Sceptics beliefs ?

[The General]

I had to google  to find out who is Joey Essex.
I doubt he has been been subjected to even a fraction of the abuse directed at Madeleine's family.
Like Brietta I too am interested in why this one particular case has attracted so much vitriol and abuse.
This has lasted nearly twelve years!

It hasn't. It's longevity sets it apart. It's not difficult to explain - data in, data out. There's a different story issued weekly about it, so it is perpetuated in the media for the idiots to shout naughty words about.
The 'abuse' is broadly in proportion with everything else they find distasteful - if Katy Hopkins makes an appearance there's a spike in abuse that is off the scale - it's the brevity and shelf life is the difference, but proportionately it's about the same.
There's nothing special about the McCann's.
And Joey Essex was an example.

[Mr Gray]

It hasn't. It's longevity sets it apart. It's not difficult to explain - data in, data out. There's a different story issued weekly about it, so it is perpetuated in the media for the idiots to shout naughty words about.
The 'abuse' is broadly in proportion with everything else they find distasteful - if Katy Hopkins makes an appearance there's a spike in abuse that is off the scale - it's the brevity and shelf life is the difference, but proportionately it's about the same.
There's nothing special about the McCann's.
And Joey Essex was an example.

I think you are wrong based on the fact that there, are, almost no other subjects where newspapers have had to close off comments... The abuse being so bad

[Brietta]

Would you care to show the evidence that Maddie -  was abducted.

Just been listening to the podcast 9 -  there are so many doubts and inaccuracy about so-called evidence.


It's not as cut a dried as you think B - or try to make it out to be.

So you believe Madeleine was not abducted ... but are unable to show the evidence for that belief.

I think that regrettable but is par for the course of sceptic belief.



I did mention to you that two national police forces have launched investigations into Madeleine's abduction which are still live?  If not, I do so now.

[G-Unit]

Similar to the manner in which sceptics do not believe Madeleine was abducted and many of those sceptics judge, condemn and verbally abuse the family of Madeleine?

Two wrongs don't make a right. The comments posted weren't anywhere near as abusive as the reaction to them either imo.

[Brietta]

I think you are wrong based on the fact that there, are, almost no other subjects where newspapers have had to close off comments... The abuse being so bad

Or where a convicted axe murderer can set up a blog to denigrate the family of a missing child and gains credence and apparent acceptance from like minded sceptics.  So bizarre ... but so true.

[Brietta]

Two wrongs don't make a right. The comments posted weren't anywhere near as abusive as the reaction to them either imo.

Still nothing about why the abuse has lasted for twelve years and why it is apparently wrong to question that level of opprobrium directed anonymously at strangers..

[G-Unit]

Belief.. Opinion... Theory... Based on the evidence

Nothing is proved. Until it is different opinions are inevitable and understandable. In my opinion name-calling is unacceptible no matter who does it. 

[jassi]

Still nothing about why the abuse has lasted for twelve years and why it is apparently wrong to question that level of opprobrium directed anonymously at strangers..

I thought the General had covered that in his observation of constant, or at least ongoing  McCann-related articles in the media.

[Mr Gray]

Nothing is proved. Until it is different opinions are inevitable and understandable. In my opinion name-calling is unacceptible no matter who does it.

There s evidence... No one has mentioned proof.. I agree about the name calling...

[ShiningInLuz]

Still nothing about why the abuse has lasted for twelve years and why it is apparently wrong to question that level of opprobrium directed anonymously at strangers..

As the case is active, of course it is going to be discussed and commented on.  Sheesh!

And as Team McCann uses 'a friend of the family' or 'a source close to the family' to make comments on developments, whilst relying on personal anonymity, and the mantra of 'the McCanns will not comment about developments during a live investigation', why should those querying what happened to MBM not use similar tactics?   Sheesh!

In my working days the term used for this was a 'no brainer'.

[Mr Gray]

As the case is active, of course it is going to be discussed and commented on.  Sheesh!

And as Team McCann uses 'a friend of the family' or 'a source close to the family' to make comments on developments, whilst relying on personal anonymity, and the mantra of 'the McCanns will not comment about developments during a live investigation', why should those querying what happened to MBM not use similar tactics?   Sheesh!

In my working days the term used for this was a 'no brainer'.

We are not talking about comments... The topic is abuse

[G-Unit]

I think you are wrong based on the fact that there, are, almost no other subjects where newspapers have had to close off comments... The abuse being so bad

There are no other stories that have been reported so frequently for so long imo. One wonders why the comments were allowed, then not allowed, then allowed again. Was that really just a reaction to their content?

[ShiningInLuz]

We are not talking about comments... The topic is abuse

The word used was opprobrium.  I'm confident you can tell the difference.

And the topic is "Sceptics beliefs", not abuse.

[jassi]

There are no other stories that have been reported so frequently for so long imo. One wonders why the comments were allowed, then not allowed, then allowed again. Was that really just a reaction to their content?

It's what the McCanns wanted - constant exposure in the media. Hence Bell Pottinger, etc.
They just failed to factor in the downside of such exposure.
All IMO, of course.

[Mr Gray]

As the case is active, of course it is going to be discussed and commented on.  Sheesh!

And as Team McCann uses 'a friend of the family' or 'a source close to the family' to make comments on developments, whilst relying on personal anonymity, and the mantra of 'the McCanns will not comment about developments during a live investigation', why should those querying what happened to MBM not use similar tactics?   Sheesh!

In my working days the term used for this was a 'no brainer'.

You have used the word comment throughout your post so I think it's, safe to assume it's comments you are referring to... Comments, are fine but what is being discussed here is, abuse