McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

It's evidence that they say they've applied to the ECHR, not that they have.

Gemma O'Doherty said the BBC agreed to cut their comment about the Smiths from their video and they did so. Unless you have evidence that they did it for another reason you can't prove her wrong.

its proof that they say they have applied...you are confusing evidence and proof again

[Brietta]

No doubt she will be devastated to learn that

I'm quite sure Ms O'Doherty doesn't know I exist nor would she be interested in my opinion if she did.

However it is not my opinion she needs to worry about; there are those with opinions of far more relevance to her who may be wondering about her twitter activities versus her credibility.
I wonder if it will really be worth it for her in the long term.

[Mr Gray]

So easily done; especially as Roger's Brontosaurus offers "proof" as a synonym of "evidence".
We has a difference of opinion it seems.
Maybe you will apprise us why you believe the thesaurus to be in error?

thesauras.com gives not guilty as a synonym of innocent...as does Rogets...in the light of this would you like to reconsider your response to my post...looks like Im right and roger and you are wrong

[slartibartfast]

I'm quite sure Ms O'Doherty doesn't know I exist nor would she be interested in my opinion if she did.

However it is not my opinion she needs to worry about; there are those with opinions of far more relevance to her who may be wondering about her twitter activities versus her credibility.
I wonder if it will really be worth it for her in the long term.

There seems to be only one set of people who are questioning her truthfulness.

[Alice Purjorick]

thesauras.com gives not guilty as a synonym of innocent...as does Rogets...in the light of this would you like to reconsider your response to my post...looks like Im right and roger and you are wrong

We were discussing evidence and proof.
NOT "not guilty" and "innocent". However given that innocent and guilty are strict terms the brontosaurus is correct and you my son have been rogered with the rough end of the pineappple....

[Brietta]

There seems to be only one set of people who are questioning her truthfulness.

If you are content to accept every unsubstantiated claim this individual makes without question ... why do you feel it necessary to question the veracity of forum members by demanding cites for everything posted on the forum?

[faithlilly]

If you are content to accept every unsubstantiated claim this individual makes without question ... why do you feel it necessary to question the veracity of forum members by demanding cites for everything posted on the forum?

Isn't it you who does that Brietta ?

Anyway outwith the question of Miss O'Doherty's credibility what we do now know for sure is when the Panorama 10th Anniversary programme was aired it claimed that Martin Smith had retracted his identification of Gerry and that has now been cut from the programme. Whether it was as a result of the actions of Miss O'Doherty, Martin Smith or Uncle Tom Cobbley it is a fact and the only logical inference that can be drawn from the BBC's actions is that they have now conceded that Martin Smith did not retract his identification.

[Brietta]

Isn't it you who does that Brietta ?

Anyway outwith the question of Miss O'Doherty's credibility what we do now know for sure is when the Panorama 10th Anniversary programme was aired it claimed that Martin Smith had retracted his identification of Gerry and that has now been cut from the programme. Whether it was as a result of the actions of Miss O'Doherty, Martin Smith or Uncle Tom Cobbley it is a fact and the only logical inference that can be drawn from the BBC's actions is that they have now conceded that Martin Smith did not retract his identification.

Ensuring the probity of comments made is what mods do, don't you know?

Just as you wouldn't be forced into guesswork regarding what the BBC programme makers did or did not do if Ms Doherty had been able to substantiate the claim she made.
Which apparently she cannot do.

Despite the big build up and the expectations raised I'm afraid no provenance equals, in my opinion, another great big zero and a total waste of space. 

[Eleanor]

Ensuring the probity of comments made is what mods do, don't you know?

Just as you wouldn't be forced into guesswork regarding what the BBC programme makers did or did not do if Ms Doherty had been able to substantiate the claim she made.
Which apparently she cannot do.

Despite the big build up and the expectations raised I'm afraid no provenance equals, in my opinion, another great big zero and a total waste of space.

It was a bit pathetic, wasn't it.  Even I hoped for something a trifle more riveting.

[Mr Gray]

We were discussing evidence and proof.
NOT "not guilty" and "innocent". However given that innocent and guilty are strict terms the brontosaurus is correct and you my son have been rogered with the rough end of the pineappple....

lets discuss evidence and proof...you claim they have the same meaning and cite roget in support...so...take the statement...

the smith sighting is evidence but not proof that Gerry was seen carrying a child that night...

if evidence and proof have the same meaning we should be able to interchange them...


so......
the smith sighting is proof but not evidence that gerry was seen carrying a child that night


doesnt work does it...because they ahve different meanings

[Robittybob1]

lets discuss evidence and proof...you claim they have the same meaning and cite roget in support...so...take the statement...

the smith sighting is evidence but not proof that Gerry was seen carrying a child that night...

if evidence and proof have the same meaning we should be able to interchange them...


so......
the smith sighting is proof but not evidence that gerry was seen carrying a child that night


doesnt work does it...because they ahve different meanings

That is rather strange considering evidence and proof are synonyms yet they aren't transferable as you have demonstrated.

[slartibartfast]

If you are content to accept every unsubstantiated claim this individual makes without question ... why do you feel it necessary to question the veracity of forum members by demanding cites for everything posted on the forum?

We have cites for Ms O’Doherty’s statements about the Smith’s as Ms O’Doherty is not a member of this forum suggesting that she needs to provide cites is somewhat bizarre.

[Mr Gray]

We have cites for Ms O’Doherty’s statements about the Smith’s as Ms O’Doherty is not a member of this forum suggesting that she needs to provide cites is somewhat bizarre.

Brietta has not  asked for a cite...what she is saying is that posters who normally refuse to accept statemnts without cites accept an unsubstantiated quote by a journalist as fact...

[jassi]

It was a bit pathetic, wasn't it.  Even I hoped for something a trifle more riveting.

Still, it's managed to attract over 1000 posts on here, so clearly some people just can't leave it alone

[slartibartfast]

Brietta has not  asked for a cite...what she is saying is that posters who normally refuse to accept statemnts without cites accept an unsubstantiated quote by a journalist as fact...

And how many times are we told that others involved in the case have no requirement to answer questions that are asked on the forum that would clear up or confirm issues?