UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Admin on November 08, 2015, 09:26:14 PM
-
The question of the current support for the parents of Madeleine McCann was touched upon on another thread.
It was suggested that the Madeleine facebook page could be used as an indicator, however, it was pointed out that that particular social media site can be easily censored.
Others have pointed to the now defunct Madeleine twitter account as an indicator since it had to be closed down because of detractors and critics.
What is the current level of support? Can a measure of such ever be properly stated or as some have pointed out, is it all mere speculation?
Your views please.
114
-
According to Faithlilly the McCanns have to buy much of their online support, despite the fact that she is unable to provide any evidence to back up this belief. The fact is though that the McCanns FB page has a large and growing number of likes, each post attracts thousands of comments, likes and shares which indicates that they do have lots of sympathetic support. On the basis of visible online numbers, the McCanns have far more supporters than detractors, it's just that most of their supporters are not rabidly obsessed, intent on spamming Daily Mail comments pages with propaganda in the way that "sceptics" like to do, so their detractors, whilst smaller in number, are simply more vocal.
-
I suppose if Facebook and Twitter are now considered to be reliable bellwethers for public opinion on a variety of topics then MORI and YOUGUV will be feeling a chill draught in the direction of their revenue streams.
Then to paraphrase "Man Alive" : "Or are they"?
-
One could look at the accounts for Madeleines Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd.
The income from public expenditure is identifiable. It's performance would give a reasonable indicator how public support has varied with time.
-
Of course, we could simply forget Facebook and Twitter altogether and use the "Sceptics" favourite Daily Mail as a true indicator of public sentiment on all subjects....
I notice one of today's DM articles about Jermy Corbyn's "subtle" nod at the cenotaph attracted many thousands of comments, the most popular being:
Had Corbyn been PM in 1940, we would now all be speaking German and goose-stepping down the Mall in today¿s ceremony.
With a net approval rating of 1768!
@)(++(*
-
One could look at the accounts for Madeleines Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd.
The income from public expenditure is identifiable. It's performance would give a reasonable indicator how public support has varied with time.
Might that not also be an indicator of how much effort has been made into drumming up funds of late?
-
Do the Mccanns have the same support 8 years on? i doubt it very very much
Neither financial or general (excluding the SY thing)
2015 is a very far cry from 2007
As for calculating support by counting likes and votes on social media and newspaper sites, it doesnt count as set ups are so very different, so a bit pointless comparing...on the whole though taking all social media and all newspaper sites, and set ups into consideration, anyone who is interested enough to comment counts, its pretty clear the story has been overly saturated and most people are fed up of all the rubbsh connected to it
-
Might that not also be an indicator of how much effort has been made into drumming up funds of late?
No. The last accounts are made up to 31st March 2014. Look at the performance from 2007 to 2014. Seven(ish) years trend should give a reasonable idea. If you don't think so stick with what gives the answer you are looking for.
-
I think it might be worth bearing in mind that the level of support the Drs McCann receive is in direct measure to the amount of support they can give to Madeline McCann.
In my mind campaigns against them and their aims, whatever the motivation for them may be, impinge directly on the missing child.
When did the police stop looking for a living Madeleine to concentrate on looking ... not even for a dead Madeleine ... but on a means of clearing up her case by convicting her parents?
Job done and dusted.
It didn't work out that way ~ but it did ensure that shortly after Madeleine went missing ~ no-one but her parents were doing any sort of searching for her.
It took them four years to have her case reviewed and only now, over eight years down the line can there be any assurance that her case has been worked comprehensively and active leads continue to be followed.
So I would say that the level of the support that matters ... police support ... is 100% greater now than it was eight years ago.
Perhaps one measure of the support for Madeleine and her parents' search for her is the abject failure of the various petitions raised on various subjects to get signatures. The latest embarrassment never gets a mention.
-
The question of the current support for the parents of Madeleine McCann was touched upon on another thread.
It was suggested that the Madeleine facebook page could be used as an indicator, however, it was pointed out that that particular social media site can be easily censored.
Others have pointed to the now defunct Madeleine twitter account as an indicator since it had to be closed down because of detractors and critics.
What is the current level of support? Can a measure of such ever be properly stated or as some have pointed out, is it all mere speculation?
Your views please.
My own view is that although support is quite widespread it has fallen steadily since Madeleine disappeared.
In the days and weeks following the disappearance there were few people who did not have sympathy for the parents, much of which translated into support by way of a donation. As time went on however and more of the details of what transpired that day were released into the public domain, that support began to slowly diminish. It goes without saying that much blame for this can rightly be laid at the door of the Portuguese and British Press who published articles accusing the parents of having an involvement in their daughters disappearance. Support has never recovered from those dark days of the three arguidos.
Mr Amaral certainly played his part in destroying support, his book and dvd provided an alternative scenario to an abduction, a scenario which directly accused the parents of involvement. The publication of the case files was the final nail in the support coffin, anyone interested in the case could read the facts of the case instead of relying on second hand stories and accounts from the media.
In the end, what initially started out as shock and disbelief followed by sympathy, thereafter descended for many into uncertainty and accusation. The attempts to ban the Amaral book, the damages trial and the subsequent appeal which has yet to be determined have all added to the uncertainty and suspicion.
Support has now levelled off after reducing from that high plateau achieved eight years ago, there is only one event which can now increase that support.
-
My own view is that although support is quite widespread it has fallen steadily since Madeleine disappeared.
In the days and weeks following the disappearance there were few people who did not have sympathy for the parents, much of which translated into support by way of a donation. As time went on however and more of the details of what transpired that day were released into the public domain, that support began to slowly diminish. It goes without saying that much blame for this can rightly be laid at the door of the Portuguese and British Press who published articles accusing the parents of having an involvement in their daughters disappearance. Support has never recovered from those dark days of the three arguidos.
Mr Amaral certainly played his part in destroying support, his book and dvd provided an alternative scenario to an abduction, a scenario which directly accused the parents of involvement. The publication of the case files was the final nail in the support coffin, anyone interested in the case could read the facts of the case instead of relying on second hand stories and accounts from the media.
In the end, what initially started out as shock and disbelief followed by sympathy, thereafter descended for many into uncertainty and accusation. The attempts to ban the Amaral book, the damages trial and the subsequent appeal which has yet to be determined have all added to the uncertainty and suspicion.
Support has now levelled off after reducing from that high plateau achieved eight years ago, there is only one event which can now increase that support.
Broadly speaking this is accurate.
I think the support had diminished before Amaral and his book. There were lurid stories circulating quite quickly - the McCanns at Chaplins (false) - the crying incident (????) - and a whole slew of behavioural analysis (no searching, laughing, jogging etc etc etc) that had poisoned the chalice.
I remember sitting on the veranda of the beach restaurant, the Paraíso, basically where the CCTV filmed the T7, and a loud English voice from 2 tables down said "well, you've only got to look around to see how easy it is to hide a body here!"
Personally, I was at the stage of thinking "now if the McCanns dunnit, how did they hide the body?" After chunking through a hell of a lot of options, I have concluded that it is possible that the McCanns "dunnit" (dumped a body or worse), but that this is highly unlikely. This opinion depends on a detailed knowledge of Luz and surrounds, something that the PJ and SY didn't/don't have, and something that the media does not give a toss about.
I did not follow the case originally, so I don't have a blow-by-blow view. Looking at things from a distance, despite having a PR 'expert' on board Team McCann, the media interaction strikes me as being akin to Gerald Ratner when he sank his jewellery high street chain.
What I perceive now is 2 polarised camps - support at all costs v demonise at all costs, with a minority choosing not to join either. Surrounded by a media which still sees Madeleine primarily as a cash cow.
-
No. The last accounts are made up to 31st March 2014. Look at the performance from 2007 to 2014. Seven(ish) years trend should give a reasonable idea. If you don't think so stick with what gives the answer you are looking for.
By "of late" I meant the last few years, ie: since they stopped appealing for funds.
-
My own view is that although support is quite widespread it has fallen steadily since Madeleine disappeared.
In the days and weeks following the disappearance there were few people who did not have sympathy for the parents, much of which translated into support by way of a donation. As time went on however and more of the details of what transpired that day were released into the public domain, that support began to slowly diminish. It goes without saying that much blame for this can rightly be laid at the door of the Portuguese and British Press who published articles accusing the parents of having an involvement in their daughters disappearance. Support has never recovered from those dark days of the three arguidos.
Mr Amaral certainly played his part in destroying support, his book and dvd provided an alternative scenario to an abduction, a scenario which directly accused the parents of involvement. The publication of the case files was the final nail in the support coffin, anyone interested in the case could read the facts of the case instead of relying on second hand stories and accounts from the media.
In the end, what initially started out as shock and disbelief followed by sympathy, thereafter descended for many into uncertainty and accusation. The attempts to ban the Amaral book, the damages trial and the subsequent appeal which has yet to be determined have all added to the uncertainty and suspicion.
Support has now levelled off after reducing from that high plateau achieved eight years ago, there is only one event which can now increase that support.
In my experience in the UK very few people are aware of the trial or the book
-
In my experience in the UK very few people are aware of the trial or the book
This is true in my experience too. With the passage of time people move on and IMO the vast majority of the UK public no longer give a thought to the case unless there is something in the news about it.
This is quite natural IMO.
I also agree that very few people here know about the trial or the book - and if you asked them who Goncalo Amaral was - they wouldn't have a clue.
-
This is true in my experience too. With the passage of time people move on and IMO the vast majority of the UK public no longer give a thought to the case unless there is something in the news about it.
This is quite natural IMO.
I also agree that very few people here know about the trial or the book - and if you asked them who Goncalo Amaral was - they wouldn't have a clue.
so you that support the mcanns see yourselves as kinda crusaders for them??
-
so you that support the mcanns see yourselves as kinda crusaders for them??
It's more than that Carly.
What the mccanns admitted at the Leverson Inquiry is quite pertinent.
-
This is true in my experience too. With the passage of time people move on and IMO the vast majority of the UK public no longer give a thought to the case unless there is something in the news about it.
This is quite natural IMO.
I also agree that very few people here know about the trial or the book - and if you asked them who Goncalo Amaral was - they wouldn't have a clue.
I didn't know very much about the ins and outs of Madeleine's case until the case was reopened in 2013, apart from the fact that her parents are innocent.
I knew nothing of "the files".
I had no idea who Goncalo Amaral is.
I did not know about the organised campaigns demonising Madeleine's parents.
I knew absolutely nothing about the libel trial ... the book ... the 'documentary' or the media career Mr Amaral built on the back of the failure of his team to conduct a missing child inquiry following normal protocols.
Just a fairly average member of the Great British Public who knew nothing and cared even less, beyond feeling for a family who had lost a child and the hope that she could still be found.
When the case was reopened ... I posted a supportive comment on Yahoo.
-
so you that support the mcanns see yourselves as kinda crusaders for them??
My 'support' is nothing to do with the McCanns per se. I would support anyone who was being subjected to a campaign based to an extent on ignorance, lies and myths - and by people who for some explicable reason have decided that 'human error' and 'we all make mistakes' applies to every human being except the McCanns. That makes no sense to me.
Neither does it make sense to me that the truly obscene horrific crimes being committed on a daily basis against little children (which anyone who has a TV cannot fail to know about) - apparently fade into insignificance compared to leaving your happy, well loved children fast asleep in their beds - while you sit less than 60 seconds walk away from them.
I hope that is clear enough for you.
-
My own view is that although support is quite widespread it has fallen steadily since Madeleine disappeared.
In the days and weeks following the disappearance there were few people who did not have sympathy for the parents, much of which translated into support by way of a donation. As time went on however and more of the details of what transpired that day were released into the public domain, that support began to slowly diminish. It goes without saying that much blame for this can rightly be laid at the door of the Portuguese and British Press who published articles accusing the parents of having an involvement in their daughters disappearance. Support has never recovered from those dark days of the three arguidos.
Mr Amaral certainly played his part in destroying support, his book and dvd provided an alternative scenario to an abduction, a scenario which directly accused the parents of involvement. The publication of the case files was the final nail in the support coffin, anyone interested in the case could read the facts of the case instead of relying on second hand stories and accounts from the media.
In the end, what initially started out as shock and disbelief followed by sympathy, thereafter descended for many into uncertainty and accusation. The attempts to ban the Amaral book, the damages trial and the subsequent appeal which has yet to be determined have all added to the uncertainty and suspicion.
Support has now levelled off after reducing from that high plateau achieved eight years ago, there is only one event which can now increase that support.
It is normal for the 'support' for missing people to wane with the passage of time.
The achievement of the Drs McCann has been their refusal to allow that to happen to Madeleine and to have eventually succeeded in getting her case investigated again.
I don't know if PR mistakes were made initially ... but the hostile attitude from a police force which continually fed pejorative comment to the press must take its place in the forming of the legend ... as much of what was insinuated and printed is common currency on today's internet despite subsequent debunking.
I believe Sandra Felguiras, who actually is a competent journalist, was dismayed when the files were released and she had access to the actual content of the FSS report. Just try and get verification of that though as all that remains of it is one screenshot which I came across recently giving a synopsis of it on a forum.
No lizzie taylor selective edit for that one as no-one seemed to be interested in recording it for posterity.
-
We post on a discussion forum. Were it possible to sort out the problems of the world from here ... I'm up for it ... so how do you think we should proceed?
-
We post on a discussion forum. Were it possible to sort out the problems of the world from here ... I'm up for it ... so how do you think we should proceed?
...LOL.... &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
You have no idea of how inappropriate your phraseology was in what you said.
-
It seems to me that those supporting the McCanns give strange reasons for doing so. How could Brietta know the parents are innocent without researching the case? How could Benice decide the campaign against the McCanns was based on ignorance, lies and myths without researching this particular case and reaching a similar conclusion to Brietta's? Of course her posts are about the McCanns per se.
-
One of the myriad of reasons why this forum is so valuable is the fact it is properly moderated.
I know exactly how apt my phraseology is to the abuse dished out to all who do not toe the party line and I could have qualified it to ~ the gates opened to release the hounds of hell ~ so please don't do your usual deflection tactic to take us off the subject of the thread.
There is a very small ... very vociferous group of people who make it their business to hound the McCann family and who want nothing better than confirmation of their belief in the demise of a child.
I know ... for the simple reason I have met them in their unfettered state. The Drs McCann have risen above the campaigns mounted and the adverse comments being posted probably every second of every minute for over eight years and have succeeded in having the investigation into Madeleine's case re-opened.
No mean feat.
So on that basis alone, I would say they have all the support necessary and enough good people wishing them well in their continued endeavours.
-
It seems to me that those supporting the McCanns give strange reasons for doing so. How could Brietta know the parents are innocent without researching the case? How could Benice decide the campaign against the McCanns was based on ignorance, lies and myths without researching this particular case and reaching a similar conclusion to Brietta's? Of course her posts are about the McCanns per se.
You mean...
I didn't know very much about the ins and outs of Madeleine's case until the case was reopened in 2013, apart from the fact that her parents are innocent.
Only the perpetrator and the McCanns know if they are innocent or guilty.
-
It seems to me that those supporting the McCanns give strange reasons for doing so. How could Brietta know the parents are innocent without researching the case? How could Benice decide the campaign against the McCanns was based on ignorance, lies and myths without researching this particular case and reaching a similar conclusion to Brietta's? Of course her posts are about the McCanns per se.
On the contrary, like Brietta it was a few years before I accidentally clicked on a thread on a General Discussion board - and was shocked to the core to read the accusations and allegations being made against the McCanns - not to mention the pure venom.
Because of that - I read up on the case (including the files) - and fora from both sides and it became clear that much of what was being held up as evidence against the McCanns was simply false. Many of those falsehoods are still being peddled today as evidence but - unlike on this forum - are allowed to go unchallenged elsewhere.
It also became clear that the opinions of some sceptics were based purely on their hatred of the McCanns (for various reasons) and who had decided that everything the McCanns did was wrong and everything they said was wrong - whether it was or not. That is still the case today.
I do not know the McCanns - have never met them or spoken to them. I'm not even sure that I would like them if I did meet them. However, I do detest injustice, cruelty, Kangaroo courts, lynchmob mentality and those people who take great delight in other peoples misfortune (Schardenfreud sp?) and who have latched on to this case with glee.
I do not have a problem with folk who disgree with the McCanns childcare arrangements. As that is a matter of personal choice. I do have a problem with folk - who in the light of there being no evidence against the McCanns have decided to embark on a permanent character assassination of them - apparently in the belief that if they can prove what 'evil, wicked' people they are - then they must have dunnit.
Sorry but that approach doesn't work for me.
AIMO.
-
You mean...
Only the perpetrator and the McCanns know if they are innocent or guilty.
The inalienable presumption of innocence dictates that the Drs McCann are [presumed] innocent.
The fact they have managed to keep Madeleine's case in the public eye against the odds that she would be forgotten as so many others are indicates support for Madeleine has not waned for the simple reason her parents did not allow it to.
The fact the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard are working on her case seems to me to carry a lot of support. So from the policing point of view, support has increased ten fold from that initially received which gave up on Madeleine too soon after her disappearance.
-
On the contrary, like Brietta it was a few years before I accidentally clicked on a thread on a General Discussion board - and was shocked to the core to read the accusations and allegations being made against the McCanns - not to mention the pure venom.
Because of that - I read up on the case (including the files) - and fora from both sides and it became clear that much of what was being held up as evidence against the McCanns was simply false. Many of those falsehoods are still being peddled today as evidence but - unlike on this forum - are allowed to go unchallenged elsewhere.
It also became clear that the opinions of some sceptics were based purely on their hatred of the McCanns (for various reasons) and who had decided that everything the McCanns did was wrong and everything they said was wrong - whether it was or not. That is still the case today.
I do not know the McCanns - have never met them or spoken to them. I'm not even sure that I would like them if I did meet them. However, I do detest injustice, cruelty, Kangaroo courts, lynchmob mentality and those people who take great delight in other peoples misfortune (Schardenfreud sp?) and who have latched on to this case with glee.
I do not have a problem with folk who disgree with the McCanns childcare arrangements. As that is a matter of personal choice. I do have a problem with folk - who in the light of there being no evidence against the McCanns have decided to embark on a permanent character assassination of them - apparently in the belief that if they can prove what 'evil, wicked' people they are - then they must have dunnit.
Sorry but that approach doesn't work for me.
AIMO.
The clincher for me was having my intelligence insulted by very obviously manipulated Youtube videos which are risible if they weren't so dangerous.
I always try to avoid using Godwin's law ... but they brought to mind the propaganda films directed this time against two people instead of a nation of people.
-
The clincher for me was having my intelligence insulted by very obviously manipulated Youtube videos which are risible if they weren't so dangerous.
I always try to avoid using Godwin's law ... but they brought to mind the propaganda films directed this time against two people instead of a nation of people.
Propaganda for the mccanns has also been on evidence throughout.
Such as the Daily Mirror article the other day. EXTREMELY BLATANT PROPAGANDA.
You as per normal have also omitted, that the crime remains UNKNOWN.
-
By "of late" I meant the last few years, ie: since they stopped appealing for funds.
What is a few years? more than couple? less than a dozen?
The website has been open with "donate buttons" operable all that time.
So when did they stop appealing?
According to the accounts the donations from the public look like this:
2007/8 £1.3MM; 2009 £254k; 2010 233k; 2011 £137k; 2012 £306K; 2013 £70k; 2014 £41k.
The figures demonstrate a decline in public contributions. One can argue the why's and wherefores til the cows come home.
-
Propaganda for the mccanns has also been on evidence throughout.
Such as the Daily Mirror article the other day. EXTREMELY BLATANT PROPAGANDA.
You as per normal have also omitted, that the crime remains UNKNOWN.
What seems to be resented and cited more often than anything by those who have never 'supported' Madeleine McCann's parents in their endeavours on her behalf ... is the media personae presented by them over the years.
Why have they been in the public eye? To keep Madeleine in public consciousness and awareness.
I really don't think there has been any drop in the vast well of public support for Madeleine which far outweighs the opinions of those who have campaigned against every initiative taken by her parents on her behalf.
They have been successful in one of their main objectives.
Madeleine's case is active.
If the prime objective of finding Madeleine is as successful, and there are those of us who fervently hope it is, it will be entirely down to the support given to her parents by the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard and perhaps the positive thoughts of well wishers.
-
What is a few years? more than couple? less than a dozen?
The website has been open with "donate buttons" operable all that time.
So when did they stop appealing?
According to the accounts the donations from the public look like this:
2007/8 £1.3MM; 2009 £254k; 2010 233k; 2011 £137k; 2012 £306K; 2013 £70k; 2014 £41k.
The figures demonstrate a decline in public contributions. One can argue the why's and wherefores til the cows come home.
If we were discussing the Fund then your figures would be relevant, however I don't see the connection between the decline in funds and the level of support the McCanns have, unless by support you mean solely financial. The McCanns have not actively sought donations for years, donate button on the website notwithstanding - it is hardly pushed down their 615k supporters' throats is it? I have no doubt that if the McCanns needed to appeal for further financial help to find their daughter that the donations would come rolling in again.
Actually, looking at your figures again I'm astounded by how much they got from public donations to the Fund in 2014 without any publicity...£41k is not far short of Gonc's Fund total, and this after 7 years? Very impressive, I'd say!
-
If we were discussing the Fund then your figures would be relevant, however I don't see the connection between the decline in funds and the level of support the McCanns have, unless by support you mean solely financial. The McCanns have not actively sought donations for years, donate button on the website notwithstanding - it is hardly pushed down their 615k supporters' throats is it? I have no doubt that if the McCanns needed to appeal for further financial help to find their daughter that the donations would come rolling in again.
Actually, looking at your figures again I'm astounded by how much they got from public donations to the Fund in 2014 without any publicity...£41k is not far short of Gonc's Fund total, and this after 7 years? Very impressive, I'd say!
I only posted the figures for interest.
Discuss it at will but include me out, as Sam Goldwyn would have it.
-
On the contrary, like Brietta it was a few years before I accidentally clicked on a thread on a General Discussion board - and was shocked to the core to read the accusations and allegations being made against the McCanns - not to mention the pure venom.
Because of that - I read up on the case (including the files) - and fora from both sides and it became clear that much of what was being held up as evidence against the McCanns was simply false. Many of those falsehoods are still being peddled today as evidence but - unlike on this forum - are allowed to go unchallenged elsewhere.
It also became clear that the opinions of some sceptics were based purely on their hatred of the McCanns (for various reasons) and who had decided that everything the McCanns did was wrong and everything they said was wrong - whether it was or not. That is still the case today.
I do not know the McCanns - have never met them or spoken to them. I'm not even sure that I would like them if I did meet them. However, I do detest injustice, cruelty, Kangaroo courts, lynchmob mentality and those people who take great delight in other peoples misfortune (Schardenfreud sp?) and who have latched on to this case with glee.
I do not have a problem with folk who disgree with the McCanns childcare arrangements. As that is a matter of personal choice. I do have a problem with folk - who in the light of there being no evidence against the McCanns have decided to embark on a permanent character assassination of them - apparently in the belief that if they can prove what 'evil, wicked' people they are - then they must have dunnit.
Sorry but that approach doesn't work for me.
AIMO.
Same for me Benice, Madeleine was in the news and I decided to read up on the case, stumbled onto a forum and I too was shocked by what I was reading, the attacks on the McCann's.
It was something I hadn't read before, so I decided to actually read the Police files and Amaral's book plus look at forums that related to both sides of the story.
What I found more or less straight away was that some were stating things that were not true, such as blood of Madeleine's being found in 5a, they bleached the floor, there was blood spatter on the wall, they washed the curtains and that there was a match of the DNA in the car.
I knew all of this wasn't true as it states all the findings in the Police Files, but they were acting as though they were true and as far as they were concerned the McCann's were guilty.
It is only through studying all the statements that at the end I decided there was no way the McCann's could have hidden Madeleine's body there was no opening for them to have done this. There was no way in my opinion all the friends would agree with the cover up either.
With stories of 'Gerry dumped a freezer', circulating, I also came to the conclusion that there were certain people who deliberately put out these ridiculous stories to fan the flames, to get people talking and accusing, blaming the McCann's. It is so utterly mind bending what some say. There are some at this very moment saying that Madeleine disappeared before the 3rd of May, that no one saw her from the Sunday onwards, that the Nanny could be mistaken, it could be another child and not Madeleine. The fact that the Nanny was chatting to the McCann's about Madeleine when they collected her, seems to go over their head, who on earth were the McCann's collecting if not Madeleine? where was this other child's parents that the McCann's were taking home with them?? I could go on but it would take so long.
I would just like to say finally, that the McCann case is not about Madeleine with a lot of people, It' s about the McCann's themselves, it has become a hobby a way of life, something that has taken over, with some, they are determined to keep this going as long as Madeleine remains missing, their excuse? because they want JUSTICE for Madeleine, no it's not justice for Madeleine they want far from it.
-
If we were discussing the Fund then your figures would be relevant, however I don't see the connection between the decline in funds and the level of support the McCanns have, unless by support you mean solely financial. The McCanns have not actively sought donations for years, donate button on the website notwithstanding - it is hardly pushed down their 615k supporters' throats is it? I have no doubt that if the McCanns needed to appeal for further financial help to find their daughter that the donations would come rolling in again.
Actually, looking at your figures again I'm astounded by how much they got from public donations to the Fund in 2014 without any publicity...£41k is not far short of Gonc's Fund total, and this after 7 years? Very impressive, I'd say!
Jolly good. So what now ?
-
Jolly good. So what now ?
I don't know what you're asking, sorry.
-
I don't know what you're asking, sorry.
Well the McCanns are popular but still deficient of one daughter. So still not ideal eh !
-
Well the McCanns are popular but still deficient of one daughter. So still not ideal eh !
Well, yes - nothing like stating the obvious, but thanks for sharing anyway. ?{)(**
-
People are innocent against whom there is no evidence of guilt.
There is no evidence of guilt against the McCanns.
The McCanns stay in the public eye because they want their daughter back, and they want the perpetrator(s) of crime(s) against their daughter nailed; also other children protected from falling prey to the same perpetrators.
-
People are innocent against whom there is no evidence of guilt.
There is no evidence of guilt against the McCanns.
The McCanns stay in the public eye because they want their daughter back, and they want the perpetrator(s) of crime(s) against their daughter nailed; also other children protected from falling prey to the same perpetrators.
I'm sorry Ferry I disagree, if you commit a crime, you are guilty of that crime whether any one can find evidence against you or not!
Only the McCanns know why they stay in the public eye, and there will be some who will disagree with you.
-
People are innocent against whom there is no evidence of guilt.
There is no evidence of guilt against the McCanns.
The McCanns stay in the public eye because they want their daughter back, and they want the perpetrator(s) of crime(s) against their daughter nailed; also other children protected from falling prey to the same perpetrators.
You have absolutely no idea who removed Madeleine from the apartment.
No connection has been made to any paedophile, yet you insist on doing so.
You are fast running out of others to blame.
-
You have absolutely no idea who removed Madeleine from the apartment.
No connection has been made to any paedophile, yet tou insist on doing so.
You are fast running out of others to blame.
SY say the parents are not suspects
-
SY say the parents are not suspects
Crime undetermined. 8**8:/:
-
Crime undetermined. 8**8:/:
and parents not suspects
-
and parents not suspects
Yet the crime is not known, so how can you clear potential suspects ?
A reasoned reply would help.
-
Yet the crime is not known, so how can you clear potential suspects ?
A reasoned reply would help.
because although the nature of the crime is unknown certain scenarios have been ruled out
-
because although the nature of the crime is unknown certain scenarios have been ruled out
That is illogical.
-
because although the nature of the crime is unknown certain scenarios have been ruled out
Which scenarios and how?
-
Which scenarios and how?
Those involving the parents
How... Ask SY
-
Those involving the parents
How... Ask SY
Crime unknown.
-
Ms. Wall has been notable for her silence.
-
Ms. Wall has been notable for her silence.
Could it simply be that she has nuffin to say? 8(8-))
-
Ms. Wall has been notable for her silence.
Well, as the saying goes, 'walls have ears' - no mention of a mouth.
-
Could it simply be that she has nuffin to say? 8(8-))
Maybe she subscribes to the theory that God gave her two ears, two eyes but one mouth for a good reason?
-
Could it simply be that she has nuffin to say? 8(8-))
That does seem quite logical as nothing of any consequence appears to have been found.
-
Well, as the saying goes, 'walls have ears' - no mention of a mouth.
Nice one! Empty vessels make the most sound also.
-
if there was a gold medal for straw clutching you could represent GB
I would say that those who repeat what someone said years ago is doing the straw clutching, not me.
-
I don't believe anything actually. I don't believe what the Police say, I don't believe what the media say, I don't believe what anyone says. Sometimes it's what people don't say that is the most interesting.
-
One of the reasons why the level of support for the McCanns has strengthened over the last 8 years (at least among discerning observers of events) is precisely because discerning observers have studied the files, and deduced what manifest iniquities have been visited against the McCanns by the dogs don't lie idiots and various other rag-tag misfits who denigrate and traduce the McCanns with scandalous misconceptions and prejudices ....
-
One of the reasons why the level of support for the McCanns has strengthened over the last 8 years (at least among discerning observers of events) is precisely because discerning observers have studied the files, and deduced what manifest iniquities have been visited against the McCanns by the dogs don't lie idiots and various other rag-tag misfits who denigrate and traduce the McCanns with scandalous misconceptions and prejudices ....
What planet are you living on ?
Support for the mccanns has manifestly decreased.
-
The question of the current support for the parents of Madeleine McCann was touched upon on another thread.
It was suggested that the Madeleine facebook page could be used as an indicator, however, it was pointed out that that particular social media site can be easily censored.
Others have pointed to the now defunct Madeleine twitter account as an indicator since it had to be closed down because of detractors and critics.
What is the current level of support? Can a measure of such ever be properly stated or as some have pointed out, is it all mere speculation?
Your views please.
10
Among discerning observers of events, support for the McCanns is as strong as ever it was.
The casual observer probably has remained unaffected by shenanigans of scurrilous bloggers, tweeters and whatever else, remain convinced of the truth (that Madeleine was abducted) and continue to entertain hope that the crime will be solved (ideally, with Madeleine being found alive and well, or failing that, that culprit(s) will be brought to book and the McCanns will have closure of, at least, knowing what happened).
-
Among discerning observers of events, support for the McCanns is as strong as ever it was.
The casual observer probably has remained unaffected by shenanigans of scurrilous bloggers, tweeters and whatever else, remain convinced of the truth (that Madeleine was abducted) and continue to entertain hope that the crime will be solved (ideally, with Madeleine being found alive and well, or failing that, that culprit(s) will be brought to book and the McCanns will have closure of, at least, knowing what happened).
You love your fantasies don't you ferryman.
P.S. No evidence to support abduction.
You do remind me of an infamous German propagandist.
-
You love your fantasies don't you ferryman.
P.S. No evidence to support abduction.
You do remind me of an infamous German propagandist.
You keep saying that SY have hit a brick wall, that there is no evidence of abduction.
Yet there is no evidence that they are following Amaral's theory is there? All this money all this time, if they believed Amaral's theory then it would have ended a long time ago wouldn't it?
Some Portuguese cop is supposedly have spoken to a journalist and said 'they don't know what happened to Madeleine, they are no nearer knowing than they were in 2007' well if that's the case, they didn't believe Amaral's theory did they?
-
You keep saying that SY have hit a brick wall, that there is no evidence of abduction.
Yet there is no evidence that they are following Amaral's theory is there? All this money all this time, if they believed Amaral's theory then it would have ended a long time ago wouldn't it?
Some Portuguese cop is supposedly have spoken to a journalist and said 'they don't know what happened to Madeleine, they are no nearer knowing than they were in 2007' well if that's the case, they didn't believe Amaral's theory did they?
As regards Amaral, the forensicxs were inconclusive.
As to abduction, [ moderated ]
-
What planet are you living on ?
Support for the mccanns has manifestly decreased.
They did OK with ordinary people sending them messages of hope and support at Christmas last year ... shall we count the Christmas wishes this year to check for any increase or reduction?
-
You keep saying that SY have hit a brick wall, that there is no evidence of abduction.
Yet there is no evidence that they are following Amaral's theory is there? All this money all this time, if they believed Amaral's theory then it would have ended a long time ago wouldn't it?
Some Portuguese cop is supposedly have spoken to a journalist and said 'they don't know what happened to Madeleine, they are no nearer knowing than they were in 2007' well if that's the case, they didn't believe Amaral's theory did they?
This is not about believing anyone's theory, its about proving beyond doubt what actually happened to Madeleine.
-
They did OK with ordinary people sending them messages of hope and support at Christmas last year ... shall we count the Christmas wishes this year to check for any increase or reduction?
Well if you want to play the stupid numbers game, how many people didn't send the mccanns messages of hope and support ?
-
Well if you want to play the stupid numbers game, how many people didn't send the mccanns messages of hope and support ?
Shiver me timbers ... and here was me thinking it all revolved around stupid number games ... until you are presented with a number which doesn't fit with your view. Very strange.
-
This is not about believing anyone's theory, its about proving beyond doubt what actually happened to Madeleine.
Glad you said that because it is something that appears to have been overlooked over the years by those who have flung every obstacle possible and every ill wish possible in the path of people who have been toiling to do just that ... find out what happened to Madeleine and if possible to return her to her family.
-
Shiver me timbers ... and here was me thinking it all revolved around stupid number games ... until you are presented with a number which doesn't fit with your view. Very strange.
I'm not the one who is deluded in thinking the mccanns have mass support.
-
This is not about believing anyone's theory, its about proving beyond doubt what actually happened to Madeleine.
So why aren't the PJ quizzing the McCann's? having them do a reconstruction?
Why did they investigate tractor man?
-
So why aren't the PJ quizzing the McCann's? having them do a reconstruction?
Why did they investigate tractor man?
Why ask me? - I'm not part of their team.
-
I'm not the one who is deluded in thinking the mccanns have mass support.
We inhabit a very tiny incestuous corner of the of the internet and tend to mistake it sometimes for the 'real' world.
There actually is a huge constituency out there inhabited in large part by normal people who would never understand or condone those who would injure a missing child through association, by the campaigns of hostility directed against her parents.
These people have nothing but support and sympathy for an innocent child and the family who have been deprived of her presence for over eight years.
-
We inhabit a very tiny incestuous corner of the of the internet and tend to mistake it sometimes for the 'real' world.
There actually is a huge constituency out there inhabited in large part by normal people who would never understand or condone those who would injure a missing child through association, by the campaigns of hostility directed against her parents.
These people have nothing but support and sympathy for an innocent child and the family who have been deprived of her presence for over eight years.
There are also many people out there who don't believe the mccanns story, and have no sympathy for people who endangered their children, whilst they went out drinking and eating.
-
There are also many people out there who don't believe the mccanns story, and have no sympathy for people who endangered their children, whilst they went out drinking and eating.
I think a lot of the people who have no sympathy for the McCann's [and that is entirely up to them] for leaving their children, also don't believe the McCann's story of abduction purely because they have already singled out the McCann's as these nasty people who cannot love their children because they went out to dinner and left them. These people think because the McCann's made a very stupid decision to leave their children they are also capable of covering up the death of their child and staging an abduction.
The very same people however, fail to read the Police files correctly, believe all the myths flying around about blood spatter etc. and will not even consider that the McCann's are innocent even though SY have said so.
-
I think a lot of the people who have no sympathy for the McCann's [and that is entirely up to them] for leaving their children, also don't believe the McCann's story of abduction purely because they have already singled out the McCann's as these nasty people who cannot love their children because they went out to dinner and left them. These people think because the McCann's made a very stupid decision to leave their children they are also capable of covering up the death of their child and staging an abduction.
The very same people however, fail to read the Police files correctly, believe all the myths flying around about blood spatter etc. and will not even consider that the McCann's are innocent even though SY have said so.
It's not up to SY to declare 'innocence' or not.
That's a court does.
Meanwhile, no evidence of abduction which can'y point in a different direction.
-
You keep saying that SY have hit a brick wall, that there is no evidence of abduction.
Yet there is no evidence that they are following Amaral's theory is there? All this money all this time, if they believed Amaral's theory then it would have ended a long time ago wouldn't it?
Some Portuguese cop is supposedly have spoken to a journalist and said 'they don't know what happened to Madeleine, they are no nearer knowing than they were in 2007' well if that's the case, they didn't believe Amaral's theory did they?
There is irrefutable proof that they are not following Amaral's theory.
The shelved enquiry concluded with the crime unsolved.
The follow-on enquiry has taken up the mantle from there.
Some people entertain (and promote) the fantasy that discarded and disproven lines of enquiry have been rekindled.
They haven't.
-
It's not up to SY to declare 'innocence' or not.
That's a court does.
Meanwhile, no evidence of abduction which can'y point in a different direction.
A court does not declare anyone innocent
You are wrong
-
There are also many people out there who don't believe the mccanns story, and have no sympathy for people who endangered their children, whilst they went out drinking and eating.
Uh huh ... the vast majority of whom rattle about in our tiny corner of the internet planning and plotting refinements to their eight year campaign to thwart and bad mouth the parents of a missing child in their every endeavour on her behalf and that of other missing people.
I am sure if the majority of normal people knew about the antics of some of them ... they would be incredulous to say the least.
It cannot be considered normal behaviour for people to devote time and effort and their lives to attempting to screw up further the lives of innocent individuals whose lives are already devastated and totally changed by the criminal action of a stranger. For some reason you always seem to overlook the real villain of the peace here.
I think the vast majority of normal people interested only in getting on with their own lives would give unequivocal support to Madeleine's family getting on with theirs in peace and support them in their effort to find her.
-
There is irrefutable proof that they are not following Amaral's theory.
The shelved enquiry concluded with the crime unsolved.
The follow-on enquiry has taken up the mantle from there.
Some people entertain (and promote) the fantasy that discarded and disproven lines of enquiry have been rekindled.
They haven't.
They have the same prime suspect and the only credible one in this case and SY had to get written permission to get the file.
"A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report."
-
I don't think at the stage it was done that it was for their lawful protection. I think it was a mean, spiteful, vengeful act by a very petty little man who had nothing else going for him.
I believe it was a huge embarrassment to Portugal. But it has had a lasting affect in some quarters and that is a huge pity given that there was no evidence to support it, which became patently obvious with the release of the files.
There is a silent majority out there who have neither read the files or care or who would never dream of enrolling to be 'educated' in Lizzie's academy of fantasy ... who will always give their support to a missing child and her family just because it is a right and proper humanitarian thing to do.
The vast majority of normal people knowing what the mccanns did, would only have sympathy for Madeleine.
If you think otherwise you are deluding yourself.
-
The vast majority of normal people knowing what the mccanns did, would only have sympathy for Madeleine.
If you think otherwise you are deluding yourself.
I think you may be deluding yourself by being unable to see that support for Madeleine's parents = support for Madeleine herself.
I may very well have missed it, there have been so many over the years. Perhaps you would be able to point to the campaign and petitions demanding that Madeleine McCann's case was reviewed with the objective of being re-opened if evidence was found to justify that by those who have adopted the mantra ... 'Justice for Madeleine'.
-
I think you may be deluding yourself by being unable to see that support for Madeleine's parents = support for Madeleine herself.
I may very well have missed it, there have been so many over the years. Perhaps you would be able to point to the campaign and petitions demanding that Madeleine McCann's case was reviewed with the objective of being re-opened if evidence was found to justify that by those who have adopted the mantra ... 'Justice for Madeleine'.
It is her parents who put her in danger, TOTALLY UNNECESSARILY.
So support for Madeleine, does not mean supporting her parents.
-
It isn't known who removed Madeleine, or what crime occurred.
-
It is her parents who put her in danger, TOTALLY UNNECESSARILY.
So support for Madeleine, does not mean supporting her parents.
Yet again you have entirely excused the perpetrator/s from culpability. You also fail to recognise that going out of the way to organise campaigns to disrupt everything and anything done by her parents to advance Madeleine McCann's cause is the absolute opposite of supporting Madeleine.
-
Yet again you have entirely excused the perpetrator/s from culpability. You also fail to recognise that going out of the way to organise campaigns to disrupt everything and anything done by her parents to advance Madeleine McCann's cause is the absolute opposite of supporting Madeleine.
YET AGAIN.
Perpetrator unknown.
Crime unknown.
-
Yet again you have entirely excused the perpetrator/s from culpability. You also fail to recognise that going out of the way to organise campaigns to disrupt everything and anything done by her parents to advance Madeleine McCann's cause is the absolute opposite of supporting Madeleine.
You should also realize, that by doing virtually no searching themselves and employing several detectives who could not organise a brew up in a pi##ery, or the equivalent, the mccanns have wasted a lot of other peoples donated money.
-
It isn't known who removed Madeleine, or what crime occurred.
Then why do you go to such lengths to argue against everything that may lead to discovering exactly what happened to Madeleine.
I see you have got it that Madeleine was removed from the apartment ... so I suppose that is a forward step in recognising one unlawful action. Which is entirely enough for the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard to be going with as they progress their investigations.
Without the support given to Madeleine's parents after their long lobbying, there would be no chance of finding out who that individual or individuals was. Don't see why recognition of their role in that endeavour should present any problems.
-
Then why do you go to such lengths to argue against everything that may lead to discovering exactly what happened to Madeleine.
I see you have got it that Madeleine was removed from the apartment ... so I suppose that is a forward step in recognising one unlawful action. Which is entirely enough for the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard to be going with as they progress their investigations.
Without the support given to Madeleine's parents after their long lobbying, there would be no chance of finding out who that individual or individuals was. Don't see why recognition of their role in that endeavour should present any problems.
Of course she was removed from the apartment.
It doesn't mean there was an abductor.
and she wasn't beamed up to the Enterprise either.
-
You should also realize, that by doing virtually no searching themselves and employing several detectives who could not organise a brew up in a pi##ery, or the equivalent, the mccanns have wasted a lot of other peoples donated money.
I would have thought that by now it would be realised that people donating money to a particular cause are ...
(a) happy to donate
(b) content that their donation is used to further the aims of that cause
I think you are using a long discredited and soiled argument about lack of parental searching which really is no longer worthy of response as everything they have done in the intervening period has successfully resulted in probably the biggest professional search ever for a missing child.
Lessons have been learned from this and I fail to comprehend anyone who cannot support this couple in their endeavours.
-
It is her parents who put her in danger, TOTALLY UNNECESSARILY.
So support for Madeleine, does not mean supporting her parents.
So can I ask in what way you support Madeleine Stephen? Presuming that is why you are on this forum, to support Madeleine.
You don't support the investigation by SY the investigation, that, if the McCann's hadn't petitioned for, the opening of the case wouldn't have come about, and therefore the investigation wouldn't have come about.
SY are investigating what happened to Madeleine and trying to find her. You don't think this investigation should continue as it is wasting public money, so how are you supporting Madeleine Stephen?
-
It seems impossible to answer the thread question because we don't know what support the McCanns had eight years ago or what support they have now.
Initially they received a lot of support from the media, from certain well known people and from the populations of Luz and the UK.
The media support died away as more details became known, and when they became arguidos the media was mostly hostile. Then after several threatened libel actions the media became supportive again. Fair weather friends then, who will only be supportive when threatened.
The well known people who supported them have largely wandered off and are no longer heard about. They may be supportive or not, we don't know.
The population of Luz seem to think they are involved and just want the whole thing to go away.
The McCanns believed that Leicestershire police supported them until they were refused sight of the evidence held by that force, one of the reasons given being that;
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/
They had a lot of public support eight years ago with lots of money being donated to help them. Monetary support has declined over the years. We don't know if those people would donate again if the need arose.
Finally, there is support on the internet. Those who believe in the McCann's innocence proclaim it daily. They portray themselves as caring, empathetic, intelligent people who have considered all the evidence carefully before reaching their conclusions. In addition they daily castigate others who express doubt about the Mccann's version of events. They question their character and intelligence and accuse them of being cruel and vindictive, and of deliberately hampering the search for Madeleine. That shows that they don't inhabit the moral high ground as they try to claim because caring empathetic and intelligent people don't behave like that.
-
It seems impossible to answer the thread question because we don't know what support the McCanns had eight years ago or what support they have now.
Initially they received a lot of support from the media, from certain well known people and from the populations of Luz and the UK.
The media support died away as more details became known, and when they became arguidos the media was mostly hostile. Then after several threatened libel actions the media became supportive again. Fair weather friends then, who will only be supportive when threatened.
The well known people who supported them have largely wandered off and are no longer heard about. They may be supportive or not, we don't know.
The population of Luz seem to think they are involved and just want the whole thing to go away.
The McCanns believed that Leicestershire police supported them until they were refused sight of the evidence held by that force, one of the reasons given being that;
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/
They had a lot of public support eight years ago with lots of money being donated to help them. Monetary support has declined over the years. We don't know if those people would donate again if the need arose.
Finally, there is support on the internet. Those who believe in the McCann's innocence proclaim it daily. They portray themselves as caring, empathetic, intelligent people who have considered all the evidence carefully before reaching their conclusions. In addition they daily castigate others who express doubt about the Mccann's version of events. They question their character and intelligence and accuse them of being cruel and vindictive, and of deliberately hampering the search for Madeleine. That shows that they don't inhabit the moral high ground as they try to claim because caring empathetic and intelligent people don't behave like that.
You forgot Kate McCann's bestselling book, which I would see as a measure of support, a book which despite the best efforts of the "sceptic" pressure group has managed to hold onto a 4 star rating on Amazon, the majority of which express sympathetic sentiments towards the McCann family, and let's not forget the money generated by its sales, supporting the Madeleine Fund.
As for your last comment, I think intelligent compassionate people stand up for innocent victims of crime who are being ripped to shreds and mocked and libelled day in day out, it's the decent thing to do IMO.
-
You forgot Kate McCann's bestselling book, which I would see as a measure of support, a book which despite the best efforts of the "sceptic" pressure group has managed to hold onto a 4 star rating on Amazon, the majority of which express sympathetic sentiments towards the McCann family, and let's not forget the money generated by its sales, supporting the Madeleine Fund.
As for your last comment, I think intelligent compassionate people stand up for innocent victims of crime who are being ripped to shreds and mocked and libelled day in day out, it's the decent thing to do IMO.
Only if they have nothing better to do with their time, hour after tedious hour, day in, day out.
-
Only if they have nothing better to do with their time, hour after tedious hour, day in, day out.
Makes one wonder does it not if there is some effort at justification by the pot calling the kettle ... etc
I smile wryly on seeing your comment mirrored frequently particularly when there is no answer to what has precipitated it.
-
You forgot Kate McCann's bestselling book, which I would see as a measure of support, a book which despite the best efforts of the "sceptic" pressure group has managed to hold onto a 4 star rating on Amazon, the majority of which express sympathetic sentiments towards the McCann family, and let's not forget the money generated by its sales, supporting the Madeleine Fund.
As for your last comment, I think intelligent compassionate people stand up for innocent victims of crime who are being ripped to shreds and mocked and libelled day in day out, it's the decent thing to do IMO.
Indeed for without the book royalties and earlier damages the fund would be in a parlous state.
-
You forgot Kate McCann's bestselling book, which I would see as a measure of support, a book which despite the best efforts of the "sceptic" pressure group has managed to hold onto a 4 star rating on Amazon, the majority of which express sympathetic sentiments towards the McCann family, and let's not forget the money generated by its sales, supporting the Madeleine Fund.
As for your last comment, I think intelligent compassionate people stand up for innocent victims of crime who are being ripped to shreds and mocked and libelled day in day out, it's the decent thing to do IMO.
I would expect intelligent compassionate people to behave with intelligence and compassion. Suggesting that others are less intelligent and compassionate isn't either intelligent or compassionate. Reasoned debate supported by evidence is the way to educate those we think are mistaken, not name calling. Name calling is never a decent thing to do, no matter how lofty one's aims or how just one's cause is believed to be.
-
Indeed for without the book royalties and earlier damages the fund would be in a parlous state.
Which answers entirely ... "What about all the other missing children?"
As time progresses it is human nature to allow memories to slip, which is what happens to the Sandy Davidsons and Katrice Lees of this life.
Uniquely and against all the odds Madeleine McCann's parents have combated that situation and have come through to make Madeleine's disappearance as relevant today as it was when she disappeared.
In effect they have defied history if not gravity on their daughter's behalf.
In my opinion they deserve all the support they have received in the past and will continue to receive into the foreseeable future.
-
I would expect intelligent compassionate people to behave with intelligence and compassion. Suggesting that others are less intelligent and compassionate isn't either intelligent or compassionate. Reasoned debate supported by evidence is the way to educate those we think are mistaken, not name calling. Name calling is never a decent thing to do, no matter how lofty one's aims or how just one's cause is believed to be.
like any teacher ..we more intelligent people get frustrated with those who can or will not learn and will not listen to reason. I would definitely count myself as intelligent and compassionate.
-
You forgot Kate McCann's bestselling book, which I would see as a measure of support, a book which despite the best efforts of the "sceptic" pressure group has managed to hold onto a 4 star rating on Amazon, the majority of which express sympathetic sentiments towards the McCann family, and let's not forget the money generated by its sales, supporting the Madeleine Fund.
As for your last comment, I think intelligent compassionate people stand up for innocent victims of crime who are being ripped to shreds and mocked and libelled day in day out, it's the decent thing to do IMO.
I bought Kate's book and I know many other sceptics did too. So how can you see the numbers that bought it as 'a measure of support' ? Further many, many of the reviews for Kate's book are little short of scathing.
-
I bought Kate's book and I know many other sceptics did too. So how can you see the numbers that bought it as 'a measure of support' ? Further many, many of the reviews for Kate's book are little short of scathing.
Like I said, despite the "many, many scathing reviews" left by the "sceptic" pressure group, the book's favourable reviews still far outnumber them - how do you account for this? I was under the impression that most "sceptics" were very proud of the fact that they hadn't bought a copy of Kate's 'Satanic Verses' and instead allowed brave individuals such as yourself to sully your eyes and hands with the arduous task of transcribing the vomit-inducing contents onto the internet in order that your brethren may read it for free...?
-
It seems impossible to answer the thread question because we don't know what support the McCanns had eight years ago or what support they have now.
Initially they received a lot of support from the media, from certain well known people and from the populations of Luz and the UK.
The media support died away as more details became known, and when they became arguidos the media was mostly hostile. Then after several threatened libel actions the media became supportive again. Fair weather friends then, who will only be supportive when threatened.
The well known people who supported them have largely wandered off and are no longer heard about. They may be supportive or not, we don't know.
The population of Luz seem to think they are involved and just want the whole thing to go away.
The McCanns believed that Leicestershire police supported them until they were refused sight of the evidence held by that force, one of the reasons given being that;
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/
They had a lot of public support eight years ago with lots of money being donated to help them. Monetary support has declined over the years. We don't know if those people would donate again if the need arose.
Finally, there is support on the internet. Those who believe in the McCann's innocence proclaim it daily. They portray themselves as caring, empathetic, intelligent people who have considered all the evidence carefully before reaching their conclusions. In addition they daily castigate others who express doubt about the Mccann's version of events. They question their character and intelligence and accuse them of being cruel and vindictive, and of deliberately hampering the search for Madeleine. That shows that they don't inhabit the moral high ground as they try to claim because caring empathetic and intelligent people don't behave like that.
When I first came to follow this case I was under the impression that it was a straight forward example of a child abduction. When I started delving into the files however I found it to be far from it.
The parents are viewed with suspicion by many people and the longer this goes on the worse it will get imo.
Madeleine is long gone and most probably hidden somewhere near to where she disappeared from imo.
-
Which answers entirely ... "What about all the other missing children?"
As time progresses it is human nature to allow memories to slip, which is what happens to the Sandy Davidsons and Katrice Lees of this life.
Uniquely and against all the odds Madeleine McCann's parents have combated that situation and have come through to make Madeleine's disappearance as relevant today as it was when she disappeared.
In effect they have defied history if not gravity on their daughter's behalf.
In my opinion they deserve all the support they have received in the past and will continue to receive into the foreseeable future.
I don't understand, but then that is not surprising.
The point about the fund is that for it's continued survival, if the general trend to date is anything to go by, there will need to be a lot more damages and royalties forthcoming.
-
In my opinion they deserve all the support they have received in the past and will continue to receive into the foreseeable future.
I disagree, the moment they refused to cooperate fully with the Portuguese cops was the moment they destroyed any credibility they had.
-
Like I said, despite the "many, many scathing reviews" left by the "sceptic" pressure group, the book's favourable reviews still far outnumber them - how do you account for this? I was under the impression that most "sceptics" were very proud of the fact that they hadn't bought a copy of Kate's 'Satanic Verses' and instead allowed brave individuals such as yourself to sully your eyes and hands with the arduous task of transcribing the vomit-inducing contents onto the internet in order that your brethren may read it for free...?
The audience this book was targeted at love a pot-boiler. I believe Kateie Price's books sell for the same reason.
-
So can I ask in what way you support Madeleine Stephen? Presuming that is why you are on this forum, to support Madeleine.
You don't support the investigation by SY the investigation, that, if the McCann's hadn't petitioned for, the opening of the case wouldn't have come about, and therefore the investigation wouldn't have come about.
SY are investigating what happened to Madeleine and trying to find her. You don't think this investigation should continue as it is wasting public money, so how are you supporting Madeleine Stephen?
As you well know, I don't believe Madeleine is alive.
However, those responsible need bringing to justice.
-
Good to know I can still surprise you then Alfie. To be honest I'm not sure why any of the above have chosen to pen books, opening up to scrutiny what must have been the darkest periods of their lives. But different strokes for different folks I guess !
We know why Kate penned the book though don't we? To raise money for the Fund. I believe Kerry Needham's book was also written for a similar purpose. Writing about dark periods in one's life can be a cathartic experience, and give one a focus to help one work through the pain and loss. Can you understand this?
-
We know why Kate penned the book though don't we? To raise money for the Fund. I believe Kerry Needham's book was also written for a similar purpose. Writing about dark periods in one's life can be a cathartic experience, and give one a focus to help one work through the pain and loss. Can you understand this?
I can absolutely understand the cathartic effect of putting one's experiences down on paper. What I can't understand is publishing those very private thoughts for the world to see.
-
I can absolutely understand the cathartic effect of putting one's experiences down on paper. What I can't understand is publishing those very private thoughts for the world to see.
No surprise there then
Others understand why Kate wrote the book
The fact that you don't is totally unimportant
-
I don't understand, but then that is not surprising.
The point about the fund is that for it's continued survival, if the general trend to date is anything to go by, there will need to be a lot more damages and royalties forthcoming.
Sorry, I'm not quite as obsessed about the fund as some may be and what may be necessary for it in the future.
My attention at the moment is caught up with hoping for progress in finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann; I think the majority of the Great British Public would support me in hoping for the best in that as well as being supportive of everything Madeleine's parents do on her behalf..
-
No surprise there then
Others understand why Kate wrote the book
The fact that you don't is totally unimportant
We were told that the book was written to clarify events and to provide funds for a search. Was either accomplished?
-
We were told that the book was written to clarify events and to provide funds for a search. Was either accomplished?
I would say both were accomplished
-
We were told that the book was written to clarify events and to provide funds for a search. Was either accomplished?
Definitely, though some people prefer to view the book as a work of fiction and most of them never paid to read it either....
-
I would expect intelligent compassionate people to behave with intelligence and compassion. Suggesting that others are less intelligent and compassionate isn't either intelligent or compassionate. Reasoned debate supported by evidence is the way to educate those we think are mistaken, not name calling. Name calling is never a decent thing to do, no matter how lofty one's aims or how just one's cause is believed to be.
I'm intelligent as are you. I have compassion too, but not towards those who make cheap, facetious, snide, bitchy, ignorant comments about the innocent parents of a missing child. Maybe if I was Jesus I would be able to, but I'm only human after all. I've never called you a name as far as I can recall but I do think you have demonstrated a lack of empathy on a number of occasions, an accusation which you have taken to calling "abuse". I'm very sorry that you feel I have abused you for saying you lack empathy, but imagine how it feels to be the McCanns!! Oh, sorry - you can't can you?? No empathy! @)(++(*
-
I'm intelligent as are you. I have compassion too, but not towards those who make cheap, facetious, snide, bitchy, ignorant comments about the innocent parents of a missing child. Maybe if I was Jesus I would be able to, but I'm only human after all. I've never called you a name as far as I can recall but I do think you have demonstrated a lack of empathy on a number of occasions, an accusation which you have taken to calling "abuse". I'm very sorry that you feel I have abused you for saying you lack empathy, but imagine how it feels to be the McCanns!! Oh, sorry - you can't can you?? No empathy! @)(++(*
Thank you Alfred. I don't like to brag but I'm fairly pleased that I can post on here without feeling the need to constantly break the rules and make work for the mods. (that's an example of both intelligence and empathy for you)
I can easily imagine how it feels for innocent parents to lose a child, and I can empathise with that. The problem arises with the word 'innocent'. As Leicestershire police pointed out;
-
We were told that the book was written to clarify events and to provide funds for a search. Was either accomplished?
The book was carefully authored in order to attract as much sympathy as possible while swelling the coffers of the fund. Promoting the book and thus Madeleine took a back seat evidenced by the threats made against anyone who posted a copy of the book online.
As for searching, despite their talking the talk, the McCanns have never taken part in any organised search since the time of the disappearance. They want everyone else to search for Madeleine while they concentrate in attempting to destroy anyone who dares criticise them.
After the Amaral trial decision Kate McCann went public to claim that it wasn't about the money. We shall see how much of it is given away to a worthy cause if the appeal decision is favourable to them.
-
Thank you Alfred. I don't like to brag but I'm fairly pleased that I can post on here without feeling the need to constantly break the rules and make work for the mods. (that's an example of both intelligence and empathy for you)
I can easily imagine how it feels for innocent parents to lose a child, and I can empathise with that. The problem arises with the word 'innocent'. As Leicestershire police pointed out;
so you have decided the McCanns are not innocent and therefore deserve no sympathy
-
The book was carefully authored in order to attract as much sympathy as possible while swelling the coffers of the fund. Promoting the book and thus Madeleine took a back seat evidenced by the threats made against anyone who posted a copy of the book online.
As for searching, despite their talking the talk, the McCanns have never taken part in any organised search since the time of the disappearance. They want everyone else to search for Madeleine while they concentrate in attempting to destroy anyone who dares criticise them.
After the Amaral trial decision Kate McCann went public to claim that it wasn't about the money. We shall see how much of it is given away to a worthy cause if the appeal decision is favourable to them.
You say that as if they have never given a penny to 'worthy causes'. IIRC they have already donated/raised over £100,000 for 2/3 different charities. What is your opinion of them for doing that Angelo? A reply would be appreciated.
-
You say that as if they have never given a penny to 'worthy causes'. IIRC they have already donated/raised over £100,000 for 2/3 different charities. What is your opinion of them for doing that Angelo? A reply would be appreciated.
I am sure you have a cite for that?
-
Thank you Alfred. I don't like to brag but I'm fairly pleased that I can post on here without feeling the need to constantly break the rules and make work for the mods. (that's an example of both intelligence and empathy for you)
I can easily imagine how it feels for innocent parents to lose a child, and I can empathise with that. The problem arises with the word 'innocent'. As Leicestershire police pointed out;
It's noticeable how many sceptics try to play down SY's statement which ruled out the McCanns and their friends - by pointing out that it was made a while back - and so may no longer be their thinking. And yet still bring up a statement made by Leicester police from way back in 2008 when the McCanns were still arguidos - (and IMO a statement specifically worded to take that status into account) - as if it is set in concrete and still valid.
IMO SY's very clear statement superseded that very old statement and until we hear any different - still stands - i.e. Neither the McCanns nor their friends are suspects or persons of interest.
-
It's noticeable how many sceptics try to play down SY's statement which ruled out the McCanns and their friends - by pointing out that it was made a while back - and so may no longer be their thinking. And yet still bring up a statement made by Leicester police from way back in 2008 when the McCanns were still arguidos - (and IMO a statement specifically worded to take that status into account) - as if it is set in concrete and still valid.
IMO SY's very clear statement superseded that very old statement and until we hear any different - still stands - i.e. Neither the McCanns nor their friends are suspects or persons of interest.
Crime unknown benice.
-
I am sure you have a cite for that?
£55,000 donated to Missing People and a local charity - the Joe Humphries Memorial Trust from a libel payout. Between £30/40,000 raised by Kate for taking part in the Marathon and the bike ride. Also a donation of half the money raised at a charity ball (around £40,000) - years ago - where IIRC half was donated to PACT - (mentioned in her book.)
From memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary. The precise figures are out there for anyone to check.
-
TOPIC. PLEASE.
-
The book was carefully authored in order to attract as much sympathy as possible while swelling the coffers of the fund. Promoting the book and thus Madeleine took a back seat evidenced by the threats made against anyone who posted a copy of the book online.
As for searching, despite their talking the talk, the McCanns have never taken part in any organised search since the time of the disappearance. They want everyone else to search for Madeleine while they concentrate in attempting to destroy anyone who dares criticise them.
After the Amaral trial decision Kate McCann went public to claim that it wasn't about the money. We shall see how much of it is given away to a worthy cause if the appeal decision is favourable to them.
Kate said she wrote the book to put their side of the story out there. Also to raise money for the fund, obviously if someone posted a copy of the book on the internet others could read it without buying it, and so the fund would suffer wouldn't it?
As for the searching part of your post. The McCann's searched everywhere they thought Madeleine could have wandered, the same as other parents of missing children. They then waited for the police to arrive. It is normal for the police to then take over the search, it is not normal for the parents to be among an organised search as they could come upon the body of their child.
The McCann's ask the public to look out for Madeleine when they go on holiday, that is the only way they can now 'search' sightings, that is all they can go on now, which is the same as Ben Needham's family.
-
Kate said she wrote the book to put their side of the story out there. Also to raise money for the fund, obviously if someone posted a copy of the book on the internet others could read it without buying it, and so the fund would suffer wouldn't it?
As for the searching part of your post. The McCann's searched everywhere they thought Madeleine could have wandered, the same as other parents of missing children. They then waited for the police to arrive. It is normal for the police to then take over the search, it is not normal for the parents to be among an organised search as they could come upon the body of their child.
The McCann's ask the public to look out for Madeleine when they go on holiday, that is the only way they can now 'search' sightings, that is all they can go on now, which is the same as Ben Needham's family.
How do you know they searched everywhere they thought Madeleine could have wandered ?
-
How do you know they searched everywhere they thought Madeleine could have wandered ?
Maybe I should have phrased it differently 'they searched the places where Madeleine had been that week'. Witnesses saw Gerry searching, Kate went out too, the friends searched.
-
Maybe I should have phrased it differently 'they searched the places where Madeleine had been that week'. Witnesses saw Gerry searching, Kate went out too, the friends searched.
Very briefly the following morning, and that was that.
-
Very briefly the following morning, and that was that.
No, Kate went out on the night of the 3rd, Gerry was seen searching on the night of the 3rd.
-
The book was carefully authored in order to attract as much sympathy as possible while swelling the coffers of the fund. Promoting the book and thus Madeleine took a back seat evidenced by the threats made against anyone who posted a copy of the book online.
As for searching, despite their talking the talk, the McCanns have never taken part in any organised search since the time of the disappearance. They want everyone else to search for Madeleine while they concentrate in attempting to destroy anyone who dares criticise them.
After the Amaral trial decision Kate McCann went public to claim that it wasn't about the money. We shall see how much of it is given away to a worthy cause if the appeal decision is favourable to them.
She goes to her rocks a lot instead of searching.
"One from a former Met Police officer' very insensitive/ cruel and far from constructive! Another said 'R.I.P. Maddie' 'how appalling!
Well, not surprisingly I was very upset and
I went out to the rocks on the beach. I cried a lot and spoke to Madeleine and to God." 26 June 2007
“We then walked down to the rocks on the beach with its crashing waves and sense of vastness and freedom – another place where I have always felt able to reach out to Madeleine and find a little solace.” Dec 13, 2009
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/mccannDM0409_468x288.jpg)
-
She goes to her rocks a lot instead of searching.
"One from a former Met Police officer' very insensitive/ cruel and far from constructive! Another said 'R.I.P. Maddie' 'how appalling!
Well, not surprisingly I was very upset and
I went out to the rocks on the beach. I cried a lot and spoke to Madeleine and to God." 26 June 2007
“We then walked down to the rocks on the beach with its crashing waves and sense of vastness and freedom – another place where I have always felt able to reach out to Madeleine and find a little solace.” Dec 13, 2009
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/mccannDM0409_468x288.jpg)
And? so Kate goes out to sit on a rock for peace and quiet so what?
Instead of searching you say, searching where exactly?
-
I would be searching those rocks instead of sitting on them for photos.
-
...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/mccannDM0409_468x288.jpg)
Is that Kate's check slacks alerted to by Eddie after being taken from 27 Rus das Flores?
The image link suggests the date was 1 Sep 2007.
-
No, Kate went out on the night of the 3rd, Gerry was seen searching on the night of the 3rd.
Cite.
-
She goes to her rocks a lot instead of searching.
"One from a former Met Police officer' very insensitive/ cruel and far from constructive! Another said 'R.I.P. Maddie' 'how appalling!
Well, not surprisingly I was very upset and
I went out to the rocks on the beach. I cried a lot and spoke to Madeleine and to God." 26 June 2007
“We then walked down to the rocks on the beach with its crashing waves and sense of vastness and freedom – another place where I have always felt able to reach out to Madeleine and find a little solace.” Dec 13, 2009
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/mccannDM0409_468x288.jpg)
They were quite happy to pose on the beach.
A display of 'responsible searching skills'. 8(0(*
-
They were quite happy to pose on the beach.
A display of 'responsible searching skills'. 8(0(*
No zoom lenses in your neck of the woods, then?
-
No zoom lenses in your neck of the woods, then?
As if the mccanns didn't have PR working on their behalf and using 'photo opportunities'.
-
Copyright.
-
......pointless
!
-
Maybe I should have phrased it differently 'they searched the places where Madeleine had been that week'. Witnesses saw Gerry searching, Kate went out too, the friends searched.
But she hadn't wandered. Kate said she knew instantly that Maddie had been abducted, mind you she forgot to tell the police ON THE PHONE that her daughter was abducted because they were all looking for a child who may indeed have wandred. But let's not let a little thing like that get in the way of a bloody good story.
What were they searching for? an abductor who was hiding with a almost naked child, on a cold night outside,? um..sure thing , like that is believable.
-
No, Kate went out on the night of the 3rd, Gerry was seen searching on the night of the 3rd.
Do you have statements showing where they searched and who saw them please?