Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?

[slartibartfast]

I don't see VS claiming his post represents every sceptic on here... Perhaps you misread it

So what do you understand by...

“when basically that is the default position of every McCann sceptic“

[G-Unit]

The view that the McCanns faked an abduction is very prevalent on this forum, even if only by inference (direct accusation not being permitted of course).  If you quote any of the Tapas' group evidence to support the abduction theory it is declaimed as not independent an therefore not reliable, the clear implication being that subterfuge or fakery is involved, yet this accusation largely passes by without censure.  Therefore I was surprised to read that accusing someone else of faking evidence is "a disgrace", when basically that is the default position of every McCann sceptic re: the McCanns themselves.

As you observed, direct accusations are not permitted on the forum, yet I have seen quite a few of them directed at Martin Grime.


 

[G-Unit]

And the PJ;

I now say without doubt the PJ faked alerts
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg479931#msg479931

[Alice Purjorick]

So what do you understand by...

“when basically that is the default position of every McCann sceptic“

It would be interesting to learn the definition of "every" that the poster relies.
Is that every every or selective every........

[Mr Gray]

So what do you understand by...

“when basically that is the default position of every McCann sceptic“

Anyone who is sceptical  of the McCann's does not believe  them and therefore thinks they may be faking the evidence

[G-Unit]

Anyone who is sceptical  of the McCann's does not believe  them and therefore thinks they may be faking the evidence

What evidence?

[Mr Gray]

What evidence?

Their statements are evidence

[G-Unit]

Their statements are evidence

Really? I thought you'd binned them along with the dog alerts; 'twice translated and non verbatim'.

[Venturi Swirl]

You don’t know the default position of every McCann Sceptic. Pretending you do and arguing against that position is a strawman argument.

It stands to reason that if you are sceptical of the McCanns' version of events you are also accusing them of faking evidence, now tell me where I am wrong there...?

[slartibartfast]

It stands to reason that if you are sceptical of the McCanns' version of events you are also accusing them of faking evidence, now tell me where I am wrong there...?

Again, that doesn’t follow for every sceptic.

[Robittybob1]

I don't see VS claiming his post represents every sceptic on here... Perhaps you misread it

VS did write "Therefore I was surprised to read that accusing someone else of faking evidence is "a disgrace", when basically that is the default position of every McCann sceptic re: the McCanns themselves."

if VS had said "Therefore I was surprised to read that accusing someone else of faking evidence is "a disgrace", when basically that is the default position of many McCann sceptics re: the McCanns themselves."  VS might have been OK.    "Strawman" is not a term I use myself.

[Mr Gray]

Really? I thought you'd binned them along with the dog alerts; 'twice translated and non verbatim'.

Then you thought wrong

[Robittybob1]

As you observed, direct accusations are not permitted on the forum, yet I have seen quite a few of them directed at Martin Grime.

Cite please.

[slartibartfast]

Cite please.

They have been deleted because they were libellous.

[Robittybob1]

They have been deleted because they were libellous.

Could you then show me what you consider as examples of libellous statements against Grime please?