn't work they attack the evidence as being mistranslated etc. That's how it looks to me anyway.
no evidence against the McCanns...what right do you or anyone have to suggest they are complicit in any crime..none...you are a disgrace
I have to disagree with you here G-Unit. IMO 'doubters have indeed read the available evidence - but only believe the parts which fit in with their doubts. Those parts are set in stone as the truth and quickly held us as indisputable evidence. But anything which doesn't suit their beliefs is just as quickly dismissed as 'lies' - and we are reminded that 'we only have their word for it''
Fortunately this is not the way professional policemen do things. Thank goodness.
I have no problem at all with people like yourself who IMO have genuine doubts- and are not sceptics simply because they can't stand the McCanns and desperately want them to be guilty for no other reason than they hate them - for whatever reason - of which IMO there are many
When it's just seven months since a media-trumpeted book was published that contained no more evidence essentially than we knew in the first few weeks, you can understand why people still wonder.
Until there's more for writers to say I'd save your breath. How many times can you keep saying the same things over and over again?
When it's just seven months since a media-trumpeted book was published that contained no more evidence essentially than we knew in the first few weeks, you can understand why people still wonder.
Until there's more for writers to say I'd save your breath. How many times can you keep saying the same things over and over again?
I think sceptics were furious about the book because it didn't include any of the hundreds of myths, lies and disinformation which they so desperately want to be true - but simply are not.
Half price for the hardback now on Amazon.
It was when they published it 8(>(( (Still the same price I think?)
No evidence of abduction, waking and wandering or parental involvement. You choose to believe one of the possibilities I don't. I don't insult anyone and I haven't accused anyone. I accept that there are people on both sides of the debate who behave badly, you concentrate only on those who have doubts and behave badly. According to you they are;
'sad individuals, intellectually challenged, nasty, pitiless, vile' they 'spread lies and vile nonsense'.
I wonder if anyone's read it? I haven't read any of them.
I wonder if anyone's read it? I haven't read any of them.
I've read it. It's a summation of the facts and only the facts - and leaves out the myths, disinformation and lies which have muddied the waters of this case since Amaral first used the Portuguese media to aid and abet him in his quest to nail the parents. And why would he do that ? well IMO probably because it worked a treat in the Cipriano case.
Thank you for that. I have no problem with anyone who has a different view than mine either, provided they respect that my opinion is as valid as theirs. After all, neither opinion can be 'proved' to be correct. With time the truth may be revealed; let's hope so. ?{)(**
How I wish that I could tell you what I KNOW.
You wouldn't be so cocky then Slarti
How can you be absolutely sure of that?
I'm interested in why you feel the need to name call ... not offended, just interested ... as I have always thought it a rather juvenile thing to do. But I suppose you have your reasons.
I am not name calling? You are implying that all doubters contemplate that amongst other things they may have eaten Madeleine, which according to your logic puts all doubters in an indefensible position.
straw man arguement (sic)
A locical (sic) fallacy in which the arguementative (sic) point is made into a caracature (sic) of it's original point. Extremely effective because it's not based on facts, but lies and assumptions. The burden of proof then lies in the defense, (sic) not the offense. (sic) Especially effective when the defense isn't allowed to offer objection. Popularized by right wing talk radio hosts Rush and Hannity.
Step one: Build the straw man. Ignore facts and make outlandish lies/slander.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=straw+man+arguement
In your use of the term **straw man** in relation to my posts either you had no idea of the meaning or you knew that it fitted the terms above. So what is it??
In either case ... a very lazy way to criticise and imply that I am posting lies. You know and I know that what I have posted is sadly, very true ... and it is not even skimming the surface of the outrages perpetrated against the McCann family and Madeleine herself which could not be discussed on this forum.
Perhaps when you deem it necessary to "strawman" my posts ... I should respond with "photo shop".
It's a combination of Strawman and Association Fallacy.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)
It's a combination of Strawman and Association Fallacy.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)
Have the 'doubters' never wondered why the McCanns didn't just wait a respectable interval then quietly take themselves home and Madeleine soon forgotten.
Hardly typical of perpetrators to keep their missing daughter and as a result themselves firmly in the public spotlight.
Some say that it's quite safe to ask people to look for something that you know can't be found.
How many criminals do the 'doubters' know of who have dedicated their lives to the cause of having the investigation into their crime reopened.
Not investigation, review.
Why do the people allegedly demanding "Justice for Maddie" equate that with grudging every brass farthing spent on the only vehicle ever likely to see Justice enacted.
Perhaps they don't think Scotland Yard are the cream of the crop. Perhaps they think Scotland Yard can be told what to do. Perhaps they are critical of the apparently narrow remit of Operation Grange.
Man I thought I had awoken sober but clearly not. I thought I read above about one facebook page attacking another facebook page. Time for a hair of the dog (god don't mention dogs).
It intrigues me that people seem to actively seek out these 'offensive' pages in order to be able to express their outrage ?{)(**
Don't name call. If you are saying I have posted things that these people are innocent of ... say it and then back up your assertion.
Your problem is that you know perfectly well I have not posted even one iota of of the bile that these people do, the worst excesses of which are unrepeatable in decent society.
Very good of you to leap to their defence though.
It might be easy to access, but only if you actively seek it. I have never accessed a facebook or twitter page so have not seen any of this.
Beg pardon??
In real terms I am relatively new to this having only taken an interest at the time of the re-opening of Madeleine's case.
I can assure you that the very first materials I encountered when trying to get information on the case were materials of this type.
Trying to access information untainted by the bias and lies common sense indicated them to be was very, very difficult indeed because of the ubiquitous nature of the beast.
Lizzie Taylor at that time had cornered the market in video exploitation making it very hard indeed to get access to videos not tainted by 'inspirational' editing.
So in effect, I was looking at something with fresh eyes ... and I didn't like one little bit what I was seeing.
Beg pardon??
In real terms I am relatively new to this having only taken an interest at the time of the re-opening of Madeleine's case.
I can assure you that the very first materials I encountered when trying to get information on the case were materials of this type.
Trying to access information untainted by the bias and lies common sense indicated them to be was very, very difficult indeed because of the ubiquitous nature of the beast.
Lizzie Taylor at that time had cornered the market in video exploitation making it very hard indeed to get access to videos not tainted by 'inspirational' editing.
So in effect, I was looking at something with fresh eyes ... and I didn't like one little bit what I was seeing.
It would seem HideHo is recording over 3k views of her videos every day so I can see why you and the rest of the faithful are worried.
Clearly you are a true enthusiast
It would seem HideHo is recording over 3k views of her videos every day so I can see why you and the rest of the faithful are worried.
Wow! ... she must be coining it in.
Don't know about that but she is certainly spreading her message.
So Hi De Ho now has advertising on her videos...so she is personally making money out of Maddie's disappearance
Is that a problem?It is to me
Well, what can I say - other than Tough.
One word doesn't do it for me ... I can think of lots ... but I'll stick to -- mendacious and avarice.
Wow! ... she must be coining it in.3000 visits per video per day?! That's over a million hits per video per year, x how many videos? Dozens?? Well let's hope she's making enough to cover her legal expenses, that's a ten-ton tuckload of libel she's responsible for!
3000 visits per video per day?! That's over a million hits per video per year, x how many videos? Dozens?? Well let's hope she's making enough to cover her legal expenses, that's a ten-ton tuckload of libel she's responsible for!
Perhaps Faithlilly could highlight which of these videos is receiving 3000 views per day?
https://www.youtube.com/user/HiDeHo4/videos
No idea Alfie.Well let me tell you: not one of them, so whoever told you that they were receiving 3000 visits per day was talking out of their rear orifice.
Then she's in good company with regard to this case.
As she's based in Canada I'm not sure how successful suing her would be.Do they have Sky News in Canada? Maybe they'd like to do a feature on her strange business sideline.
Well let me tell you: not one of them, so whoever told you that they were receiving 3000 visits per day was talking out of their rear orifice.
Do they have Sky News in Canada? Maybe they'd like to do a feature on her strange business sideline.
3000 visits per video per day?! That's over a million hits per video per year, x how many videos? Dozens?? Well let's hope she's making enough to cover her legal expenses, that's a ten-ton tuckload of libel she's responsible for!
What is significant is that when she was a member here she was unable to defend her videos from accusations of blatant lying
The number relates to the views per day of all of her videos.Her most popular videos not the ones she has made but the ones she has copied off the telly and posted. The one with the largest number of views (480k) is something called the Ken and Barbie killers. Her own little creations have on average been viewed at most a few thousand times - average views across her entire back catalogue works out at 13 views per day. She's a prolific propagandist that is true, but compared to some of the more successful youtubers not a very popular one. Never mind, as long as she's making a few quid out of it, I'm sure she's more than happy.
Her most popular videos not the ones she has made but the ones she has copied off the telly and posted. The one with the largest number of views (480k) is something called the Ken and Barbie killers. Her own little creations have on average been viewed at most a few thousand times - average views across her entire back catalogue works out at 13 views per day. She's a prolific propagandist that is true, but compared to some of the more successful youtubers not a very popular one. Never mind, as long as she's making a few quid out of it, I'm sure she's more than happy.
How's the search for a hobby going Alfie ? 8(0(*Tell you what Faithlilly here's an idea. When you post, make sure your comment has a relevant point. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader 8(0(*
Tell you what Faithlilly here's an idea. When you post, make sure your comment has a relevant point. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader 8(0(*
Have you ever read a plausible theory from a "sceptic"? I haven't.
Many "Justice" campaigners find Amaral to be a hero. I have yet to hear a single person who has made his theory seem plausible.