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: Venturi Swirl on August 01, 2022, 04:32:33 PM
-
it’s been suggested numerous times on here by sceptics that anyone who firmly believes Madeleine was abducted, abused and murdered is morally deficient or should somehow be ashamed of themselves. Does that extend to the police forces who are investigating a stranger abduction in this case? Are they too behaving immorally or shamefully?
-
Furthermore why is it morally unacceptable to hold this opinion? Let’s explore the logic of this belief, that McCann supporters who believe Madeleine was abducted and murdered are morally deficient and should be ashamed of holding this opinion.
-
In Darwin’s day, he was denounced as immoral and Unchristian for holding the opinion that man is descended from apes. People like Tony Bennett still to this day revile and reject his Theory of Evolution as immoral and unproven. I think it’s bizarre, twisted logic based on the denouncers’ faith - only in this case it’s faith not in GOD but in DOG(s)
-
it’s been suggested numerous times on here by sceptics that anyone who firmly believes Madeleine was abducted, abused and murdered is morally deficient or should somehow be ashamed of themselves. Does that extend to the police forces who are investigating a stranger abduction in this case? Are they too behaving immorally or shamefully?
Well, there's no evidence to support your disgusting fantasy really is there, other than some rather tenuous rubbish Brueckner spoke about in web chat.
-
Furthermore why is it morally unacceptable to hold this opinion? Let’s explore the logic of this belief, that McCann supporters who believe Madeleine was abducted and murdered are morally deficient and should be ashamed of holding this opinion.
Well, there's no evidence to support the idea, but if you're happy to have spent the last 15 years fantasising about paedophiles based on nothing at all that's your choice I suppose.
-
Also, does refusing to accept the likelihood that Madeleine was abducted and murdered have any bearing on what actually did happen to her? There does seem to me some sort of bizarre belief that if you refuse to believe such a scenario could possibly have happened then it can’t possibly have happened. Conversely there appears to be a belief that if you say you think Madeleine was abducted and murdered by CB that it is somehow within your capability to choose what happened to her, that this is the fate you actively chose and wished for her. Where is the sense in this grotesque thinking?
-
Also, does refusing to accept the likelihood that Madeleine was abducted and murdered have any bearing on what actually did happen to her? There does seem to me some sort of bizarre belief that if you refuse to believe such a scenario could possibly have happened then it can’t possibly have happened. Conversely there appears to be a belief that if you say you think Madeleine was abducted and murdered by CB that it is somehow within your capability to choose what happened to her, that this is the fate you actively chose and wished for her. Where is the sense in this grotesque thinking?
Well, hoping she's alive makes no difference to anything either, yet the McCanns still do, in the face of irrefutable evidence she's dead.
-
So no one’s interested in defending the idea that it is immoral to hold the opinion that Madeleine was abducted and murdered or explaining why it is that theose who hold such an opinion have lost their moral compass?
Oh well, let’s hope it’s the last time we hear such nonsensical accusations on this forum (I know, I know, hoping is such an overrated and pointless concept, I should probably be ashamed for that as well!)
-
The irony of course is that those calling into question the moral compass of people who subscribe to the stranger abduction theory would have absolutely no problem with anyone claiming Madeleine was abused and murdered by her parents and their friends. No, that would of course be quite morally acceptable to them. *%87
-
So no one’s interested in defending the idea that it is immoral to hold the opinion that Madeleine was abducted and murdered or explaining why it is that theose who hold such an opinion have lost their moral compass?
Oh well, let’s hope it’s the last time we hear such nonsensical accusations on this forum (I know, I know, hoping is such an overrated and pointless concept, I should probably be ashamed for that as well!)
Although we all have to hypothesise, i remember someone on fb group trying to show a list of doctors who had killed. Not one of them of kids but just in general lol. I thought what is this post trying to prove. Ppl will go to bear minimum of anything as speech in interviews to 'prove' guilt
-
Although we all have to hypothesise, i remember someone on fb group trying to show a list of doctors who had killed. Not one of them of kids but just in general lol. I thought what is this post trying to prove. Ppl will go to bear minimum of anything as speech in interviews to 'prove' guilt
Over the years there have been countless comparisons made between the McCanns and Harold Shipman, Hindley & Brady and the Wests. so clearly there is a sceptic mindset that the McCanns are on a par with the worst serial killers of all time and apparently there is nothing immoral in holding that fantasy - that the McCanns are evil killers. No, it's only immoral to consider that the police are on the right track investigating abduction and murder by a stranger. Go figure!
-
Over the years there have been countless comparisons made between the McCanns and Harold Shipman, Hindley & Brady and the Wests. so clearly there is a sceptic mindset that the McCanns are on a par with the worst serial killers of all time and apparently there is nothing immoral in holding that fantasy - that the McCanns are evil killers. No, it's only immoral to consider that the police are on the right track investigating abduction and murder by a stranger. Go figure!
Well, it's not impossible is it, & there's no way to rule it out entirely really unless Wolters reveals the concrete evidence. Only, that doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon. He won't even share it with the McCanns or the MET for reasons no one will suggest.
-
Of course the McCanns can't possibly be evil killers because they have no previous history of being evil killers #scepticlogic Still, it's not immoral to fantasise that they are so do carry on - remember you've only lost your moral compass if you accept that three police investigations are on the right track investigating a convicted paedo and rapist for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
-
Of course the McCanns can't possibly be evil killers because they have no previous history of being evil killers #scepticlogic Still, it's not immoral to fantasise that they are so do carry on - remember you've only lost your moral compass if you accept that three police investigations are on the right track investigating a convicted paedo and rapist for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
.....and how's that going?
-
Although we all have to hypothesise, i remember someone on fb group trying to show a list of doctors who had killed. Not one of them of kids but just in general lol. I thought what is this post trying to prove. Ppl will go to bear minimum of anything as speech in interviews to 'prove' guilt
There was a tendency at one point to use the McCann's lack of previous wrongdoing and the fact that they were doctors to suggest that they were unlikely to be involved. I think posts such as the one you mention were demonstrating that people's pasts and/or their jobs are not 'proof' of innocence. To some extent CB's past is being used by some as if it were 'proof' of guilt.
Just as the McCanns became 'poor', 'suffering' and 'doctors' to emphasise a message, so CB has become 'vile', peodophile' and 'rapist' to achieve another.
-
There was a tendency at one point to use the McCann's lack of previous wrongdoing and the fact that they were doctors to suggest that they were unlikely to be involved. I think posts such as the one you mention were demonstrating that people's pasts and/or their jobs are not 'proof' of innocence. To some extent CB's past is being used by some as if it were 'proof' of guilt.
Just as the McCanns became 'poor', 'suffering' and 'doctors' to emphasise a message, so CB has become 'vile', peodophile' and 'rapist' to achieve another.
Yeah, he's not a particularly nice bloke but the evidence he's a murderer is found wanting really.
Still, if he is, at least he only abducted & murdered the one child then gave up doing it after that.
-
There was a tendency at one point to use the McCann's lack of previous wrongdoing and the fact that they were doctors to suggest that they were unlikely to be involved. I think posts such as the one you mention were demonstrating that people's pasts and/or their jobs are not 'proof' of innocence. To some extent CB's past is being used by some as if it were 'proof' of guilt.
Just as the McCanns became 'poor', 'suffering' and 'doctors' to emphasise a message, so CB has become 'vile', peodophile' and 'rapist' to achieve another.
....and not only this, but if you happen to believe Brueckner innocent based on the glaring absence of credible evidence you are accused of supporting paedophiles. I don't mind playing up to that demand though, I mean, there's nothing to talk about in way of evidence Brueckner abducted Maddie so might as well do something to pass the time until Wolters wraps things up.
-
There was a tendency at one point to use the McCann's lack of previous wrongdoing and the fact that they were doctors to suggest that they were unlikely to be involved. I think posts such as the one you mention were demonstrating that people's pasts and/or their jobs are not 'proof' of innocence. To some extent CB's past is being used by some as if it were 'proof' of guilt.
Just as the McCanns became 'poor', 'suffering' and 'doctors' to emphasise a message, so CB has become 'vile', peodophile' and 'rapist' to achieve another.
There's certainly a very prevalent view on this forum, particularly amongst its owner and his right hand man - that because CB has no previous history as an abductor or killer then it means he's unlikely to have committed the crime. You don't seem to have a problem with that argument?
But actually, it's completely off-topic anyway, this thread is about my (and others) apparent lack of a moral compass because we share the police opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and likely murdered. Do you think that makes us immoral? If so, why? Are the police immoral too for pursuing this line of investigation? Do you think they "get off on the fantasy" that this is what happened to Madeleine, because that is what we on this forum are being accused of - is it a fair accusation in your view?
I realise there's absolutely zero chance of you posting an on topic response but I thought I'd ask anyway.
-
Yeah, he's not a particularly nice bloke but the evidence he's a murderer is found wanting really.
Still, if he is, at least he only abducted & murdered the one child then gave up doing it after that.
Brueckner did admit to a friend that he'd "accidentally killed" an ex-girlfriend at some time in the past.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-told-friend-25459666
Without knowing who the victim was, it would appear that he is capable of killing someone, despite not having such a crime listed on his rap sheet.
-
Brueckner did admit to a friend that he'd "accidentally killed" an ex-girlfriend at some time in the past.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-told-friend-25459666
Without knowing who the victim was, it would appear that he is capable of killing someone, despite not having such a crime listed on his rap sheet.
Anyone is capable of killing someone.
Seems he was never charged with murder though, so maybe it was an accident, that's possible isn't it, or maybe Wolters will reopen that case when he's finished convicting Brueckner for murdering Maddie, or maybe he just hasn't murdered anyone.
-
Brueckner did admit to a friend that he'd "accidentally killed" an ex-girlfriend at some time in the past.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-told-friend-25459666
Without knowing who the victim was, it would appear that he is capable of killing someone, despite not having such a crime listed on his rap sheet.
You are making the assumption that this statement by ''a friend' is true.
-
You are making the assumption that this statement by ''a friend' is true.
Well it is, because they said so, that's how things work you see.
-
All very fascinating but nothing to do with the alleged immorality in holding the opinion that CB is involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
-
All very fascinating but nothing to do with the alleged immorality in holding the opinion that CB is involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
I never got any answers on my thread either, so I wouldn't worry about it really.
Maybe start a thread listing all the abduction evidence instead, we'd have plenty to talk about then.
-
I never got any answers on my thread either, so I wouldn't worry about it really.
Maybe start a thread listing all the abduction evidence instead, we'd have plenty to talk about then.
I'd be more interested in seeing a thread listing reasons why Brueckner couldn't possibly have abducted and murdered Madeleine. There must be a great long list of sceptic's evidence which proves he didn't do it.
-
I'd be more interested in seeing a thread listing reasons why Brueckner couldn't possibly have abducted and murdered Madeleine. There must be a great long list of sceptic's evidence which proves he didn't do it.
Well that's easy, what evidence do you have Maddie was abducted in the first place?
Is it because the McCanns said so?
-
There's certainly a very prevalent view on this forum, particularly amongst its owner and his right hand man - that because CB has no previous history as an abductor or killer then it means he's unlikely to have committed the crime. You don't seem to have a problem with that argument?
But actually, it's completely off-topic anyway, this thread is about my (and others) apparent lack of a moral compass because we share the police opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and likely murdered. Do you think that makes us immoral? If so, why? Are the police immoral too for pursuing this line of investigation? Do you think they "get off on the fantasy" that this is what happened to Madeleine, because that is what we on this forum are being accused of - is it a fair accusation in your view?
I realise there's absolutely zero chance of you posting an on topic response but I thought I'd ask anyway.
I don't know what I think at the moment, but I am certain sure that The McCanns didn't harm Madeleine or dispose of her body.
Is that considered by some to be immoral? Not that this would bother me in the slightest. My thoughts work on logic which has always been lacking in so many.
There must be some nasty hive mentality at work here.
-
I don't know what I think at the moment, but I am certain sure that The McCanns didn't harm Madeleine or dispose of her body.
Is that considered by some to be immoral? Not that this would bother me in the slightest. My thoughts work on logic which has always been lacking in so many.
There must be some nasty hive mentality at work here.
How so?
-
I'd be more interested in seeing a thread listing reasons why Brueckner couldn't possibly have abducted and murdered Madeleine. There must be a great long list of sceptic's evidence which proves he didn't do it.
I doubt that. But He isn't The McCanns you see.
-
I doubt that. But He isn't The McCanns you see.
He isn't a murderer either, certainly, Wolters can't prove as much, despite his overtures.
-
Well that's easy, what evidence do you have Maddie was abducted in the first place?
Is it because the McCanns said so?
Often there is no evidence of abduction, just a missing person. PJ could never solve the case in their own inimitable style due to lack of evidence backing the co-ordinator's hypothesis and an inability to look beyond the parents. Other options have been explored and the focus is now on a specific suspect. What evidence can you provide to show he couldn't have committed the crime?
-
Hey guys, what did your mother always used to say?
DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!
-
Often there is no evidence of abduction, just a missing person. PJ could never solve the case in their own inimitable style due to lack of evidence backing the co-ordinator's hypothesis and an inability to look beyond the parents. Other options have been explored and the focus is now on a specific suspect. What evidence can you provide to show he couldn't have committed the crime?
Do you know of any evidence he ever set foot in 5a or even knew of Maddie's existence prior to or on May 3rd?
Doesn't seem to be any does there.
-
Hey guys, what did your mother always used to say?
DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!
Yet you all do simply by talking nonsense & believing Wolters has cracked it.
-
Do you know of any evidence he ever set foot in 5a or even knew of Maddie's existence prior to or on May 3rd?
Doesn't seem to be any does there.
If CB knocked on the door of 5A on May 3rd after 9pm and Madeleine opened it then he wouldn't have needed to set foot in 5A to snatch her. There have been abductions where the child has been lured and walked away willingly with the perp.
CB was a methodical criminal which probably goes some way to explaining why he was never caught. Abducting a child from inside a home takes planning and waiting for the right opportunity.
-
If CB knocked on the door of 5A on May 3rd after 9pm and Madeleine opened it then he wouldn't have needed to set foot in 5A to snatch her. There have been abductions where the child has been lured and walked away willingly with the perp.
CB was a methodical criminal which probably goes some way to explaining why he was never caught. Abducting a child from inside a home takes planning and waiting for the right opportunity.
But its not known if CB was in Luz, Wolters cannot place him there , but that is an interesting take on why there was no sign of any stranger entering 5a.
-
If CB knocked on the door of 5A on May 3rd after 9pm and Madeleine opened it then he wouldn't have needed to set foot in 5A to snatch her. There have been abductions where the child has been lured and walked away willingly with the perp.
CB was a methodical criminal which probably goes some way to explaining why he was never caught. Abducting a child from inside a home takes planning and waiting for the right opportunity.
Right, but then who opened the window?
...and he enjoyed it that much & was that good at it he couldn't stop boasting to his mates about it, but then decided to just give up doing after that, even though he wanted to catch a little one & abuse it for days.
-
But its not known if CB was in Luz, Wolters cannot place him there , but that is an interesting take on why there was no sign of any stranger entering 5a.
You really must desist from confusing your prejudices for fact.
You have absolutely no idea what Wolters thinks. You have absolutely no idea what evidence is held by the prosecution which justifies the prosecutors' making Brueckner the prime suspect in the murder of a child.
So in the intervening period consideration should be given by you to more frequent use of IMO when appropriate.
-
You really must desist from confusing your prejudices for fact.
You have absolutely no idea what Wolters thinks. You have absolutely no idea what evidence is held by the prosecution which justifies the prosecutors' making Brueckner the prime suspect in the murder of a child.
So in the intervening period consideration should be given by you to more frequent use of IMO when appropriate.
Nothing sufficient to secure a conviction, that much is obvious.
-
But its not known if CB was in Luz, Wolters cannot place him there , but that is an interesting take on why there was no sign of any stranger entering 5a.
Could you please address the topic seeing as it was your accusation that prompted it.
-
Right, but then who opened the window?
...and he enjoyed it that much & was that good at it he couldn't stop boasting to his mates about it, but then decided to just give up doing after that, even though he wanted to catch a little one & abuse it for days.
If CB knocked on the window and Madeleine opened the window, did he need to set foot inside 5A or could he just have lifted her out through the window after reaching in & raising the shutter? Are you using the open window as a defence now rather than part of proof of intrusion?
We have no idea how many children CB may have abused on his travels through Portugal, Spain, Italy, Romania, Switzerland etc. Without Madeleine's case, people would never have known about all the cases involving sexual predators on the Algarve in the noughties. It was reported that many of the children featured in the CSA images found on CB's devices were young & blonde, like Madeleine.
-
If CB knocked on the window and Madeleine opened the window, did he need to set foot inside 5A or could he just have lifted her out through the window after reaching in & raising the shutter? Are you using the open window as a defence now rather than part of proof of intrusion?
We have no idea how many children CB may have abused on his travels through Portugal, Spain, Italy, Romania, Switzerland etc. Without Madeleine's case, people would never have known about all the cases involving sexual predators on the Algarve in the noughties. It was reported that many of the children featured in the CSA images found on CB's devices were young & blonde, like Madeleine.
I got into the first sentence & have to stop you right there.
There is absolutely no way at all Maddie could have opened the window herself, that is how Kate knew Maddie was abducted.
https://youtu.be/Xg-md0DysMs?t=1370
-
I got into the first sentence & have to stop you right there.
There is absolutely no way at all Maddie could have opened the window herself, that is how Kate knew Maddie was abducted.
https://youtu.be/Xg-md0DysMs?t=1370
Back to the drawing board , could Madeleine open the front door ?
-
Could you please address the topic seeing as it was your accusation that prompted it.
Nothing to talk about is there. Gone wildly off topic with misty trying to explain why Brueckner only committed one abduction & murder.
Maybe she will explain why Wolters can't reveal the concrete evidence to the McCanns or the MET, but I won't hold my breath.
-
Back to the drawing board , could Madeleine open the front door ?
I think a mod might need to split this thread.
Only if she opened the window first, which she couldn't.
-
Nothing to talk about is there. Gone wildly off topic with misty trying to explain why Brueckner only committed one abduction & murder.
Maybe she will explain why Wolters can't reveal the concrete evidence to the McCanns or the MET, but I won't hold my breath.
IMO I don't think Wolters can reveal the concrete evidence because he can't yet answer many of the questions which will arise from doing so. BKA know the who & maybe the where but have admitted to not knowing the when, how and why. They need to be sure they have at least 4 definitive answers imo in the absence of a body or body parts.
-
IMO I don't think Wolters can reveal the concrete evidence because he can't yet answer many of the questions which will arise from doing so. BKA know the who & maybe the where but have admitted to not knowing the when, how and why. They need to be sure they have at least 4 definitive answers imo in the absence of a body or body parts.
He doesn't need to answer anything.
The evidence speaks for itself doesn't it?
If we saw it too we'd be in no doubt, according to Wolters.
-
If CB knocked on the window and Madeleine opened the window, did he need to set foot inside 5A or could he just have lifted her out through the window after reaching in & raising the shutter? Are you using the open window as a defence now rather than part of proof of intrusion?
We have no idea how many children CB may have abused on his travels through Portugal, Spain, Italy, Romania, Switzerland etc. Without Madeleine's case, people would never have known about all the cases involving sexual predators on the Algarve in the noughties. It was reported that many of the children featured in the CSA images found on CB's devices were young & blonde, like Madeleine.
Careful, you’ll be accused of having a faulty moral compass for writing posts like that.
-
IMO I don't think Wolters can reveal the concrete evidence because he can't yet answer many of the questions which will arise from doing so. BKA know the who & maybe the where but have admitted to not knowing the when, how and why. They need to be sure they have at least 4 definitive answers imo in the absence of a body or body parts.
Surely they know the why?
-
He doesn't need to answer anything.
The evidence speaks for itself doesn't it?
If we saw it too we'd be in no doubt, according to Wolters.
Evidence of death is not sufficient to convict someone without other strong evidence linking them to that death.
-
Evidence of death is not sufficient to convict someone without other strong evidence linking them to that death.
That's where the imaginary video comes in that can't be fully linked to Brueckner for some reason, even though it was on his memory stick.
-
Evidence of death is not sufficient to convict someone without other strong evidence linking them to that death.
Besides, we were talking about presenting evidence of death to her parents. They don't need to know immediately who killed her, even though they already know it was Brueckner, only evidence confirming she's definitely dead.
I can't see any good reason they couldn't be shown that evidence & neither can anyone else apparently.
Even the person who suggested the idea.
-
Careful, you’ll be accused of having a faulty moral compass for writing posts like that.
Researching this case and the life of Christian B has been a lesson in the different ways in which someone's moral compass can be skewed.
“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Researching this case and the life of Christian B has been a lesson in the different ways in which someone's moral compass can be skewed.
“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Yeah, if you take Brueckners confession as gospel you're lead to a total dead end really.
-
Surely they know the why?
HCW did say they had no evidence their suspect had sexually abused Madeleine. I haven't seen him say anything to the contrary. In one of his letters to Jutta R, (German journalist) I understand CB made reference to "an injured or damaged child" but am unable to provide a precise cite to support this claim.
-
Yeah, if you take Brueckners confession as gospel you're lead to a total dead end really.
How lacking in moral compass do you have to be to claim knowledge and responsibility for a crime you say you didn't commit?
-
How lacking in moral compass do you have to be to claim knowledge and responsibility for a crime you say you didn't commit?
People boast about things they haven't done. It does happen.
Raymond Hewlett did, unless maybe he was actually telling the truth because no one ever lies you see.
Perhaps all them 8000+ sightings of Maddie were all genuine after all.
-
People boast about things they haven't done. It does happen.
Raymond Hewlett did, unless maybe he was actually telling the truth because no one ever lies you see.
Perhaps all them 8000+ sightings of Maddie were all genuine after all.
Of course it happens. Brueckner just seemed to want the notoriety before being caught and convicted for other serious crimes. What changed?
-
Of course it happens. Brueckner just seemed to want the notoriety before being caught and convicted for other serious crimes. What changed?
Why not write to him & ask.
He doesn't mind pen pals apparently.
-
Why not write to him & ask.
He doesn't mind pen pals apparently.
That would be acting against my moral compass. Besides which - he tells lies.
-
HCW did say they had no evidence their suspect had sexually abused Madeleine. I haven't seen him say anything to the contrary. In one of his letters to Jutta R, (German journalist) I understand CB made reference to "an injured or damaged child" but am unable to provide a precise cite to support this claim.
I don't remember HCW saying no evidence of sexual abuse... Can you remember when he said this
-
HCW did say they had no evidence their suspect had sexually abused Madeleine. I haven't seen him say anything to the contrary. In one of his letters to Jutta R, (German journalist) I understand CB made reference to "an injured or damaged child" but am unable to provide a precise cite to support this claim.
I can’t imagine why someone would want to abduct and murder a small child for no reason at all. There would presumably have to be a motive and as there was never a ransom demand made I can really only think of one other motive for such a crime. No doubt if I mention it I will be accused of having depraved fantasies and lackng in any morals so I will leave it there.
-
I don't remember HCW saying no evidence of sexual abuse... Can you remember when he said this
I think it was on one of the Sexta9 episodes but I'll have to check later. He definitely said it but only in relation to the suspect, not anyone else.
-
I can’t imagine why someone would want to abduct and murder a small child for no reason at all. There would presumably have to be a motive and as there was never a ransom demand made I can really only think of one other motive for such a crime. No doubt if I mention it I will be accused of having depraved fantasies and lackng in any morals so I will leave it there.
I can think of 8 other options aside from self-gratification.
-
I can think of 8 other options aside from self-gratification.
I can think of a couple or three, but no more than that.
-
I'm more interested in the suggestion that she might have been damaged goods before he became involved.
That would open up all sorts of possibilities.
-
I'm more interested in the suggestion that she might have been damaged goods before he became involved.
That would open up all sorts of possibilities.
Damaged by whom?
-
Damaged by whom?
Persons presently unknown.
-
I can think of 8 other options aside from self-gratification.
Really? Wow. I obviously have no imagination. Surely though the fact that he has a history of child abuse and was recorded on the black web describing what he’d like to do to a small child makes it pretty obvious what the motive would have been?
-
I'm more interested in the suggestion that she might have been damaged goods before he became involved.
That would open up all sorts of possibilities.
Who (whose opinion counts for anything) has suggested that?
-
Damaged by whom?
I think this is all part and parcel of the sceptic fantasy that Madeleine was abused by her parents and their friends, though its only disgustingly immoral to suggest that she was abused by a stranger of course.
-
Persons presently unknown.
I think I'll pass on that one.
-
I think this is all part and parcel of the sceptic fantasy that Madeleine was abused by her parents and their friends, though its only disgustingly immoral to suggest that she was abused by a stranger of course.
That"s what I thought. This seems to be the way things are going lately. Anyone but Brueckner will do.
-
That"s what I thought. This seems to be the way things are going lately. Anyone but Brueckner will do.
Suit yourself.
The idea was raised by Misty, post 54, unless I have misunderstood what she was saying.
-
Really? Wow. I obviously have no imagination. Surely though the fact that he has a history of child abuse and was recorded on the black web describing what he’d like to do to a small child makes it pretty obvious what the motive would have been?
Could rather than would imo. I think it's important to remember that certain videos showing CB in incriminating circumstances + other CSA material were found by 3 of his (criminal) associates prior to Madeleine's disappearance.
If you want an obvious scapegoat for an abduction/murder, instigated by a third party, in which there's always the risk the abductor/murderer will be caught then I can't think of a more suitable candidate. Just my opinion based on what we know.
-
I think this is all part and parcel of the sceptic fantasy that Madeleine was abused by her parents and their friends, though its only disgustingly immoral to suggest that she was abused by a stranger of course.
My comment was not meant to imply that CB was referring to Madeleine being found by him injured or damaged by any of the T9 in 5A.
-
My comment was not meant to imply that CB was referring to Madeleine being found by him injured or damaged by any of the T9 in 5A.
I didn’t think for a moment that you were implying that Misty.
-
My comment was not meant to imply that CB was referring to Madeleine being found by him injured or damaged by any of the T9 in 5A.
I never thought you did mean that and nor did VS, I'm sure.
Pass the buck for a nasty comment as some sort of misunderstanding if it suits.
-
Could rather than would imo. I think it's important to remember that certain videos showing CB in incriminating circumstances + other CSA material were found by 3 of his (criminal) associates prior to Madeleine's disappearance.
If you want an obvious scapegoat for an abduction/murder, instigated by a third party, in which there's always the risk the abductor/murderer will be caught then I can't think of a more suitable candidate. Just my opinion based on what we know.
Gosh, I wish that I could have worded it like that when I was suggesting that Brueckner was a patsy/scapegoat for the perp. a couple of years ago. No-one believed me and I said it several times.
Well done Misty for getting it over so well.
I think that the perp wanted the investigating eye off himself and it looks like he succeeded, except maybe with SY.
-
Could rather than would imo. I think it's important to remember that certain videos showing CB in incriminating circumstances + other CSA material were found by 3 of his (criminal) associates prior to Madeleine's disappearance.
If you want an obvious scapegoat for an abduction/murder, instigated by a third party, in which there's always the risk the abductor/murderer will be caught then I can't think of a more suitable candidate. Just my opinion based on what we know.
Yeah lets wait over 12 years to incriminate a patsy. Better yet if a patsy is incriminated its done within the first year or days after. 15 years later, its called building a case in reality. Why isnt it that if law enforcement dont believe it was the parents thwy assume patsy, are they robots or somwthing or human allowed a belief system? Keep saying patsy, well u keep asking for evidence for cb, well pass me the documents and secret meeting he is a patsy 13 yeafs later lmao
-
Yeah lets wait over 12 years to incriminate a patsy. Better yet if a patsy is incriminated its done within the first year or days after. 15 years later, its called building a case in reality. Why isnt it that if law enforcement dont believe it was the parents thwy assume patsy, are they robots or somwthing or human allowed a belief system? Keep saying patsy, well u keep asking for evidence for cb, well pass me the documents and secret meeting he is a patsy 13 yeafs later lmao
It's a good point I think you're trying to make. Why point the finger at CB years after the event to create a patsy if no one is even looking at you in the first place? Why bring the eyes of the authorities upon yourself if you have gotten away with committing a crime even if you are pointing the finger elsewhere? Unless you have a pathological hatred of the "patsy" and want to make him suffer I can't really see the point.
And of course this is all completely off topic anyway.
-
CB as the perp..concrete evidence..100% murderedMM according to the Germans
Evidence for Patsy...none
What does that make the most probable
-
CB as the perp..concrete evidence..100% murderedMM according to the Germans
Evidence for Patsy...none
What does that make the most probable
IMO Wolters can't prove this assertion in court.
What does that tell you about the strength of the concrete evidence?
-
I can think of 8 other options aside from self-gratification.
Well done Misty. Me too, altho a couple of mine seem a bit woolly.
-
IMO Wolters can't prove this assertion in court.
What does that tell you about the strength of the concrete evidence?
If he had concrete evidence Bruckner would have been charged long ago imo. And why ask the public for more information if what he had was so concrete?
-
If he had concrete evidence Bruckner would have been charged long ago imo. And why ask the public for more information if what he had was so concrete?
Speaks for itself really doesn't it. Not everyone has caught on yet though. Some people still believe more evidence will emerge, pushing Wolters beyond the required point of 100% certainty, despite Brueckner's guilt being beyond question already. Anyone who saw the evidence would agree. Just not a judge though, not yet, for some reason. Maybe Wolters needs more time to build his case, the past 5 years haven't been enough already. Let's give him another 5 years before we write him off completely. Patience.
-
If he had concrete evidence Bruckner would have been charged long ago imo. And why ask the public for more information if what he had was so concrete?
Those who have followed closely understand exactly what's happening...Everything he has said makes perfect sense
-
Those who have followed closely understand exactly what's happening...Everything he has said makes perfect sense
Remind me again of the perfect sense reason why he can't reveal the concrete evidence to Maddie's parents?
-
Behan case first for another piece of the jigsaw in the MM case.
-
Behan case first for another piece of the jigsaw in the MM case.
Any evidence from the Behan case, Wolters already has, doesn't he?
-
Any evidence from the Behan case, Wolters already has, doesn't he?
Lol..it's funny how little you understand
-
Lol..it's funny how little you understand
I understand perfectly well Brueckner isn't being charged anytime in the foreseeable future.
But maybe after that, aye.
-
I'll be fascinated to see how they try to link these cases together.
-
I'll be fascinated to see how they try to link these cases together.
Probably something to do with the imaginary photo, I'd imagine.
-
I'll be fascinated to see how they try to link these cases together.
Wolters has said tjete is a link....that could aid the prosecutor in the MM case...I've already explained what I think it could be
-
Wolters has said tjete is a link....that could aid the prosecutor in the MM case...I've already explained what I think it could be
Yeah, the link was the open window.
“There are parallels with the case of the American tourist who was raped, the attack on Hazel Behan, and the abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann.”
He added to the Sunday Times: “In each case the person has come into the person’s apartment or property by breaking and entering, often not through the door.”
-
Yeah, the link was the open window.
“There are parallels with the case of the American tourist who was raped, the attack on Hazel Behan, and the abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann.”
He added to the Sunday Times: “In each case the person has come into the person’s apartment or property by breaking and entering, often not through the door.”
Nope...not the link
-
Nope...not the link
Could you provide the relevant quote from Wolters at all?
-
I think that this is all a laugh a minute. If only it were funny. Anyone with half a brain can see where Sceptics will go next. Actually, they are already half way there.
Fortunately, the opinions on this Forum amount to a hill of beans. But do carry on.
-
It's a good point I think you're trying to make. Why point the finger at CB years after the event to create a patsy if no one is even looking at you in the first place? Why bring the eyes of the authorities upon yourself if you have gotten away with committing a crime even if you are pointing the finger elsewhere? Unless you have a pathological hatred of the "patsy" and want to make him suffer I can't really see the point.
And of course this is all completely off topic anyway.
Some people can not fathom reality
-
Some people can not fathom reality
Some people cannot fathom reality because they don't know how. This goes back down through the ages to The Village Pump. There is nothing to be done about it.
-
Some people cannot fathom reality because they don't know how. This goes back down through the ages to The Village Pump. There is nothing to be done about it.
How's reality going in the case against CB?
Wolters having much luck is he?
-
I think that this is all a laugh a minute. If only it were funny. Anyone with half a brain can see where Sceptics will go next. Actually, they are already half way there.
Fortunately, the opinions on this Forum amount to a hill of beans. But do carry on.
So why do you bother responding ?
-
So why do you bother responding ?
Someone has to Moderate. I am as much entitled to an opinion as you are.
-
I think that this is all a laugh a minute. If only it were funny. Anyone with half a brain can see where Sceptics will go next. Actually, they are already half way there.
Fortunately, the opinions on this Forum amount to a hill of beans. But do carry on.
Dont’t encourage them! it’s not as if they have anything new, different or revelatory to say, just the same old provocative rubbish day in, day out. They accuse us of lacking a moral compass but are unable to explain why. Pathetic!
-
Dont’t encourage them! it’s not as if they have anything new, different or revelatory to say, just the same old provocative rubbish day in, day out. They accuse us of lacking a moral compass but are unable to explain why. Pathetic!
I created a thread with an entirely relevant & new question just the other day.
Didn't get any answers for that either.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12397.0
-
Dont’t encourage them! it’s not as if they have anything new, different or revelatory to say, just the same old provocative rubbish day in, day out. They accuse us of lacking a moral compass but are unable to explain why. Pathetic!
Try not to get upset about this, although I have to admit that I do sometimes.
But my point is that this Forum is just a venue to express opinions that don't matter. No one cares.
-
Try not to get upset about this, although I have to admit that I do sometimes.
But my point is that this Forum is just a venue to express opinions that don't matter. No one cares.
Well, you obviously care otherwise you wouldn't be here.
-
Try not to get upset about this, although I have to admit that I do sometimes.
But my point is that this Forum is just a venue to express opinions that don't matter. No one cares.
True.
-
True.
I think it's got to the stage where we post out of interest but really don't care what others might think. If some want to regard Wolters as a fool and the mccanns as murdering shit parents..who cares . It's of no importance
-
I think it's got to the stage where we post out of interest but really don't care what others might think. If some want to regard Wolters as a fool and the mccanns as murdering shit parents..who cares . It's of no importance
Is that pat browns take on the case.
-
Is that pat browns take on the case.
I think it is..I am looking forward to seeing what people like her..poulton..hall..amaral..that statement analysis idiot..and Grime..have to say when Wolters shows his evidence
-
I think it's got to the stage where we post out of interest but really don't care what others might think. If some want to regard Wolters as a fool and the mccanns as murdering shit parents..who cares . It's of no importance
Found them quotes from Wolters yet?
Could add something to the discussion if you provided those.
-
Found them quotes from Wolters yet?
Could add something to the discussion if you provided those.
No interest in a discussion with a WUM/Troll
-
I think it is..I am looking forward to seeing what people like her..poulton..hall..amaral..that statement analysis idiot..and Grime..have to say when Wolters shows his evidence
When's that happening then, any time soon?
-
No interest in a discussion with a WUM/Troll
That's one get out I suppose, when you simply can't back your claims up with anything.
Still, let's check back tomorrow & see how you & Wolters are getting on then, see if either of you can back your assertions up with anything at all.
-
I think it is..I am looking forward to seeing what people like her..poulton..hall..amaral..that statement analysis idiot..and Grime..have to say when Wolters shows his evidence
They all jumped on the bandwagon.
-
They all jumped on the bandwagon.
For me the major blame lies with those best in the world dogs...the ones who had never been wrong ever...with 100& record in 200 cases
-
For me the major blame lies with those best in the world dogs...the ones who had never been wrong ever...with 100& record in 200 cases
The infamous but non existent 200 cases, sy police in 17 or 21 cases the evrd dog found 5 bodies 2 of which included 2 bodies in one case. Impossible for such dogs to be involved in that many cases, something amaral again didnt care to try amd understand and people mixed it up. Evrd is their to indicate not prove unless it fonds a body.
-
They all jumped on the bandwagon.
The wheels have fallen off Wolters wagon but his passengers still haven't noticed.
-
The wheels have fallen off Wolters wagon but his passengers still haven't noticed.
Slowly but surely
-
I think it's got to the stage where we post out of interest but really don't care what others might think. If some want to regard Wolters as a fool and the mccanns as murdering shit parents..who cares . It's of no importance
It’s obvious that Madeleine’s disappearance will go down in criminal history as a case of stranger abduction, solved or unsolved we don’t know yet. The fact is that sceptics can’t accept that the parents weren’t involved in a fake abduction and that is why they are stuck in a 2007 timewarp, clinging stubbornly to their beloved dogs and their pathetic mantras. It’s why they have to heap ridicule on HCW and why they attempt to taunt us with their demands for evidence and assuring us facetiously that “it won’t be long now”. They only make themselves look increasingly childish and I firmly believe that one day they will be forced to scuttle away for good when the case is finally solved.
-
It’s obvious that Madeleine’s disappearance will go down in criminal history as a case of stranger abduction, solved or unsolved we don’t know yet. The fact is that sceptics can’t accept that the parents weren’t involved in a fake abduction and that is why they are stuck in a 2007 timewarp, clinging stubbornly to their beloved dogs and their pathetic mantras. It’s why they have to heap ridicule on HCW and why they attempt to taunt us with their demands for evidence and assuring us facetiously that “it won’t be long now”. They only make themselves look increasingly childish and I firmly believe that one day they will be forced to scuttle away for good when the case is finally solved.
Still, shouldn't be much longer now eh fella.
-
Slowly but surely
No, they're all still firmly in denial I'm afraid.
-
It’s obvious that Madeleine’s disappearance will go down in criminal history as a case of stranger abduction, solved or unsolved we don’t know yet. The fact is that sceptics can’t accept that the parents weren’t involved in a fake abduction and that is why they are stuck in a 2007 timewarp, clinging stubbornly to their beloved dogs and their pathetic mantras. It’s why they have to heap ridicule on HCW and why they attempt to taunt us with their demands for evidence and assuring us facetiously that “it won’t be long now”. They only make themselves look increasingly childish and I firmly believe that one day they will be forced to scuttle away for good when the case is finally solved.
The official view may well prevail, but the massive dissent will always be acknowledged also.
-
The official view may well prevail, but the massive dissent will always be acknowledged also.
LOL at massive dissent. What on earth are you on about?
-
No, they're all still firmly in denial I'm afraid.
Amaral still working on convicting the mccanns, slowly but surely i think for the mccanns.
-
Amaral still working on convicting the mccanns, slowly but surely i think for the mccanns.
It won’t be long now… 8(0(*
-
It won’t be long now… 8(0(*
Whats it now 15 years lol, have not been cleared but not reinvestigated.
-
The official view may well prevail, but the massive dissent will always be acknowledged also.
I was puzzled about the reason for Brueckner appearing on Portuguese police radar with regard to the abortive attempt to speak to him in 2007.
The solution was a simple one as a German investigative documentary reveals the allegions "A stunning revelation discovered by a German team of investigative journalists has put the prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in the very resort from which she disappeared.
Convicted paedophile Christian Brueckner, who has emerged as the only suspect in the 15-year-old cold case, worked as a handy man at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz in the spring of 2007, according to the German documentary New Leads in the Maddie Case which will air on Monday evening in Europe.
A producer on the show confirmed to The Daily Beast that they have handed over reams of investigative material to to German and Portuguese investigators that show Brueckner “repeatedly carried out repair work” in the Algarve resort and was in town when the McCanns spent their holiday there."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/christian-brueckner-madeleine-mccann-suspect-reportedly-worked-at-ocean-club-in-praia-da-luz
That signifies a colossal gap in police procedures at the time.
Bad and bad enough but not surpassing the consequence of the rest of the inept handling of the case resulting in "McCann’s parents were initially suspected by Portuguese authorities, which many believe led to the real perpetrator’s escape." Which undoubtedly must remain as the truly disturbing result of the advocacy prevalent at the time which wasted time and effort ~ fiercely promulgated over the fifteen+ intervening years by sceptics.
No wonder you think they won't let go of that - I don't think they will either. It won't be possible for them to accept the result of due process concerning Brueckner because to do so would require acceptance that you have been WRONG and true sceptics just won't countenance that.
The tragedy is that back in 2007 Brueckner was there for the taking.
Madeleine might well have been returned to her family and "the great detective" could have emerged not only with his reputation intact but enhanced.
Instead he chose the wrong path which his followers have blindly followed sans rhyme or reason and I think they will continue with that. I'm sure they will reconcile Amaral's PR blunders at the beginning of the new belief system with whatever has worked for them in the past. So sad!
-
Amaral still working on convicting the mccanns, slowly but surely i think for the mccanns.
Don't be so ridiculous.
Brueckner murdered Maddie.
Wolters has concrete evidence.
There's even a link between the Behan rape case & Maddie.
Devel said Wolters said so.
He can't provide a quote referencing as much right now, but maybe tomorrow.
Maybe davel will find the relevant quote by then.
-
LOL at massive dissent. What on earth are you on about?
Despite their best efforts the parents and their followers have never managed to silence the dissent. Websites and individuals have been threatened with legal action, newspapers have been unable to allow comments on their stories and a lost libel action is still being presented as if it can still be won.
-
Despite their best efforts the parents and their followers have never managed to silence the dissent. Websites and individuals have been threatened with legal action, newspapers have been unable to allow comments on their stories and a lost libel action is still being presented as if it can still be won.
IMO you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you seriously believe there is "massive dissent". Define "massive" - are we talking millions of active dissenters here? In reality all that is left are a few dozen, possibly as many as a couple of hundred regular "dissenters", 99.99% of the world's population either accept that Madeleine was likely abducted, or have no opinion on it or have never heard of Madeleine McCann. So, carry on "dissenting" you and your little cabal of dissenters, it won't make the blindest bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.
-
Don't be so ridiculous.
Brueckner murdered Maddie.
Wolters has concrete evidence.
There's even a link between the Behan rape case & Maddie.
Devel said Wolters said so.
He can't provide a quote referencing as much right now, but maybe tomorrow.
Maybe davel will find the relevant quote by then.
I could provide now but choose not too..you can't behave like a total***** and then start to cry when other posters choose not to engage in serious discussion with you
-
I could provide now but choose not too..you can't behave like a total***** and then start to cry when other posters choose not to engage in serious discussion with you
Well that's rather unnecessary.
Why not just provide the quote instead. We'd actually have something to talk about then.
-
IMO you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you seriously believe there is "massive dissent". Define "massive" - are we talking millions of active dissenters here? In reality all that is left are a few dozen, possibly as many as a couple of hundred regular "dissenters", 99.99% of the world's population either accept that Madeleine was likely abducted, or have no opinion on it or have never heard of Madeleine McCann. So, carry on "dissenting" you and your little cabal of dissenters, it won't make the blindest bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.
We'll have egg on our faces once Wolters reveals the concrete evidence.
-
Despite their best efforts the parents and their followers have never managed to silence the dissent. Websites and individuals have been threatened with legal action, newspapers have been unable to allow comments on their stories and a lost libel action is still being presented as if it can still be won.
Which websites and which individuals have been threatened with legal action.
-
Which websites and which individuals have been threatened with legal action.
Whoever or whatever was threatened it clearly didn't work as there is apparently MASSIVE DISSENT (&^&
-
Which websites and which individuals have been threatened with legal action.
On G-units behalf, she chooses not to tell you.
That's how things work around here now. Members can say anything they like & present no evidence to support it. That's the new forum rule you have created.
-
IMO you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you seriously believe there is "massive dissent". Define "massive" - are we talking millions of active dissenters here? In reality all that is left are a few dozen, possibly as many as a couple of hundred regular "dissenters", 99.99% of the world's population either accept that Madeleine was likely abducted, or have no opinion on it or have never heard of Madeleine McCann. So, carry on "dissenting" you and your little cabal of dissenters, it won't make the blindest bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.
I don't have a cabal, but I think the word describes certain McCann supporters quite accurately. Compiling dossiers of those they accused of some kind of wrongdoing was, imo, a step too far; from interest to obsession.
-
Researching this case and the life of Christian B has been a lesson in the different ways in which someone's moral compass can be skewed.
“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Btw;
“All things are subject to interpretation; whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not the truth.” Did Nietzsche really say this? Not quite. Popular culture has slightly misquoted. Instead, the philosopher said:
(https://socialscienceinsights.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/friedrich-nietzsche.png)
-
I don't have a cabal, but I think the word describes certain McCann supporters quite accurately. Compiling dossiers of those they accused of some kind of wrongdoing was, imo, a step too far; from interest to obsession.
Whether you like it or not you are part of a "massive" lol cabal of dissenters. We're talking dissenters who have taken obsession to a whole other level, making their dissent their life's work for the last 15 years, including dedicated websites, facebook pages, podcasts, youtube channels etc. So a small handful of supporters compiled a dossier about these bizarre dissenters - well they should have been flattered at the attention IMO, to have their dissent recorded for posterity, instead they seemed a bit upset by it - I wonder why....?
-
Despite their best efforts the parents and their followers have never managed to silence the dissent. Websites and individuals have been threatened with legal action, newspapers have been unable to allow comments on their stories and a lost libel action is still being presented as if it can still be won.
Doesn't that definitive synopsis of sceptic lore give you some food for thought? I think it really should.
-
Btw;
“All things are subject to interpretation; whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not the truth.” Did Nietzsche really say this? Not quite. Popular culture has slightly misquoted. Instead, the philosopher said:
(https://socialscienceinsights.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/friedrich-nietzsche.png)
they're just different translations - meaning is always slightly altered and changed during translation, we know this from repeated examples in the files. Perhaps you should have included the actual quote in German for us to argue over.
-
Despite their best efforts the parents and their followers have never managed to silence the dissent. Websites and individuals have been threatened with legal action, newspapers have been unable to allow comments on their stories and a lost libel action is still being presented as if it can still be won.
The mccanns have a right not to be defamed and that's what you are criticising them for. You are only concerned with the rights of a convicted paedophile...rapist...typical sceptic
-
The mccanns have a right not to be defamed and that's what you are criticising them for. You are only concerned with the rights of a convicted paedophile...rapist...typical sceptic
Defamation - one of the McCanns and their supporters favourite words, despite the fact that in 15 years no-one has been found guilty of defaming them.
-
Defamation - one of the McCanns and their supporters favourite words, despite the fact that in 15 years no-one has been found guilty of defaming them.
What has this got to do with anything, let alone The Thread Title?
-
Defamation - one of the McCanns and their supporters favourite words, despite the fact that in 15 years no-one has been found guilty of defaming them.
No one has been found guilty of abuse of CBs human rights..but you continually claim it
-
Defamation - one of the McCanns and their supporters favourite words, despite the fact that in 15 years no-one has been found guilty of defaming them.
Of course they have been defamed, Spam constantly accused them of murdering their own child on this very forum - what would you call that?
-
What has this got to do with anything, let alone The Thread Title?
None of this has got anything to do with the thread title but it seems despite repeatedly having our morals and integrity called into question by sceptics on this forum not one of them wants to explain exactly why our moral compass is supposedly faulty.
-
None of this has got anything to do with the thread title but it seems despite repeatedly having our morals and integrity called into question by sceptics on this forum not one of them wants to explain exactly why our moral compass is supposedly faulty.
They can't. That's why. And of course, it would then be possible to tear any ridiculous explanations to pieces.
-
They can't. That's why. And of course, it would then be possible to tear any ridiculous explanations to pieces.
Didn't get any explanations from you guys on my thread, strangely enough.
-
None of this has got anything to do with the thread title but it seems despite repeatedly having our morals and integrity called into question by sceptics on this forum not one of them wants to explain exactly why our moral compass is supposedly faulty.
I invoke davels new forum rule.
But what I believe 'makes perfect sense' & 'stacks up'.
-
They can't. That's why. And of course, it would then be possible to tear any ridiculous explanations to pieces.
Oh dear, you must find that so frustrating.
-
Oh dear, you must find that so frustrating.
Please don't be ridiculous. Why would I feel frustrated?
-
Please don't be ridiculous. Why would I feel frustrated?
That you haven't anything to tear to pieces of course
-
That you haven't anything to tear to pieces of course
I don't need anything.
-
The genuine frustration I see on this forum is from those constantly harping on about no evidence of abduction and no charges for CB and all the facetious mantras that accompany these harpings. Such childish impatience, such petulance, such frustration that those tasked with investigating Madeleine’s disappearance won’t share their evidence with them and can’t see what they can so clearly see (that the McCanns dunnit of course), it must be incredibly annoying for them.
-
None of this has got anything to do with the thread title but it seems despite repeatedly having our morals and integrity called into question by sceptics on this forum not one of them wants to explain exactly why our moral compass is supposedly faulty.
Which sceptics? Do you have names and cites?
-
The genuine frustration I see on this forum is from those constantly harping on about no evidence of abduction and no charges for CB and all the facetious mantras that accompany these harpings. Such childish impatience, such petulance, such frustration that those tasked with investigating Madeleine’s disappearance won’t share their evidence with them and can’t see what they can so clearly see (that the McCanns dunnit of course), it must be incredibly annoying for them.
Not at all. I rather enjoy ripping you guys over the 3 instigative forces complete inability to prove abduction ,despite the concrete evidence. I wouldn't be doing it otherwise. Anyway, how's the case against Brueckner going,
-
Which sceptics? Do you have names and cites?
No, we've stopped doing them now.
-
Not at all. I rather enjoy ripping you guys over the 3 instigative forces complete inability to prove abduction ,despite the concrete evidence. I wouldn't be doing it otherwise. Anyway, how's the case against Brueckner going,
Abduction has been proven...you state it hasn't..as a fact..so I will state it has..as a fact. Wolters clearly has proof of abduction
-
Which sceptics? Do you have names and cites?
Barrier was the most recent, don’t pretend you didn’t see it. But also in the past Spam and Faithlilly, how many names do you need? Most of Spam’s inflammatory posts get deleted but I’m sure if you look hard enough you’ll find examples of Faith accusing me and others of wanting Madeleine to be abused and murdered.
-
Abduction has been proven...you state it hasn't..as a fact..so I will state it has..as a fact. Wolters clearly has proof of abduction
Doesn't he have proof of murder too?
Why isn't he sharing this proof of abduction & murder with Maddie's parents?
-
Barrier was the most recent, don’t pretend you didn’t see it. But also in the past Spam and Faithlilly, how many names do you need? Most of Spam’s inflammatory posts get deleted but I’m sure if you look hard enough you’ll find examples of Faith accusing me and others of wanting Madeleine to be abused and murdered.
Well, you'd like to be proven right, wouldn't you?
You'd like Wolters to be right? Right?
-
Let's keep the exchanges civil everyone. Has Wolters not got Bruckner into court yet?
-
Let's keep the exchanges civil everyone. Has Wolters not got Bruckner into court yet?
Surprising isn't it. I suggested we all wait patiently & peacefully until that happens, might as well just shut the forum now & hold our peace forever really.
-
Well, you'd like to be proven right, wouldn't you?
You'd like Wolters to be right? Right?
This is typical of the ridiculous post that defines you. I have said several times that I would prefer that Maddie died a quick and painless death by falling off the sofa...unfortunately it looks like that isn't what happened and she was taken and murdered by CB. It isn't what I hope happened but it seems it is. Your post is your usual total junk
-
Let's keep the exchanges civil everyone. Has Wolters not got Bruckner into court yet?
I realised you weren't really following what's happening from your posts but are you really that badly informed
-
This is typical of the ridiculous post that defines you. I have said several times that I would prefer that Maddie died a quick and painless death by falling off the sofa...unfortunately it looks like that isn't what happened and she was taken and murdered by CB. It isn't what I hope happened but it seems it is. Your post is your usual total junk
It looks like it isn't what happened? It most definitely didn't, according to you & Wolters.
She was definitely abducted & murdered, by CB. Neither of you can prove it, that's all.
Not today anyway, but let's check back again tomorrow & see how you both are getting on then. Maybe we'll have something to talk about then.
I mean, I have tried prompting serious discussion on why Wolters can't share the concrete evidence with the McCanns but nobody wants to grasp that nettle, funnily enough.
-
It looks like it isn't what happened? It most definitely didn't, according to you & Wolters.
She was definitely abducted & murdered, by CB. Neither of you can prove it, that's all.
Not today anyway, but let's check back again tomorrow & see how you both are getting on then. Maybe we'll have something to talk about then.
I mean, I have tried prompting serious discussion on why Wolters can't share the concrete evidence with the McCanns but nobody wants to grasp that nettle, funnily enough.
If you want a serious discussion you need to stop behaving like a wum...no one hopes Maddie was murdered by a paedophile...it's a stupid suggestion so why do you persist with stupidity
-
If you want a serious discussion you need to stop behaving like a wum...no one hopes Maddie was murdered by a paedophile...it's a stupid suggestion so why do you persist with stupidity
Because there's absolutely nothing to talk about is there.
Might as well do something to pass the time until the next exciting revelation about Bruecners life & sex crimes or when Wolters reveals the concrete evidence.
-
I realised you weren't really following what's happening from your posts but are you really that badly informed
Angelo implores us to be civil in the first sentence, and goads us in the second. Brilliant moderating!
-
Angelo implores us to be civil in the first sentence, and goads us in the second. Brilliant moderating!
You feel goaded because he asked if Brueckner was in court yet?
How is that goading?
-
You feel goaded because he asked if Brueckner was in court yet?
How is that goading?
It is the repetition, ad finitum, that is goading AS WELL YOU KNOW
and that's why as a WUM you keep doing it.
John, why are WIND UP MERCHANTS allowed on this forum? Time to put a stop to it, please. It is counterproductive to the forum.
-
It is the repetition, ad finitum, that is goading AS WELL YOU KNOW
and that's why as a WUM you keep doing it.
John, why are WIND UP MERCHANTS allowed on this forum? Time to put a stop to it, please. It is counterproductive to the forum.
For me, life is all about comedy. I enjoy the slightly comedic effect I find resulting from the repetition. For example, it's pretty obvious now Wolters hasn't really solved the case & isn't about to anytime ever, so, by repeatedly utilising the phrase 'it shouldn't be much longer now' this serves to highlight the futility of that expectation being held. Mocking the, two year long now, anticipation held by those who believe Brueckner will at some point be charged. But, perhaps I'm wrong & Wolters really does serve CB his charge sheet tomorrow, I'll look a bit silly then, but Wolters can't see that happening.
Alternatively, one could try doing this same gag in reverse, referring to a sceptics expectation the McCanns will ever face charges. But, since the McCanns aren't even suspects, the 3 investigative forces aren't conducting a very serious investigation into them & a prosecutor hasn't forcefully declared he has concrete evidence against them (which might lead one to genuinely anticipate charges are imminent) that gag wouldn't really work.
So yeah, thank Wolters really. If he hadn't come storming out the traps the way he did, exaggerating the strength of his evidence & people hadn't been convinced by his claim (note: not Brueckner himself, & he of all people is in the best position to know if he murdered Maddie or not, the McCanns & the MET aren't convinced either) this opportunity to lark about would never have presented itself.
What Wolters faithful need to ask themselves is....
Why hasn't Wolters shared this concrete evidence with the McCanns?
They of all people have the most right to know if there's firm evidence of their daughters fate.
The answer to this has been it could damage the case, but no one can explain exactly how it could.
Why hasn't Wolters shared the concrete evidence with the MET?
If the answer to this is the same as before, explain how?
Why was Wolters even trying to sniff out Brueckner's location between 9pm & 10pm on May 3rd if he already has concrete evidence he murdered Maddie anyway? Abduction is a given, isn't it?
Brueckner couldn't possibly have an alibi, so why would Wolters even need to check it out?
I dunno man, like, when you really think about it, maybe Wolters doesn't really have concrete evidence after all, seems possible doesn't it. But alright, point taken, I promise I won't repeat the phrase it shouldn't be much longer now anymore & we can all just sit & wait patiently & peacefully until Wolters reveals the concrete evidence.
-
It is the repetition, ad finitum, that is goading AS WELL YOU KNOW
and that's why as a WUM you keep doing it.
John, why are WIND UP MERCHANTS allowed on this forum? Time to put a stop to it, please. It is counterproductive to the forum.
^^^ This
-
For me, life is all about comedy. I enjoy the slightly comedic effect I find resulting from the repetition. For example, it's pretty obvious now Wolters hasn't really solved the case & isn't about to anytime ever, so, by repeatedly utilising the phrase this serves to highlight the futility of that expectation being held. Mocking the, two year long now, anticipation held by those who believe Brueckner will at some point be charged. But, perhaps I'm wrong & Wolters really does serve CB his charge sheet tomorrow, I'll look a bit silly then, but Wolters can't see that happening.
Alternatively, one could try doing this same gag in reverse, referring to a sceptics expectation the McCanns will ever face charges. But, since the McCanns aren't even suspects, the 3 investigative forces aren't conducting a very serious investigation into them & a prosecutor hasn't forcefully declared he has concrete evidence against them (which might lead one to genuinely anticipate charges are imminent) that gag wouldn't really work.
So yeah, thank Wolters really. If he hadn't come storming out the traps the way he did, exaggerating the strength of his evidence & people hadn't been convinced by his claim (note: not Brueckner himself, & he of all people is in the best position to know if he murdered Maddie or not, the McCanns & the MET aren't convinced either) this opportunity to lark about would never have presented itself.
What Wolters faithful need to ask themselves is....
Why hasn't Wolters shared this concrete evidence with the McCanns?
They of all people have the most right to know if there's firm evidence of their daughters fate.
The answer to this has been it could damage the case, but no one can explain exactly how it could.
Why hasn't Wolters shared the concrete evidence with the MET?
If the answer to this is the same as before, explain how?
Why was Wolters even trying to sniff out Brueckner's location between 9pm & 10pm on May 3rd if he already has concrete evidence he murdered Maddie anyway? Abduction is a given, isn't it?
Brueckner couldn't possibly have an alibi, so why would Wolters even need to check it out?
I dunno man, like, when you really think about it, maybe Wolters doesn't really have concrete evidence after all, seems possible doesn't it. But alright, point taken, I promise I won't repeat the phrase anymore & we can all just sit & wait patiently & peacefully until Wolters reveals the concrete evidence.
Repeating the same joke over and over is not decent comedy...
-
Barrier was the most recent, don’t pretend you didn’t see it. But also in the past Spam and Faithlilly, how many names do you need? Most of Spam’s inflammatory posts get deleted but I’m sure if you look hard enough you’ll find examples of Faith accusing me and others of wanting Madeleine to be abused and murdered.
Imo it's all a storm in a teacup. Some people get accused of supporting a rapist and paedophile and others get accused of wanting Madeleine to have been abducted, abused and murdered. It all seems like the normal repartee enacted on here to me. I think everyone should just move on.
-
Repeating the same joke over and over is not decent comedy...
I'm not here for anyone else's amusement, I find it funny & that's all that matters really.
Anyway, what are we going to argue about today?
Any suggestions anyone, while we wait for developments in the case, as if there really might be some?
-
Imo it's all a storm in a teacup. Some people get accused of supporting a rapist and paedophile and others get accused of wanting Madeleine to have been abducted, abused and murdered. It all seems like the normal repartee enacted on here to me. I think everyone should just move on.
There's an information vacuum, we've done CB to death now, so we should probably all go tend our gardens for the rest of the summer until any developments. The next development is likely to be Brueckner being charged with rape, exposure & molestations, but even Wolters himself can't see anything coming in the Maddie case.
-
For me, life is all about comedy. I enjoy the slightly comedic effect I find resulting from the repetition. For example, it's pretty obvious now Wolters hasn't really solved the case & isn't about to anytime ever, so, by repeatedly utilising the phrase this serves to highlight the futility of that expectation being held. Mocking the, two year long now, anticipation held by those who believe Brueckner will at some point be charged. But, perhaps I'm wrong & Wolters really does serve CB his charge sheet tomorrow, I'll look a bit silly then, but Wolters can't see that happening.
Alternatively, one could try doing this same gag in reverse, referring to a sceptics expectation the McCanns will ever face charges. But, since the McCanns aren't even suspects, the 3 investigative forces aren't conducting a very serious investigation into them & a prosecutor hasn't forcefully declared he has concrete evidence against them (which might lead one to genuinely anticipate charges are imminent) that gag wouldn't really work.
So yeah, thank Wolters really. If he hadn't come storming out the traps the way he did, exaggerating the strength of his evidence & people hadn't been convinced by his claim (note: not Brueckner himself, & he of all people is in the best position to know if he murdered Maddie or not, the McCanns & the MET aren't convinced either) this opportunity to lark about would never have presented itself.
What Wolters faithful need to ask themselves is....
Why hasn't Wolters shared this concrete evidence with the McCanns?
They of all people have the most right to know if there's firm evidence of their daughters fate.
The answer to this has been it could damage the case, but no one can explain exactly how it could.
Why hasn't Wolters shared the concrete evidence with the MET?
If the answer to this is the same as before, explain how?
Why was Wolters even trying to sniff out Brueckner's location between 9pm & 10pm on May 3rd if he already has concrete evidence he murdered Maddie anyway? Abduction is a given, isn't it?
Brueckner couldn't possibly have an alibi, so why would Wolters even need to check it out?
I dunno man, like, when you really think about it, maybe Wolters doesn't really have concrete evidence after all, seems possible doesn't it. But alright, point taken, I promise I won't repeat the phrase anymore & we can all just sit & wait patiently & peacefully until Wolters reveals the concrete evidence.
Every point you raised is easily answered and has been answered before. ....why bother answering again when you didn't accept it the first time.
I'll give you one example..the alibi.
In the German system the prosecutor has to look for evidence that could clear the accused..not just evidence to prosecute. Thsts a simple factual explanation...do you accept that
-
Every point you raised is easily answered and has been answered before. ....why bother answering again when you didn't accept it the first time.
I'll give you one example..the alibi.
In the German system the prosecutor has to look for evidence that could clear the accused..not just evidence to prosecute. Thsts a simple factual explanation...do you accept that
Any system investigates the defences.
Brueckner doesn't have an alibi, apparently, SY have firm evidence Maddie was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Bit strange that evidence didn't lead them to the abductor really.
When did you answer the question about how revealing the concrete evidence to the McCanns could harm the case against CB?
I still never got Wolters quote out of you for that one.
-
They investigate Brueckners alibi, Wolters gets Brueckner to talk, he can't give a firm alibi & yet Wolters is still stumped, well done Wolters apparently.
-
Any system investigates the defences.
Brueckner doesn't have an alibi, apparently, SY have firm evidence Maddie was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Bit strange that evidence didn't lead them to the abductor really.
When did you answer the question about how revealing the concrete evidence to the McCanns could harm the case against CB?
I still never got Wolters quote out of you for that one.
The a German system puts a specific obligation on the prosecutor to look for evidence of innocence...you need to accept that factual point. Wolters explained why he is keeping evidence back. His explanation made perfect sense
He said he didn't want a witnesses testimony to be able to be challenged as being affected by something they had read in the press.
That's two of your points I've answered but it's pointless because you don't accept either
-
The a German system puts a specific obligation on the prosecutor to look for evidence of innocence...you need to accept that factual point. Wolters explained why he is keeping evidence back. His explanation made perfect sense
He said he didn't want a witnesses testimony to be able to be challenged as being affected by something they had read in the press.
That's two of your points I've answered but it's pointless because you don't accept either
So Wolters believes the McCanns can't be trusted to keep the concrete evidence confidential?
Isn't that what you're saying?
That opens a can of worms really doesn't it.
-
So Wolters believes the McCanns can't be trusted to keep the concrete evidence confidential?
Isn't that what you're saying?
That opens a can of worms really doesn't it.
No it doesn't open any can of worms. Wolters is running the investigation...it's his responsibility...his call
The mccanns have no right to be told anything and I haven't heard them complain
-
No it doesn't open any can of worms. Wolters is running the investigation...it's his responsibility...his call
The mccanns have no right to be told anything and I haven't heard them complain
Well he doesn't trust the McCanns not to leak information according to you. You said it.
-
Well he doesn't trust the McCanns not to leak information according to you. You said it.
Whatever
-
Imo it's all a storm in a teacup. Some people get accused of supporting a rapist and paedophile and others get accused of wanting Madeleine to have been abducted, abused and murdered. It all seems like the normal repartee enacted on here to me. I think everyone should just move on.
Hang on, it's not the same. Some people on this forum DO support a rapist and paedophile. They certainly have sympathy for his current plight and believe his human rights have been violated, a courtesy the same people have never exteneded to the McCanns. It is not acceptable however IMO to accuse people of lacking a moral compass because they accept the police's line of investigation. That is a personal attack which is not permitted on this forum, but now according to you it's "normal repartee". Right, so is it therefore acceptable for me to tell you that you lack a moral compass for any moral misjudgements I perceive you to have committed? No, you'd accuse me of "abusing" you, right?
PS: at last, the thread is back on topic!
-
Hang on, it's not the same. Some people on this forum DO support a rapist and paedophile. They certainly have sympathy for his current plight and believe his human rights have been violated, a courtesy the same people have never exteneded to the McCanns. It is not acceptable however IMO to accuse people of lacking a moral compass because they accept the police's line of investigation. That is a personal attack which is not permitted on this forum, but now according to you it's "normal repartee". Right, so is it therefore acceptable for me to tell you that you lack a moral compass for any moral misjudgements I perceive you to have committed? No, you'd accuse me of "abusing" you, right?
I stopped trying to get any sense out of some posters some time ago. Thryve taken hypocrisy to a new level
-
Whatever
Great response & still no quote from Wolters. That showed me aye.
-
They investigate Brueckners alibi, Wolters gets Brueckner to talk, he can't give a firm alibi & yet Wolters is still stumped, well done Wolters apparently.
How can CB give an alibi for where Wolters cannot place him .
-
Great response & still no quote from Wolters. That showed me aye.
What difference would a quote from wolters make...would you believe him
-
Hang on, it's not the same. Some people on this forum DO support a rapist and paedophile. They certainly have sympathy for his current plight and believe his human rights have been violated, a courtesy the same people have never exteneded to the McCanns. It is not acceptable however IMO to accuse people of lacking a moral compass because they accept the police's line of investigation. That is a personal attack which is not permitted on this forum, but now according to you it's "normal repartee". Right, so is it therefore acceptable for me to tell you that you lack a moral compass for any moral misjudgements I perceive you to have committed? No, you'd accuse me of "abusing" you, right?
PS: at last, the thread is back on topic!
You're still arguing about opinions, not about facts. As such, no-one can claim that they're right and someone else is wrong.
-
You're still arguing about opinions, not about facts. As such, no-one can claim that they're right and someone else is wrong.
No, I'm arguing about abusive posts, something which you claim to be against but clearly don't mind when it's me or other McCann supporters on the receiving end. Is it acceptable to say I lack a moral compass because I think Madeleine was abducted and murdered? A tenner says I don't get a simple yes or no reply from you on this matter.
-
I stopped trying to get any sense out of some posters some time ago. Thryve taken hypocrisy to a new level
^^^this
-
It is the repetition, ad finitum, that is goading AS WELL YOU KNOW
and that's why as a WUM you keep doing it.
John, why are WIND UP MERCHANTS allowed on this forum? Time to put a stop to it, please. It is counterproductive to the forum.
Wums add to the entertainment in my opinion.
-
Wums add to the entertainment in my opinion.
wow, so you'd advocate more rather than less wumming? An interesting position for a moderator!
BTW how did your meeting with the PJ go? You never did tell us...
-
For me, life is all about comedy. I enjoy the slightly comedic effect I find resulting from the repetition. For example, it's pretty obvious now Wolters hasn't really solved the case & isn't about to anytime ever, so, by repeatedly utilising the phrase 'it shouldn't be much longer now' this serves to highlight the futility of that expectation being held. Mocking the, two year long now, anticipation held by those who believe Brueckner will at some point be charged. But, perhaps I'm wrong & Wolters really does serve CB his charge sheet tomorrow, I'll look a bit silly then, but Wolters can't see that happening.
Alternatively, one could try doing this same gag in reverse, referring to a sceptics expectation the McCanns will ever face charges. But, since the McCanns aren't even suspects, the 3 investigative forces aren't conducting a very serious investigation into them & a prosecutor hasn't forcefully declared he has concrete evidence against them (which might lead one to genuinely anticipate charges are imminent) that gag wouldn't really work.
So yeah, thank Wolters really. If he hadn't come storming out the traps the way he did, exaggerating the strength of his evidence & people hadn't been convinced by his claim (note: not Brueckner himself, & he of all people is in the best position to know if he murdered Maddie or not, the McCanns & the MET aren't convinced either) this opportunity to lark about would never have presented itself.
What Wolters faithful need to ask themselves is....
Why hasn't Wolters shared this concrete evidence with the McCanns?
They of all people have the most right to know if there's firm evidence of their daughters fate.
The answer to this has been it could damage the case, but no one can explain exactly how it could.
Why hasn't Wolters shared the concrete evidence with the MET?
If the answer to this is the same as before, explain how?
Why was Wolters even trying to sniff out Brueckner's location between 9pm & 10pm on May 3rd if he already has concrete evidence he murdered Maddie anyway? Abduction is a given, isn't it?
Brueckner couldn't possibly have an alibi, so why would Wolters even need to check it out?
I dunno man, like, when you really think about it, maybe Wolters doesn't really have concrete evidence after all, seems possible doesn't it. But alright, point taken, I promise I won't repeat the phrase it shouldn't be much longer now anymore & we can all just sit & wait patiently & peacefully until Wolters reveals the concrete evidence.
Succinct and to the point.
-
wow, so you'd advocate more rather than less wumming? An interesting position for a moderator!
BTW how did your meeting with the PJ go? You never did tell us...
Blame the coronavirus but things have moved on. Maybe I should fly to Germany now that Wolters has popped up?
-
Wums add to the entertainment in my opinion.
Try doing a bit of Moderating.
-
wow, so you'd advocate more rather than less wumming? An interesting position for a moderator!
Oh c'mon. Most of the time we have a knock about anyway. When serious topics come up we discuss them seriously, when there's nothing to talk about, someone needs to make something to for you to complain about, don't they?
-
If members have issues with site content, then I'm sure they can find other sites more to their liking.
-
Blame the coronavirus but things have moved on. Maybe I should fly to Germany now that Wolters has popped up?
LOL, everyone always blames everything on the coronavirus. I thought you had vitally important information to impart to the PJ - what changed? Portugal is re-open now, get on a plane and give it to them!
-
Succinct and to the point.
Succinct? It's a rambling essay, I've never seen such a lot of words in one post from one troll.
-
If members have issues with site content, then I'm sure they can find other sites more to their liking.
It's us same handful hanging around. We're all quite used to each other by now. No one takes serious offence to anything. We simply wouldn't come back if we weren't enjoying ourselves.
-
If members have issues with site content, then I'm sure they can find other sites more to their liking.
Ah Ha. Trying to get rid of us I see. Is this a Conspiracy?
Whoops, sorry. Off Topic.
-
It's us same handful hanging around. We're all quite used to each other by now. No one takes serious offence to anything. We simply wouldn't come back if we weren't enjoying ourselves.
I don't suppose they do, but boy, how they love to complain.
-
I don't suppose they do, but boy, how they love to complain.
I take serious offence at being told regularly that I actively want Madeleine to have been abused by a paedophile and murdered. I know it's only said to provoke and clearly only a moron would seriously believe that that is what I actually wanted but still, I thought it should be challenged. If you don't like it, look for another forum more to your tastes..? 8(0(*
-
I don't suppose they do, but boy, how they love to complain.
There is nothing wrong with my moral compass. How's about yours?
-
There is nothing wrong with my moral compass. How's about yours?
Just fine. Thank you for asking.
-
Just fine. Thank you for asking.
I believe that everyone is Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Do you?
-
I believe that everyone is Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Do you?
No. Some people manage to evade justice.
-
No. Some people manage to evade justice.
true, Madeleine's abductor for one. so far.
-
If members have issues with site content, then I'm sure they can find other sites more to their liking.
Instead of which, imo, certain people seem to think it's OK for them to insult and goad others, but get very upset if they are targetted. Those double standards would receive short shrift on other forums too imo.
-
No. Some people manage to evade justice.
That is not the point. It isn't your place to decide.
-
Instead of which, imo, certain people seem to think it's OK for them to insult and goad others, but get very upset if they are targetted. Those double standards would receive short shrift on other forums too imo.
Now that is funny.
-
That is not the point. It isn't your place to decide.
We return to Jimmy Savile. Never found guilty. You can't go freely declaring people guilty just because they are dead. He never got the right to defend himself in a court of law, that in a modern democracy is simply unacceptable.
(He was a filthy old paedo really)
-
Instead of which, imo, certain people seem to think it's OK for them to insult and goad others, but get very upset if they are targetted. Those double standards would receive short shrift on other forums too imo.
So you don't think it's double standards to complain of abuse you claim you have received whilst simultaneously having no problem when I am being accused of having no moral compass? That's an interesting position for you to hold don't you think?
-
No, I'm arguing about abusive posts, something which you claim to be against but clearly don't mind when it's me or other McCann supporters on the receiving end. Is it acceptable to say I lack a moral compass because I think Madeleine was abducted and murdered? A tenner says I don't get a simple yes or no reply from you on this matter.
^^^I claim my tenner btw
-
Wums add to the entertainment in my opinion.
I find they seldom add anything to any fora with the exception of disrepute.
-
Where do I stand when I continue to hope that Madeleine isn't dead?
-
Where do I stand when I continue to hope that Madeleine isn't dead?
One step away from enormous disappointment, I would say.
-
One step away from enormous disappointment, I would say.
Don't be silly. Madeleine isn't my child. From where do you get this emotional rubbish?
-
Don't be silly. Madeleine isn't my child. From where do you get this emotional rubbish?
You mean that you won't feel disappointment when all your hope comes to nothing ?
-
You mean that you won't feel disappointment when all your hope comes to nothing ?
You really don't understand Hope, do you. It is all academic to me. If Madeleine is dead then she has been dead for a very long time.
That which has always disturbed me is the nastiness. But then that has been going on since The Village Pump. Some people, sadly, are born nasty. And this will go on. There is nothing much to be done about it. It's Genetic.
-
You really don't understand Hope, do you. It is all academic to me. If Madeleine is dead then she has been dead for a very long time.
That which has always disturbed me is the nastiness. But then that has been going on since The Village Pump. Some people, sadly, are born nasty. And this will go on. There is nothing much to be done about it. It's Genetic.
Nope, I see it as a futile gesture and not worthy of bothering with as it achieves nothing
-
Nope, I see it as a futile gesture and not worthy of bothering with as it achieves nothing
Then don't bother with it. It isn't difficult.
But what is it that you hope to achieve?
-
So you don't think it's double standards to complain of abuse you claim you have received whilst simultaneously having no problem when I am being accused of having no moral compass? That's an interesting position for you to hold don't you think?
I don't start new topics dedicating to complaining about others. Isn't that a bit OTT?
-
I don't start new topics dedicating to complaining about others. Isn't that a bit OTT?
Is that In Your Opinion?
-
I don't start new topics dedicating to complaining about others. Isn't that a bit OTT?
Obviously not, or it wouldn't have been approved. In any case this thread was started to explore the reasons why people think that there is something morally wrong with accepting the direction of the current police investigation which is a topic of discussion we've not really explored on this forum before and makes a change from arguing about the usual rubbish don't you think?
-
Then don't bother with it. It isn't difficult.
But what is it that you hope to achieve?
I don't hope to achieve anything. That's the point.
-
I don't hope to achieve anything. That's the point.
And nor do I. My hope is an entirely different thing which you appear to know nothing about.
-
And nor do I. My hope is an entirely different thing which you appear to know nothing about.
I'd like to know as much as you. Sort of.