General discussion about the latest news (not search related)

[Mr Gray]

It's in one of the 10th anniversary specials, whichever CM appeared in.  Presumably the ITV one, because I can't remember him being in the Panorama one.

By the way, your current flurry of requests for cites is dragging the debate down.  John has made clear that cites are required for important instances only.  That excludes trivial attempts at points scoring, and goading.

 

this is what JOhn said..

Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!


you have made two significant claims....and not provided a cite for either...you have obvioulsly misunderstood what John said and therefore may have misunderstood the other two points you claim

[Miss Taken Identity]

For those from a different country, the McCanns have not been tried in a court of law because they have never been charged or even suspected by two police investigations.
Sceptics have difficulty understanding this.

They have not been charged because the word is  there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to charge them.  They were suspected by the PJ of staging an abduction. And concealing a body. The first part is easy to establilsh the second no so much.

Again THEY CAN NOT BE DECLARED SUSPECTS  of a crime UNKNOWN.


supporters have great difficulty in trying to hoodwink  non supporters into thinking they have been declared innocent by not being declared as suspects... it just isn't working you see.

[Mr Gray]

They have not been charged because the word is  there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to charge them.  They were suspected by the PJ of staging an abduction. And concealing a body. The first part is easy to establilsh the second no so much.

Again THEY CAN NOT BE DECLARED SUSPECTS  of a crime UNKNOWN.


supporters have great difficulty in trying to hoodwink  non supporters into thinking they have been declared innocent by not being declared as suspects... it just isn't working you see.

no one....and not the mccanns ...have claimed that they have been declared innocent

[Miss Taken Identity]

no one....and not the mccanns ...have claimed that they have been declared innocent

Play on words... not being declaired suspects= declared innocent in supporters mindset.

[Brietta]

Police legal department at a guess, certainly not low rank serving officers.

What chain of command do you think is involved in dealing with the information requested in FOI's? 

[Brietta]

Play on words... not being declaired suspects= declared innocent in supporters mindset.

In other words ... anyone against whom there is insufficient evidence to proceed must be guilty.  How does that pan out as far as the latest arguidos are concerned?  By your reasoning they must also be guilty.

[Miss Taken Identity]

In other words ... anyone against whom there is insufficient evidence to proceed must be guilty.  How does that pan out as far as the latest arguidos are concerned?  By your reasoning they must also be guilty.

No it is not my reasoning at all. I have never mentioned guilt or innocence. I am merely correcting the assumtion being played by supporters that two police services investigating are saying the parents are not suspects- without declaring what the crime is. Therefore trying to equate not suspects as they are innocent.

AS Soon as we know what the crimes is- we can then hear who the suspects are and who is not.
So it is fair to say there are NO SUSPECTS IN a case where no crime has been defined?

Would you agree with that?

[Brietta]

No it is not my reasoning at all. I have never mentioned guilt or innocence. I am merely correcting the assumtion being played by supporters that two police services investigating are saying the parents are not suspects- without declaring what the crime is. Therefore trying to equate not suspects as they are innocent.

AS Soon as we know what the crimes is- we can then hear who the suspects are and who is not.
So it is fair to say there are NO SUSPECTS IN a case where no crime has been defined?

Would you agree with that?

Using your criteria and the criteria which is used by others ... the most recent arguidos must be guilty.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Using your criteria and the criteria which is used by others ... the most recent arguidos must be guilty.

No, I have said. the PJ suspected them of two things - they are the investigating team. The PJ have not declared them guilty or innocent. Just as suspects of a crime they have mentioned as a theory.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from associating me with 'others' unless you can prove that I, with these named others, share the same thoughts. And while we're at it - it would be really helpful if you would stop from trying to create a 'gang' of sceptics all belonging to the same thought process as the supporters do. we are different and have different views and opinions.

As a mod this should be a natural task to accommplish. Being neutral and all that jazz

[Mr Gray]

Play on words... not being declaired suspects= declared innocent in supporters mindset.

thats your mindset.....they are not suspects and after 12 years are therefore highly blikely to be involved

[faithlilly]

Scotland Yard will have hundreds if not thousands of active cases on their books ... are you wondering what the officers dealing with them are doing in their offices?  Apart from perhaps taking time out to deal with regularly incoming FOI requests?

Or dodgy dossiers from busybodies.

[Robittybob1]

thats your mindset.....they are not suspects and after 12 years are therefore highly blikely to be involved

It is IMO not clear what you mean D.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It is IMO not clear what you mean D.

I think he is saying it doesn't matter and after twelve years it is highly blikley they are not involved, although it does suggest that before the 12 years they may have been.. oh no wait... erm.. um... nah I don't now either.

[Robittybob1]

I think he is saying it doesn't matter and after twelve years it is highly blikley they are not involved, although it does suggest that before the 12 years they may have been.. oh no wait... erm.. um... nah I don't now either.

Highly blikley.

[G-Unit]

Or dodgy dossiers from busybodies.

Not to mention pet theories and information. I know of three people who have sent or taken such things to them. I expect there's more.