Sceptics beliefs ?

[jassi]

Prison is seldom a deterrent for anything.

[Erngath]

Looking at your posts you appear to see sceptics as a group with shared beliefs and a shared campaign. You also appear to reject what they say and believe that you know why they think as they do.

"the sceptic belief and campaign"; "the crux of the sceptics beliefs.";  "Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?"; "I find it difficult to believe that without all the myths, disgraceful newspaper articles and the McCanns being wrongly (IMO) made arguidos that these doubts would have arisen at all."; "all sceptics believe that her parents are involved."; "sceptics believe  that there is evidence against the McCanns"

I am pleased you used the word "appear" twice because it means that this is how my posts appear to you, not in fact what they really are!

You seem to have much more time to commit to reading back on this thread than I do..

I have neither the time or the inclination to do so.

[G-Unit]

Try mither - pester or bother

Like moither or moider. A Northern England term. A child perstering for sweets would be moithering the adult where I grew up.

[G-Unit]

I am pleased you used the word "appear" twice because it means that this is how my posts appear to you, not in fact what they really are!

You seem to have much more time to commit to reading back on this thread than I do..

I have neither the time or the inclination to do so.

Quite so. I try not to state my opinions as facts. I would try not to say 'suppoters believe' for exanple. There's enough people on here making sweeping statements imo.

[Erngath]

Quite so. I try not to state my opinions as facts. I would try not to say 'suppoters believe' for exanple. There's enough people on here making sweeping statements imo.

It would be helpful if sceptics could post their beliefs on what happened to Madeleine and If their beliefs have altered in the  past twelve years
Has the fact that two investigating police forces do not seem to be as concerned with the details in the files which so trouble the sceptics?
It doesn't bother me at all if you post that supporters do not believe that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.

[Erngath]

On the presumption these are words lifted from comments on this thread ...

• "the sceptic belief and campaign";
• "the crux of the sceptics beliefs."; 
• "Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?";
• "I find it difficult to believe that without all the myths, disgraceful newspaper articles and the McCanns being wrongly (IMO) made arguidos that these doubts would have arisen at all.";
• "all sceptics believe that her parents are involved."; "sceptics believe  that there is evidence against the McCanns"

Taken on their own and out of context are meaningless as regards your purpose for posting them.

If you disagree ~ exactly what with do you disagree.

If they are offensive ~ in what way have they offended you?  and so on.

Freedom of expression and all that ... I think means taking the opportunity to enlighten ... not to shut down discussion by posting absolutely nothing as you have done here.

Excellent post.
Thank you

[jassi]

It would be helpful if sceptics could post their beliefs on what happened to Madeleine and If their beliefs have altered in the  past twelve years
Has the fact that two investigating police forces do not seem to be as concerned with the details in the files which so trouble the sceptics?
It doesn't bother me at all if you post that supporters do not believe that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.

In what way would it be helpful?

Who would it help?

[Mr Gray]

It's a legal right which protects those charged with a criminal offence. Defamation is a civil offence

You have incorrectly claimed several times that the presumption of innocence does not apply to a civil trial...read below which is an ECHR ruling and you will see you are wrong..


Ruokanen and Others v. Finland
6 April 2010
The applicants were an editor-in-chief and a journalist and a publishing company. They
complained about their conviction of defamation following publication of an article stating
that a student had been raped in September 2000 by members of a baseball team at a
party to celebrate their victory in the Finnish championship. The applicants had been
ordered to pay over 80,000 euros in damages to compensate each member of the
baseball team.
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
of the Convention, finding that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the
competing interests involved, i.e. the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the
10
Factsheet – Protection of reputation
right to reputation of the alleged perpetrators of a crime. It observed in particular that
imperatives other than matters of public concern had to be weighed up before an
incident was reported by the media to the public as fact. The right to presumption of
innocence and reputation of third parties was of equal importance especially where
serious accusations of sexual misconduct were concerned

if teh SC have denied the mccanns the presumption of innnocence tehn clearly they are in error...so we have absolute confirmation taht the presumption off innocence should be taken into account in a civil defamation case




www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf.   page 11

[ShiningInLuz]

mithres  - a new word for me.  It doesn't come up on Google as a meaningful word.  What were you trying to say?

Mithres is a simple word.  It simply means to churn on to influence someone.  As in, my dog is mithering me right now.  He quite clearly wants me to stop posting on here and take him out for a walkie in the campo.

That's what we are going to do.  He won again.

[ShiningInLuz]

I think it's obvious they have been eliminating all possibilities. A large chunk was spent on an operation to find a body so that suggests what they think!

Where's Mr Bennett when one needs an FOI?  I would love to see the money expended on that operation.

[Venturi Swirl]

Not eager, Brietta, realistic. People can and do surprise others by doing the unexpected. Perfectly respectable sucessful people included.

And some people break into houses and steal children, but you’re less keen on drawing attention to those examples, any particular reason why that should be?

[Venturi Swirl]

Nothing.

Despite investigating cadaver dogs extensively, I have yet to find an instance of them being used on landfill.

It merely shows that VS doesn't understand how rubbish was processed in the Algarve in 2007.

How was rubbish processed in the Algarve in 2007 and what makes you an authority on the subject?

[Mr Gray]

Del

[ShiningInLuz]

How was rubbish processed in the Algarve in 2007 and what makes you an authority on the subject?

Feel free to read my blog on the topic.

[G-Unit]

On the presumption these are words lifted from comments on this thread ...

• "the sceptic belief and campaign";
• "the crux of the sceptics beliefs."; 
• "Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?";
• "I find it difficult to believe that without all the myths, disgraceful newspaper articles and the McCanns being wrongly (IMO) made arguidos that these doubts would have arisen at all.";
• "all sceptics believe that her parents are involved."; "sceptics believe  that there is evidence against the McCanns"

Taken on their own and out of context are meaningless as regards your purpose for posting them.

If you disagree ~ exactly what with do you disagree.

If they are offensive ~ in what way have they offended you?  and so on.

Freedom of expression and all that ... I think means taking the opportunity to enlighten ... not to shut down discussion by posting absolutely nothing as you have done here.

All those quotes are by one person who denied teling sceotics what they believed abd denied thinking that sceptics had shared beliefs. in my opinion those quotes show otherwise.

In my opinion it's impossible to 'enlighten' people who believe they already know the truth.