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: The Singularity on March 08, 2017, 10:23:15 AM
-
THE parents of Maddie McCann are targeted by more than 150 abusive tweets everyday – a decade on from her disappearance.
The vile comments, directed at Kate and Gerry McCann, were found to be made mostly by women, according to new research into online abuse.
The Sun Link (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3008845/madeleine-mccanns-parents-trolls-150-tweets-a-day/)
Some things never change, I don't know how these people sleep at night
245
-
First, we have been told repeatedly, that they McCann's don't use twitter, but they have 'monitors'.
Second, how do we know this material exists ?
150 per week ?
A rather round number.
On the Sun's say so ?
Who have had/have a business relationship with the Mccann's, as they serialized Kate Mccann's book.
Now if I was being cynical, this story seems to have emerged after the recent Supreme Court decision.
-
First, we have been told repeatedly, that they McCann's don't use twitter, but they have 'monitors'.
Second, how do we know this material exists ?
150 per week ?
A rather round number.
On the Sun's say so ?
Who have had/have a business relationship with the Mccann's, as they serialized Kate Mccann's book.
Now if I was being cynical, this story seems to have emerged after the recent Supreme Court decision.
The timing is no doubt a key factor and despite none of the family being on twitter, that we know of, it still doesn't stop other people directing comments at them. If you have a look on twitter for the #McCann I think you get a really good idea of what is being written each day.
I initially suspect 150 tweets is a rather conservative figure although I haven't checked or bothered with twitter for some considerable time.
-
The timing is no doubt a key factor and despite none of the family being on twitter, that we know of, it still doesn't stop other people directing comments at them. If you have a look on twitter for the #McCann I think you get a really good idea of what is being written each day.
I initially suspect 150 tweets is a rather conservative figure although I haven't checked or bothered with twitter for some considerable time.
I have seen some of the 'material' on twitter, and it goes both ways, from the extremes on both sides, and all too frequently quite despicable.
It isn't just the McCann's abuse. Far from it.
-
The timing is no doubt a key factor and despite none of the family being on twitter, that we know of, it still doesn't stop other people directing comments at them. If you have a look on twitter for the #McCann I think you get a really good idea of what is being written each day.
I initially suspect 150 tweets is a rather conservative figure although I haven't checked or bothered with twitter for some considerable time.
It is a conservative figure.
-
Dr Synott called for action to be taken against the abuse, including taking away pseudonyms that allowed people to make abusive comments anonymously.
I think the doctor has a point here but I am torn by this because I do respect a free and open internet. This touches on the free speech that we all have the luxury to exercise. Some I'm sure would argue that is their free speech to pass comment on Madeleine's parents however there is a common sense line drawn. Being vulgar or in anyway inciting harm towards the parents or twins simply can never be seen as exercising free speech.
I am reminded of the very sad events that happened when a lady who was on twitter decided to take her own life following being interviewed by a rolling news channel. It's a wretched position to have to consider but essentially the lady had her anonymity removed and put a name and face to the comments she had made.
I'm not sure about this debate, I have an argument for the one side but a valid counter argument.
-
It is a conservative figure.
I did think so, and in the story it does say across Facebook and twitter, although I suspect twitter alone would reach the assumed 150 mark within a 24 hour period.
-
THE parents of Maddie McCann are targeted by more than 150 abusive tweets everyday – a decade on from her disappearance.
The vile comments, directed at Kate and Gerry McCann, were found to be made mostly by women, according to new research into online abuse.
The Sun Link (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3008845/madeleine-mccanns-parents-trolls-150-tweets-a-day/)
Some things never change, I don't know how these people sleep at night
I suspect the answer is, all too easily (sadly).
-
The abuse is a two way street.
Now why don't McCann supporters acknowledge that ?
I'll check back later on that...........
-
The abuse is a two way street.
Now why don't McCann supporters acknowledge that ?
I'll check back later on that...........
There has been bitter engagements from both sides so yes, it is hard not to acknowledge. However the majority of posts or tweets that make the media channels is almost exclusively people making obscene comments about Madeleine's parents. If I am wrong on this observation please set me straight as I am not familiar with the McCann press as I once was.
-
The Sun article refers to the research recently carried out by Huddersfield University.
Why drink rancid water from a corroded cup when you can go to the well?
"The sheer volume of tweets by the anti-McCann group – and by supporters of Madeleine’s parents – meant that it would be an excellent case study".
https://www.hud.ac.uk/news/2017/february/exploringtheworldofthemadeleinemccanntrolls.php
-
That is an interesting article, I found this to be an excellent obwservation:
It was found that “the insults and abuse levelled at both the McCanns and the pro-McCann users were constant, repetitive, and in clear violation of Twitter policies, though user accounts were rarely suspended”.
This is not just confined to the insults on the McCann hashtag, I think twitter as a whole have a very bad reputation in allowing accounts to continue without review after being reported. I'm not a Facebook user but assume it is the same when it comes to reviewing content
-
It's interesting that the study is being carried out by the psychology department... it confirms my belief that Those that abuse the McCanns are mentally disturbed
-
That is an interesting article, I found this to be an excellent obwservation:
This is not just confined to the insults on the McCann hashtag, I think twitter as a whole have a very bad reputation in allowing accounts to continue without review after being reported. I'm not a Facebook user but assume it is the same when it comes to reviewing content
I suffered a lot of abuse re a video posted on you tube from a tv programme I was featured in
You tube didn't do anything about it
-
THE parents of Maddie McCann are targeted by more than 150 abusive tweets everyday – a decade on from her disappearance.
The vile comments, directed at Kate and Gerry McCann, were found to be made mostly by women, according to new research into online abuse.
The Sun Link (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3008845/madeleine-mccanns-parents-trolls-150-tweets-a-day/)
Some things never change, I don't know how these people sleep at night
I believe the same researcher is also going to publish a piece on McCann supporters. I wonder if that will get as much tabloid attention?
I have noticed that on the OFM Facebook page there has been almost no sign of Madeleine for the last three months but copious posts on trolling. It does make you wonder why that is ? Why at this point in time are the McCanns so desperate to paint themselves as innocent victims of the 'mob', as well as the Portuguese ( 'Portuguese agenda' )? I suppose if there was ever to be a trial it would be handy to be able to show that it couldn't be fair.
-
There has been bitter engagements from both sides so yes, it is hard not to acknowledge. However the majority of posts or tweets that make the media channels is almost exclusively people making obscene comments about Madeleine's parents. If I am wrong on this observation please set me straight as I am not familiar with the McCann press as I once was.
I think you have to look at who is bringing this to the press's attention.
-
I believe the same researcher is also going to publish a piece on McCann supporters. I wonder if that will get as much tabloid attention?
I have noticed that on the OFM Facebook page there has been almost no sign of Madeleine for the last three months but copious posts on trolling. It does make you wonder why that is ? Why at this point in time are the McCanns so desperate to paint themselves as innocent victims of the 'mob', as well as the Portuguese ( 'Portuguese agenda' )? I suppose if there was ever to be a trial it would be handy to be able to show that it couldn't be fair.
It would be interesting to see their findings in the second report even if there is no publicity, it does make for an even investigation and conclusions.
I suspect that it is more to do with the fact that Madeleine's parents are getting a lot of abuse across multiple platforms and not highlighting it in an attempt for any possible court proceedings. Having said that, I'm not sure what trial could be brought against someone unless Madeleine is found or critical new evidence comes to light
-
I think you have to look at who is bringing this to the press's attention.
Do you have any suggestions as to where I would start in looking?
-
It would be interesting to see their findings in the second report even if there is no publicity, it does make for an even investigation and conclusions.
I suspect that it is more to do with the fact that Madeleine's parents are getting a lot of abuse across multiple platforms and not highlighting it in an attempt for any possible court proceedings. Having said that, I'm not sure what trial could be brought against someone unless Madeleine is found or critical new evidence comes to light
It's undeniable that the McCanns are getting a lot of abuse across multiple platforms but I'm not sure how their ' victimhood' takes precedence over publicising their daughter's disappearance on what it is, after all, an awareness raising page?
-
Do you have any suggestions as to where I would start in looking?
Perhaps you could start looking at supporter's tweets to various newspapers. Alternatively at the NSU accounts. Mitchell was being paid an awful lot of money at one point. He must have been doing something to earn it.
-
It's undeniable that the McCanns are getting a lot of abuse across multiple platforms but I'm not sure how their ' victimhood' takes precedence over publicising their daughter's disappearance on what it is, after all, an awareness raising page?
Ideally I would be of the opinion that it should be kept away from there and only concentrate on information regarding finding Madeleine.
-
Perhaps you could start looking at supporter's tweets to various newspapers. Alternatively at the NSU accounts. Mitchell was being paid an awful lot of money at one point. He must have been doing something to earn it.
Mr Mitchell was paid as I understand it, to handle the press relations and communication with the world's media. I assume his previous professional background made him suitable for this role. regarding the amount of money he was paid is purely down to the value he was, also this will have been down to the contract negotiation that all parties agreed to.
I have of recent delved once or twice into the tweets and my first impression was that little had changed over the years.
-
I think the doctor has a point here but I am torn by this because I do respect a free and open internet. This touches on the free speech that we all have the luxury to exercise. Some I'm sure would argue that is their free speech to pass comment on Madeleine's parents however there is a common sense line drawn. Being vulgar or in anyway inciting harm towards the parents or twins simply can never be seen as exercising free speech.
snipped
It seems to me that troll activity actually prevents free speech in some instances. I wonder how many people - especially those in the public eye deliberately refrain from expressing their support for the McCanns because they have seen what happens to those who do - Aled Jones being a prime example.
That can't be right and its about time Twitter were held to account for turning a blind eye. Maybe extremely hefty fines - far in excess of what they would have to pay people to properly monitor and control these pests would encourage them to be more responsible. I find it hard to believe that in this day and age the appropriate technology doesn't exist.
-
It seems to me that troll activity actually prevents free speech in some instances. I wonder how many people - especially those in the public eye deliberately refrain from expressing their support for the McCanns because they have seen what happens to those who do - Aled Jones being a prime example.
Considering what I have seen in the past I have to strongly agree with this. The best outcome for these people who take it upon themselves to behave in this manner seek to destroy debate or even intelligent discourse by the use of inflammatory remarks or simple abuse. They are using it to quite possibly render people silent and their opinion is the only one that should be talked about and repeated over and over again. Any dissent or alternative view is simply not tolerated.
Twitter have a shameful record I think regarding all manner of abuses that take place, I do believe the technology must exist but as yet have not implemented it or choose not to. Even if you report comments that are clearly a breach of the terms and conditions, only very rarely is some direct action taken as a result.
-
It seems to me that troll activity actually prevents free speech in some instances. I wonder how many people - especially those in the public eye deliberately refrain from expressing their support for the McCanns because they have seen what happens to those who do - Aled Jones being a prime example.
That can't be right and its about time Twitter were held to account for turning a blind eye. Maybe extremely hefty fines - far in excess of what they would have to pay people to properly monitor and control these pests would encourage them to be more responsible. I find it hard to believe that in this day and age the appropriate technology doesn't exist.
I do not post in support of the McCanns under my own name anymore as I don't want my business targeted again, in the way it has been in the past by twitter trolls, nor my children dragged into it as I have seen other people's children plastered across the net. I know for a fact that there have been McCann sceptics intent on discovering my real life ID even recently which is somewhat disturbing. Why would they want to know that information? What did I ever do that required their investigative attentions, apart from argue that their theories are bonkers and their vocal hatred unkind and unnecessary?
-
I do not post in support of the McCanns under my own name anymore as I don't want my business targeted again, in the way it has been in the past by twitter trolls, nor my children dragged into it as I have seen other people's children plastered across the net. I know for a fact that there have been McCann sceptics intent on discovering my real life ID even recently which is somewhat disturbing. Why would they want to know that information? What did I ever do that required their investigative attentions, apart from argue that their theories are bonkers and their vocal hatred unkind and unnecessary?
In short, intimidation. If you were very vocal and didn't respond to baiting then they would go after the softer targets, spouse, children, place of employment. It was ultimately all done to silence you and others like you. With some people it did work whereas not so successful with others despite the barrage of daily abuse, phone calls etc. Also the police forces going back a few years didn't know how to deal with such complaints and only now seem more willing to enforce the Communications Act.
-
In short, intimidation. If you were very vocal and didn't respond to baiting then they would go after the softer targets, spouse, children, place of employment. It was ultimately all done to silence you and others like you. With some people it did work whereas not so successful with others despite the barrage of daily abuse, phone calls etc. Also the police forces going back a few years didn't know how to deal with such complaints and only now seem more willing to enforce the Communications Act.
I don't take much notice of twitter, they all seem as bad as each other really. The only documented cases of outing and threats I am aware of are Brenda Leyland and Leanne Baulch. Has anyone got any other documented cases they an point me to?
-
I had to Google Leanne Baulch as it wasn't a name I was familiar with, Ms Leyland I believe is the twitter user that killed herself following an interview with a reporter. I am somewhat disheartened to see Ms Baulch was a victim of online abuse regardless of her motivations for setting up the fund for Mr Amaral. It's simply not to be tolerated.
-
I don't take much notice of twitter, they all seem as bad as each other really. The only documented cases of outing and threats I am aware of are Brenda Leyland and Leanne Baulch. Has anyone got any other documented cases they an point me to?
documented, no. I don't compile documents on such matters as I think that the individuals concerned would rather not have their names repeated on here and are are best left to be forgotten but I do know of numerous "outings" that have taken place on various forums and on twitter, I know of at least two different people whose employers were contacted in an attempt to get them sacked. One was a university lecturer and author who spoke out against the vile hate on twitter, was perfectly civil but once he'd attracted the trolls' attention presented a very easy target. I'm glad to say he did not lose his job over it, but I believe his book got a few malicious online reviews from people who'd never even bothered to read it in the first place.
-
It's interesting that the study is being carried out by the psychology department... it confirms my belief that Those that abuse the McCanns are mentally disturbed
That is not strictly confirmation.
-
I don't take much notice of twitter, they all seem as bad as each other really. The only documented cases of outing and threats I am aware of are Brenda Leyland and Leanne Baulch. Has anyone got any other documented cases they an point me to?
There was a consorted and successful effort to out me. But I don't care, so it was a bit of a wasted effort.
-
documented, no. I don't compile documents on such matters as I think that the individuals concerned would rather not have their names repeated on here and are are best left to be forgotten but I do know of numerous "outings" that have taken place on various forums and on twitter, I know of at least two different people whose employers were contacted in an attempt to get them sacked. One was a university lecturer and author who spoke out against the vile hate on twitter, was perfectly civil but once he'd attracted the trolls' attention presented a very easy target. I'm glad to say he did not lose his job over it, but I believe his book got a few malicious online reviews from people who'd never even bothered to read it in the first place.
I can remember maybe two or three and this is going back to between 2008 and 2010, I also do recall that both "sides" as it were did have responsibility for such activities, that certainly was not a one way street. This is why after so many years of seeing this day after day I thought it was better off to step away from it all as it was turning rather bleak and little content or discussion was about Madeleine and finding her.
All the time seeing this outrageous behavior I kept thinking what on earth will the twins think once they are able to start looking up their sister on the internet.
-
I can remember maybe two or three and this is going back to between 2008 and 2010, I also do recall that both "sides" as it were did have responsibility for such activities, that certainly was not a one way street. This is why after so many years of seeing this day after day I thought it was better off to step away from it all as it was turning rather bleak and little content or discussion was about Madeleine and finding her.
All the time seeing this outrageous behavior I kept thinking what on earth will the twins think once they are able to start looking up their sister on the internet.
There are a couple of pictures of one of the twins, allegedly in conversation with someone who has been targeting them & their new school, which remain on Twitter despite having been reported.
-
I can remember maybe two or three and this is going back to between 2008 and 2010, I also do recall that both "sides" as it were did have responsibility for such activities, that certainly was not a one way street. This is why after so many years of seeing this day after day I thought it was better off to step away from it all as it was turning rather bleak and little content or discussion was about Madeleine and finding her.
All the time seeing this outrageous behavior I kept thinking what on earth will the twins think once they are able to start looking up their sister on the internet.
Agreed. There has definitely been unedifying behaviour on both sides of the argument though if you were to turn each example of bad behaviour into a penny and put the pennies on a P/A scale the balance would be tipped very much in the direction of A, and you' be a rich man into the bargain.
-
There are a couple of pictures of one of the twins, allegedly in conversation with someone who has been targeting them & their new school, which remain on Twitter despite having been reported.
This does sound appalling, I do hope nothing is done to them or Madeleine's family
-
It's interesting that the study is being carried out by the psychology department... it confirms my belief that Those that abuse the McCanns are mentally disturbed
The study also includes "supporters of Madeleine’s parents". So does that mean they too are metally disturbed?
On the basis of the limited information available to the public it would be interesting to see your delineation if you believe the two groups should not be lumped together as whackos.
-
I believe the same researcher is also going to publish a piece on McCann supporters. I wonder if that will get as much tabloid attention?
I have noticed that on the OFM Facebook page there has been almost no sign of Madeleine for the last three months but copious posts on trolling. It does make you wonder why that is ? Why at this point in time are the McCanns so desperate to paint themselves as innocent victims of the 'mob', as well as the Portuguese ( 'Portuguese agenda' )? I suppose if there was ever to be a trial it would be handy to be able to show that it couldn't be fair.
The only bit that could be deemed unfair, should it go to court, will be the least of anyones worries when you consider why it would have ended up in court.
-
Numbering among those sending vile tweets to Madeleine's family are many who believe that Cadaver scent was present in their apartment in Luz.
We know that is not the case but when discussing the beliefs of firm believers ... occasionally in context mention of the dogs may make an appearance.
-
the reason these vile tweeters feel justified is because they believe the rubbish that your post is a good example of
Wrong dave.
However, par for the course.
-
I think its fair to say...although it seems that I'm not allowed to....that people feel they can make these vile tweets because they believe some of the rubbish posted on forums such as these
-
I think they say these things, and get away with it because they know twitter is not going to haul them up on it. Essentially they are given free range in the spirit of freedom of speech.
But it is always the same things they say over and over again with little creativity and if anything, they are by default turning people away from getting involved. Or maybe that is their goal.
-
I think they say these things, and get away with it because they know twitter is not going to haul them up on it. Essentially they are given free range in the spirit of freedom of speech.
But it is always the same things they say over and over again with little creativity and if anything, they are by default turning people away from getting involved. Or maybe that is their goal.
Newton's third law of the internet.
-
Looks like Carter Ruck are powering up the engines to take on Karen Danczuk for her outburst the other day on twitter. This could be costly especially with CR involved
-
Looks like Carter Ruck are powering up the engines to take on Karen Danczuk for her outburst the other day on twitter. This could be costly especially with CR involved
Has that been reported ?
-
Has that been reported ?
Daily Mail Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4285994/Karen-Danczuk-launches-Twitter-attack-McCann-parents.html)
It will be interesting to see what Ms Danczuk does should this go ahead.
-
Daily Mail Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4285994/Karen-Danczuk-launches-Twitter-attack-McCann-parents.html)
It will be interesting to see what Ms Danczuk does should this go ahead.
I would venture to suggest the last thing the McCann's need is another libel case.
It will only add to the impression, that they are more focused on court action than anything else.
-
Looks like Carter Ruck are powering up the engines to take on Karen Danczuk for her outburst the other day on twitter. This could be costly especially with CR involved
Do you have a cite for that or is it just a rumour?
-
I would venture to suggest the last thing the McCann's need is another libel case.
It will only add to the impression, that they are more focused on court action than anything else.
I have to agree with you on this one, from my perspective I don't think another libel case will be of any value to Madeleine's parents or the campaign to find her.
I understand that Ms Danczuk is hardly someone with any great social prominence or influence so it is likely best confined to the bucket of "stupid things people say on the internet"
-
Do you have a cite for that or is it just a rumour?
Yes, I have posted a link a post above this one
-
I have to agree with you on this one, from my perspective I don't think another libel case will be of any value to Madeleine's parents or the campaign to find her.
I understand that Ms Danczuk is hardly someone with any great social prominence or influence so it is likely best confined to the bucket of "stupid things people say on the internet"
She comes across as another self obsessed bim#o.
-
Daily Mail Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4285994/Karen-Danczuk-launches-Twitter-attack-McCann-parents.html)
It will be interesting to see what Ms Danczuk does should this go ahead.
I doubt if they will sue her. The last sentence of the article - the only one with a named source - would appear to cover the McCann's attitude towards these pathetic attention seeking wannabees.
Quote
Kate and Gerry's spokesman Clarence Mitchell said today: 'We are aware of Ms Danczuk's comments and we are simply not going to fuel this nonsense by talking about it.'
unquote
To sue her would have the opposite effect and give her the publicity which she obviously craves IMO.
-
I hope they do and they may in reality have little choice
To ignore it may send a signal to others that they can get away with it
-
Daily Mail Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4285994/Karen-Danczuk-launches-Twitter-attack-McCann-parents.html)
It will be interesting to see what Ms Danczuk does should this go ahead.
It would be interesting to see on what basis they could sue if that is the offending tweet. It is factually correct as far as I can see.
-
I hope they do and they may in reality have little choice
To ignore it may send a signal to others that they can get away with it
If she persists (is there any evidence that she is still commenting?) then the most that would happen IMO is that she would get a 'warning' letter from Carter Ruck - but only because she is not a complete nonentity - although personally I'd never heard of her before this.
If she has shut up - then I think that will be an end to it.
Once again - Twitter has a lot to answer for IMO.
-
It would be interesting to see on what basis they could sue if that is the offending tweet. It is factually correct as far as I can see.
There was some other stuff in another paper which would not be allowed on here. Not sure of the source though.
-
I have taken a look this morning for the first time in a few years at twitter, it's still the same people saying the same things with nothing to back their claims up
-
Looks like Carter Ruck are powering up the engines to take on Karen Danczuk for her outburst the other day on twitter. This could be costly especially with CR involved
Another excellent idea by the McCanns.
It has already been brought to the public's attention that the fund to find their daughter has been used to sue the policeman who originally lead the investigation. They've also been told how depleted the fund will be after the fund pays Amaral. How will it look that more money is being thrown at more reputation litigation? This time however they can't even use the excuse that it is harming the search to justify the expenditure.
-
Another excellent idea by the McCanns.
It has already been brought to the public's attention that the fund to find their daughter has been used to sue the policeman who originally lead the investigation. They've also been told how depleted the fund will be after the fund pays Amaral. How will it look that more money is being thrown at more reputation litigation? This time however they can't even use the excuse that it is harming the search to justify the expenditure.
Maybe they are doing it for their own sanity for a change.
-
Sorry, have I missed something? Can I have a link to the announcement that the McCanns are suing Karen Danczuk? Remember, it doesn't count if it's an unnamed source, especially not if it's in a tab.
-
Sally Bercow learned a costly lesson when Lord McCalpine won his libel case against her.
If memory serves me well I believe the case was as a result of one tweet. The tweet was not explicit and the implicit innuendo hard to grasp. It was made in the midst of certain publicity doing the rounds concerning prominent personalities though.
If the McCanns wished to start a war of attrition against tweeters I am sure our libel laws would ensure they received the same consideration in law enjoyed by Lord McCalpine.
For comparison purposes just Google what Sally Bercow tweeted with the mean spirited trash, innuendo and downright lies tweeted against the McCann family.
If the McCanns chose to sue anyone for libel ~ which is their right ~ it would be a very strange thing to do to criticise them for it.
The criticism surely should be directed instead at those who feel free to libel them.
-
Sally Bercow learned a costly lesson when Lord McCalpine won his libel case against her.
If memory serves me well I believe the case was as a result of one tweet. The tweet was not explicit and the implicit innuendo hard to grasp. It was made in the midst of certain publicity doing the rounds concerning prominent personalities though.
If the McCanns wished to start a war of attrition against tweeters I am sure our libel laws would ensure they received the same consideration in law enjoyed by Lord McCalpine.
For comparison purposes just Google what Sally Bercow tweeted with the mean spirited trash tweeted, innuendo and downright lies.
If the McCanns chose to sue anyone for libel ~ which is their right ~ it would be a very strange thing to do to criticise them for it.
The criticism surely should be directed instead at those who feel free to libel them.
Didn't Lord McAlpine fund is own legal team ?
-
Didn't Lord McAlpine fund is own legal team ?
Sally Bercow paid for it.
-
Sally Bercow learned a costly lesson when Lord McCalpine won his libel case against her.
If memory serves me well I believe the case was as a result of one tweet. The tweet was not explicit and the implicit innuendo hard to grasp. It was made in the midst of certain publicity doing the rounds concerning prominent personalities though.
If the McCanns wished to start a war of attrition against tweeters I am sure our libel laws would ensure they received the same consideration in law enjoyed by Lord McCalpine.
For comparison purposes just Google what Sally Bercow tweeted with the mean spirited trash, innuendo and downright lies tweeted against the McCann family.
If the McCanns chose to sue anyone for libel ~ which is their right ~ it would be a very strange thing to do to criticise them for it.
The criticism surely should be directed instead at those who feel free to libel them.
I think the scale of the 2 cases is hardly comparable.
-
Sally Bercow paid for it.
Eventually but not initially.
The McCanns won't sue this, or any other individual.
-
Sally Bercow learned a costly lesson when Lord McCalpine won his libel case against her.
If memory serves me well I believe the case was as a result of one tweet. The tweet was not explicit and the implicit innuendo hard to grasp. It was made in the midst of certain publicity doing the rounds concerning prominent personalities though.
If the McCanns wished to start a war of attrition against tweeters I am sure our libel laws would ensure they received the same consideration in law enjoyed by Lord McCalpine.
For comparison purposes just Google what Sally Bercow tweeted with the mean spirited trash, innuendo and downright lies tweeted against the McCann family.
If the McCanns chose to sue anyone for libel ~ which is their right ~ it would be a very strange thing to do to criticise them for it.
The criticism surely should be directed instead at those who feel free to libel them.
Defamation law has changed since then.
-
Defamation law has changed since then.
Not in any way that would affect attempts to sell Amaral's book in England, or indeed (I'm fairly certain) the UK.
-
I think the scale of the 2 cases is hardly comparable.
You are absolutely correct there.
One tweet hardly compares with the volume dispatched against the McCanns on a daily basis.
The innuendo implied in Bercow's tweet appears fairly innocuous if not unintelligible ... but it broke the law. The daily diatribe and explicit accusation against the McCanns quite clearly breaks the law.
Were the McCanns to instruct their lawyers to institute proceedings against those who are abusing and defaming them either on a one off or on a daily basis I don't think there would be a problem in finding a few it would be worthwhile suing.
-
Were the McCanns to instruct their lawyers to institute proceedings against those who are abusing and defaming them either on a one off or on a daily basis I don't think there would be a problem in finding a few it would be worthwhile suing.
I think I'm fairly confident in saying that CR and certainly Mr and Mrs McCann know who the main contributors are on twitter and on the few forums that remain that are hostile to them. I think if they were considering libel against these people then they would have done so by now. However I am certainly not suggesting that I believe they have ruled it out.
-
Not in any way that would affect attempts to sell Amaral's book in England, or indeed (I'm fairly certain) the UK.
Has Sr Amaral been tweeting then?
Didn't Sally Bercow use Carter Ruck as her defence team?
I made a typo whilst "doing" Sr Amaral. Under the circumstances it was a pretty good one.
Sr Amatol.
-
I think I'm fairly confident in saying that CR and certainly Mr and Mrs McCann know who the main contributors are on twitter and on the few forums that remain that are hostile to them. I think if they were considering libel against these people then they would have done so by now. However I am certainly not suggesting that I believe they have ruled it out.
From the point of view of the family and Kate's Christian views there is a lot of forgiveness going on.
-
I think I'm fairly confident in saying that CR and certainly Mr and Mrs McCann know who the main contributors are on twitter and on the few forums that remain that are hostile to them. I think if they were considering libel against these people then they would have done so by now. However I am certainly not suggesting that I believe they have ruled it out.
I think the whole trolling issue is one which is desperately sad, unnecessary and tremendously hurtful.
While upsetting I think they have probably considered it as more than an irritant than actually interfering with their search for Madeleine. Although the endless stream of organised petitions, FOIs and obstruction (eg campaign to flood Crime Watch TV programmes broadcast to help Madeleine) in my opinion could only have been designed to do so ... else what was their purpose?
What has been humanly possible to help Madeleine has been and continues to be done by the appropriate agencies now investigating her case, the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard, enabling the McCanns and their Private Detectives to take a back seat.
Perhaps they have now decided that enough is enough. Who would blame them?
-
I think the whole trolling issue is one which is desperately sad, unnecessary and tremendously hurtful.
While upsetting I think they have probably considered it as more than an irritant than actually interfering with their search for Madeleine. Although the endless stream of organised petitions, FOIs and obstruction (eg campaign to flood Crime Watch TV programmes broadcast to help Madeleine) in my opinion could only have been designed to do so ... else what was their purpose?
What has been humanly possible to help Madeleine has been and continues to be done by the appropriate agencies now investigating her case, the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard, enabling the McCanns and their Private Detectives to take a back seat.
Perhaps they have now decided that enough is enough. Who would blame them?
Especially if the twins are getting involved with tweeting back. The whole thing is never going to stop then, unless the parents make a stand. Maybe they will be forced to take action to save their kids.
-
Especially if the twins are getting involved with tweeting back. The whole thing is never going to stop then, unless the parents make a stand. Maybe they will be forced to take action to save their kids.
I think the last thing the twins would ever do would be to respond to such venom. Unfortunately their parents will undoubtedly have had to take steps to ensure the twins are equipped to cope with it in other ways.
I think it is one of the more shameful effects of this behaviour which has got so out of hand that it cannot fail to impinge on the lives of two innocent children
-
I think the last thing the twins would ever do would be to respond to such venom. Unfortunately their parents will undoubtedly have had to take steps to ensure the twins are equipped to cope with it in other ways.
I think it is one of the more shameful effects of this behaviour which has got so out of hand that it cannot fail to impinge on the lives of two innocent children
I thought they were contributing to the twitter feeds even now. Maybe it is all a scam. Twitter is all based on accounts and no one knows who is actually writing anything.
-
I think the whole trolling issue is one which is desperately sad, unnecessary and tremendously hurtful.
Its being blown out of all proportion,todays news tomorrows fish and chip paper.in the mean time Scotland Yard and the PJ remain resolutely silent.
-
Its being blown out of all proportion,todays news tomorrows fish and chip paper.in the mean time Scotland Yard and the PJ remain resolutely silent.
"Today's news tomorrow's fish and chip paper." - Does that still happen in the modern world?
-
"Today's news tomorrow's fish and chip paper." - Does that still happen in the modern world?
Sadly no.
-
I thought they were contributing to the twitter feeds even now. Maybe it is all a scam. Twitter is all based on accounts and no one knows who is actually writing anything.
Try telling that to Katie Hopkins. She was on the receiving end of a "pineappling" today for making defamatory tweets.
-
Sadly no.
They consumers may have got poisoned but at least they kept up with the news.
-
Its being blown out of all proportion,todays news tomorrows fish and chip paper.in the mean time Scotland Yard and the PJ remain resolutely silent.
Indeed. Unfortunately for the McCanns it is chip paper tomorrow, the day after that, the day after that ... the week after that, the week after that ... the year after that, the year after that ... ad infinitum
An unrelenting ill informed diatribe designed to bully and torture psychologically day in day out. It is inhumane and can only be so intentionally.
Then one should expect little from persons who have eulogised Brady, Philpotts, Wests et al
-
Indeed. Unfortunately for the McCanns it is chip paper tomorrow, the day after that, the day after that ... the week after that, the week after that ... the year after that, the year after that ... ad infinitum
An unrelenting ill informed diatribe designed to bully and torture psychologically day in day out. It is inhumane and can only be so intentionally.
Then one should expect little from persons who have eulogised Brady, Philpotts, Wests et al
Do you have evidence of where Brady*, Philpotts*, Wests* have been eulogised in the national press such that they became tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers, metaphorically of course.
I take it you don't mean Peter, Trevor and Mae
-
Indeed. Unfortunately for the McCanns it is chip paper tomorrow, the day after that, the day after that ... the week after that, the week after that ... the year after that, the year after that ... ad infinitum
An unrelenting ill informed diatribe designed to bully and torture psychologically day in day out. It is inhumane and can only be so intentionally.
Then one should expect little from persons who have eulogised Brady, Philpotts, Wests et al
Who is more at fault the supposed trolls or the ones letting the McCanns know of these supposed trolls.
-
Do you have evidence of where Brady*, Philpotts*, Wests* have been eulogised in the national press such that they became tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers, metaphorically of course.
I take it you don't mean Peter, Trevor and Mae
I know your posts better than to assume you have misunderstood my post ... wumming can probably be considered harmless as well as tiresome and certainly not in the same league as the McCann tormentors are.
-
I know your posts better than to assume you have misunderstood my post ... wumming can probably be considered harmless as well as tiresome and certainly not in the same league as the McCann tormentors are.
I posted:
"Do you have evidence of where Brady*, Philpotts*, Wests* have been eulogised in the national press".
Which was asking you to back up an assertion you made in order that you comply with the forum rules you purport to uphold.
Your retort is I am wumming.
Nice action in the body swerve Brie. It's such a shame it was so ineffectual.
-
Stephen Birch apparently, has made a comment on today's Sun story.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3056802/madeleine-mccann-parents-pledge-to-report-all-online-ghouls-who-overstep-the-mark-to-police-days-after-karen-danczuks-startling-twitter-rant/?CMP=Spklr-_-Editorial-_-TheSun-_-News-_-TwImageandlink-_-Statement-_-TWITTER#comments
It is libelous, so I won't repeat it. Posters can read for themselves, if they wish.
-
Stephen Birch apparently, has made a comment on today's Sun story.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3056802/madeleine-mccann-parents-pledge-to-report-all-online-ghouls-who-overstep-the-mark-to-police-days-after-karen-danczuks-startling-twitter-rant/?CMP=Spklr-_-Editorial-_-TheSun-_-News-_-TwImageandlink-_-Statement-_-TWITTER#comments
It is libelous, so I won't repeat it. Posters can read for themselves, if they wish.
The article is curious in so much as what it doesn't say and how it says what it does say. Is there an element of trying to make bricks without straw?
-
Stephen Birch?
Still rattling around?
Amazing.
-
Stephen Birch?
Still rattling around?
Amazing.
For once, we can agree.
-
“I must admit, if it were my child I’d be on my hands & knees digging up the earth with my bare hands! Nothing else would matter.”
How would anyone know?
-
May I ask who Stephen Birch is? I have looked this person up but I am somewhat confused as to what, if anything he has brought to the investigation
-
May I ask who Stephen Birch is? I have looked this person up but I am somewhat confused as to what, if anything he has brought to the investigation
SFA
-
If, as I suspect, they don't exist except in the overactive imaginings of the McCanns and their supporters you have the answer. The majority of people who disagree with the McCanns don't fit that description.
I know of at least one axe murderer ... and one who defrauded her vulnerable parents and left them in filth and squalor while she lived it up in Spain ... there have also been gun offenders in the mix.
Hounding innocent people who have lost a child and all with the slightest connection to them for ten years, takes a certain type of mentality I would imagine.
Not one that I would wish to encounter when not behind the anonymity afforded by the internet. The other side of that coin is the freedom anonymity gives to these very sad people to live out their days wallowing in hate for individuals they have never even met.
If you don't think that bizarre behaviour ... I most certainly do.
-
I know of at least one axe murderer ... and one who defrauded her vulnerable parents and left them in filth and squalor while she lived it up in Spain ... there have also been gun offenders in the mix.
Hounding innocent people who have lost a child and all with the slightest connection to them for ten years, takes a certain type of mentality I would imagine.
Not one that I would wish to encounter when not behind the anonymity afforded by the internet. The other side of that coin is the freedom anonymity gives to these very sad people to live out their days wallowing in hate for individuals they have never even met.
If you don't think that bizarre behaviour ... I most certainly do.
Who knows what supporters have taken part in as most of them use the anonymity afforded by the internet to cover their tracks.
-
Who knows what supporters have taken part in as most of them use the anonymity afforded by the internet to cover their tracks.
There are approx 500,000 on Facebook that are not anonymous (probably only 400k by the time you read this mind @)(++(* )
-
There are approx 500,000 on Facebook that are not anonymous (probably only 400k by the time you read this mind @)(++(* )
Active supporters such as yourself Alfie.
-
There are approx 500,000 on Facebook that are not anonymous (probably only 400k by the time you read this mind @)(++(* )
Only 400,000 ?
Katie Price has 2.13 million followers on Twitter.
Hopkins has 691,000 .
Eminently more popular than the McCann's.
-
Are they more, or less, popular than the parents of other missing children, would you say?
-
Are they more, or less, popular than the parents of other missing children, would you say?
Do you want to provide some data.
I seem to have touched a sore point, with some.
-
Do you want to provide some data.
I seem to have touched a sore point, with some.
You have to compare like with like, Stephen.
Miss Price attracts rather a different set of followers.
-
You have to compare like with like, Stephen.
Miss Price attracts rather a different set of followers.
Personally, I loathe Price and Hopkins.
However, it made a comparison.
How about the Needhams ?
-
Personally, I loathe Price and Hopkins.
However, it made a comparison.
How about the Needhams ?
A good example. How many followers does KN have on Twitter, Stephen?
-
A good example. How many followers does KN have on Twitter, Stephen?
The Ben Needham page, 27,200.
A genuine case.
I believe Kerry Needham no longer has a page.
-
The Ben Needham page, 27,200.
A genuine case.
I believe Kerry Needham no longer has a page.
Yes, a genuine case where KN played no part in her son's disappearance, yet her official twitter campaign page attracts around 6% of the number of OFM followers. Can you explain that?
-
Yes, a genuine case where KN played no part in her son's disappearance, yet her official twitter campaign page attracts around 6% of the number of OFM followers. Can you explain that?
How many of the 400,000 continue to support the McCann's ?
As to your question, the use of the media.
Now what has that achieved ?
-
How many of the 400,000 continue to support the McCann's ?
As to your question, the use of the media.
Now what has that achieved ?
The Find Madeleine Campaign reaches a far greater audience than that of any other missing UK child. Why is that a problem for people who purport to want Madeleine found & justice served?
-
The Find Madeleine Campaign reaches a far greater audience than that of any other missing UK child. Why is that a problem for people who purport to want Madeleine found & justice served?
It has achieved nothing.
Now how many of the 400,00 still support them ?
-
It has achieved nothing.
Now how many of the 400,00 still support them ?
Numerically speaking, probably 39500% more than currently appear to support Amaral via the PJGA blogspot.
-
The Find Madeleine Campaign reaches a far greater audience than that of any other missing UK child. Why is that a problem for people who purport to want Madeleine found & justice served?
As the McCanns seem to believe Madeleine never left Portugal it's odd that they pay so little attention to their Portuguese Facebook page.
It seems also that the official Facebook page now has little to do with Madeleine. Since January 1st we have had Missing People PR, litigation news and the webmistress either having or explaining why she's having a hissy fit but absolutely nothing which could remotely be considered to be raising awareness of Madeleine's plight.
-
Numerically speaking, probably 39500% more than currently appear to support Amaral via the PJGA blogspot.
Didn't help in the Court case.
Don't forget either, police officers and former serving officers donated to Amaral.
Not too hard to work out why.
-
Active supporters such as yourself Alfie.
There are loads of "active" supporters on the FB page, actively supporting using their real names.
-
Only 400,000 ?
Katie Price has 2.13 million followers on Twitter.
Hopkins has 691,000 .
Eminently more popular than the McCann's.
It's not a popularity contest.
-
As the McCanns seem to believe Madeleine never left Portugal it's odd that they pay so little attention to their Portuguese Facebook page.
It seems also that the official Facebook page now has little to do with Madeleine. Since January 1st we have had Missing People PR, litigation news and the webmistress either having or explaining why she's having a hissy fit but absolutely nothing which could remotely be considered to be raising awareness of Madeleine's plight.
Facebook is international, there isn't a separate Portuguese Facebook.
-
It's not a popularity contest.
Then why mention 400,000 in the first place ?
Apologies Alf if you didn't mention it first.
I haven't read through all the pages.
I merely pointed out that numbers by themselves prove nothing.
-
How many of the 400,000 continue to support the McCann's ?
As to your question, the use of the media.
Now what has that achieved ?
Currently over 500k supporters to be more accurate.
-
Didn't help in the Court case.
Don't forget either, police officers and former serving officers donated to Amaral.
Not too hard to work out why.
Are his sites subjected daily to 150 offensive tweets by McCann followers?
-
Are his sites subjected daily to 150 offensive tweets by McCann followers?
Are there actual cites to support that figure ?
I have seen the abuse he has been given on McCann supporter sites.
Including at one point, a countdown to when he would be going to prison.
That was on '.....'.
-
Facebook is international, there isn't a separate Portuguese Facebook.
There was at one point. It seems to have disappeared.
-
Are there actual cites to support that figure ?
I have seen the abuse he has been given on McCann supporter sites.
Including at one point, a countdown to when he would be going to prison.
That was on '.....'.
Perhaps you would care to look at all the comments on twitter in the last 7 days & provide statistics showing offensive tweets aimed at the McCanns versus offensive tweets aimed at Amaral.
-
There was at one point. It seems to have disappeared.
I think you must be mistaken.
-
I think you must be mistaken.
I'm not.
-
I'm not.
There has only ever been one facebook. It is an international site with billions of members from around the world. There has never been a separate Portuguese facebook.
-
There has only ever been one facebook. It is an international site with billions of members from around the world. There has never been a separate Portuguese facebook.
Billions of members ?
Just because you haven't seen something Alfie does that mean it did not exist ?
-
Billions of members ?
Just because you haven't seen something Alfie does that mean it did not exist ?
Are you confusing it with the Portuguese page on the FindMadeleine.com website?
-
Billions of members ?
Just because you haven't seen something Alfie does that mean it did not exist ?
https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/amp/
There has NEVER been a separate Portuguese facebook, you're completely wrong.
-
Are you confusing it with the Portuguese page on the FindMadeleine.com website?
No misty. In the early days there was a Portuguese Facebook page too but it was seldom updated and I suppose it was closed in the end.
-
No misty. In the early days there was a Portuguese Facebook page too but it was seldom updated and I suppose it was closed in the end.
OK, thanks. I didn't follow the case online for the first 5 years.
-
Perhaps you would care to look at all the comments on twitter in the last 7 days & provide statistics showing offensive tweets aimed at the McCanns versus offensive tweets aimed at Amaral.
Why do I need to do that.
As I have said before, I am no fan of twitter.
-
Or perhaps be less eager to find fault with my posts ? Apology accepted nonetheless.
The problem with your post (irrespective of my misunderstanding) is that you have made a claim (that the McCanns had a Portuguese Facebook page which they failed to keep up, therefore implying some level of disinterest on their part in finding Madeleine) that you have failed to back up with any evidence.
-
There are many, many more sceptics than supporters ( you only have to look at the online 'neglect' petition to realise that) and if your research is obviously skewed to begin with it's a no brainier really.
-
There is a many, many more sceptics than supporters ( you only have to look at the online 'neglect' petition to realise that) and if your research is obviously skewed to begin with it's a no brainier really.
Tragic. It seems to have the same mob reaction to the crucifixion of Jesus. Sadie might have been on to something.
-
Tragic. It seems to have the same mob reaction to the crucifixion of Jesus. Sadie might have been on to something.
When you don't agree speak of 'mobs'. I see no mobs, just individuals and groups who don't believe what they are being told.
-
When you don't agree speak of 'mobs'. I see no mobs, just individuals and groups who don't believe what they are being told.
Mobs are made up of individuals.
-
I would give them equal weighting.
Mobs on both sides.
-
Mobs on both sides.
Precisely.
-
I would give them equal weighting.
Certainly not in terms of numbers.
-
Certainly not in terms of numbers.
Of that Alfie I do not know.
I prefer to ignore those darker places where those people reside.
-
There are many, many more sceptics than supporters ( you only have to look at the online 'neglect' petition to realise that) and if your research is obviously skewed to begin with it's a no brainier really.
What does that mean? "If your research is obviously skewed"? You do agree then that there are a lot more idiots on the sceptic side of the argument than on the supporter side...?
-
Certainly not in terms of numbers.
How about percentages?
-
What does that mean? "If your research is obviously skewed"? You do agree then that there are a lot more idiots on the sceptic side of the argument than on the supporter side...?
Percentage wise I'd say not.
-
How about percentages?
How about 90% of online ......... are of the sceptic persuasion (and that's a conservative estimate).
ETA why is the plural of nasty a forbidden word on this forum?
-
Percentage wise I'd say not.
Eh??? How are you working that out, and based on what?
-
Eh??? How are you working that out, and based on what?
Oh we all use the Angela Lansbury technique on here.
-
Eh??? How are you working that out, and based on what?
Based on the supporters it's been my misfortune to come into contact with.
-
Based on the supporters it's been my misfortune to come into contact with.
So of all the internet chatter on the subject of the McCanns you would say there are more hateful supporters than there are hateful McCann sceptics? You cannot be serious?! *&*%£
-
If 'tweeting' interested me I'd join twitter.
-
So does anyone here apart from the supporters have any sympathy for the McCanns re these tweets
-
So does anyone here apart from the supporters have any sympathy for the McCanns re these tweets
I assume that these tweets don't break the law because if they did we would have heard about the police taking action. As the McCanns don't use twitter I assume they don't see them. Just how are they hurting the McCanns then?
-
I assume that these tweets don't break the law because if they did we would have heard about the police taking action. As the McCanns don't use twitter I assume they don't see them. Just how are they hurting the McCanns then?
Supporters seem more than willing to take offence on behalf of the McCanns
-
Supporters seem more than willing to take offence on behalf of the McCanns
It all started more or less as soon as Madeleine went missing. The best form of defence is attack, they say;
May 5th 2007
To suggest in any possible way that Kate and Gerry are negligible pare... negligent pare... negligent parents,
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id250.htm
-
I assume that these tweets don't break the law because if they did we would have heard about the police taking action. As the McCanns don't use twitter I assume they don't see them. Just how are they hurting the McCanns then?
If they are not intended to hurt the McCanns then just what is the point of all the vileness about them on twitter and other social media?
-
I assume that these tweets don't break the law because if they did we would have heard about the police taking action. As the McCanns don't use twitter I assume they don't see them. Just how are they hurting the McCanns then?
Just ask yourself would you like that to happen to you and your reputation?
-
I assume that these tweets don't break the law because if they did we would have heard about the police taking action. As the McCanns don't use twitter I assume they don't see them. Just how are they hurting the McCanns then?
It's against the law to tweet material that incites hatred towards religious or ethnic groups, or homophobic remarks but perfectly legal to tweet material designed to inflame hatred against named individuals. Whether or not that is just I'll leave for you to decide.
-
It's against the law to tweet material that incites hatred towards religious or ethnic groups, or homophobic remarks but perfectly legal to tweet material designed to inflame hatred against named individuals. Whether or not that is just I'll leave for you to decide.
Can those individuals claim defamation? If bad enough sue for defamation?
-
Can those individuals claim defamation? If bad enough sue for defamation?
Maybe, but is it going to be worth the time and effort ?
-
IMO it's more likely the McCanns would go for the jugular i.e. Twitter itself, for allowing such abuse to continue unabated without appropriate moderation. Most of the keyboard warriors wouldn't be worth suing.
-
Where is Twitter based?
Edit I see the base is in California. Quite a task for McCann to take on.
-
The sad fact of modern day life is that just about anyone in the public eye from the Queen to Miss Universe, from Theresa May to Brian May will have thousands of people spewing vitriol about them on social media on a daily basis, it just seems extra unpleasant when it's directed at victims of crime or those who have suffered loss or bereavement in tragic circumstances.
-
The sad fact of modern day life is that just about anyone in the public eye from the Queen to Miss Universe, from Theresa May to Brian May will have thousands of people spewing vitriol about them on social media on a daily basis, it just seems extra unpleasant when it's directed at victims of crime or those who have suffered loss or bereavement in tragic circumstances.
Such a conduit for free speech needs challenging by the ever-increasing number of its victims. A step up from Leveson but maybe one worth engaging in.
-
The sad fact of modern day life is that just about anyone in the public eye from the Queen to Miss Universe, from Theresa May to Brian May will have thousands of people spewing vitriol about them on social media on a daily basis, it just seems extra unpleasant when it's directed at victims of crime or those who have suffered loss or bereavement in tragic circumstances.
...and most of them just ignore it, and those are the ones who use twitter.
-
The sad fact of modern day life is that just about anyone in the public eye from the Queen to Miss Universe, from Theresa May to Brian May will have thousands of people spewing vitriol about them on social media on a daily basis, it just seems extra unpleasant when it's directed at victims of crime or those who have suffered loss or bereavement in tragic circumstances.
It used to go on about 50 plus years ago too.
Roll with the punch or go under.
-
As a non-user, I don't get too bothered about what goes on on Twitter, or Facebook for that matter.
-
As a non-user, I don't get too bothered about what goes on on Twitter, or Facebook for that matter.
Wise monkey! "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
-
On Twitter this evening someone claims to have been dining in the same restaurant as the McCanns and invites people to get down to the restaurant to check out them and the twins. They also go on to say that they hope the waiters spat in their food and that they would let like to throw beer in Gerry's face. Substitute McCanns for "Muslims" and you've got an arrestable offence being committed right there. But as it's only the parents of a missing child then that's perfectly legal hatred.
-
On Twitter this evening someone claims to have been dining in the same restaurant as the McCanns and invites people to get down to the restaurant to check out them and the twins. They also go on to say that they hope the waiters spat in their food and that they would let like to throw beer in Gerry's face. Substitute McCanns for "Muslims" and you've got an arrestable offence being committed right there. But as it's only the parents of a missing child then that's perfectly legal hatred.
Of course that sort of behaviour isn't acceptable. Did you inform the appropriate authorities Alfie ?
-
Of course that sort of behaviour isn't acceptable. Did you inform the appropriate authorities Alfie ?
What would be the point of that? Do you actually think the auhorities would give a flying f..k about it?
-
What would be the point of that? Do you actually think the auhorities would give a flying f..k about it?
But the twins may have been in danger. Surely you should at least have tried alerting someone in authority?
-
But the twins may have been in danger. Surely you should at least have tried alerting someone in authority?
As it was tweeted over two hours ago and I saw it for the first time 20 minutes ago if anything bad was going to have happened it would have been too late to prevent anyway. But let's face it, this sort of hatred and incitement to hatred is a daily occurrence on the McAnn hashtag, it would be a full time job reporting all the threats directed at them. Iin any case I thought reporting people just for expressing their opinion no matter how hateful and threatening was anathema to you so why are you encouraging me to do so?
-
As it was tweeted over two hours ago and I saw it for the first time 20 minutes ago if anything bad was going to have happened it would have been too late to prevent anyway. But let's face it, this sort of hatred and incitement to hatred is a daily occurrence on the McAnn hashtag, it would be a full time job reporting all the threats directed at them. Iin any case I thought reporting people just for expressing their opinion no matter how hateful and threatening was anathema to you so why are you encouraging me to do so?
Perhaps you can point me to the post where I say reporting someone for making a threat is anathema to me?
So you saw something hateful and threatening towards the McCanns on twitter yet did nothing......oh wait you did do something, you brought it here to use as a stick to beat non believers. It's a bit like another supporter who complained about photographs of Sean McCann being publicised......by posting the photograph on here.
-
Perhaps you can point me to the post where I say reporting someone for making a threat is anathema to me?
So you saw something hateful and threatening towards the McCanns on twitter yet did nothing......oh wait you did do something, you brought it here to use as a stick to beat non believers. It's a bit like another supporter who complained about photographs of Sean McCann being publicised......by posting the photograph on here.
It wasn't so much the photo of Sean being publicised, it was the text purportedly attributed to him & who he was allegedly conversing with.
Sadly, the photo remains on Twitter, despite an official acknowledgement from the person I reported it to(copy of email retained) so it would appear the powers-that-be have either taken no action or been unable to remove it.
-
An article from Down Under.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/rendezview/women-support-other-women-unless-theyre-rich-and-pretty/news-story/2c6462280e975ce09520468adf8d8b0f
Women support other women, unless they’re rich and pretty
Kerry Parnell, News Corp Australia Network
March 25, 2017 1:00pm
Mum judging should be a crime. It remains one of the worst characteristics of women.
This week the other mothers have attacked Madeleine McCann’s mum Kate and Melissa George. Kate McCann is marking the 10-year anniversary of Madeleine going missing and Melissa George has gone public with her domestic violence and custody battles.
Both have been vilified online by mainly mothers — McCann for leaving her daughter alone and George for being poncy about croissants and therefore “getting what she deserved.”
In fact their crimes, I suspect, are more to do with the fact they’re blonde, attractive, successful and rich.
Have we so little empathy? I thought we were all meant to be in this new-wave feminist thing together? The sisterhood isn’t just a club for women you like, to savage ones you don’t — it means everybody, including ones who are snobby, rich, clever and pretty.
It’s been 10 years this May since Madeleine McCann went missing while on holiday in Portugal. This week it was revealed her parents Kate and Gerry receive over 150 abusive messages per day from online trolls. A research project by psychologist Dr John Synnott concluded most of the messages came from women.
There’s also a new petition — the latest in a long line, calling for the McCanns to be prosecuted for child neglect. Change.org’s “McCann’s (sic) to be charged with neglect,” has had over 129,000 signatures in a week, probably because it’s taken off on Facebook and is infiltrating mum feeds like mine.
It made my heart sink to see it, and the comments like this from Amanda: “I think they should be charged. It’s their fault she got taken. They should not be allowed to keep their twins.” Seriously?
They’re very angry, these mums. Rightly, they’re angry for poor Madeleine — a case that still haunts parents all over the world. She should have been so happy, enjoying her holiday, but the thought of what happened to her while she slept is too horrible to bear.
But they’re mostly angry at her parents because the McCanns put three-year-old Maddie and her two-year-old twin siblings to bed in their ground floor holiday apartment and went to dinner with friends in a restaurant nearby, taking turns to check on the children. When Kate returned, Madeleine was gone.
Should they have left their children alone? Absolutely not. But do you think they don’t know that? That they haven’t lived ever since in a torment of loss, grief, anxiety and never-ending pain knowing some terrible harm befell her because of their decision — but never knowing what?
Such is our empathy-disengagement through social media that we are hurling hate missiles online and not for one minute thinking about where they land.
Melissa George and Kate McCann are real women, not marionette mothers for us to cyber stone to death.
Kate and Melissa’s misery should make us care more, not less. Self-righteously judging them from our moral mountaintop might make us feel better, but it’s a feeble victory.
Whatever happened to Madeleine is punishment enough for her parents. They will continue to inhabit a living hell every single day until they finally meet her again — be that here or in the next world.
-
be that here or in the next world!
-
An article from Down Under.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/rendezview/women-support-other-women-unless-theyre-rich-and-pretty/news-story/2c6462280e975ce09520468adf8d8b0f
Women support other women, unless they’re rich and pretty
Kerry Parnell, News Corp Australia Network
March 25, 2017 1:00pm
Mum judging should be a crime. It remains one of the worst characteristics of women.
This week the other mothers have attacked Madeleine McCann’s mum Kate and Melissa George. Kate McCann is marking the 10-year anniversary of Madeleine going missing and Melissa George has gone public with her domestic violence and custody battles.
Both have been vilified online by mainly mothers — McCann for leaving her daughter alone and George for being poncy about croissants and therefore “getting what she deserved.”
In fact their crimes, I suspect, are more to do with the fact they’re blonde, attractive, successful and rich.
Have we so little empathy? I thought we were all meant to be in this new-wave feminist thing together? The sisterhood isn’t just a club for women you like, to savage ones you don’t — it means everybody, including ones who are snobby, rich, clever and pretty.
It’s been 10 years this May since Madeleine McCann went missing while on holiday in Portugal. This week it was revealed her parents Kate and Gerry receive over 150 abusive messages per day from online trolls. A research project by psychologist Dr John Synnott concluded most of the messages came from women.
There’s also a new petition — the latest in a long line, calling for the McCanns to be prosecuted for child neglect. Change.org’s “McCann’s (sic) to be charged with neglect,” has had over 129,000 signatures in a week, probably because it’s taken off on Facebook and is infiltrating mum feeds like mine.
It made my heart sink to see it, and the comments like this from Amanda: “I think they should be charged. It’s their fault she got taken. They should not be allowed to keep their twins.” Seriously?
They’re very angry, these mums. Rightly, they’re angry for poor Madeleine — a case that still haunts parents all over the world. She should have been so happy, enjoying her holiday, but the thought of what happened to her while she slept is too horrible to bear.
But they’re mostly angry at her parents because the McCanns put three-year-old Maddie and her two-year-old twin siblings to bed in their ground floor holiday apartment and went to dinner with friends in a restaurant nearby, taking turns to check on the children. When Kate returned, Madeleine was gone.
Should they have left their children alone? Absolutely not. But do you think they don’t know that? That they haven’t lived ever since in a torment of loss, grief, anxiety and never-ending pain knowing some terrible harm befell her because of their decision — but never knowing what?
Such is our empathy-disengagement through social media that we are hurling hate missiles online and not for one minute thinking about where they land.
Melissa George and Kate McCann are real women, not marionette mothers for us to cyber stone to death.
Kate and Melissa’s misery should make us care more, not less. Self-righteously judging them from our moral mountaintop might make us feel better, but it’s a feeble victory.
Whatever happened to Madeleine is punishment enough for her parents. They will continue to inhabit a living hell every single day until they finally meet her again — be that here or in the next world.
Has this journalist read any of the case files ?
Is she aware of her book and the comments she has made as regards investigating officers ?
She appears to type cliches.
-
An article from Down Under.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/rendezview/women-support-other-women-unless-theyre-rich-and-pretty/news-story/2c6462280e975ce09520468adf8d8b0f
Women support other women, unless they’re rich and pretty
Kerry Parnell, News Corp Australia Network
March 25, 2017 1:00pm
Mum judging should be a crime. It remains one of the worst characteristics of women.
This week the other mothers have attacked Madeleine McCann’s mum Kate and Melissa George. Kate McCann is marking the 10-year anniversary of Madeleine going missing and Melissa George has gone public with her domestic violence and custody battles.
Both have been vilified online by mainly mothers — McCann for leaving her daughter alone and George for being poncy about croissants and therefore “getting what she deserved.”
In fact their crimes, I suspect, are more to do with the fact they’re blonde, attractive, successful and rich.
Have we so little empathy? I thought we were all meant to be in this new-wave feminist thing together? The sisterhood isn’t just a club for women you like, to savage ones you don’t — it means everybody, including ones who are snobby, rich, clever and pretty.
It’s been 10 years this May since Madeleine McCann went missing while on holiday in Portugal. This week it was revealed her parents Kate and Gerry receive over 150 abusive messages per day from online trolls. A research project by psychologist Dr John Synnott concluded most of the messages came from women.
There’s also a new petition — the latest in a long line, calling for the McCanns to be prosecuted for child neglect. Change.org’s “McCann’s (sic) to be charged with neglect,” has had over 129,000 signatures in a week, probably because it’s taken off on Facebook and is infiltrating mum feeds like mine.
It made my heart sink to see it, and the comments like this from Amanda: “I think they should be charged. It’s their fault she got taken. They should not be allowed to keep their twins.” Seriously?
They’re very angry, these mums. Rightly, they’re angry for poor Madeleine — a case that still haunts parents all over the world. She should have been so happy, enjoying her holiday, but the thought of what happened to her while she slept is too horrible to bear.
But they’re mostly angry at her parents because the McCanns put three-year-old Maddie and her two-year-old twin siblings to bed in their ground floor holiday apartment and went to dinner with friends in a restaurant nearby, taking turns to check on the children. When Kate returned, Madeleine was gone.
Should they have left their children alone? Absolutely not. But do you think they don’t know that? That they haven’t lived ever since in a torment of loss, grief, anxiety and never-ending pain knowing some terrible harm befell her because of their decision — but never knowing what?
Such is our empathy-disengagement through social media that we are hurling hate missiles online and not for one minute thinking about where they land.
Melissa George and Kate McCann are real women, not marionette mothers for us to cyber stone to death.
Kate and Melissa’s misery should make us care more, not less. Self-righteously judging them from our moral mountaintop might make us feel better, but it’s a feeble victory.
Whatever happened to Madeleine is punishment enough for her parents. They will continue to inhabit a living hell every single day until they finally meet her again — be that here or in the next world.
An insightful piece. I disagree with her assessment, "Such is our empathy-disengagement through social media that we are hurling hate missiles online and not for one minute thinking about where they land."
They know exactly what they are aiming for ... and their obvious lack of success keeps spurring them on.
I am absolutely certain that the campaigns of vitriol directed against the McCann family are conducted with malice aforethought and the intention is to cause the greatest harm possible.
In my opinion "Evil" is not a strong enough word to sum up the intent of these people who behave like pack animals with the McCann family as their prey.
I believe there to be something seriously wrong with them and the sheer compulsion to go out of their way to spit hate and spite not only on a daily basis but on an hour by hour minute by minute basis epitomises their character deficiencies.
Their compulsion to spew hatred defines them ... and it is less than edifying.
It also defines the McCanns who function as normal, decent people who have made and continue to make very positive contributions to society.
It is the fact that they are so obviously well adjusted fully functioning members of society that incites the mob snapping at their heels on social media ... because they know perfectly well that is a position to which they could never aspire.
-
An insightful piece. I disagree with her assessment, "Such is our empathy-disengagement through social media that we are hurling hate missiles online and not for one minute thinking about where they land."
I am absolutely certain that the campaigns of vitriol directed against the McCann family are conducted with malice aforethought and the intention is to cause the greatest harm possible.
In my opinion "Evil" is not a strong enough word to sum up the intent these people who behave like pack animals with the McCann family as their prey.
I believe there to be something seriously wrong with them and the sheer compulsion to go out of their way to spit hate and spite not only on a daily basis but on an hour by hour minute by minute basis epitomises their character deficiencies.
Their compulsion to spew hatred defines them ... and it is less than edifying.
It also defines the McCanns who function as normal, decent people who have made and continue to make very positive contributions to society.
It is the fact that they are so obviously well adjusted fully functioning members of society that incites the mob snapping at their heels on social media ... because they know perfectly well that is a position to which they could never aspire.
I find the extremes on both sides quite disgustiong.
Perhaps for once Brietta, you could actually admit, they exist on both sides.
-
I find the extremes on both sides quite disgustiong.
Perhaps for once Brietta, you could actually admit, they exist on both sides.
Cite the extremes please and provide a comparison with the moronic behaviour wallowed in by those whose hobby is torturing the family of a missing child.
You cannot ... for the simple reason there is no comparison.
Your continued defence of and excusing of such aberrant behaviour is out of place for anyone let alone one who is a member of a JUSTICE forum.
-
Cite the extremes please and provide a comparison with the moronic behaviour wallowed in by those whose hobby is torturing the family of a missing child.
You cannot ... for the simple reason there is no comparison.
Your continued defence of and excusing of such aberrant behaviour is out of place for anyone let alone one who is a member of a JUSTICE forum.
I am not defending such behaviour.
Now the question is why do you perpetuate such falsehoods about me.
I have posted on this forum before examples of the hate spouted by some McCann supporters.
The difference between you and me, is that I admit and condemn it from both sides.
Why won't you ?
-
I have yet to see anything even remotely on the same scale as that which is churned out by so called Sceptics. There are no comparisons.
No one stalks Amaral and no one harasses his children or his wife.
-
I have yet to see anything even remotely on the same scale as that which is churned out by so called Sceptics. There are no comparisons.
No one stalks Amaral and no one harasses his children or his wife.
In your opinion Eleanor.
I have seen it on both sides.
As to abuse of Amaral, who are you kidding.
Just remember, I have viewed content on Mccann supporter sites, which are open to public viewing.
................and don't forget Twitter or the alternatives.
I look forward to the analysis, that the recently reported psychologist stated he would do on Mccann supporters.
-
I have yet to see anything even remotely on the same scale as that which is churned out by so called Sceptics. There are no comparisons.
No one stalks Amaral and no one harasses his children or his wife.
Oh dear . i would think the Mccann's and lawyers do a good job of that.
-
"This week the other mothers have attacked Madeleine McCann’s mum Kate and Melissa George. Kate McCann is marking the 10-year anniversary of Madeleine going missing"
This is the bit I have difficulty identifying with.
-
Oh dear . i would think the Mccann's and lawyers do a good job of that.
The McCanns are simply defending themselves, with the assistance of their lawyers. This is perfectly legal.
No one in Britain has the right to do what Amaral has done in Portugal.
-
The McCanns are simply defending themselves, with the assistance of their lawyers. This is perfectly legal.
No one in Britain has the right to do what Amaral has done in Portugal.
Investigation of the McCann's in Britain would have been standard practice.
He was doing his job before he was removed.
Likewise, he was not a one man band. His theory was shared, and the basic precepts have not been disproved.
However, the attacks on Amaral, are a matter of record.
-
The McCanns are simply defending themselves, with the assistance of their lawyers. This is perfectly legal.
No one in Britain has the right to do what Amaral has done in Portugal.
If they have done nothing wrong, why are they defending themselves?
They have gone after Mr Amaral purely for there own reasons
If they had put as much energy into looking for there daughter, instead of leaving it to everyone else.
It would have been a lot simpler , to have just taken a lie detector test .
-
An insightful piece. I disagree with her assessment, "Such is our empathy-disengagement through social media that we are hurling hate missiles online and not for one minute thinking about where they land."
They know exactly what they are aiming for ... and their obvious lack of success keeps spurring them on.
I am absolutely certain that the campaigns of vitriol directed against the McCann family are conducted with malice aforethought and the intention is to cause the greatest harm possible.
In my opinion "Evil" is not a strong enough word to sum up the intent of these people who behave like pack animals with the McCann family as their prey.
I believe there to be something seriously wrong with them and the sheer compulsion to go out of their way to spit hate and spite not only on a daily basis but on an hour by hour minute by minute basis epitomises their character deficiencies.
Their compulsion defines them ... and it is less than edifying.
It also defines the McCanns who function as normal, decent people who have made and continue to make very positive contributions to society.
It is the fact that they are so obviously well adjusted fully functioning members of society that incites the mob snapping at their heels on social media ... because they know perfectly well that is a position to which they could never aspire.
There is a wide variety of people interested in and commenting on the McCann case. Their motives are as varied as they are. Some are somewhat illiterate, some are well-educated. I expect some are unemployed and some work. Some are abusive some are not.
The McCanns, their supporters and the media have tried to lump all these different people together under the heading of 'vile trolls'. They would have us believe that none of them are "well adjusted fully functioning members of society", all of them are compelled "to go out of their way to spit hate and spite" and they are evil people lacking in character.
This is a tried and tested propaganda ploy. The intention is to discredit the 'sceptics' so no-one will listen to what they say. It hasn't worked because the majority of the sceptics just don't fit that ridiculous description. Many of them are reasonable people with reasonable questions. They have also informed themselves and others about the true facts of the case, which the McCanns, their supporters and the media have ignored or denied. I think it's time to accept that the propaganda has failed.
-
Perhaps you can point me to the post where I say reporting someone for making a threat is anathema to me?
So you saw something hateful and threatening towards the McCanns on twitter yet did nothing......oh wait you did do something, you brought it here to use as a stick to beat non believers. It's a bit like another supporter who complained about photographs of Sean McCann being publicised......by posting the photograph on here.
I found out about the series of tweets a few minutes before you did - so what do you do about it, once I passed on the information, seeing as how you're so very concerned for the twins' welfare?
-
There is a wide variety of people interested in and commenting on the McCann case. Their motives are as varied as they are. Some are somewhat illiterate, some are well-educated. I expect some are unemployed and some work. Some are abusive some are not.
The McCanns, their supporters and the media have tried to lump all these different people together under the heading of 'vile trolls'. They would have us believe that none of them are "well adjusted fully functioning members of society", all of them are compelled "to go out of their way to spit hate and spite" and they are evil people lacking in character.
This is a tried and tested propaganda ploy. The intention is to discredit the 'sceptics' so no-one will listen to what they say. It hasn't worked because the majority of the sceptics just don't fit that ridiculous description. Many of them are reasonable people with reasonable questions. They have also informed themselves and others about the true facts of the case, which the McCanns, their supporters and the media have ignored or denied. I think it's time to accept that the propaganda has failed.
Excellent post.
A precise summation of the situation. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
I have yet to see anything even remotely on the same scale as that which is churned out by so called Sceptics. There are no comparisons.
No one stalks Amaral and no one harasses his children or his wife.
Quite. Let's have some links to #amaral and the 150 vile tweets a day every day for years and years directed at him and his family. Oh wait, they simply don't exist.
-
There is a wide variety of people interested in and commenting on the McCann case. Their motives are as varied as they are. Some are somewhat illiterate, some are well-educated. I expect some are unemployed and some work. Some are abusive some are not.
The McCanns, their supporters and the media have tried to lump all these different people together under the heading of 'vile trolls'. They would have us believe that none of them are "well adjusted fully functioning members of society", all of them are compelled "to go out of their way to spit hate and spite" and they are evil people lacking in character.
This is a tried and tested propaganda ploy. The intention is to discredit the 'sceptics' so no-one will listen to what they say. It hasn't worked because the majority of the sceptics just don't fit that ridiculous description. Many of them are reasonable people with reasonable questions. They have also informed themselves and others about the true facts of the case, which the McCanns, their supporters and the media have ignored or denied. I think it's time to accept that the propaganda has failed.
Cyber-stoning them to death the Australian article said. A great phrase. Some use big stones, some little pebbles, it all amounts to the same thing.
-
Quite. Let's have some links to #amaral and the 150 vile tweets a day every day for years and years directed at him and his family. Oh wait, they simply don't exist.
Let's have some evidence for the 150 per day to the McCann's at the same time.
As to the hate directed at Amaral. start with 'Stop the myths', 'just another thought you know', et al, plus the twitterers.
The hate goes both ways Alfie, from some people.
By the way, if the McCann's have no Twitter accounts, how can these 150 per day, be going to them ???
-
I found out about the series of tweets a few minutes before you did - so what do you do about it, once I passed on the information, seeing as how you're so very concerned for the twins' welfare?
I didn't see the tweets. Did you do anything about them in the end?
-
If they have done nothing wrong, why are they defending themselves?
They have gone after Mr Amaral purely for there own reasons
If they had put as much energy into looking for there daughter, instead of leaving it to everyone else.
It would have been a lot simpler , to have just taken a lie detector test .
I see. You wouldn't have defended yourself. Bully for you.
Lie Detectors are inadmissible.
-
Quite. Let's have some links to #amaral and the 150 vile tweets a day every day for years and years directed at him and his family. Oh wait, they simply don't exist.
No, they don't exist. It is not the way of McCann Supporters. Anymore than any of us have the time or patience to comment on newspaper articles.
-
No, they don't exist. It is not the way of McCann Supporters. Anymore than any of us have the time or patience to comment on newspaper articles.
To be perfectly honest Eleanor the McCanns don't have enough active supporters to post 150 tweets a day.
-
Cyber-stoning them to death the Australian article said. A great phrase. Some use big stones, some little pebbles, it all amounts to the same thing.
Some posters may be making comments directly to the McCanns, but as they don't use the internet none of these 'cyber stones' are hitting the target, are they?
The McCanns have used the internet and the media to publicise their version of events. If others disagree with their version they have just as much right to publicise their views. Until and if the case is solved no-one knows who is correct.
Suggesting that 'sceptics' are somehow beyond the pale is a shabby propaganda trick which is clearly untrue.
-
I didn't see the tweets. Did you do anything about them in the end?
Are you for real? Kindly tell me what you think I should have done, bearing in mind the tweet was at least 2 hours old by the time I read it, and it as around 10.45pm on a Saturday night. Firstly, do you think the McCanns and their children would have still been sat in the restaurant at that time?
-
To be perfectly honest Eleanor the McCanns don't have enough active supporters to post 150 tweets a day.
The McCanns have circa 500k online supporters on Facebook, 99.9% are not interested in engaging in twitter wars with tw..tish McCann trolls.
-
To be perfectly honest Eleanor the McCanns don't have enough active supporters to post 150 tweets a day.
And wouldn't if they did.
There is one vast difference. We were born with kindness in our souls. I am so sorry that most of you weren't.
-
Some posters may be making comments directly to the McCanns, but as they don't use the internet none of these 'cyber stones' are hitting the target, are they?
The McCanns have used the internet and the media to publicise their version of events. If others disagree with their version they have just as much right to publicise their views. Until and if the case is solved no-one knows who is correct.
Suggesting that 'sceptics' are somehow beyond the pale is a shabby propaganda trick which is clearly untrue.
We do have The Moral Highground. We are not unkind. And you will never be able to beat that.
-
on fb earlier i saw a picture of gerry and kate and 2 children out for dinner that a diner took of them and posted on fb i dont like gerry and kate at all but i think that is a step too far it has been since removed imo i think that is a big step too far im glad the person who posted it or fb took it down
-
In the McCann case it was their family who first raised the 'neglect' question by strongly denying it as early as 5th May. By doing so they invited debate of the subject.
-
Let's have some evidence for the 150 per day to the McCann's at the same time.
As to the hate directed at Amaral. start with 'Stop the myths', 'just another thought you know', et al, plus the twitterers.
The hate goes both ways Alfie, from some people.
By the way, if the McCann's have no Twitter accounts, how can these 150 per day, be going to them ???
If you want evidence of 150 hateful tweets about the McCanns you need only take a look at any 24 hour period on twitter on the #McCann tag. Out of boredom I took a look last night and that's when I saw tweets encouraging stalking and harming the McCanns whilst they were at dinner with their children. I don't look every day or even every month but there was a time when I used to and I would say yesterday's tweets were nothingout of the ordinary either in their vitriol or nastiness, or in their quantity. Im perfectly willing to accept it cuts both ways and that Amaral gets online abuse but not in the volume and to the extent that the McCanns have - for instance I haven't seen people encouraged to interrupt his dinner and throw beer in his face - one example.
-
In the McCann case it was their family who first raised the 'neglect' question by strongly denying it as early as 5th May. By doing so they invited debate of the subject.
Oh, so it's all the McCanns' fault that they are on the receiving end of 150 vile tweets a day, whereas the Needham family are utterly blameless, never did a thing wrong and therefore are exempt from being the target of any sort of bile and hatred, is that your view? If I did decide to mount a campaign to get the Needham grandparents to be prosecuted or to spread my views that they were involved in Ben's disappearance how would you view my actions? Would you be perfectly OK with me doing this?
Yes hypothetical because it's one way of exposing the hypocrisy of some people around here. You are SO biased against the McCanns that you seem able to excuse any sort of vile behaviour against them.
-
The McCanns have circa 500k online supporters on Facebook, 99.9% are not interested in engaging in twitter wars with tw..tish McCann trolls.
Followers means nothing.
How many are actively supporting them now ?
-
Are you for real? Kindly tell me what you think I should have done, bearing in mind the tweet was at least 2 hours old by the time I read it, and it as around 10.45pm on a Saturday night. Firstly, do you think the McCanns and their children would have still been sat in the restaurant at that time?
But, according to supporters, this sort of tweet shows that the McCann family are in constant danger, and not merely when the tweet is tweeted, so surely reporting it would have made the police aware that they were being targeted. So once again did you report it or is your 'concern' merely a propaganda tool?
-
The McCanns have circa 500k online supporters on Facebook, 99.9% are not interested in engaging in twitter wars with tw..tish McCann trolls.
Active supporters?
-
Oh, so it's all the McCanns' fault that they are on the receiving end of 150 vile tweets a day, whereas the Needham family are utterly blameless, never did a thing wrong and therefore are exempt from being the target of any sort of bile and hatred, is that your view? If I did decide to mount a campaign to get the Needham grandparents to be prosecuted or to spread my views that they were involved in Ben's disappearance how would you view my actions? Would you be perfectly OK with me doing this?
Yes hypothetical because it's one way of exposing the hypocrisy of some people around here. You are SO biased against the McCanns that you seem able to excuse any sort of vile behaviour against them.
Why do you think the McCanns engender such disdain while Kerry Neddham or her parents don't ? A genuine question.
-
Why do you think the McCanns engender such disdain while Kerry Neddham or her parents don't ? A genuine question.
It's because of the internet. Back in the days when Ben went missing, if the public wanted to express their opinion via the media they had to write a letter & hope it got printed in the newspaper. Maybe at the time there were just as many people who felt disdain for the Needhams but they were publicly unable to express it in the same fashion as is done today.
-
on fb earlier i saw a picture of gerry and kate and 2 children out for dinner that a diner took of them and posted on fb i dont like gerry and kate at all but i think that is a step too far it has been since removed imo i think that is a big step too far im glad the person who posted it or fb took it down
Good for you.
-
Followers means nothing.
How many are actively supporting them now ?
thousands regularly like and comment and share on their page, that must mean something?
-
We do have The Moral Highground. We are not unkind. And you will never be able to beat that.
Talk about blowing your own trumpet! Is kindness something to be doled out only to those considered deserving? I've seen quite a lot of unkindness on this forum. Inferring that others are less moral than one's self isn't very kind, for a start.
-
It's because of the internet. Back in the days when Ben went missing, if the public wanted to express their opinion via the media they had to write a letter & hope it got printed in the newspaper. Maybe at the time there were just as many people who felt disdain for the Needhams but they were publicly unable to express it in the same fashion as is done today.
the fact that there have been so many lies told about the case must have made a difference....by the press....by amaral and by posters on forums
-
on fb earlier i saw a picture of gerry and kate and 2 children out for dinner that a diner took of them and posted on fb i dont like gerry and kate at all but i think that is a step too far it has been since removed imo i think that is a big step too far im glad the person who posted it or fb took it down
well said Carly
-
But, according to supporters, this sort of tweet shows that the McCann family are in constant danger, and not merely when the tweet is tweeted, so surely reporting it would have made the police aware that they were being targeted. So once again did you report it or is your 'concern' merely a propaganda tool?
I don't recall expressing concern for the McCanns imminent safety, I merely saw it as an example of of one of the 150 vile tweets a day from online trolls, one that provoked more online bile and hatred from other trolls. There is nothing that the police will do about such tweets unless the targets of the tweets are being abused for their religious beliefs, sexuality or ethnic background - you know that, I know that so why do you keep harassing me to report the tweet? You're being very silly and annoying, IMO.
-
Talk about blowing your own trumpet! Is kindness something to be doled out only to those considered deserving? I've seen quite a lot of unkindness on this forum. Inferring that others are less moral than one's self isn't very kind, for a start.
Kindness can be equated in all sorts of ways.
Keeping up a ceaseless tirade of baseless insinuation, accusation and denigration of an innocent and maligned couple, hovering between grief and hope for a lost and treasured daughter is not one.
-
Talk about blowing your own trumpet! Is kindness something to be doled out only to those considered deserving? I've seen quite a lot of unkindness on this forum. Inferring that others are less moral than one's self isn't very kind, for a start.
you will find you mean implying rather than inferring
-
thousands regularly like and comment and share on their page, that must mean something?
Thousands ???
Then the same can be said for the comments on pages or other media commenting on the McCann's.
It is a 2 edged sword.
-
Talk about blowing your own trumpet! Is kindness something to be doled out only to those considered deserving? I've seen quite a lot of unkindness on this forum. Inferring that others are less moral than one's self isn't very kind, for a start.
No. Kindness is an attitude of mind. You are either born with it, or not. It has nothing to do with morals.
None of us are perfect. But some people think they are. That is the real sadness for them.
But if you want to spend the rest of your life being unkind, this is not a problem for me.
But don't imagine that the likes of me will just sit here and allow you to say whoever you like, unchallenged.
Although I must say that this is becoming frightfully boring now.
-
the fact that there have been so many lies told about the case must have made a difference....by the press....by amaral and by posters on forums
Don't worry about it. None of it is relevant when push comes to shove. This just an exercise in unfounded opinions.
-
Kindness can be equated in all sorts of ways.
Keeping up a ceaseless tirade of baseless insinuation, accusation and denigration of an innocent and maligned couple, hovering between grief and hope for a lost and treasured daughter is not one.
First you have to demonstrate the truth of your assertions that there is "a ceaseless tirade of baseless insinuation, accusation and denigration of an innocent and maligned couple, hovering between grief and hope for a lost and treasured daughter". Is that true or merely propaganda?
-
First you have to demonstrate the truth of your assertions that there is "a ceaseless tirade of baseless insinuation, accusation and denigration of an innocent and maligned couple, hovering between grief and hope for a lost and treasured daughter". Is that true or merely propaganda?
It's absolutely true, except to make it more palatable from your point of view I would re-word it thus:
"a ceaseless tirade of baseless insinuation, accusation and denigration of the parents of a missing child who hover between grief and hope for a lost and treasured daughter"
Which bit do you believe not to be true?
-
There is a ceaseless tirade of baseless insinuations, etcetera.
It is not propaganda that The Mccanns hope for their lost daughter. You should be ashamed to even suggest it. But then some people have no shame. And sadly, nothing much I can do about that. On your own head.
Anyone would think that everything said on the internet which the McCanns and their supporters object to is baseless, but it isn't. You may accept that they behaved as responsible parents, but I don't. My opinion of their parenting is as valid as theirs, their 'barrister's' or yours. Suggesting that I'm morally deficient for expressing my opinion is propoganda pure and simple. It's just a blatant attempt to devalue my opinion.
-
Anyone would think that everything said on the internet which the McCanns and their supporters object to is baseless, but it isn't. You may accept that they behaved as responsible parents, but I don't. My opinion of their parenting is as valid as theirs, their 'barrister's' or yours. Suggesting that I'm morally deficient for expressing my opinion is propoganda pure and simple. It's just a blatant attempt to devalue my opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion but perhaps you could attempt to explain why you think it is necessary to concentrate so much time and effort on voicing such a negative opinion about the parents of one missing child?
-
Would you be good enough to convey that message to the 129000 people who have signed the petition, for that very purpose, on change.org during the last 7 days?
-
Cyber-stoning them to death the Australian article said. A great phrase. Some use big stones, some little pebbles, it all amounts to the same thing. You are all collectively engaged in the same act whether you like it or not. Shame on you.
But you are part of the same circus are you not? [that is a rhetorical question]
Be honest about it, this case is so old and tired it became a spectator sport quite some time ago. Anyone involved in it at "forum level" is of equal moral standing.
-
Would you be good enough to convey that message to the 129000 people who have signed the petition, for that very purpose, on change.org during the last 7 days?
That is why I didn't sign it.
-
'MADELEINE McCann’s parents were not prosecuted for abandoning their daughter
while they dined near by because of “compassion”, law chiefs have claimed.
Portuguese officials thought Brits had “peculiar customs” where it was “natural
for them to leave the two-year-old twin siblings and the other
three-year-old child alone”.
Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira slammed Portuguese cops for
not making Kate, 48, and 47-year-old dad Gerry suspects for abandonment.'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1151476/revealed-why-the-portuguese-police-didnt-charge-mccanns-for-childrens-abandonment-after-maddie-disappeared/
-
'MADELEINE McCann’s parents were not prosecuted for abandoning their daughter
while they dined near by because of “compassion”, law chiefs have claimed.
Portuguese officials thought Brits had “peculiar customs” where it was “natural
for them to leave the two-year-old twin siblings and the other
three-year-old child alone”.
Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira slammed Portuguese cops for
not making Kate, 48, and 47-year-old dad Gerry suspects for abandonment.'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1151476/revealed-why-the-portuguese-police-didnt-charge-mccanns-for-childrens-abandonment-after-maddie-disappeared/
Who is Rui Pereirra? Was he involved in the investigation? Why did no one pay any attention to him?
-
You're entitled to your opinion but perhaps you could attempt to explain why you think it is necessary to concentrate so much time and effort on voicing such a negative opinion about the parents of one missing child?
Why do you "think it is necessary to concentrate so much time and effort praising and defending the parents of one missing child"? Pots and kettles Alfie.
-
Who is Rui Pereirra? Was he involved in the investigation? Why did no one pay any attention to him?
Look him up.
The whole course of the investigation changed tone, when the UK police went from investigating the parents, to abduction.
It is not hard to work out why that happened.
-
There is a wide variety of people interested in and commenting on the McCann case. Their motives are as varied as they are. Some are somewhat illiterate, some are well-educated. I expect some are unemployed and some work. Some are abusive some are not.
The McCanns, their supporters and the media have tried to lump all these different people together under the heading of 'vile trolls'. They would have us believe that none of them are "well adjusted fully functioning members of society", all of them are compelled "to go out of their way to spit hate and spite" and they are evil people lacking in character.
This is a tried and tested propaganda ploy. The intention is to discredit the 'sceptics' so no-one will listen to what they say. It hasn't worked because the majority of the sceptics just don't fit that ridiculous description. Many of them are reasonable people with reasonable questions. They have also informed themselves and others about the true facts of the case, which the McCanns, their supporters and the media have ignored or denied. I think it's time to accept that the propaganda has failed.
Nothing delineates the enormous divergence of attitude and the gulf between your way of thinking and mine than the content of your response to my post.
I have made no reference to the social ranking or the socioeconomic status the tormentors of the McCann family may enjoy.
That is entirely your invention and none of mine.
The disadvantaged or deprived members of society do not have a monopoly on the aberrant behaviour necessary to embark on organised hate campaigns. Many live their lives without the need for vitriolic outburst on social media pages that you suggest otherwise does your argument no favours.
Our prisons have probably as many geniuses incarcerated within than those whose intellectual deficiencies give them fewer lifestyle choices than they deserve.
I do not presume to lump all together into one festering miasma of internet thuggery that epitomises the troll. Again that is entirely your invention and not mine.
Within that mix you have enumerated, are without doubt some disgustingly bad people. There is no motive you can suggest nor any justification you can use to condone the deliberate premeditated hounding of the McCann family or anyone else for that matter.
Your final paragraph defeats logic.
Do you really imagine that ‘reasonable people’ conduct a trolling rampage against anyone let alone the parents of a missing child?
While 'reasonable people' do indeed indulge in proselyting ... why do you suppose that the 'reasonable people' who apparently have a passion for stalking and asking questions about an innocent family they know nothing about, feel the need to proselyte.
What on earth do you suppose is their purpose for that?
-
Why do you "think it is necessary to concentrate so much time and effort praising and defending the parents of one missing child"? Pots and kettles Alfie.
Shame you couldn't answer my question. I will of course answer yours once you do the courtesy of replying to mine.
-
on fb earlier i saw a picture of gerry and kate and 2 children out for dinner that a diner took of them and posted on fb i dont like gerry and kate at all but i think that is a step too far it has been since removed imo i think that is a big step too far im glad the person who posted it or fb took it down
I agree with you carlymichelle.
I cannot express how dismayed I would have been to know that unfriendly people had been spying on me and my family and taking it upon themselves to post our photographs on the internet.
Why are there those who think that is permissible behaviour and that the McCann family is there to be subjected to abuse of that type?
-
If you want evidence of 150 hateful tweets about the McCanns you need only take a look at any 24 hour period on twitter on the #McCann tag. Out of boredom I took a look last night and that's when I saw tweets encouraging stalking and harming the McCanns whilst they were at dinner with their children. I don't look every day or even every month but there was a time when I used to and I would say yesterday's tweets were nothingout of the ordinary either in their vitriol or nastiness, or in their quantity. Im perfectly willing to accept it cuts both ways and that Amaral gets online abuse but not in the volume and to the extent that the McCanns have - for instance I haven't seen people encouraged to interrupt his dinner and throw beer in his face - one example.
It is the constant repetition that I don't get. What on earth do they think they are doing? Making a show of themselves is one thing ... taking their limitations out on an innocent family really is the pits.
-
why stop there....why not make up some evidence that proves their guilt.....
I think that may have already been done , Davel.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1oR72ldCYw
Just sittin' here pickin' an' a grinnin' an' riggin' up prairie oysters in machinegun belts for someone will have a dilly of hangover come tomorrow morning. Deal me out on that one.
-
I think that may have already been done , Davel.
IMO any fabrication of evidence merely compounded the problem the McCanns have always faced - they couldn't prove their innocence. The challenge has always been to find their own proof of abduction whilst the powers-that-were in Portugal could feed the gullible public with whatever conjectures seemingly suited the agenda at any given time.
-
Nothing delineates the enormous divergence of attitude and the gulf between your way of thinking and mine than the content of your response to my post.
I have made no reference to the social ranking or the socioeconomic status the tormentors of the McCann family may enjoy.
That is entirely your invention and none of mine.
Quote
"It also defines the McCanns who function as normal, decent people who have made and continue to make very positive contributions to society.
It is the fact that they are so obviously well adjusted fully functioning members of society that incites the mob snapping at their heels on social media ... because they know perfectly well that is a position to which they could never aspire."
The disadvantaged or deprived members of society do not have a monopoly on the aberrant behaviour necessary to embark on organised hate campaigns. Many live their lives without the need for vitriolic outburst on social media pages that you suggest otherwise does your argument no favours.
Our prisons have probably as many geniuses incarcerated within than those whose intellectual deficiencies give them fewer lifestyle choices than they deserve.
I do not presume to lump all together into one festering miasma of internet thuggery that epitomises the troll. Again that is entirely your invention and not mine.
In that case you need to identify those you are aiming your accusations at. Is it everyone who disagrees with the McCann's version of the truth, only those who directly abuse the couple or what?
Within that mix you have enumerated, are without doubt some disgustingly bad people. There is no motive you can suggest nor any justification you can use to condone the deliberate premeditated hounding of the McCann family or anyone else for that matter.
Your final paragraph defeats logic.
Do you really imagine that ‘reasonable people’ conduct a trolling rampage against anyone let alone the parents of a missing child?
While 'reasonable people' do indeed indulge in proselyting ... why do you suppose that the 'reasonable people' who apparently have a passion for stalking and asking questions about an innocent family they know nothing about, feel the need to proselyte.
You seem unable to grasp the difference between 'stalking' and 'questioning'. Let me help; one is illegal, the other is not.
What on earth do you suppose is their purpose for that?
I have answered within your post.
-
Would you be good enough to convey that message to the 129000 people who have signed the petition, for that very purpose, on change.org during the last 7 days?
Just a money making opportunity for someone using a missing little girl as collateral.
The objective?
(a) making money out of a missing person
(b) the opportunity to get the boot into the missing girl's parents
-
Just a money making opportunity for someone using a missing little girl as collateral.
The objective?
(a) making money out of a missing person
(b) the opportunity to get the boot into the missing girl's parents
What did Summers and Swan try to do ?
Likewise, what the he'll has the media been doing around the world.
If you intend to criticise, target it fairly.
-
What did Summers and Swan try to do ?
Likewise, what the he'll has the media been doing around the world.
If you intend to criticise, target it fairly.
Keep on topic please.
Summers and Swan recorded the cyberattacks to which the McCanns are routinely subjected ... if memory serves me well one nonentity recorded on her blog that she didn't get a mention.
-
Why do you think the McCanns engender such disdain while Kerry Neddham or her parents don't ? A genuine question.
IMO it is because the Internet hadn't got into gear when Ben disappeared 26 years ago. If it had then the Needhams would have suffered in exactly the same way as other people have imo.
However, in those days, the 'spiteful' and the '[ censored word ]s' had to confine themselves mainly to writing anonymous poison pen letters to their victims which took a certain amount of effort.
Nowadays they can do it effortlessly on the WWW. Sarah Payne being forced to close her Twitter account purely because of the disgusting venom being directed at her is testament to that.
AIMHO
-
IMO it is because the Internet hadn't got into gear when Ben disappeared 26 years ago. If it had then the Needhams would have suffered in exactly the same way as other people have imo.
However, in those days, the 'spiteful' and the '[ censored word ]s' had to confine themselves mainly to writing anonymous poison pen letters to their victims which took a certain amount of effort.
Nowadays they can do it effortlessly on the WWW. Sarah Payne being forced to close her Twitter account purely because of the disgusting venom being directed at her is testament to that.
AIMHO
Not just in your opinion. But sadly, there is nothing to be done about this nastiness. They all perpetuate each other. As long as there is one, then there will always be another.
-
Not just in your opinion. But sadly, there is nothing to be done about this nastiness. They all perpetuate each other. As long as there is one, then there will always be another.
There will always be people in the world who feel embittered with their lot, who choose to spread hate on social media as a means of releasing that emotion while cowardly hiding behind their anonymity. Recent events however have shown us that such conduct sometimes comes back to bite us when we least expect it.
-
Keep on topic please.
Summers and Swan recorded the cyberattacks to which the McCanns are routinely subjected ... if memory serves me well one nonentity recorded on her blog that she didn't get a mention.
Not In Your Lifetime
Anthony Summers. Summers is an honest researcher who unfortunately is too easily bamboozled by suspect witnesses with "interesting" stories to tell.
-
First you have to demonstrate the truth of your assertions that there is "a ceaseless tirade of baseless insinuation, accusation and denigration of an innocent and maligned couple, hovering between grief and hope for a lost and treasured daughter". Is that true or merely propaganda?
I would say that just about sums up amarals book....which has a lot of support on this forum
-
Social media sites like twitter and facebook could do much much more to get rid of the abuse which some people are subjected to on a daily basis but for some reason they refuse to do so.
On twitter for example the hashtag #McCann is used to label the majority of tweets which are directed at the McCann family, so removing that particular identifier would be a start.
-
Social media sites like twitter and facebook could do much much more to get rid of the abuse which some people are subjected to on a daily basis but for some reason they refuse to do so.
On twitter for example the hashtag #McCann is used to label the majority of tweets which are directed at the McCann family, so removing that particular identifier would be a start.
I'd imagine there is endless variations that could be used instead.
-
Social media sites like twitter and facebook could do much much more to get rid of the abuse which some people are subjected to on a daily basis but for some reason they refuse to do so.
On twitter for example the hashtag #McCann is used to label the majority of tweets which are directed at the McCann family, so removing that particular identifier would be a start.
That's not really how twitter works.
-
Social media sites like twitter and facebook could do much much more to get rid of the abuse which some people are subjected to on a daily basis but for some reason they refuse to do so.
On twitter for example the hashtag #McCann is used to label the majority of tweets which are directed at the McCann family, so removing that particular identifier would be a start.
I have looked at #mccann and the tweets are not necessarily directed at the McCanns. They are about them, not to them.
-
I have looked at #mccann and the tweets are not necessarily directed at the McCanns. They are about them, not to them.
It's a method of finding tweets that may relate to a subject. There are a number of #McCann hashtags relating to other "McCanns".
-
I have looked at #mccann and the tweets are not necessarily directed at the McCanns. They are about them, not to them.
Is that supposed to make any difference
Its just as bad
-
I have looked at #mccann and the tweets are not necessarily directed at the McCanns. They are about them, not to them.
What are they saying about them? The tweets about them dining out on Saturday night were not to them, they were about them, so does that make it less bad?
-
Mark Dunn @1963Markd · 23h23 hours ago
Maddie #McCann will never get the chance to say Happy Mothers Day to Kate. Unless it's through a medium. Dogs don't lie. Both of them.
Most of the really nasty tweets come with accompanying propaganda pictures, either photoshopped, or with captions, which I can't reproduce here.
That's from a one minute perusal, which is about as long as you'd want to spend looking before feeling dirty.
-
Mark Dunn @1963Markd · 23h23 hours ago
Maddie #McCann will never get the chance to say Happy Mothers Day to Kate. Unless it's through a medium. Dogs don't lie. Both of them.
Most of the really nasty tweets come with accompanying propaganda pictures, either photoshopped, or with captions, which I can't reproduce here.
That's from a one minute perusal, which is about as long as you'd want to spend looking before feeling dirty.
if what others say upsets you so much why do you go looking for what others say about the mcanns??
-
if what others say upsets you so much why do you go looking for what others say about the mcanns??
We want to know what the McCanns are going through.
-
We want to know what the McCanns are going through.
You're hardly going to get that from a medium the McCanns allegedly ignore.
Since I'm not a social media user, the only way I know about this malarkey is people are bringing it to here.
-
Mark Dunn @1963Markd · 23h23 hours ago
Maddie #McCann will never get the chance to say Happy Mothers Day to Kate. Unless it's through a medium. Dogs don't lie. Both of them.
Most of the really nasty tweets come with accompanying propaganda pictures, either photoshopped, or with captions, which I can't reproduce here.
That's from a one minute perusal, which is about as long as you'd want to spend looking before feeling dirty.
I see people expressing their opinions much more openly and forcefully than on this board. I also see people questioning the 'troll' label being applied to all who disbelieve the abduction theory. I see people recommending that others read the PJ files. A lot of the posts could be reproduced on here without breaking the forum rules.
I think describing the tweets as 'vile' or spewing bile' is an exaggeration. The reason for the exaggeration is clear. Silencing their critics has been a large part of the McCann's defensive strategy from the start. It's very difficult to silence people on twitter so the strategy has been to demonise them.
-
I see people expressing their opinions much more openly and forcefully than on this board. I also see people questioning the 'troll' label being applied to all who disbelieve the abduction theory. I see people recommending that others read the PJ files. A lot of the posts could be reproduced on here without breaking the forum rules.
I think describing the tweets as 'vile' or spewing bile' is an exaggeration. The reason for the exaggeration is clear. Silencing their critics has been a large part of the McCann's defensive strategy from the start. It's very difficult to silence people on twitter so the strategy has been to demonise them.
That is an exact summation of the situation.
We see the same tactics employed on here as well.
There also seems to be several posters on here who are not prepared to accept that there are vile people among the Mccann supporters, and that is also a clear strategy, to be in DENIAL.
-
That is an exact summation of the situation.
We see the same tactics employed on here as well.
There also seems to be several posters on here who are not prepared to accept that there are vile people among the Mccann supporters, and that is also a clear strategy, to be in DENIAL.
I find it strange that the only people who appear to believe this propaganda are those who perpetuate it.
-
I find it strange that the only people who appear to believe this propaganda are those who perpetuate it.
Was that a direct reference to Stephen?
-
I see people expressing their opinions much more openly and forcefully than on this board. I also see people questioning the 'troll' label being applied to all who disbelieve the abduction theory. I see people recommending that others read the PJ files. A lot of the posts could be reproduced on here without breaking the forum rules.
I think describing the tweets as 'vile' or spewing bile' is an exaggeration. The reason for the exaggeration is clear. Silencing their critics has been a large part of the McCann's defensive strategy from the start. It's very difficult to silence people on twitter so the strategy has been to demonise them.
The McCanns have every right to use the law to stop people telling lies about them
-
The McCanns have every right to use the law to stop people telling lies about them
How can anyone say (define) what is a lie.
-
Was that a direct reference to Stephen?
Only if Stephen keeps saying that sceptics post 'vile' tweets aimed at the McCanns.
-
Only if Stephen keeps saying that sceptics post 'vile' tweets aimed at the McCanns.
I'm sure that is what he does.
-
The McCanns have every right to use the law to stop people telling lies about them
I don't know how your post relates to mine or to the thread title, sorry.
-
I'm sure that is what he does.
We are constantly told the McCann's don't use twitter.
As to vile tweets, they come from both extremes, and try not to deny that.
-
How can anyone say (define) what is a lie.
It's quite easy
-
if what others say upsets you so much why do you go looking for what others say about the mcanns??
For the purposes of contributing to this thread - someone asked for evidence of nasty tweets so I provided it.
-
I see people expressing their opinions much more openly and forcefully than on this board. I also see people questioning the 'troll' label being applied to all who disbelieve the abduction theory. I see people recommending that others read the PJ files. A lot of the posts could be reproduced on here without breaking the forum rules.
I think describing the tweets as 'vile' or spewing bile' is an exaggeration. The reason for the exaggeration is clear. Silencing their critics has been a large part of the McCann's defensive strategy from the start. It's very difficult to silence people on twitter so the strategy has been to demonise them.
You are clearly in a state of denial.
-
I find it strange that the only people who appear to believe this propaganda are those who perpetuate it.
I am staggered and astounded that you are unable to recognise or admit to the blatant propaganda techniques which exist on twitter day in day out on the #McCann tag - I thought despite our differences you were at least an honest person to debate with. Can you honestly say that the majority of "sceptic" tweets on the subject of the McCanns are neither blatant propaganda nor deliberately provocative, but are "only asking questions"?
-
You are clearly in a state of denial.
We are told that the McCanns don't use social media so why the brouhaha?
-
Currently on the #McCann tag there is a concerted effort to smear Dave Edgar - I wonder why....
-
We are told that the McCanns don't use social media so why the brouhaha?
What brouhaha are you referring to?
-
Currently on the #McCann tag there is a concerted effort to smear Dave Edgar - I wonder why....
Shall we examine Dave Edgar's record, as an employee of the Mccann's.
Remember the Victoria Beckham lookalike incident ?
Remember the lawless village 10 miles from PDL ?
-
For the purposes of contributing to this thread - someone asked for evidence of nasty tweets so I provided it.
The tweet you posted was not addressed to the McCanns. It wasn't very nice, but I wouldn't describe it as 'vile' or 'spewing bile'. Still, one down 149 to go. I looked and they're not there.
-
Shall we examine Dave Edgar's record, as an employee of the Mccann's.
Remember the Victoria Beckham lookalike incident ?
Remember the lawless village 10 miles from PDL ?
So what are you suggesting here?
-
Currently on the #McCann tag there is a concerted effort to smear Dave Edgar - I wonder why....
You really can't guess ?
When in court in Lisbon he said he'd only read part of the files. How can you possibly lead a comprehensive investigation when you are only aware of some of the information that's been generated ?
Further should he really be giving his opinion when there is an ongoing investigation by two countries into the crime ? I assume his actions have the McCanns approval.
-
Let us be aware of the danger of Libel, if you please.
-
Currently on the #McCann tag there is a concerted effort to smear Dave Edgar - I wonder why....
He believes the McCanns to be innocent.
Therefore his reputation must be trashed.
The end.
-
Glitter_Brain @glitter_brain · 2m2 minutes ago
If Madeleine #mccann was alive she b giving her tuppence worth there would b bawling n tantrums they would send her back! Kate couldn't cope
-
Denny Tarot
@dennytarot
Go on holiday, dispose of and buy a new fridge ? Do at bit of DIY whilst there, why not ? #mccann
-
@Alfie
Most certainly ON topic ... not sure about libel though ... I'll leave for now though.
-
Mark Dunn @1963Markd · 23h23 hours ago
Maddie #McCann will never get the chance to say Happy Mothers Day to Kate. Unless it's through a medium. Dogs don't lie. Both of them.
Most of the really nasty tweets come with accompanying propaganda pictures, either photoshopped, or with captions, which I can't reproduce here.
That's from a one minute perusal, which is about as long as you'd want to spend looking before feeling dirty.
Dogs don't lie.
And dogs can't read.
But humans do.
And humans can.
-
Dogs don't lie.
And dogs can't read.
But humans do.
And humans can.
Yes they do.
The question is, in this case, WHO.
-
@Alfie
Most certainly ON topic ... not sure about libel though ... I'll leave for now though.
I'm giving examples of the 150 Viles tweets a day - the majority are undoubtedly going to be libellous, but we can't really put paid to the belief that the #McCann tag is a bastion of civility and lovely, decent justice seekers "only asking questions" without doing so. As I said before the really nasty propaganda ones usually have picture content attached so unfortunately I can't post them here (dunno how, or if I am allowed to).
-
I am more concerned about possible Libel of David Edgar.
-
Members are again reminded that posts should be constructive and add to the debate. Members are allowed to express their own opinions but comments should not include attacks on other members. If this continues temporary bans will ensue.
-
I'm giving examples of the 150 Viles tweets a day - the majority are undoubtedly going to be libellous, but we can't really put paid to the belief that the #McCann tag is a bastion of civility and lovely, decent justice seekers "only asking questions" without doing so. As I said before the really nasty propaganda ones usually have picture content attached so unfortunately I can't post them here (dunno how, or if I am allowed to).
Which of these tweets are sent to the McCann's ?
Likewise, how many abusive tweets are sent to Amaral, Grime, Pat Brown, etc. every day ?
Any idea Alfie ?
-
I'm giving examples of the 150 Viles tweets a day - the majority are undoubtedly going to be libellous, but we can't really put paid to the belief that the #McCann tag is a bastion of civility and lovely, decent justice seekers "only asking questions" without doing so. As I said before the really nasty propaganda ones usually have picture content attached so unfortunately I can't post them here (dunno how, or if I am allowed to).
I'm not a social media user but I am aware that the examples you have used are the more 'presentable' of the sentiments posted under #mccann
I agree with John that individuals will not be deterred from posting such nastiness, some of it on an hourly basis, until the service provider imposes sanctions.
Should be easy enough to do.
-
You really can't guess ?
When in court in Lisbon he said he'd only read part of the files. How can you possibly lead a comprehensive investigation when you are only aware of some of the information that's been generated ?
Further should he really be giving his opinion when there is an ongoing investigation by two countries into the crime ? I assume his actions have the McCanns approval.
Or maybe as I posted a few days ago 8(0(*
"Maintain a "hull down" position ? or make an application to the ECHR, which effectively kicks it into the long grass for 10 years, and make Mitchell earn his corn spinning the tale to best advantage. Whatever you say about him he is good at it".
It is odd that David Edgar's tale is simultaneously briefing against the PJ and The Met.
Just look at the facts. His investigation concluded without result, his files were given to The Met five or six years ago...join up the dots.
-
Or maybe as I posted a few days ago 8(0(*
"Maintain a "hull down" position ? or make an application to the ECHR, which effectively kicks it into the long grass for 10 years, and make Mitchell earn his corn spinning the tale to best advantage. Whatever you say about him he is good at it".
It is odd that David Edgar's tale is simultaneously briefing against the PJ and The Met.
Just look at the facts. His investigation concluded without result, his files were given to The Met five or six years ago...join up the dots.
He wasn't tweeting his opinion though ... which makes your post off topic ...please watch out for that.
-
Which of these tweets are sent to the McCann's ?
Likewise, how many abusive tweets are sent to Amaral, Grime, Pat Brown, etc. every day ?
Any idea Alfie ?
Do you want me to spend some time counting them all up and putting up some research on the subject? Would you accept my findings if it showed (as I suspect) that abusive tweets about the McCanns outnumbered abusive tweets to the others you mention by a factor of at least 10? TBH I'm less interested in the anguish caused to the McCanns and their family by these tweets (surely they must be hardened to the idea that thousands of people utterly despise them?) than in the motivations of those who feel the need to be so vile on a regular basis. Why do they do it? What pleasure do they gain from it? They pretend it's because they want "Justice 4 Maddie" but IMO that's rubbish, a convenient smokescreen to excuse their vileness. They just enjoy being horrible on a regular basis and the McCanns are their chosen victims.
-
Members are again reminded that posts should be constructive and add to the debate. Members are allowed to express their own opinions but comments should not include attacks on other members. If this continues temporary bans will ensue.
The problem is that some people appear to group everyone together who doesn't support the McCanns. There's no discrimination at all. The thread title suggests there are 150 vile tweets each day, all posted by trolls, I have looked at #MCCANN and don't see that. Many of the tweets could be posted on this forum without sanctions being applied.
Nevertheless they are being included 'in the count' and those posting them have been described as conducting 'campaigns of vitriol' with 'malice aforethought' and with 'the intention to cause the greatest harm possible'. Those people have been described as 'evil', as having 'something seriously wrong with them' and being compelled 'to spew hatred'. They are accused of having 'character deficiencies' and of being unable to aspire to the position occupied by the McCanns who are 'obviously well adjusted fully functioning members of society'.
Reply #172 on: March 26, 2017, 09:14:22 AM »
I see the above sentiments, posted by a moderator on this forum, as a thinly disguised attack on all those who doubt the McCann's theory, of which I am one. I apologise in advance if I am misreading the intention behind the post. It may help to clarify the matter if the poster makes it clear that the descriptions apply only to the worst offenders on Twitter and not to all the posters and that they apply to no-one on here.
-
Do you want me to spend some time counting them all up and putting up some research on the subject? Would you accept my findings if it showed (as I suspect) that abusive tweets about the McCanns outnumbered abusive tweets to the others you mention by a factor of at least 10? TBH I'm less interested in the anguish caused to the McCanns and their family by these tweets (surely they must be hardened to the idea that thousands of people utterly despise them?) than in the motivations of those who feel the need to be so vile on a regular basis. Why do they do it? What pleasure do they gain from it? They pretend it's because they want "Justice 4 Maddie" but IMO that's rubbish, a convenient smokescreen to excuse their vileness. They just enjoy being horrible on a regular basis and the McCanns are their chosen victims.
As I have explained before that's because sceptics outnumber supporters at least 10 to 1 so wouldn't you expect that ( I'm not posting this as a justification just a fact ).
-
The problem is that some people appear to group everyone together who doesn't support the McCanns. There's no discrimination at all. The thread title suggests there are 150 vile tweets each day, all posted by trolls, I have looked at #MCCANN and don't see that. Many of the tweets could be posted on this forum without sanctions being applied.
Nevertheless they are being included 'in the count' and those posting them have been described as conducting 'campaigns of vitriol' with 'malice aforethought' and with 'the intention to cause the greatest harm possible'. Those people have been described as 'evil', as having 'something seriously wrong with them' and being compelled 'to spew hatred'. They are accused of having 'character deficiencies' and of being unable to aspire to the position occupied by the McCanns who are 'obviously well adjusted fully functioning members of society'.
Reply #172 on: March 26, 2017, 09:14:22 AM »
I see the above sentiments, posted by a moderator on this forum, as a thinly disguised attack on all those who doubt the McCann's theory, of which I am one. I apologise in advance if I am misreading the intention behind the post. It may help to clarify the matter if the poster makes it clear that the descriptions apply only to the worst offenders on Twitter and not to all the posters and that they apply to no-one on here.
Are you under the impression that there are ONLY 150 tweets a day on the subject of the McCanns?
-
As I have explained before that's because sceptics outnumber supporters at least 10 to 1 so wouldn't you expect that ( I'm not posting this as a justification just a fact ).
What there is are 10 times (at least) as many people wanting to tweet nasty vile tweets about the McCanns as there are people wanting to tweet vile things about Amaral, Grime etc. The fact is that most of the McCanns' supporters do not feel the need to pour vile scorn and vitriol on Amaral, Grime etc on a daily basis - this indicates to me that supporters of the McCanns (of which there are hundreds of thousands on FB alone) are on the whole more decent, more grown-up and less troll-like than "sceptics".
-
Do you want me to spend some time counting them all up and putting up some research on the subject? Would you accept my findings if it showed (as I suspect) that abusive tweets about the McCanns outnumbered abusive tweets to the others you mention by a factor of at least 10? TBH I'm less interested in the anguish caused to the McCanns and their family by these tweets (surely they must be hardened to the idea that thousands of people utterly despise them?) than in the motivations of those who feel the need to be so vile on a regular basis. Why do they do it? What pleasure do they gain from it? They pretend it's because they want "Justice 4 Maddie" but IMO that's rubbish, a convenient smokescreen to excuse their vileness. They just enjoy being horrible on a regular basis and the McCanns are their chosen victims.
So as the Mccann's claim not to use social media, they won't see these tweets.
How would you stop these tweets from both extremes ?
Likewise, I have seen 'material' , for want of a better term, on forums from both sides, classifiable as a noxious.
Bottom line, most people don't indulge in this behaviour.
I do find it hypocritical that you expect the Mccann's to come under no criticism at all for their actions, yet you criticize Amaral and the PJ, at the time he was team coordinator.
In the end, it is where people draw the line, and some people don't know when to do that, as we see on Twitter and other social media.
One thing I have seen over the years in my profession, people can always live down to your worse expectations.
-
So what are you suggesting here?
Whatever it was it was close to slander, may even libel.
-
Do you want me to spend some time counting them all up and putting up some research on the subject? Would you accept my findings if it showed (as I suspect) that abusive tweets about the McCanns outnumbered abusive tweets to the others you mention by a factor of at least 10? TBH I'm less interested in the anguish caused to the McCanns and their family by these tweets (surely they must be hardened to the idea that thousands of people utterly despise them?) than in the motivations of those who feel the need to be so vile on a regular basis. Why do they do it? What pleasure do they gain from it? They pretend it's because they want "Justice 4 Maddie" but IMO that's rubbish, a convenient smokescreen to excuse their vileness. They just enjoy being horrible on a regular basis and the McCanns are their chosen victims.
Why do those who support the McCanns think they are able to identify what motivates others? As motives are largely subconscious we're unlikely to be able to identify our own motives, let alone anyone else's.
Above all else it means that it is futile to try and make judgements based on supposed motives in any context and that, the important thing to note are people’s actions and behaviours.
http://fortinberrymurray.com/todays-research/judging-motivation-others/
-
Whatever it was it was close to slander, may even libel.
Definitely not slander.
-
Definitely not slander.
No not slander; you are right as usual!
-
Why do those who support the McCanns think they are able to identify what motivates others? As motives are largely subconscious we're unlikely to be able to identify our own motives, let alone anyone else's.
Above all else it means that it is futile to try and make judgements based on supposed motives in any context and that, the important thing to note are people’s actions and behaviours.
http://fortinberrymurray.com/todays-research/judging-motivation-others/
I said I was interested in what motivates them. Surely you must know what motivates you? What motivates me is a sense of wanting to stand up for those who I perceive are in a vulnerable position, and at a vulnerable time in their lives (which the McCanns were when I first expressed my disdain about those who were first putting the boot into them online all those years ago). The McCanns are the victims of what seems to me like an organised online action group intent on spreading false information and propaganda against them and to me that seems very unfair, and an extra burden to put upon them when their burden is already very great. They made a bad decision (to leave their kids unattended) but I don't feel it necessary to be continually scornful about or eternally contemptuous of them for that. They already feel bad enough about it with me adding my two-pennyworth. I have looked long and hard at all of the facts of this case and am 100% confident they were not involved in a cover-up so this only heightens my own sense of an injustice being done to these parents.
I know what the sanctimonious are itching to point out to me - "no mention of Madeleine" "what about Madeleine" etc etc etc. My sympathy is first and foremost with this poor child who is almost certainly no longer with us. I don't think Madeleine would have been glad to know that her parents have come in for so much stick in the last 10 years, in fact I feel sure she would have been quite appalled.
-
I said I was interested in what motivates them. Surely you must know what motivates you? What motivates me is a sense of wanting to stand up for those who I perceive are in a vulnerable position, and at a vulnerable time in their lives (which the McCanns were when I first expressed my disdain about those who were first putting the boot into them online all those years ago). The McCanns are the victims of what seems to me like an organised online action group intent on spreading false information and propaganda against them and to me that seems very unfair, and an extra burden to put upon them when their burden is already very great. They made a bad decision (to leave their kids unattended) but I don't feel it necessary to be continually scornful about or eternally contemptuous of them for that. They already feel bad enough about it with me adding my two-pennyworth. I have looked long and hard at all of the facts of this case and am 100% confident they were not involved in a cover-up so this only heightens my own sense of an injustice being done to these parents.
I know what the sanctimonious are itching to point out to me - "no mention of Madeleine" "what about Madeleine" etc etc etc. My sympathy is first and foremost with this poor child who is almost certainly no longer with us. I don't think Madeleine would have been glad to know that her parents have come in for so much stick in the last 10 years, in fact I feel sure she would have been quite appalled.
You are not interested in discovering what motivates people, you are interested in telling them what motivates them in my opinion. You ask why, you tell us what they 'pretend' then you tell us what you see as their 'real' motives.
Quote
"Why do they do it? What pleasure do they gain from it? They pretend it's because they want "Justice 4 Maddie" but IMO that's rubbish, a convenient smokescreen to excuse their vileness. They just enjoy being horrible on a regular basis and the McCanns are their chosen victims."
Your motivation, you say, is to defend vulnerable victims against an 'organised online action group intent on spreading false information and propaganda against them'. Very commendable, but what if your opinions about the McCanns and their critics are incorrect?
-
You are not interested in discovering what motivates people, you are interested in telling them what motivates them in my opinion. You ask why, you tell us what they 'pretend' then you tell us what you see as their 'real' motives.
Quote
"Why do they do it? What pleasure do they gain from it? They pretend it's because they want "Justice 4 Maddie" but IMO that's rubbish, a convenient smokescreen to excuse their vileness. They just enjoy being horrible on a regular basis and the McCanns are their chosen victims."
Your motivation, you say, is to defend vulnerable victims against an 'organised online action group intent on spreading false information and propaganda against them'. Very commendable, but what if your opinions about the McCanns and their critics are incorrect?
They are not incorrect
-
Yet another opinion.
-
You are not interested in discovering what motivates people, you are interested in telling them what motivates them in my opinion. You ask why, you tell us what they 'pretend' then you tell us what you see as their 'real' motives.
Quote
"Why do they do it? What pleasure do they gain from it? They pretend it's because they want "Justice 4 Maddie" but IMO that's rubbish, a convenient smokescreen to excuse their vileness. They just enjoy being horrible on a regular basis and the McCanns are their chosen victims."
Your motivation, you say, is to defend vulnerable victims against an 'organised online action group intent on spreading false information and propaganda against them'. Very commendable, but what if your opinions about the McCanns and their critics are incorrect?
I asked YOU ;what motivates YOU. I can only GUESS at the motivation of vile trolls (see above as quoted by you), something which you are very keen to distance yourself from, hence why I'm interested to know what motivates YOU.
If in the highly unlikely event that the McCanns turn out to be responsible for hiding their child's body then I will look extremely foolish but at least I will be able to console myself with the knowledge that I always gave the benefit of the doubt, I treated the McCanns as innocent until proven guilty, I did not judge them and find them guilty before the courts did. How about you? What if it turns out that all your suspicions are completely without foundation?
-
The problem is that some people appear to group everyone together who doesn't support the McCanns. There's no discrimination at all. The thread title suggests there are 150 vile tweets each day, all posted by trolls, I have looked at #MCCANN and don't see that. Many of the tweets could be posted on this forum without sanctions being applied.
Nevertheless they are being included 'in the count' and those posting them have been described as conducting 'campaigns of vitriol' with 'malice aforethought' and with 'the intention to cause the greatest harm possible'. Those people have been described as 'evil', as having 'something seriously wrong with them' and being compelled 'to spew hatred'. They are accused of having 'character deficiencies' and of being unable to aspire to the position occupied by the McCanns who are 'obviously well adjusted fully functioning members of society'.
Reply #172 on: March 26, 2017, 09:14:22 AM »
I see the above sentiments, posted by a moderator on this forum, as a thinly disguised attack on all those who doubt the McCann's theory, of which I am one. I apologise in advance if I am misreading the intention behind the post. It may help to clarify the matter if the poster makes it clear that the descriptions apply only to the worst offenders on Twitter and not to all the posters and that they apply to no-one on here.
A fascinating post.
An assertion is made … not by me … but it is made mine by the simple expediency of paraphrasing.
My words have been used. Unfortunately they have been made to say what I did not. Yet I am the one asked to explain them?
Oh dear ... &%+((£
-
I asked YOU ;what motivates YOU. I can only GUESS at the motivation of vile trolls (see above as quoted by you), something which you are very keen to distance yourself from, hence why I'm interested to know what motivates YOU.
If in the highly unlikely event that the McCanns turn out to be responsible for hiding their child's body then I will look extremely foolish but at least I will be able to console myself with the knowledge that I always gave the benefit of the doubt, I treated the McCanns as innocent until proven guilty, I did not judge them and find them guilty before the courts did. How about you? What if it turns out that all your suspicions are completely without foundation?
Excellent post.
Pertinent questions.
-
Excellent post.
Pertinent questions.
Any person or persons who might have removed Madeleine from the apartment has not been determined.
-
I said I was interested in what motivates them. Surely you must know what motivates you? What motivates me is a sense of wanting to stand up for those who I perceive are in a vulnerable position, and at a vulnerable time in their lives (which the McCanns were when I first expressed my disdain about those who were first putting the boot into them online all those years ago). The McCanns are the victims of what seems to me like an organised online action group intent on spreading false information and propaganda against them and to me that seems very unfair, and an extra burden to put upon them when their burden is already very great. They made a bad decision (to leave their kids unattended) but I don't feel it necessary to be continually scornful about or eternally contemptuous of them for that. They already feel bad enough about it with me adding my two-pennyworth. I have looked long and hard at all of the facts of this case and am 100% confident they were not involved in a cover-up so this only heightens my own sense of an injustice being done to these parents.
I know what the sanctimonious are itching to point out to me - "no mention of Madeleine" "what about Madeleine" etc etc etc. My sympathy is first and foremost with this poor child who is almost certainly no longer with us. I don't think Madeleine would have been glad to know that her parents have come in for so much stick in the last 10 years, in fact I feel sure she would have been quite appalled.
1 There must be plenty of folk who are being treated unfairly as we type. How do you decide who is worthy of your attention ?
2 Why?
-
I asked YOU ;what motivates YOU. I can only GUESS at the motivation of vile trolls (see above as quoted by you), something which you are very keen to distance yourself from, hence why I'm interested to know what motivates YOU.
If in the highly unlikely event that the McCanns turn out to be responsible for hiding their child's body then I will look extremely foolish but at least I will be able to console myself with the knowledge that I always gave the benefit of the doubt, I treated the McCanns as innocent until proven guilty, I did not judge them and find them guilty before the courts did. How about you? What if it turns out that all your suspicions are completely without foundation?
You do realise don't you Alfie that no one on this board owes you an explanation about anything?
Why members post here is their business and not fodder for you to sneer at. Be honest unless the reason fits your narrow view of sceptics and their motivations you'll cry foul anyway.
-
You do realise don't you Alfie that no one on this board owes you an explanation about anything?
Why members post here is their business and not fodder for you to sneer at. Be honest unless the reason fits your narrow view of sceptics and their motivations you'll cry foul anyway.
I am entitled to ask questions (FGS: isn't this what you've virtually made a career of - "only asking questions" that you feel entitled to know the answers to?) but I realise that the questions I pose make some people uncomfortable and am rarely surprised when they choose not to answer, and never badger them to do so (unlike some people I could mention....) Also I will point out that despite the fact that I owe none of you an answer to any of YOUR questions, I always give one, even if it's an answer you don't like or want to hear.
-
I am entitled to ask questions (FGS: isn't this what you've virtually made a career of - "only asking questions" that you feel entitled to know the answers to?) but I realise that the questions I pose make some people uncomfortable and am rarely surprised when they choose not to answer, and never badger them to do so (unlike some people I could mention....) Also I will point out that despite the fact that I owe none of you an answer to any of YOUR questions, I always give one, even if it's an answer you don't like or want to hear.
Then good for you but that is your personal choice. You may be entitled to ask questions but what you are not entitled to is an answer.
-
A fascinating post.
An assertion is made … not by me … but it is made mine by the simple expediency of paraphrasing.
My words have been used. Unfortunately they have been made to say what I did not. Yet I am the one asked to explain them?
Oh dear ... &%+((£
If you diagree with my summary feel free to explain what you did say and who you were saying it about?
-
Then good for you but that is your personal choice. You may be entitled to ask questions but what you are not entitled to is an answer.
Apparently according to some if you don't answer questions we should infer that you have something to hide 8(0(*
-
Would that be of the same tune as some McCann supporters who deny the McCann's did anything wrong (at least Alfie you admit they made a mistake), and/or deny there are disturbed people among the Mccann backers (which you admit as well) ?
-
Apparently according to some if you don't answer questions we should infer that you have something to hide 8(0(*
Hidden agenda and a hidden body.
-
I asked YOU ;what motivates YOU. I can only GUESS at the motivation of vile trolls (see above as quoted by you), something which you are very keen to distance yourself from, hence why I'm interested to know what motivates YOU.
If in the highly unlikely event that the McCanns turn out to be responsible for hiding their child's body then I will look extremely foolish but at least I will be able to console myself with the knowledge that I always gave the benefit of the doubt, I treated the McCanns as innocent until proven guilty, I did not judge them and find them guilty before the courts did. How about you? What if it turns out that all your suspicions are completely without foundation?
Any answer I have given you in the past has been;
a) rejected
b) ridiculed
c) replaced with what you think is the answer I should have given
So why should I bother?
If the McCanns did nothing wrong I won't look foolish because I have never accused them of doing anything of a criminal nature.
I think their childcare arrangements could have been seen as neglectful in the UK, but have never criticised the Portuguese for their reading of that situation.
I was surprised by the first instance judgement in the libel trial, but I didn't criticise the judge, the judiciary, the laws of her country or her country for the decision. Their country their rules.
-
I am entitled to ask questions (FGS: isn't this what you've virtually made a career of - "only asking questions" that you feel entitled to know the answers to?) but I realise that the questions I pose make some people uncomfortable and am rarely surprised when they choose not to answer, and never badger them to do so (unlike some people I could mention....) Also I will point out that despite the fact that I owe none of you an answer to any of YOUR questions, I always give one, even if it's an answer you don't like or want to hear.
1 In this world, old stick, you are entitled to very little.
2 Provided you don't have them on ignore for spurious reasons.
-
Any answer I have given you in the past has been;
a) rejected
b) ridiculed
c) replaced with what you think is the answer I should have given
So why should I bother?
If the McCanns did nothing wrong I won't look foolish because I have never accused them of doing anything of a criminal nature.
I think their childcare arrangements could have been seen as neglectful in the UK, but have never criticised the Portuguese for their reading of that situation.
I was surprised by the first instance judgement in the libel trial, but I didn't criticise the judge, the judiciary, the laws of her country or her country for the decision. Their country their rules.
You have constantly called into question the McCanns' honesty and anyone following your posts knows full well you suspect the McCanns guilty of crimnal behaviour. It would be utterly disingenuous of you to claim otherwise. Of course you have never criticised Portugal or its authorities or justice system, that would never do for a dyed-in-the-wool sceptic. But the Met and British authorities / Justice, well that's quite a different matter of course...
-
You have constantly called into question the McCanns' honesty and anyone following your posts knows full well you suspect the McCanns guilty of crimnal behaviour. It would be utterly disingenuous of you to claim otherwise. Of course you have never criticised Portugal or its authorities or justice system, that would never do for a dyed-in-the-wool sceptic. But the Met and British authorities / Justice, well that's quite a different matter of course...
Name one police investigation or force that is faultless.
-
Name one police investigation or force that is faultless.
The Policia Judicaria, Polícia Judiciária or commonly called the PJ.
-
You have constantly called into question the McCanns' honesty and anyone following your posts knows full well you suspect the McCanns guilty of crimnal behaviour. It would be utterly disingenuous of you to claim otherwise. Of course you have never criticised Portugal or its authorities or justice system, that would never do for a dyed-in-the-wool sceptic. But the Met and British authorities / Justice, well that's quite a different matter of course...
I see I'm being accused of lying again because no matter what I say, you know better than I do what I really think. I don't know why you bother asking me questions when you have all the answers anyway. @)(++(*
I have pointed out in the past that the Met aren't perfect. Usually in answer to those who think they are. I have also identified failings in the original investigation.
-
I see I'm being accused of lying again because no matter what I say, you know better than I do what I really think. I don't know why you bother asking me questions when you have all the answers anyway. @)(++(*
I have pointed out in the past that the Met aren't perfect. Usually in answer to those who think they are. I have also identified failings in the original investigation.
I didn't accuse you of lying. I said it would be utterly disingenuous of you to claim you didn't suspect the McCanns of being dishonest or of criminal behaviour, and that is a fact.
-
I didn't accuse you of lying. I said it would be utterly disingenuous of you to claim you didn't suspect the McCanns of being dishonest or of criminal behaviour, and that is a fact.
Do you G-unit "suspect the McCanns of being dishonest or of criminal behaviour"? When you can be presumed innocent and also a suspect at the same time it is hardly a biggie.
-
I didn't accuse you of lying. I said it would be utterly disingenuous of you to claim you didn't suspect the McCanns of being dishonest or of criminal behaviour, and that is a fact.
disingenuous
synonyms
dishonest, deceitful, underhand, underhanded, duplicitous, double-dealing, two-faced, dissembling, insincere, false, lying, untruthful, mendacious
-
Warning to all, accusing other posters of lying without proof is frowned on.
-
Do you G-unit "suspect the McCanns of being dishonest or of criminal behaviour"? When you can be presumed innocent and also a suspect at the same time it is hardly a biggie.
I have seen examples of statements by the McCanns which aren't supported by their subsequent statements or by the statements of others. I have no idea why that is so, so I can't draw any firm conclusions. As far as I'm concerned the crime is unknown so until it's identified there can't be any suspects.
-
disingenuous
synonyms
dishonest, deceitful, underhand, underhanded, duplicitous, double-dealing, two-faced, dissembling, insincere, false, lying, untruthful, mendacious
I do understand the meaning of the words I use, do you understand the use of the conditional tense?
-
Warning to all, accusing other posters of lying without proof is frowned on.
Did I do that? No.
-
I have seen examples of statements by the McCanns which aren't supported by their subsequent statements or by the statements of others. I have no idea why that is so, so I can't draw any firm conclusions. As far as I'm concerned the crime is unknown so until it's identified there can't be any suspects.
So you have no suspicions whatsoever about the McCanns, you don't suspect them of dishonesty, you don't suspect them of covering up Madeleiene's death? The McCanns should not be under suspicion then, as far as you're concerned as we have no idea what if any crime was committed? Is that your view?
-
I do understand the meaning of the words I use, do you understand the use of the conditional tense?
You said;
"You have constantly called into question the McCanns' honesty and anyone following your posts knows full well you It would be utterly disingenuous of you to claim otherwise".
I do claim otherwise and I'm not lying. if you disagree please provide cites where I have said I 'suspect the McCanns guilty of crimnal behaviour'.
-
You said;
"You have constantly called into question the McCanns' honesty and anyone following your posts knows full well you It would be utterly disingenuous of you to claim otherwise".
I do claim otherwise and I'm not lying. if you disagree please provide cites where I have said I 'suspect the McCanns guilty of crimnal behaviour'.
Oh please don't insult my intelligence. You don't have to say "I suspect the McCanns are guilty of criminal behaviour" without it being blatantly obvious that you do. FGS.
Do you suspect the McCanns are guilty of criminal behaviour? Yes or no?
-
Here we go - one of your very first posts on this forum G-Unit.
"Sorry, still no answer to the points I raised. You can believe anything you wish, but it doesn't address the problems I pointed out. I hope the PJ & SY will justify your belief in them by explaining, when they find this abductor who has eluded them for almost 8 years, how he managed to enter and leave the apartment in the time available, find the child he wanted to abduct and open a window and some noisy shutters without waking said child or the other two children in the room. Oh - he may have tidied the bed too! What a cool and collected abductor he was.
9.05-9.15pm Gerry McCann & Jeremy Wilkins around.
9.10-9.15pm Jane Tanner around.
9.30-9.35pm Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldfield around (no open window noticed by Matthew so no abduction unless McCanns lied about the window)
9.40-9.50pm Jane Tanner relieves Russell O'Brien.
9.50-10.00pm Kate McCann checks children - Madeleine gone.
No-one with any sense would have gone near G5A with all those people coming and going IMO. Perhaps he had a cloak of invisibility? Perhaps the McCanns and their friends lied about their comings and goings - but why would they do that when it was so important to help the police to get the facts correct?"
So very early on in your career on this forum you have planted the seed that the McCanns may have been lying, which suggests to me that you do indeed suspect them of lying and therefore also of criminal behaviour.
ETA: you know of course that you have sent me on a fool's errand because any post that outright accuses the McCanns of criminal behaviour on this forum is removed as libellous so OF COURSE you are never going to be able to be quoted as saying so, but only an idiot could fail to read between the lines or understand where you're coming from.
-
Here we go - one of your very first posts on this forum G-Unit.
"Sorry, still no answer to the points I raised. You can believe anything you wish, but it doesn't address the problems I pointed out. I hope the PJ & SY will justify your belief in them by explaining, when they find this abductor who has eluded them for almost 8 years, how he managed to enter and leave the apartment in the time available, find the child he wanted to abduct and open a window and some noisy shutters without waking said child or the other two children in the room. Oh - he may have tidied the bed too! What a cool and collected abductor he was.
9.05-9.15pm Gerry McCann & Jeremy Wilkins around.
9.10-9.15pm Jane Tanner around.
9.30-9.35pm Russell O'Brien and Matthew Oldfield around (no open window noticed by Matthew so no abduction unless McCanns lied about the window)
9.40-9.50pm Jane Tanner relieves Russell O'Brien.
9.50-10.00pm Kate McCann checks children - Madeleine gone.
No-one with any sense would have gone near G5A with all those people coming and going IMO. Perhaps he had a cloak of invisibility? Perhaps the McCanns and their friends lied about their comings and goings - but why would they do that when it was so important to help the police to get the facts correct?"
So very early on in your career on this forum you have planted the seed that the McCanns may have been lying, which suggests to me that you do indeed suspect them of lying and therefore also of criminal behaviour.
ETA: you know of course that you have sent me on a fool's errand because any post that outright accuses the McCanns of criminal behaviour on this forum is removed as libellous so OF COURSE you are never going to be able to be quoted as saying so, but only an idiot could fail to read between the lines or understand where you're coming from.
Saying 'perhaps' means I'm exploring a possibility not making an accusation. It doesn't logically follow that I also suspect them of criminal behaviour. I can think of a few reasons why the group may have tweaked the timeline, none of which are related to criminal activity. Whether the conclusions you reach by 'reading between the lines' are correct or not I will leave to others to decide.
-
Oh please don't insult my intelligence. You don't have to say "I suspect the McCanns are guilty of criminal behaviour" without it being blatantly obvious that you do. FGS.
Do you suspect the McCanns are guilty of criminal behaviour? Yes or no?
why do you care so much about what other people think of the mcanns??
-
Saying 'perhaps' means I'm exploring a possibility not making an accusation. It doesn't logically follow that I also suspect them of criminal behaviour. I can think of a few reasons why the group may have tweaked the timeline, none of which are related to criminal activity. Whether the conclusions you reach by 'reading between the lines' are correct or not I will leave to others to decide.
Tweaking ... adjust ~ make adjustments to ~ modify ~ alter ~ make alterations to ~ change ~ adapt ...
Do you have examples of the group "tweaking" the timeline?
-
Tweaking ... adjust ~ make adjustments to ~ modify ~ alter ~ make alterations to ~ change ~ adapt ...
Do you have examples of the group "tweaking" the timeline?
Do I need examples of something which may have happened? I think not.
Do you have examples of me spewing bile at the McCanns? Or were you describing some unknown others?
-
Saying 'perhaps' means I'm exploring a possibility not making an accusation. It doesn't logically follow that I also suspect them of criminal behaviour. I can think of a few reasons why the group may have tweaked the timeline, none of which are related to criminal activity. Whether the conclusions you reach by 'reading between the lines' are correct or not I will leave to others to decide.
So lying to the police and obstructing the course of justice is not criminal activity in your view? I'm sure others are perfectly capable of reading between the lines and those who are will undoubtedly reach the same conclusion as me.
-
So lying to the police and obstructing the course of justice is not criminal activity in your view? I'm sure others are perfectly capable of reading between the lines and those who are will undoubtedly reach the same conclusion as me.
It depends Alfie. Gerry, Jane and Jez disagreed about the spot where the two men chatted. Technically one or two of them are not telling the truth, but are they lying? Are they obstructing the course of justice?
Dianne Webster categorically denied crossing paths with Matthew Oldfield at 9pm on 3rd May. A year later she decided she did see him after all. Was she lying? Was she obstructing the course of justice?
The group may have lied, they may not. Hence 'perhaps'.
-
Do I need examples of something which may have happened? I think not.
Do you have examples of me spewing bile at the McCanns? Or were you describing some unknown others?
What has been observable on here for a few days, principally from the point where the McCann's attempt to have the Supreme Court Decision set aside was rejected , is increased aggressive posting against 'sceptics', along with an upturn of the 'poor me' McCann posts.
As a reminder there is no onus to support the Mccanns, whose actions brought on this case, and not a damn thing the supporters do on here will change that.
Additionally, most 'sceptics' did not need Amaral to doubt the abduction story, they looked at the situation for themselves and assessed the available evidence, what little there is of that.
-
It depends Alfie. Gerry, Jane and Jez disagreed about the spot where the two men chatted. Technically one or two of them are not telling the truth, but are they lying? Are they obstructing the course of justice?
Dianne Webster categorically denied crossing paths with Matthew Oldfield at 9pm on 3rd May. A year later she decided she did see him after all. Was she lying? Was she obstructing the course of justice?
The group may have lied, they may not. Hence 'perhaps'.
Seems a perfectly valid viewpoint. The insistence of some posters that all of the witnesses stories are consistent and unvarying is unsupportable.
-
Seems a perfectly valid viewpoint. The insistence of some posters that all of the witnesses stories are consistent and unvarying is unsupportable.
Perhaps you could point to any supporter who has ever made that claim?
-
It depends Alfie. Gerry, Jane and Jez disagreed about the spot where the two men chatted. Technically one or two of them are not telling the truth, but are they lying? Are they obstructing the course of justice?
Dianne Webster categorically denied crossing paths with Matthew Oldfield at 9pm on 3rd May. A year later she decided she did see him after all. Was she lying? Was she obstructing the course of justice?
The group may have lied, they may not. Hence 'perhaps'.
Clearly then you have suspicions that the McCanns and their friends were involved in criminal behaviour and activity. I rest my case.
-
Clearly then you have suspicions that the McCanns and their friends were involved in criminal behaviour and activity. I rest my case.
why does it upset you so much what g unit thinks?? is everybody not allowed a opinion??
-
why does it upset you so much what g unit thinks?? is everybody not allowed a opinion??
Upset? I am not upset. Why does it upset you so much that I ask difficult questions of your fellow sceptics?
-
why does it upset you so much what g unit thinks?? is everybody not allowed a opinion??
He isn't trying to discover what I think, though, Carly. If I tell him what I think his reply is invariably 'No you don't; this is what you think'.
-
Upset? I am not upset. Why does it upset you so much that I ask difficult questions of your fellow sceptics?
Sorry Alfie, I don't find your questions difficult at all.
-
Sorry Alfie, I don't find your questions difficult at all.
@)(++(* pointless maybe??
-
Sorry Alfie, I don't find your questions difficult at all.
You find it extremely difficult to give a straight answer to some of my questions like: do you suspect the McCanns of lying and covering up a death or Do you have respect for Amaral? You're right they are very easy questions but for some reason a straight answer is far too difficult for you, you'd rather play games.
-
2@ Alfie.
You flatter yourself if you believe you have ever asked a difficult question on this forum.
-
I'm glad I'm a sceptic. Defending the McCanns seems such hard work ! ?{)(**
-
I'm glad I'm a sceptic. Defending the McCanns seems such hard work ! ?{)(**
sure does and seems to cause alot of hostility and anger 8(8-))
-
You find it extremely difficult to give a straight answer to some of my questions like: do you suspect the McCanns of lying and covering up a death or Do you have respect for Amaral? You're right they are very easy questions but for some reason a straight answer is far too difficult for you, you'd rather play games.
Your only reason for asking me questions seems to be so you can reject my answers because you know better.
-
The thread is currently getting over-personal. Kindly tone it down.
-
Your only reason for asking me questions seems to be so you can reject my answers because you know better.
Not really - if you had said "yes I do suspect the mcCanns of lying and criminal wrong-doing" then I would thank you for your honesty and that would be that. The fact that you have come over all coy and have claimed that you have never voiced suspicions or by implication accused the McCanns of anything is just laughably ridiculous IMO.
-
sure does and seems to cause alot of hostility and anger 8(8-))
Hostility? Anger? Upset? Are you telling me how I'm thinking Carly? tut tut.
-
You said;
"You have constantly called into question the McCanns' honesty and anyone following your posts knows full well you It would be utterly disingenuous of you to claim otherwise".
I do claim otherwise and I'm not lying. if you disagree please provide cites where I have said I 'suspect the McCanns guilty of crimnal behaviour'.
You have said there are inconsistencies in the statements
Why do you think that is
-
2@ Alfie.
You flatter yourself if you believe you have ever asked a difficult question on this forum.
The questions are simple but difficult if not impossible for some to answer
-
You always know you've won the argument when the personal abuse starts.... 8(>((
That's not personal abuse. Personal abuse is accusing people of being stupid, evil, inadequate, nasty etc.
-
Perhaps you could point to any supporter who has ever made that claim?
So you accepts that many statements are inconsistent?
-
The thread is currently getting over-personal. Kindly tone it down.
I think I would add over aggressive.
-
I think I would add over aggressive.
I'd agree - it's not nice when a pack of sceptics turn on one.
-
So you accepts that many statements are inconsistent?
Of course - you only have to look at the statements of the OC staff alone to see that.
-
That's not personal abuse. Personal abuse is accusing people of being stupid, evil, inadequate, nasty etc.
Yes, I've seen all of those words used to describe the McCanns by people with whom the McCanns have never exchanged a word, or even breathed the same airspace. Go figure!
-
Yes, I've seen all of those words used to describe the McCanns by people with whom the McCanns have never exchanged a word, or even breathed the same airspace. Go figure!
Not by me. Some of them have been directed at me occasionally too.
-
Not by me. Some of them have been directed at me occasionally too.
My Mum used to tell me "all good things come to those who wait".
-
Not by me. Some of them have been directed at me occasionally too.
And me.
-
My Mum used to tell me "all good things come to those who wait".
As with the Supreme Court decision in Portugal.
-
My Mum used to tell me "all good things come to those who wait".
I do hope this is true for the McCann family.
-
Reminder; please post ON TOPIC: Madeleine McCann’s parents hit by ‘150 vile tweets a DAY from online trolls’.
-
Is it morally right to use social media to post hateful comments about a family whose little girl has gone missing and continue to do so without let for ten years?
It seems a research paper into the subject of the 'vile trolls' who do this has caused a certain stirring; to the extent that complaints have been fired off, starting out with the Academic Ethics Committee of Huddersfield University
Dr John Synnott doesn't even have to make the slightest effort in support of his synopsis, it seems his work is throwing itself at him from 'freespeachers'. Who it seems are apparently of the opinion that Dr Synnott shouldn't have bothered opening his mouth when it comes to recording the daily outrages perpetrated against the family of a missing girl over a ten year period.
-
Is it morally right to use social media to post hateful comments about a family whose little girl has gone missing and continue to do so without let for ten years?
It seems a research paper into the subject of the 'vile trolls' who do this has caused a certain stirring; to the extent that complaints have been fired off, starting out with the Academic Ethics Committee of Huddersfield University
Dr John Synnott doesn't even have to make the slightest effort in support of his synopsis, it seems his work is throwing itself at him from 'freespeachers'. Who it seems are apparently of the opinion that Dr Synnott shouldn't have bothered opening his mouth when it comes to recording the daily outrages perpetrated against the family of a missing girl over a ten year period.
"Not Bennett" has been busy again, I take it?
-
"Not Bennett" has been busy again, I take it?
Independent research throwing a light into the murky world of twitter trolls was bound to be a target. Particularly of those who have chosen the McCann family as their preferred targets ... and who have taken the time and trouble to unashamedly organise campaigns to do so might possibly count that individual amongst their number.
You guessed my source ... but you must admit, it wasn't a very difficult guess 8)-)))
-
Is it morally right to use social media to post hateful comments about a family whose little girl has gone missing and continue to do so without let for ten years?
It seems a research paper into the subject of the 'vile trolls' who do this has caused a certain stirring; to the extent that complaints have been fired off, starting out with the Academic Ethics Committee of Huddersfield University
Dr John Synnott doesn't even have to make the slightest effort in support of his synopsis, it seems his work is throwing itself at him from 'freespeachers'. Who it seems are apparently of the opinion that Dr Synnott shouldn't have bothered opening his mouth when it comes to recording the daily outrages perpetrated against the family of a missing girl over a ten year period.
Do the McCann's use Twitter ?
They say no.
How would you stop people giving their 'opinions' Brietta ?
I still await his analysis of Mccann supporters.
I suspect that may never see the light of day.
-
Independent research throwing a light into the murky world of twitter trolls was bound to be a target. Particularly of those who have chosen the McCann family as their preferred targets ... and who have taken the time and trouble to unashamedly organise campaigns to do so might possibly count that individual amongst their number.
You guessed my source ... but you must admit, it wasn't a very difficult guess 8)-)))
I did notice he popped in to look at this very thread a few nights ago ........... 8(0(*
-
Do the McCann's use Twitter ?
They say no.
How would you stop people giving their 'opinions' Brietta ?
I still await his analysis of Mccann supporters.
I suspect that may never see the light of day.
That's because we're all such fine, intelligent, upstanding citizens, Stephen. 8)--))
-
That's because we're all such fine, intelligent, upstanding citizens, Stephen. 8)--))
Like PG and NN ? @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Like PG and NN ? @)(++(* @)(++(*
That is a very unfair post? Who is PG and NN?
-
That is a very unfair post? Who is PG and NN?
Yes I have no idea either, &%+((£
-
Like PG and NN ? @)(++(* @)(++(*
Now THAT'S trolling, getting all personal. %£&)**#
-
Now THAT'S trolling, getting all personal. %£&)**#
Trolling. &%&£(+
Those two are infamous Mccann backers.
-
Trolling. &%&£(+
Those two are infamous Mccann backers.
And? Have you met them - or are you just implicitly demeaning them because they hold an opposing view to you
-
And? Have you met them - or are you just implicitly demeaning them because they hold an opposing view to you
You have to be kidding.
-
seems on here, we all are trolls.
just depends who you are trolling.
in a nutshell , Mccanns or Goncalo Amaral
-
And? Have you met them - or are you just implicitly demeaning them because they hold an opposing view to you
but same view as you.
and not nice upstanding citizens , as you deem yourself.
-
but same view as you.
and not nice upstanding citizens , as you deem yourself.
Who are not "nice upstanding citizens" ?
-
Who are not "nice upstanding citizens" ?
well apparently,‘150 vile tweets a DAY from online trolls’
-
well apparently,‘150 vile tweets a DAY from online trolls’
Agreed about the vile tweets.
I thought it was in reference to the PG and NN
-
Do the McCann's use Twitter ?
They say no.
How would you stop people giving their 'opinions' Brietta ?
I still await his analysis of Mccann supporters.
I suspect that may never see the light of day.
That is the issue perhaps.
Why on earth knowing that the target of their vile and vindictive outpourings disdain to join them in the gutter by ignoring their ill informed rantings do they continue the practice?
I know the worth of the 'opinions' held by these people and suppose that as they are obviously persons who should be pitied rather than laughed at that is how one should regard them. Pitiable people.
I'm not entirely sure how much time Dr John Synnott and his team may have to devote to anything other than the vile on line trolls whose cage he has appeared to have rattled somewhat,
They can't seem to help themselves, can they? Despite the fact they now seem to have assimilated that being recognised as a vile troll is nothing to be proud of ... they go out of their way to reinforce their image of being just that.
I can only imagine the volume of research material he will now have to work with; what he will do with it will be for him to determine, but it may leave him little time for anything else.
-
Not by me. Some of them have been directed at me occasionally too.
to me too
-
That is the issue perhaps.
Why on earth knowing that the target of their vile and vindictive outpourings disdain to join them in the gutter by ignoring their ill informed rantings do they continue the practice?
I know the worth of the 'opinions' held by these people and suppose that as they are obviously persons who should be pitied rather than laughed at that is how one should regard them. Pitiable people.
I'm not entirely sure how much time Dr John Synnott and his team may have to devote to anything other than the vile on line trolls whose cage he has appeared to have rattled somewhat,
They can't seem to help themselves, can they? Despite the fact they now seem to have assimilated that being recognised as a vile troll is nothing to be proud of ... they go out of their way to reinforce their image of being just that.
I can only imagine the volume of research material he will now have to work with; what he will do with it will be for him to determine, but it may leave him little time for anything else.
Sounds like he will be happy having plenty of data to work with.
-
Sounds like he will be happy having plenty of data to work with.
Were I him I would probably be considering how best to appraise the added information to work into appendices to the main body of work using the impeccable provenance of "straight from the horse's mouth (or might that be dog?) evidence gifted to him without having to spend any time doing his own research.
Might he even bother with appendices ... might be sufficient there for a new paper. All too easy for the academic, bit murky for the vile tweeters.
Did they really intend to prove his work for him? I don't think they have really thought through the implication of attacking the work of an academic in the manner they have.
-
Were I him I would probably be considering how best to appraise the added information to work into appendices to the main body of work using the impeccable provenance of "straight from the horse's mouth (or might that be dog?) evidence gifted to him without having to spend any time doing his own research.
Might he even bother with appendices ... might be sufficient there for a new paper. All too easy for the academic, bit murky for the vile tweeters.
Did they really intend to prove his work for him? I don't think they have really thought through the implication of attacking the work of an academic in the manner they have.
A true academic examines all sides.
He has made a promise to look at the other side, the McCann supporters.
There is plenty of material he and his team can examine, from the extreme McCann supporter base.
Now let's see if his word has value.
-
One thing has become clear over the last ten years. Trying to suggest that those who disagree with the McCann's theory are 'trolls' hasn't worked. Portraying the McCanns as innocent, hounded and bullied victims and their critics as inadequate, ill educated, jealous, evil tormentors hasn't worked. Just like the outpouring of bile directed at Amaral by the UK media didn't work.
Historically these tactics did work. Tony Benn was marginalised throughout his life by the media using similar tactics against him. Then everything changed. The rise of the internet and social media allowed people to access other sources of information. Thus the attempts by the media to demonise Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn failed miserably.
Calling people names instead of answering their questions suggests their questions are unanswerable.
-
One thing has become clear over the last ten years. Trying to suggest that those who disagree with the McCann's theory are 'trolls' hasn't worked. Portraying the McCanns as innocent, hounded and bullied victims and their critics as inadequate, ill educated, jealous, evil tormentors hasn't worked. Just like the outpouring of bile directed at Amaral by the UK media didn't work.
Historically these tactics did work. Tony Benn was marginalised throughout his life by the media using similar tactics against him. Then everything changed. The rise of the internet and social media allowed people to access other sources of information. Thus the attempts by the media to demonise Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn failed miserably.
Calling people names instead of answering their questions suggests their questions are unanswerable.
Perhaps you can tell me who (that matters) is taking your (the collective pressure group of McCann "sceptics")
questions and doubts seriously? Do you think sheer weight of your (collective) pressure is going to force the McCanns into the dock?
-
PS: nigel Farage lives in fear for his and his family's safety at all times, as for Jeremy Corbyn, well yes he's been warmly embraced by the UK public so much so that even most Labour supporters prefer Theresa May. @)(++(*
-
PS: nigel Farage lives in fear for his and his family's safety at all times, as for Jeremy Corbyn, well yes he's been warmly embraced by the UK public so much so that even most Labour supporters prefer Theresa May. @)(++(*
Which T. May Alfie ?
8**8:/:
-
One thing has become clear over the last ten years. Trying to suggest that those who disagree with the McCann's theory are 'trolls' hasn't worked. Portraying the McCanns as innocent, hounded and bullied victims and their critics as inadequate, ill educated, jealous, evil tormentors hasn't worked. Just like the outpouring of bile directed at Amaral by the UK media didn't work.
Historically these tactics did work. Tony Benn was marginalised throughout his life by the media using similar tactics against him. Then everything changed. The rise of the internet and social media allowed people to access other sources of information. Thus the attempts by the media to demonise Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn failed miserably.
Calling people names instead of answering their questions suggests their questions are unanswerable.
A very astute post G.
The 'troll' agenda is now being almost exclusively driven by the McCanns and their 'friendly' churnalists.
-
Perhaps you can tell me who (that matters) is taking your (the collective pressure group of McCann "sceptics")
questions and doubts seriously? Do you think sheer weight of your (collective) pressure is going to force the McCanns into the dock?
I have no idea Alfie. All I do know is that insignificant and unimportant matters get ignored. Either the McCann detractors are a thorn in someone's side or they are being used as an excuse to bring in censorship of the internet.
Just for the record, I don't post in the hope of making a difference to anything.
-
I have no idea Alfie. All I do know is that insignificant and unimportant matters get ignored. Either the McCann detractors are a thorn in someone's side or they are being used as an excuse to bring in censorship of the internet.
Just for the record, I don't post in the hope of making a difference to anything.
I have literally no idea what you are talking about.
-
A very astute post G.
The 'troll' agenda is now being almost exclusively driven by the McCanns and their 'friendly' churnalists.
It will be interesting to see if those complaining about this academic research get answers to their questions, particularly the one about funding.
-
One thing has become clear over the last ten years. Trying to suggest that those who disagree with the McCann's theory are 'trolls' hasn't worked. Portraying the McCanns as innocent, hounded and bullied victims and their critics as inadequate, ill educated, jealous, evil tormentors hasn't worked. Just like the outpouring of bile directed at Amaral by the UK media didn't work.
Historically these tactics did work. Tony Benn was marginalised throughout his life by the media using similar tactics against him. Then everything changed. The rise of the internet and social media allowed people to access other sources of information. Thus the attempts by the media to demonise Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn failed miserably.
Calling people names instead of answering their questions suggests their questions are unanswerable.
The only group of people who I can have any understanding of - as to why they have such venomous opinions are those who are ignorant of the facts and really believe all the lies and myths which have been part of this case for 10 years.
Those include people who wrongly believe that the McCanns have admitted drugging their children, and not only did both go jogging on May 4th - but Gerry also played tennis! Then there are the mistaken beliefs that Madeleines DNA was found in the car and that if a dog barks - that proves a body was once in 5a.. Then there is the bloody footprint, the blood spattered wall etc etc.
Those are just a few examples - but if I believed them then I reckon I would be pretty furious too.
Unfortunately many of those sceptics (elsewhere) who are aware of the true facts prefer to turn a blind eye to the myths and lies believed by others and still peddled by them - rather than correct them. I find that very telling.
-
It will be interesting to see if those complaining about this academic research get answers to their questions, particularly the one about funding.
Who is complaining about the academic research?
-
The only group of people who I can have any understanding of - as to why they have such venomous opinions are those who are ignorant of the facts and really believe all the lies and myths which have been part of this case for 10 years.
Those include people who wrongly believe that the McCanns have admitted drugging their children, and not only did both go jogging on May 4th - but Gerry also played tennis! Then there are the mistaken beliefs that Madeleines DNA was found in the car and that if a dog barks - that proves a body was once in 5a.. Then there is the bloody footprint, the blood spattered wall etc etc.
Those are just a few examples - but if I believed them then I reckon I would be pretty furious too.
Unfortunately many of those sceptics (elsewhere) who are aware of the true facts prefer to turn a blind eye to the myths and lies believed by others and still peddled by them - rather than correct them. I find that very telling.
Exactly right - which is why I started the thread about the issue of sedating the children having become a "fact" that goes unchallenged by those who really should know better. It's obviously convenient for those with a "sceptic" agenda not to correct myths and the truth really is of little interest to such people. It's a propaganda campaign pure and simple. I think that makes these people trolls.
-
Exactly right - which is why I started the thread about the issue of sedating the children having become a "fact" that goes unchallenged by those who really should know better. It's obviously convenient for those with a "sceptic" agenda not to correct myths and the truth really is of little interest to such people. It's a propaganda campaign pure and simple. I think that makes these people trolls.
The problem is, supporters like to label sceptic theories with backup observations as myths but when it is beneficial to the McCanns those supporter
theories are labelled facts. Maybe we should call him them all theories.
-
Repeatedly stating abduction, no matter the lack of evidence for that
(or the other scenarios) is propaganda.
Stating people who don't believe in the McCann's story and calling them trolls is propaganda.
Rubbish stories in the newspapers by those close to the McCann's is propaganda.
Stories in the MSM by Kate McCann's close friend, Tracey Kandohla , is propaganda. How many readers are aware of their friendship ?
-
The only group of people who I can have any understanding of - as to why they have such venomous opinions are those who are ignorant of the facts and really believe all the lies and myths which have been part of this case for 10 years.
Those include people who wrongly believe that the McCanns have admitted drugging their children, and not only did both go jogging on May 4th - but Gerry also played tennis! Then there are the mistaken beliefs that Madeleines DNA was found in the car and that if a dog barks - that proves a body was once in 5a.. Then there is the bloody footprint, the blood spattered wall etc etc.
Those are just a few examples - but if I believed them then I reckon I would be pretty furious too.
Unfortunately many of those sceptics (elsewhere) who are aware of the true facts prefer to turn a blind eye to the myths and lies believed by others and still peddled by them - rather than correct them. I find that very telling.
I don't see much difference between mistaken sceptics and mistaken supporters. The supporters misinterpret and misquote also without being corrected by their better-informed members.
-
The problem is, supporters like to label sceptic theories with backup observations as myths but when it is beneficial to the McCanns those supporter
theories are labelled facts. Maybe we should call him them all theories.
I don't see many twitter trolls going out of their way to say "the McCanns sedated their children - THEORY!". It is presented as fact. Nor do I see many tweets from supporters saying "The McCanns did not sedate their children - FACT".
-
Exactly right - which is why I started the thread about the issue of sedating the children having become a "fact" that goes unchallenged by those who really should know better. It's obviously convenient for those with a "sceptic" agenda not to correct myths and the truth really is of little interest to such people. It's a propaganda campaign pure and simple. I think that makes these people trolls.
I have recently spent time correcting misconceptions about the SC judges ruling. Their words have been misunderstood and misquoted relentlessly. It may be that people don't understand them, it may be deliberate. Either way, without correction they could easily become supporter 'facts' and part of the propaganda campaign against the Portuguese judiciary.
-
I don't see many twitter trolls going out of their way to say "the McCanns sedated their children - THEORY!". It is presented as fact. Nor do I see many tweets from supporters saying "The McCanns did not sedate their children - FACT".
Then can I suggest you take your concerns up with the twitter trolls you mention and stop bringing them here?
-
I have recently spent time correcting misconceptions about the SC judges ruling. Their words have been misunderstood and misquoted relentlessly. It may be that people don't understand them, it may be deliberate. Either way, without correction they could easily become supporter 'facts' and part of the propaganda campaign against the Portuguese judiciary.
What propaganda campaign against the judiciary?
-
I have recently spent time correcting misconceptions about the SC judges ruling. Their words have been misunderstood and misquoted relentlessly. It may be that people don't understand them, it may be deliberate. Either way, without correction they could easily become supporter 'facts' and part of the propaganda campaign against the Portuguese judiciary.
Shame you aren't quite as at pains to correct misconceptions on both sides of the argument then isn't it? Or are you not bothered if some people think the McCanns actually did drug their children on holiday?
-
Then can I suggest you take your concerns up with the twitter trolls you mention and stop bringing them here?
Oh sorry, who made you moderator? I would suggest if you have a problem with discussion about twitter trolls on this forum you have a word with one of your colleagues and get this thread pulled, as the title of it is : "Madeleine McCann’s parents hit by ‘150 vile tweets a DAY from online trolls’
-
Shame you aren't quite as at pains to correct misconceptions on both sides of the argument then isn't it? Or are you not bothered if some people think the McCanns actually did drug their children on holiday?
not just drugged them, but have ADMITTED they drugged them.
(must go out now.)
-
Shame you aren't quite as at pains to correct misconceptions on both sides of the argument then isn't it? Or are you not bothered if some people think the McCanns actually did drug their children on holiday?
I post only on here, so I deal only with what I see here. Some people believe the McCanns drugged their children but there's no evidence to support that belief. Some people believe the McCanns didn't drug their children, but there's no evidence to support that belief. As far as I'm concerned I don't know the answer so how can I correct either side?
-
I post only on here, so I deal only with what I see here. Some people believe the McCanns drugged their children but there's no evidence to support that belief. Some people believe the McCanns didn't drug their children, but there's no evidence to support that belief. As far as I'm concerned I don't know the answer so how can I correct either side?
Because you know it has not been confirmed as a fact, that's how.
-
PS: what sort of evidence would you need to support the view that the McCanns DIDN'T drug their kids on holiday?
-
Because you know it has not been confirmed as a fact, that's how.
Which I have done on here, where I post.
-
Which I have done on here, where I post.
Then why ask how you can correct either side? I'd love a cite for that btw - you correcting a sceptic myth on this forum!
-
Then why ask how you can correct either side? I'd love a cite for that btw - you correcting a sceptic myth on this forum!
Are there people on here stating as a fact that the McCanns sedated their children? I thought you wanted me to join twitter, facebook and various forums so I can correct all and sundry. @)(++(*
My corrective posts do seem to be addressed to supporters because they are the ones I see posting opinion as if it was a fact; abduction, for example.
-
Are there people on here stating as a fact that the McCanns sedated their children? I thought you wanted me to join twitter, facebook and various forums so I can correct all and sundry. @)(++(*
My corrective posts do seem to be addressed to supporters because they are the ones I see posting opinion as if it was a fact; abduction, for example.
No I don't want you do do anything except stop pretending that you're balanced and fair-minded and unbiased.
-
No I don't want you do do anything except stop pretending that you're balanced and fair-minded and unbiased.
You confuse coming to a conclusion based on evidence with bias.
-
You confuse coming to a conclusion based on evidence with bias.
No I don't. Some people here have concluded that Madeleine died in a fall following sedation by her parents. There is f..k-all evidence for this conclusion. It's just a biased hunch. Nothing more.
-
No I don't. Some people here have concluded that Madeleine died in a fall following sedation by her parents. There is f..k-all evidence for this conclusion. It's just a biased hunch. Nothing more.
No it isn't, it's one of many theories that can be supported by the indications in the case. Bias is ignoring indications and working purely on belief.
-
No it isn't, it's one of many theories that can be supported by the indications in the case. Bias is ignoring indications and working purely on belief.
There is no evidence that the McCanns sedated their children and there is no evidence that Madeleine died in a fall - kindly desist from posting such utter nonsense.
-
Depends on your definition of troll I suppose. Could you clarify what it means to you ?
Someone who posts deliberately provocative things such as "What Arrogance! Are you sure you're not a McCann? @)(++(* "
-
Depends on your definition of troll I suppose. Could you clarify what it means to you ?
I have asked this a few times over the last couple of days or so.
Someone didn't like it and gave me two warnings.... &%+((£
-
No I don't want you do do anything except stop pretending that you're balanced and fair-minded and unbiased.
I see. Now you realise that it's unrealistic to suggest I patrol the internet correcting misapprehensions as I go you have decided a personal attack is in order. I am not balanced or fair-minded; I'm biased, but I pretend otherwise. Once again you have managed to identify my 'real' intentions and beliefs (in your dreams).
-
A very astute post G.
The 'troll' agenda is now being almost exclusively driven by the McCanns and their 'friendly' churnalists.
There is no evidence to confirm there are vile trolls attacking the McCann family on a daily basis???
Does it not occur to you that the trolls themselves ... and nobody but the trolls ... are driving the troll agenda by the fact of their vile activities.
-
I see. Now you realise that it's unrealistic to suggest I patrol the internet correcting misapprehensions as I go you have decided a personal attack is in order. I am not balanced or fair-minded; I'm biased, but I pretend otherwise. Once again you have managed to identify my 'real' intentions and beliefs (in your dreams).
Perhaps you could find the post where I suggested you should patrol the internet. I have formed an opinion of you based on your posting history and it is very clear to me that you have a definite bias, surely you cannot disagree with this?
-
There is no evidence to confirm there are vile trolls attacking the McCann family on a daily basis???
Does it not occur to you that the trolls themselves ... and nobody but the trolls ... are driving the troll agenda by the fact of their vile activities.
There are people posting their opinions of the McCann case online every day. I have yet to see evidence that they are all 'vile trolls' and that their intention is to 'attack the McCann family'. That is a matter of opinion, not fact.
-
There is no evidence to confirm there are vile trolls attacking the McCann family on a daily basis???
Does it not occur to you that the trolls themselves ... and nobody but the trolls ... are driving the troll agenda by the fact of their vile activities.
I think the McCanns, like many, many public figures have their share of twitter abuse. Unless it's threatening we rarely hear about it yet we hear about trolls attacking the McCanns week in, week out. Does the shame stop the trolls ? Of course not. Do the McCanns read it? We are told not. So what is the point of publicising it other than to elicit sympathy while subtly suggesting that all those who are sceptical of the McCanns story are somehow ' not in their right mind'?
-
The problem is, supporters like to label sceptic theories with backup observations as myths but when it is beneficial to the McCanns those supporter
theories are labelled facts. Maybe we should call him them all theories.
Dr John Synott doesn't have a theory that the McCann family are under constant attack by abusers using the internet to do so.
He has carried out a study into internet abuse ... and based on information which the trolls have worked hard at putting into the public domain ... has discovered proof of ...
Quote
“Most trolling behaviour has a lifespan of a couple of days.
“This has gone on for ten years, and you cannot see it ever ending. That is the legacy of the McCann case.
“In the physical world there are repercussions. You couldn’t get away with saying these things in the street. But in the virtual world there are no consequences.”
He estimated there were between 100 and 150 abusive comments directed on Twitter, Facebook and online McCann message boards everyday.
Much of the abuse targets the parents as being responsible over the little girl’s disappearance.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3008845/madeleine-mccanns-parents-trolls-150-tweets-a-day/
-
I think the McCanns, like many, many public figures have their share of twitter abuse. Unless it's threatening we rarely hear about it yet we hear about trolls attacking the McCanns week in, week out. Does the shame stop the trolls ? Of course not. Do the McCanns read it? We are told not. So what is the point of publicising it other than to elicit sympathy while subtly suggesting that all those who are sceptical of the McCanns story are somehow ' not in their right mind'?
It's an interesting subject. And someone was going to do it one day. It just happens to be now.
-
You confuse coming to a conclusion based on evidence with bias.
Isn't that exactly what is being done by some on this thread concerning the study carried out by Dr John Synott?
-
Perhaps you could find the post where I suggested you should patrol the internet. I have formed an opinion of you based on your posting history and it is very clear to me that you have a definite bias, surely you cannot disagree with this?
Your opinion of me is your business, and I have no interest in it. When you decide to share it with all and sundry it becomes my business. If I disagree with what you say about me I will say so. Otherwise I feel under no obligation to respond to your incessant curiosity about my opinions and motives.
-
How can the latest attempt via petition to Theresa May to have the McCanns prosecuted for child neglect aid anything other than the trolls' attempt to gain some sort of weird satisfaction? How do they think the twins would feel seeing their parents in court, knowing that police are still trying to find their sister?
-
It's an interesting subject. And someone was going to do it one day. It just happens to be now.
The surprise is it has taken so long in coming. I think this may very well be the first of many studies of this type.
-
Isn't that exactly what is being done by some on this thread concerning the study carried out by Dr John Synott?
I can't comment on the study because I can't find a transcript of it. I don't know what their definition of a 'troll' is, I don't know what they define as being 'vile', I don't know how long they devoted to their study or what they and others actually said to each other. Accepting or rejecting their findings isn't possible without more information.
-
Your opinion of me is your business, and I have no interest in it. When you decide to share it with all and sundry it becomes my business. If I disagree with what you say about me I will say so. Otherwise I feel under no obligation to respond to your incessant curiosity about my opinions and motives.
Fine, but this is a chat forum where exchanges of opinion take place, so when you state an opinion don't be surprised if it's challenged, and if you claim you are unbiased, unjudgemental, fair minded etc it helps to demonstrate these qualities in the posts you write, otherwise people like me will question your very high opinion of yourself.
-
Now let's see an analysis of those at the other end of the spectrum.
-
There are people posting their opinions of the McCann case online every day. I have yet to see evidence that they are all 'vile trolls' and that their intention is to 'attack the McCann family'. That is a matter of opinion, not fact.
Who has claimed that all people who post their opinion on the McCann case online are vile trolls?
-
I can't comment on the study because I can't find a transcript of it. I don't know what their definition of a 'troll' is, I don't know what they define as being 'vile', I don't know how long they devoted to their study or what they and others actually said to each other. Accepting or rejecting their findings isn't possible without more information.
Synnott, J., Coulias, A. and Ioannou, M. (2017) ‘Online trolling the case of Madeleine McCann’ Computers in Human Behavior , 71, pp. 70-78. ISSN 0747-5632
-
The surprise is it has taken so long in coming. I think this may very well be the first of many studies of this type.
I am also surprised that it has taken so long. It's been begging to be done for years. I've even done my own analysis. And pretty nearly spot on. All a bit sad, really.
-
Fine, but this is a chat forum where exchanges of opinion take place, so when you state an opinion don't be surprised if it's challenged, and if you claim you are unbiased, unjudgemental, fair minded etc it helps to demonstrate these qualities in the posts you write, otherwise people like me will question your very high opinion of yourself.
I do my utmost to support my opinions with facts. I have no objection to people proposing an alternative opinion based on facts.
I will continue to object if I am attacked on a personal level, which you are continuing to do above.
-
I do my utmost to support my opinions with facts. I have no objection to people proposing an alternative opinion based on facts.
I will continue to object if I am attacked on a personal level, which you are continuing to do above.
Your problem is what you believe to be factual
Your beliefs are based on the files and you believe the statements to be accurate
They are not
So the basis of your beliefs are flawed
-
I do my utmost to support my opinions with facts. I have no objection to people proposing an alternative opinion based on facts.
I will continue to object if I am attacked on a personal level, which you are continuing to do above.
You seem to make many observations about the McCanns based on things you find "odd" and "strange" or what you would or wouldn't do - that's opinion not fact. Carry on objecting by the way, I have no objection to you objecting. 8(0(*
-
Your problem is what you believe to be factual
Your beliefs are based on the files and you believe the statements to be accurate
They are not
So the basis of your beliefs are flawed
If someone signs a statement they are confirming it's accuracy. Please provide your evidence in support of your allegation that people signed inaccurate statements.
-
Synnott, J., Coulias, A. and Ioannou, M. (2017) ‘Online trolling the case of Madeleine McCann’ Computers in Human Behavior , 71, pp. 70-78. ISSN 0747-5632
I couldn't access the whole article, could you? If so a link would be appreciated.
-
If someone signs a statement they are confirming it's accuracy. Please provide your evidence in support of your allegation that people signed inaccurate statements.
From a legal point of view a signature on such a statement is worthless
This is something I do day in day out so I know what I'm talking about
-
I couldn't access the whole article, could you? If so a link would be appreciated.
I don't know if there is open access; it has been published.
There is an abstract available which is quite often all one can ever access of some scholarly works although this one does not appear to be in that category.
I would be interested in reading the paper.
In particular I would find interest in the defined characteristics of the anti-social personality disorder as displayed by the members of the established group diametrically in opposition to the McCanns contained within.
-
The kids have to be considered. I don't see that.
-
There is a point of view (expressed on this forum) that if vile abuse from twitter trolls is directed at the McCanns then it doesn't really matter as they are not on social media so don't read it. What do people holding this view think about the vile trolling of Katie Price's blind and mentally disabled son on twitter, given that he cannot read or understand the tweets does that make it OK? Kate Price has launched a petition to get such trolls prosecuted for a criminal act, do you think she's wrong?
-
Unlike some other petitions I could mention this one has received the required number for Parliament to consider a debate about it.
-
Unlike some other petitions I could mention this one has received the required number for Parliament to consider a debate about it.
But it isn't on The Parliamentary Web Site. Parliament will have turned it down. It will not be debated, probably because it is an ongoing investigation.
-
But it isn't on The Parliamentary Web Site. Parliament will have turned it down. It will not be debated, probably because it is an ongoing investigation.
I was referring to Katie Price's petition to make trolling a criminal offence, which has gained enough votes to be considerered for parliamentary debate.
-
I was referring to Katie Price's petition to make trolling a criminal offence, which has gained enough votes to be considerered for parliamentary debate.
To be fair I'm not sure Katie Price is the right person to raise this issue.
I remember once standing in a cue in a supermarket and beside me on a stand was one of those 'chat' type magazines and on the front cover was Katie Price revealing that she didn't think Harvey would be alive for her wedding ( to Peter Andre I believe). What kind of mother actually admits that to herself never mind sells her fears to the highest bidder? Miss Price has used her son's disability to garner sympathy and good press from the moment he was born so must accept her own role in the abhorrent treatment he is now receiving.
-
To be fair I'm not sure Katie Price is the right person to raise this issue.
I remember once standing in a cue in a supermarket and beside me on a stand was one of those 'chat' type magazines and on the front cover was Katie Price revealing that she didn't think Harvey would be alive for her wedding ( to Peter Andre I believe). What kind of mother actually admits that to herself never mind sells her fears to the highest bidder? Miss Price has used her son's disability to garner sympathy and good press from the moment he was born so must accept her own role in the abhorrent treatment he is now receiving.
What sort of a cue were you standing in? A snooker cue? More victim blaming I see, typical. I don't read those mags you are referring to but I do know they are as bad if not worse than the tabs for sensationalist headlines. The fact that you have fallen hook line and sinker for one and are using it as an excuse to blame Katie Price for the disgusting behaviour of trolls who write vile things about her son online tells me a lot about you. How about addressing my question anyway? As Harvey cannot read or understand the vile comments is it OK for them to be tweeted?
-
What sort of a cue were you standing in? A snooker cue? More victim blaming I see, typical. I don't read those mags you are referring to but I do know they are as bad if not worse than the tabs for sensationalist headlines. The fact that you have fallen hook line and sinker for one and are using it as an excuse to blame Katie Price for the disgusting behaviour of trolls who write vile things about her son online tells me a lot about you. How about addressing my question anyway? As Harvey cannot read or understand the vile comments is it OK for them to be tweeted?
So are you saying Katie Price didn't sell her story, including her fears, to the magazine?
And for the record I didn't blame Katie Price for the vile comments her son has received I merely pointed out that with her constant use of her son's disability to garner good publicity is not helping matters. Harvey, unfortunately, is a victim of his mother's obsessive need for publicity. Poor boy.
-
So are you saying Katie Price didn't sell her story, including her fears, to the magazine?
And for the record I didn't blame Katie Price for the vile comments her son has received I merely pointed out that with her constant use of her son's disability to garner good publicity is not helping matters. Harvey, unfortunately, is a victim of his mother's obsessive need for publicity. Poor boy.
Victim blaming again. You just can't help it can you? What you are clearly saying is Katie Price is to blame for the trolls' behaviour, behaviour which you have repeatedly refused to condemn.
-
Victim blaming again. You just can't help it can you? What you are clearly saying is Katie Price is to blame for the trolls' behaviour, behaviour which you have repeatedly refused to condemn.
Anyone who invites the public into their lives loses the right to prevent discussion of those items shared with the public.
-
Victim blaming again. You just can't help it can you? What you are clearly saying is Katie Price is to blame for the trolls' behaviour, behaviour which you have repeatedly refused to condemn.
While the behaviour of those posting vile comments is abhorrent Katie Price does little to dissuade the posters with her publicising into every area of her personal life. Does any other celebrity with a disabled child engender this kind of treatment?
-
Victim blaming again. You just can't help it can you? What you are clearly saying is Katie Price is to blame for the trolls' behaviour, behaviour which you have repeatedly refused to condemn.
Whilst not condoning the trolls nor condemning K Price have you seen the latest picture offerings of the said person and a supposed police probe for going topless on a Maldives beach which violates local sharia law,hardly a paragon of virtue.
-
Anyone who invites the public into their lives loses the right to prevent discussion of those items shared with the public.
So are you saying that Katie Price has no right to try and prevent twitter trolls from writing vile things about her disabled son on twitter?
-
While the behaviour of those posting vile comments is abhorrent Katie Price does little to dissuade the posters with her publicising into every area of her personal life. Does any other celebrity with a disabled child engender this kind of treatment?
That is beside the point - my original question was:
There is a point of view (expressed on this forum) that if vile abuse from twitter trolls is directed at the McCanns then it doesn't really matter as they are not on social media so don't read it. What do people holding this view think about the vile trolling of Katie Price's blind and mentally disabled son on twitter, given that he cannot read or understand the tweets does that make it OK?
-
That is beside the point - my original question was:
There is a point of view (expressed on this forum) that if vile abuse from twitter trolls is directed at the McCanns then it doesn't really matter as they are not on social media so don't read it. What do people holding this view think about the vile trolling of Katie Price's blind and mentally disabled son on twitter, given that he cannot read or understand the tweets does that make it OK?
Out of interest have you actually read this supposed trolling on twitter (a place I do not go) or are you being offended on behalf of others.
Edit to add I see in another thread you have pretty much answered that.
-
Out of interest have you actually read this supposed trolling on twitter (a place I do not go) or are you being offended on behalf of others.
Edit to add I see in another thread you have pretty much answered that.
Interesting to note that no one has actually bothered to address my question but have continued to skirt around the issue.
-
That is beside the point - my original question was:
There is a point of view (expressed on this forum) that if vile abuse from twitter trolls is directed at the McCanns then it doesn't really matter as they are not on social media so don't read it. What do people holding this view think about the vile trolling of Katie Price's blind and mentally disabled son on twitter, given that he cannot read or understand the tweets does that make it OK?
Perhaps you should research Katie Price's history on Twitter.
Hardly an angel.
Clearly her disabled son would be unaware of this .
As to stopping this kind of behaviour, how exactly would that be done ?
-
Perhaps you should research Katie Price's history on Twitter.
Hardly an angel.
Clearly her disabled son would be unaware of this .
As to stopping this kind of behaviour, how exactly would that be done ?
The question is about vile tweets and whether or not the target of the tweets actually reads them. If Harvey cannot read or understand the vile tweets then "no harm done" right? Or not?
-
The question is about vile tweets and whether or not the target of the tweets actually reads them. If Harvey cannot read or understand the vile tweets then "no harm done" right? Or not?
I have not read these tweets you refer to.
However, Alfie you are clearly using K. Price and her son as a diversion.
Now since the Mccann's don't use social media, how has it harmed them ?
As you know full well, people on both sides of the case have exchanged words.
How would you stop it ?
-
I have not read these tweets you refer to.
However, Alfie you are clearly using K. Price and her son as a diversion.
Now since the Mccann's don't use social media, how has it harmed them ?
As you know full well, people on both sides of the case have exchanged words.
How would you stop it ?
its harmed their reputation.......because others have read it.....is that so hard to understand
-
I have not read these tweets you refer to.
However, Alfie you are clearly using K. Price and her son as a diversion.
Now since the Mccann's don't use social media, how has it harmed them ?
As you know full well, people on both sides of the case have exchanged words.
How would you stop it ?
There is no way it can be stopped without clamping down on freedom of speech which I am against. I'm more interested in the moral aspect which is why I asked the question - if the person being ridiculed and bullied and mocked does not read or understand what hundreds of people are tweeting and re-tweeting about them has any real harm been done or not?
-
its harmed their reputation.......because others have read it.....is that so hard to understand
Their reputations Dave, were harmed by what they did in Portugal.
That was self induced.
-
Loving this article by Grace Dent, especially:
And if, like me, you’re on the internet all day, one will see the very best of mankind, but also humanity’s worst, distilled into an effervessant flow of mispelled, gormless tweets. It’s hard to read the tech-propelled mind-farts of anti-semites, meninists, back-bedroom Jihadis, Madeline McCann obsessives, UniLad misogynists or Gamergate oddballs without dreaming of asbos raining down like confetti, smothering them all.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/internet-trolls-are-infuriating-and-depressing-but-giving-them-asbos-is-not-the-answer-10034692.html
She is right of course. All the above mentioned category of twitter tw.. are generally harmless, if unpleasant, and so best ignored if possible (though it's difficult to do when you or your loved ones are on the receiving end of twitter storm).
-
So are you saying that Katie Price has no right to try and prevent twitter trolls from writing vile things about her disabled son on twitter?
No I'm saying she inflames the situation with her constant publicity seeking.
-
No I'm saying she inflames the situation with her constant publicity seeking.
Do vile, disgusting or defamtory tweets matter if the person being tweeted about cannot read them? Put it another way, if a group of children mock or taunt a blind, deaf child in their midst is it OK because the deaf, blind child is unaware of the mocking and taunting?
-
The question is about vile tweets and whether or not the target of the tweets actually reads them. If Harvey cannot read or understand the vile tweets then "no harm done" right? Or not?
You seem to be confusing several different issues here.
If the objective is to harm Harvey then no harm has been done to him as he cannot understand the offensive things said.
If the objective is to cause annoyance to his mother then possibly it will work.
Is the matter actionable at law? It is then a matter for the police or anyone who wishes to complain to the police about the matter.
Are the tweets morally questionable ....in my book yes but such idiots who tweet such things exist and unless I go to work on them with an AK 47 they will continue to exist. Some as McCann supporters.
Posting on here about it will achieve sweet Felicity Arkwright.
-
Do vile, disgusting or defamtory tweets matter if the person being tweeted about cannot read them? Put it another way, if a group of children mock or taunt a blind, deaf child in their midst is it OK because the deaf, blind child is unaware of the mocking and taunting?
No.
-
No.
Then presumably you agree that the argument "The McCanns are not on social media" is beside the point? Vile tweets are vile tweets and indefensible whether or not the person about whom the tweets are written see them or not. Furthermore, such tweets can do harm to both a person's reputation and the way they are viewed by others, whether or not the person about whom the tweets are written see them or not.
-
Then presumably you agree that the argument "The McCanns are not on social media" is beside the point? Vile tweets are vile tweets and indefensible whether or not the person about whom the tweets are written see them or not. Furthermore, such tweets can do harm to both a person's reputation and the way they are viewed by others, whether or not the person about whom the tweets are written see them or not.
The McCann's reputations Alfie, were already damaged by what happened in 2007.
-
The McCann's reputations Alfie, were already damaged by what happened in 2007.
I agree, they were. That does not however excuse the actions of those who seem not to have noticed that we're no longer in 2007, that in 10 years the McCanns have never been charged let alone found guilty of any crime. Do the McCanns not deserve the opportunity to rebuild their reputations or have they not yet been reminded enough of their mistakes or how much some people seem to despise them, in your view?
-
I agree, they were. That does not however excuse the actions of those who seem not to have noticed that we're no longer in 2007, that in 10 years the McCanns have never been charged let alone found guilty of any crime. Do the McCanns not deserve the opportunity to rebuild their reputations or have they not yet been reminded enough of their mistakes or how much some people seem to despise them, in your view?
It would start Alfie, if they actually admitted leaving their children the way they did , which was wrong and dangerous.
Likewise, blaming other people.
-
It would start Alfie, if they actually admitted leaving their children the way they did , which was wrong and dangerous.
Likewise, blaming other people.
I'm not interested in getting into yet another circular argument about this. Regardles of what the McCanns have or haven't done, or what you perceive they have and haven't done, t's time for everyone to move on IMO. The 10th anniversary is a good opportunity for people to let it lie and direct their energies into something more worthwhile. Easier said than done I know because this is not just or even about the McCanns and what they've done, or about Madeleine, it's mainly about the argument between two sides and after 10 years it's become habit forming and it's difficult to walk away from.
-
I'm not interested in getting into yet another circular argument about this. Regardles of what the McCanns have or haven't done, or what you perceive they have and haven't done, t's time for everyone to move on IMO. The 10th anniversary is a good opportunity for people to let it lie and direct their energies into something more worthwhile. Easier said than done I know because this is not just or even about the McCanns and what they've done, or about Madeleine, it's mainly about the argument between two sides and after 10 years it's become habit forming and it's difficult to walk away from.
I do agree with your last sentence.
However, perception of the Mccanns would improve, if they stopped giving the impression that they have a right of entitlement to special treatment, and that is what they have had.
-
Then presumably you agree that the argument "The McCanns are not on social media" is beside the point? Vile tweets are vile tweets and indefensible whether or not the person about whom the tweets are written see them or not. Furthermore, such tweets can do harm to both a person's reputation and the way they are viewed by others, whether or not the person about whom the tweets are written see them or not.
Define vile?
-
I'm not interested in getting into yet another circular argument about this. Regardles of what the McCanns have or haven't done, or what you perceive they have and haven't done, t's time for everyone to move on IMO. The 10th anniversary is a good opportunity for people to let it lie and direct their energies into something more worthwhile. Easier said than done I know because this is not just or even about the McCanns and what they've done, or about Madeleine, it's mainly about the argument between two sides and after 10 years it's become habit forming and it's difficult to walk away from.
That's a very sensible post but there's not much hope of it happening imo. What is achievable is sensible debate on this forum without name calling and point scoring.
-
Define vile?
How about a tweet of a photograph of skeletal remains captioned "Madeleine McCann today"? Or a photograph of the McCanns sitting in a restaurant taken without their permission or knowledge inviting people to visit the restaurant to verbally and physically abuse them? Vile enough for you?
-
How about a tweet of a photograph of skeletal remains captioned "Madeleine McCann today"? Or a photograph of the McCanns sitting in a restaurant taken without their permission or knowledge inviting people to visit the restaurant to verbally and physically abuse them? Vile enough for you?
I agree those tweets are vile but are they representative of most tweets?
-
That's a very sensible post but there's not much hope of it happening imo. What is achievable is sensible debate on this forum without name calling and point scoring.
On the whole you set a good standard.
-
On the whole you set a good standard.
Thank you Rob. You do too.
-
How about a tweet of a photograph of skeletal remains captioned "Madeleine McCann today"? Or a photograph of the McCanns sitting in a restaurant taken without their permission or knowledge inviting people to visit the restaurant to verbally and physically abuse them? Vile enough for you?
SO what you are saying is you are looking for tweets to complain about, and bring this to the forum on the hope all the non believers can feel bad about being non believers. if not what is the point of this thread?
What you need to do is stop reading rubbish on tw..ter, to stop yourself from getting upset on behalf of others. Who don't have the app as we are told.
" Mummy My eye won't stop bleeding" reply "Well child stop stabbing yourself in the eye with a sharp implement- it will soon stop darling"...
-
SO what you are saying is you are looking for tweets to complain about, and bring this to the forum on the hope all the non believers can feel bad about being non believers. if not what is the point of this thread?
What you need to do is stop reading rubbish on tw..ter, to stop yourself from getting upset on behalf of others. Who don't have the app as we are told.
" Mummy My eye won't stop bleeding" reply "Well child stop stabbing yourself in the eye with a sharp implement- it will soon stop darling"...
8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Lots of excuses made when the truth is that these tweets should be condemned by all decent people
In truth I suppose they are
-
SO what you are saying is you are looking for tweets to complain about, and bring this to the forum on the hope all the non believers can feel bad about being non believers. if not what is the point of this thread?
What you need to do is stop reading rubbish on tw..ter, to stop yourself from getting upset on behalf of others. Who don't have the app as we are told.
" Mummy My eye won't stop bleeding" reply "Well child stop stabbing yourself in the eye with a sharp implement- it will soon stop darling"...
This thread was not started by me. I was asked for a definition of vile. I stopped reading the #McCann regularly years ago. Thanks for your advice, or should I say orders. I am not upset on behalf of anyone. I'm not even upset on behalf of myself. Keep calm and carry on...
-
SO what you are saying is you are looking for tweets to complain about, and bring this to the forum on the hope all the non believers can feel bad about being non believers. if not what is the point of this thread?
What you need to do is stop reading rubbish on tw..ter, to stop yourself from getting upset on behalf of others. Who don't have the app as we are told.
" Mummy My eye won't stop bleeding" reply "Well child stop stabbing yourself in the eye with a sharp implement- it will soon stop darling"...
That seems to be about the size of it.
-
This thread was not started by me. I was asked for a definition of vile. I stopped reading the #McCann regularly years ago. Thanks for your advice, or should I say orders. I am not upset on behalf of anyone. I'm not even upset on behalf of myself. Keep calm and carry on...
Buddy Holly, John Wayne, The Searchers (film not group): "That'll be the day"
-
Buddy Holly, John Wayne, The Searchers (film not group): "That'll be the day"
lol love your signature...
Re this anguish of the parents was it apparent on any of their interviews, maybe I missed one? I am talking about the anguish of their daughter being abducted by paedophiles.
-
lol love your signature...
Re this anguish of the parents was it apparent on any of their interviews, maybe I missed one? I am talking about the anguish of their daughter being abducted by paedophiles.
Don't push it, Miss.
-
People should ask themselves why the #Needham doesn't receive the abuse the #McCann apparently receives. Why is that?
-
People should ask themselves why the #Needham doesn't receive the abuse the #McCann apparently receives. Why is that?
We 've already done this. Also there isn't an online action group convinced that Kerry knows more than she is letting on and determined to see her banged up.
-
We 've already done this. Also there isn't an online action group convinced that Kerry knows more than she is letting on and determined to see her banged up.
But why?
-
But why?
Why what?
-
People should ask themselves why the #Needham doesn't receive the abuse the #McCann apparently receives. Why is that?
The Needhams have not had a whole load of lies told about them by the detective who led the search for Ben....the mcCanns critics actually believe the McCanns are guilty based on the rubbish they have read...it really is that simple
have the needhams had to sue newspapers for defamatory stories....no
-
The Needhams have not had a whole load of lies told about them by the detective who led the search for Ben....the mcCanns critics actually believe the McCanns are guilty based on the rubbish they have read...it really is that simple
have the needhams had to sue newspapers for defamatory stories....no
Nor were the case files in the Ben Needham case released on the internet. Imagine what conspiracies could have been woven out of all the inevitable inconsistencies in the witness statetements, the critical character assessments, the "he said, she said" tittle tattle.
-
Why what?
Why are there online groups and so much dislike of the McCanns, a couple you should elicit nothing but sympathy from the public?
-
Nor were the case files in the Ben Needham case released on the internet. Imagine what conspiracies could have been woven out of all the inevitable inconsistencies in the witness statetements, the critical character assessments, the "he said, she said" tittle tattle.
As far as I recall the Needhams were never made official suspects or refused to answer the simplest questions.
They have also spent years searching for their child in the country where he disappeared relegating personal gain and career choice to the back seat.
-
But why?
Because the internet was not 'around' when Ben Needham disappeared. If it had existed in the same way as it does in recent years the conspiracy theorists would have been having a field day from day one - which no doubt would have drawn in anyone who had any doubts about the fact that there was no evidence that Ben had been abducted - and that they only had the family's word for what happened.
But I'm sure you already know that Faith.
-
Because the internet was not 'around' when Ben Needham disappeared. If it had existed in the same way as it does in recent years the conspiracy theorists would have been having a field day from day one - which no doubt would have drawn in anyone who had any doubts about the fact that there was no evidence that Ben had been abducted - and that they only had the family's word for what happened.
But I'm sure you already know that Faith.
But the internet is around now Benice and Ben still hasn't been found so why is Kerry held in such high regard while the McCanns inspire such 'vileness' ?
-
As far as I recall the Needhams were never made official suspects or refused to answer the simplest questions.
They have also spent years searching for their child in the country where he disappeared relegating personal gain and career choice to the back seat.
Are those all good reasons for writing abusive tweets about the McCanns accusing them of all sorts in your view then? Because one mother of a missing child is as pure as the driven snow (actually perhaps you should read Kerry's book for the full sp on that) and the other was once (but no longer) a suspectin their child's disappearance then the latter deserve to be the victim of a hate campaign, is that your reasoning?
-
Because the internet was not 'around' when Ben Needham disappeared. If it had existed in the same way as it does in recent years the conspiracy theorists would have been having a field day from day one - which no doubt would have drawn in anyone who had any doubts about the fact that there was no evidence that Ben had been abducted - and that they only had the family's word for what happened.
But I'm sure you already know that Faith.
Even so, the Needham case has received a lot of publicity recently but doesn't engender the same vile comments as the McC's.
-
The Needhams have not had a whole load of lies told about them by the detective who led the search for Ben....the mcCanns critics actually believe the McCanns are guilty based on the rubbish they have read...it really is that simple
have the needhams had to sue newspapers for defamatory stories....no
Some people don't attract suspicion, some do. The McCanns managed to raise suspicions during the investigation and those suspicions have never been allayed.
-
Are those all good reasons for writing abusive tweets about the McCanns accusing them of all sorts in your view then? Because one mother of a missing child is as pure as the driven snow (actually perhaps you should read Kerry's book for the full sp on that) and the other was once (but no longer) a suspect in their child's disappearance then the latter deserve to be the victim of a hate campaign, is that your reasoning?
I don't think the Needhams were ever official suspects unlike the McCanns?
Could it also be the case that the British public don't take kindly to the parents of a missing kid publishing unflattering comments about ordinary policemen whose only crime was doing their job?
-
Some people don't attract suspicion, some do. The McCanns managed to raise suspicions during the investigation and those suspicions have never been allayed.
Not to mention the entire Metodo3 Correia conspiracy which I hope Amaral chooses to expose in full in his third book.
-
I don't think the Needhams were ever official suspects unlike the McCanns?
Could it also be the case that the British public don't take kindly to the parents of a missing kid publishing unflattering comments about ordinary policemen whose only crime was doing their job?
No, I don't think it's that @)(++(*. I wasn't aware that the GBP generally had a huge amount of respect for foreign ex-policemen with criminal records.
-
But the internet is around now Benice and Ben still hasn't been found so why is Kerry held in such high regard while the McCanns inspire such 'vileness' ?
Because the conspiracy theorists etc etc get all the enjoyment they need out of being vile to the McCanns - and a similar group of people was not able to get established via the internet when Ben disappeared . If it had been possible then IMO Ben's family would have received exactly the same vile treatment as the McCanns have.
-
Some people don't attract suspicion, some do. The McCanns managed to raise suspicions during the investigation and those suspicions have never been allayed.
No, instead they have been stoked by an ex-cop with a grudge, and his acolytes beavering away 24/7 to recruit more and more sceptics to the cause in a quite deliberate crusade.
-
I seem to recall both Denise Bulger and Sara Payne being on the receiving end of vile social media abuse, the latter so much so that she had to close here twitter account. Why was that then?
-
Sara Payne received a decade of abuse in twitter
http://news.sky.com/story/sara-payne-quits-twitter-after-decade-of-abuse-10382165
-
Sara Payne received a decade of abuse in twitter
http://news.sky.com/story/sara-payne-quits-twitter-after-decade-of-abuse-10382165
I am not au fait with the Sarah Payne case, so my 'knowledge' is restricted to that in the link you gave.
Presumably the offensive tweets came from those who consider Mrs Payne had committed some sort of 'crime' or other, or simply because the writers enjoyed inflicting pain.
Whichever it may be, it shows that the McCanns are not alone in being on the receiving end of nasty tweets. Unfortunately it would seem to be 'normal' behaviour for some, with the only solution being to ignore social media. Which I believe is what the McCanns do - ignore social media.
-
I am not au fait with the Sarah Payne case, so my 'knowledge' is restricted to that in the link you gave.
Presumably the offensive tweets came from those who consider Mrs Payne had committed some sort of 'crime' or other, or simply because the writers enjoyed inflicting pain.
Whichever it may be, it shows that the McCanns are not alone in being on the receiving end of nasty tweets. Unfortunately it would seem to be 'normal' behaviour for some, with the only solution being to ignore social media. Which I believe is what the McCanns do - ignore social media.
its not the only solution.....another solution is to let people know that their behaviour is unnacceptable...its a form of bullying which should not be tolerated otherwise it will be accepted as the norm....we should never turn a blind eye to bullying...I'm sure you agree
-
its not the only solution.....another solution is to let people know that their behaviour is unnacceptable...its a form of bullying which should not be tolerated otherwise it will be accepted as the norm....we should never turn a blind eye to bullying...I'm sure you agree
Unless they read them and respond to them, I don't see how they can complain about them or correct or warn the worst offenders.
The last time someone compiled a twitter dossier, the outcome was serious, was it not.
I do not follow twitter, therefore I cannot verify the accuracy of the '150 vile tweets a day' claim. What I do know is that even with a group of about half a dozen moderators, moderating this forum takes a good deal of time and effort, and I would not characterise many posts on here as being 'vile'.
I would have thought the McCann support team would be able to identify the worst offenders, compile a dossier of the worst offences, and request action from Twitter to censure these people.
Unless the original story is blx, and by that I mean less than 1% of tweets are offensive, then Team McCann should request that Twitter monitors the McCann hashtag themselves. So the first step is getting some accuracy in the figures, not relying on The Sun reporting.
-
Unless they read them and respond to them, I don't see how they can complain about them or correct or warn the worst offenders.
The last time someone compiled a twitter dossier, the outcome was serious, was it not.
I do not follow twitter, therefore I cannot verify the accuracy of the '150 vile tweets a day' claim. What I do know is that even with a group of about half a dozen moderators, moderating this forum takes a good deal of time and effort, and I would not characterise many posts on here as being 'vile'.
I would have thought the McCann support team would be able to identify the worst offenders, compile a dossier of the worst offences, and request action from Twitter to censure these people.
Unless the original story is blx, and by that I mean less than 1% of tweets are offensive, then Team McCann should request that Twitter monitors the McCann hashtag themselves. So the first step is getting some accuracy in the figures, not relying on The Sun reporting.
One wonders how many people take the trouble to respond to Sun newspaper articles which refer to the McCann family ... and how many of those are less than kindly disposed towards them?
That might give reporters an edge in their ability to quantify numbers.
-
Unless they read them and respond to them, I don't see how they can complain about them or correct or warn the worst offenders.
The last time someone compiled a twitter dossier, the outcome was serious, was it not.
I do not follow twitter, therefore I cannot verify the accuracy of the '150 vile tweets a day' claim. What I do know is that even with a group of about half a dozen moderators, moderating this forum takes a good deal of time and effort, and I would not characterise many posts on here as being 'vile'.
I would have thought the McCann support team would be able to identify the worst offenders, compile a dossier of the worst offences, and request action from Twitter to censure these people.
Unless the original story is blx, and by that I mean less than 1% of tweets are offensive, then Team McCann should request that Twitter monitors the McCann hashtag themselves. So the first step is getting some accuracy in the figures, not relying on The Sun reporting.
Twitter really doesn't give a shit tbh and certainly isn't going to employ people to monitor the McCann hashtag.
-
Unless they read them and respond to them, I don't see how they can complain about them or correct or warn the worst offenders.
The last time someone compiled a twitter dossier, the outcome was serious, was it not.
I do not follow twitter, therefore I cannot verify the accuracy of the '150 vile tweets a day' claim. What I do know is that even with a group of about half a dozen moderators, moderating this forum takes a good deal of time and effort, and I would not characterise many posts on here as being 'vile'.
I would have thought the McCann support team would be able to identify the worst offenders, compile a dossier of the worst offences, and request action from Twitter to censure these people.
Unless the original story is blx, and by that I mean less than 1% of tweets are offensive, then Team McCann should request that Twitter monitors the McCann hashtag themselves. So the first step is getting some accuracy in the figures, not relying on The Sun reporting.
the 150 abusive tweets claim came from an impartial study on the phenomenon of abuse on twitter, specificslly with reference to the McCann hashtag. If you wish to dispute the claims made by those learned individuals it is incumbent on you to provide a rebuttal to their claims, or accept it as fact. Your choice.
-
I don't think the Needhams were ever official suspects unlike the McCanns?
Could it also be the case that the British public don't take kindly to the parents of a missing kid publishing unflattering comments about ordinary policemen whose only crime was doing their job?
I think you will find the grandmother was interviewed as a suspect....which of course is normal practice...
there has been a lot of lies told by the police officers in question relating to this case....that is more relevant
Then of course we have the files...were there any alleged inconsistencies in the needhams statements....we dont know
and of course lies told by posters on forums such as this
-
Unless they read them and respond to them, I don't see how they can complain about them or correct or warn the worst offenders.
The last time someone compiled a twitter dossier, the outcome was serious, was it not.
I do not follow twitter, therefore I cannot verify the accuracy of the '150 vile tweets a day' claim. What I do know is that even with a group of about half a dozen moderators, moderating this forum takes a good deal of time and effort, and I would not characterise many posts on here as being 'vile'.
I would have thought the McCann support team would be able to identify the worst offenders, compile a dossier of the worst offences, and request action from Twitter to censure these people.
Unless the original story is blx, and by that I mean less than 1% of tweets are offensive, then Team McCann should request that Twitter monitors the McCann hashtag themselves. So the first step is getting some accuracy in the figures, not relying on The Sun reporting.
It all depends on how sensitive you are. 'Vile' appears to be being defined as 'anything relating to the McCanns'.
-
No, I don't think it's that @)(++(*. I wasn't aware that the GBP generally had a huge amount of respect for foreign ex-policemen with criminal records.
Well the GoFundMe appeal proved you wrong there. The comments on the newspaper stories lately too. It seems a lot of people prefer him to a doctor and a 'resting' doctor with no criminal records.
-
Well the GoFundMe appeal proved you wrong there. The comments on the newspaper stories lately too. It seems a lot of people prefer him to a doctor and a 'resting' doctor with no criminal records.
The PJGA page is absolutely overflowing with congratulatory messages for the main man following his "victory". @)(++(*.
I think support for him from the GBP may have been more about a means to hurt the McCanns & rather less about support for the man himself. JMO.
-
Well the GoFundMe appeal proved you wrong there. The comments on the newspaper stories lately too. It seems a lot of people prefer him to a doctor and a 'resting' doctor with no criminal records.
What percentage of the GBP do you think donated to his fund? As for his online fanclub, yes we know there are dozens, it means nothing in the grand scheme of things. IT would be like me saying the GBP support the McCanns because they made Kate's book a bestseller, donated large amounts to the fund and they have half a million followers on facebook. I'm sure you would outright reject this notion.
-
the 150 abusive tweets claim came from an impartial study on the phenomenon of abuse on twitter, specificslly with reference to the McCann hashtag. If you wish to dispute the claims made by those learned individuals it is incumbent on you to provide a rebuttal to their claims, or accept it as fact. Your choice.
I have no need whatsoever to accept this claim, nor to rebut it, as I am sure you are aware.
What has been published on-line about the actual study does not AFAIK claim 150 as a daily total, nor does it define how it classifies tweets as 'vile'. I can't remember if it even uses the word 'vile'.
The '150 vile tweets a day' from memory, originates from The Sun, a newspaper not known for factual, accurate reporting.
Consequently, if YOU wish to claim '150 vile tweets a day' as an established fact straight from the scientists' report, it is up to YOU to provide evidence of YOUR assertion. Presumably you have the word they actually used, which would equate to 'vile', and the methodology used, which would be enlightening. Oh, and the total number of tweets/day used the hashtag they were examining. The devil is in the detail.
-
I have no need whatsoever to accept this claim, nor to rebut it, as I am sure you are aware.
What has been published on-line about the actual study does not AFAIK claim 150 as a daily total, nor does it define how it classifies tweets as 'vile'. I can't remember if it even uses the word 'vile'.
The '150 vile tweets a day' from memory, originates from The Sun, a newspaper not known for factual, accurate reporting.
Consequently, if YOU wish to claim '150 vile tweets a day' as an established fact straight from the scientists' report, it is up to YOU to provide evidence of YOUR assertion. Presumably you have the word they actually used, which would equate to 'vile', and the methodology used, which would be enlightening. Oh, and the total number of tweets/day used the hashtag they were examining. The devil is in the detail.
It's all in their report - I suggest you read it if you're genuinely interested (which I strongly suspect you are not).
-
I don't think the Needhams were ever official suspects unlike the McCanns?
Could it also be the case that the British public don't take kindly to the parents of a missing kid publishing unflattering comments about ordinary policemen whose only crime was doing their job?
Needhams involvement in the disappearance of Ben was considered by the police. kerry herself has said this. In Greece there is not the status of "arguido". If the detectives have suspects in mind never say their names unless they can produce evidence that will stand up in a court of law.
Kerry Needham has expressed her displeasure with greek's police behavior.
In her book "Ben" says that police first wanted to look at the family and that they accuse her brother of accidentally killing Ben. They suspected even Ben's father of taking him.
Fortunately, none of these detectives wrote a book about these theories.
-
Unless they read them and respond to them, I don't see how they can complain about them or correct or warn the worst offenders.
The last time someone compiled a twitter dossier, the outcome was serious, was it not.
I do not follow twitter, therefore I cannot verify the accuracy of the '150 vile tweets a day' claim. What I do know is that even with a group of about half a dozen moderators, moderating this forum takes a good deal of time and effort, and I would not characterise many posts on here as being 'vile'.
I would have thought the McCann support team would be able to identify the worst offenders, compile a dossier of the worst offences, and request action from Twitter to censure these people.
Unless the original story is blx, and by that I mean less than 1% of tweets are offensive, then Team McCann should request that Twitter monitors the McCann hashtag themselves. So the first step is getting some accuracy in the figures, not relying on The Sun reporting.
its bullying pure and simple....and by not condemnining it you are supporting bullying...well done
-
its bullying pure and simple....and by not condemnining it you are supporting bullying...well done
I have seen some nasty posts about Amaral and Grime. Do you condemn them?
-
I have seen some nasty posts about Amaral and Grime. Do you condemn them?
posts where and saying what
-
I have seen some nasty posts about Amaral and Grime. Do you condemn them?
The irony of someone referring to bullying, when he himself has bullied people on here and used extremely derogatory terms towards others, is beyond hypocrisy.
-
The irony of someone referring to bullying, when he himself has bullied people on here and used extremely derogatory terms towards others, is beyond hypocrisy.
no hypocrisy....I am standing up to the bullies and like all bullies...when someone stands up to them they start to cry
-
posts where and saying what
On this forum and if you haven't seen them you must have very selective eyesight.
-
On this forum and if you haven't seen them you must have very selective eyesight.
so is saying amaral is a convicted criminal vile or nasty or fair comment.
I have seen nothing vile about grime. anything directed at either is similar to what you and others have said about SY.
angelo referred to the mccanns as shit parents....sil referred to maddie as a pain in the arse....it is you who has selective eyesight
-
On this forum and if you haven't seen them you must have very selective eyesight.
Please don't try and pretend that "some nasty posts" about Amaral and Grime on this forum are anything like the scale of what this study has been looking at regarding the vitriol and bile posted about the McCanns. That's an insult to to the intelligence, frankly.
-
On this forum and if you haven't seen them you must have very selective eyesight.
one of yours regarding redwood..
' will be greeted with the same hilarity that Redwood encountered with his rather pathetic narrative about 'crecheman'.
-
It's all in their report - I suggest you read it if you're genuinely interested (which I strongly suspect you are not).
The only way you can assert this is if you have purchased and read the report.
Since you haven't provided the pertinent details, it is safe to assume you have not.
Therefore an unverified claim peddled as fact.
Game over.
-
its bullying pure and simple....and by not condemnining it you are supporting bullying...well done
Hardly bullying if the McCanns don't read it.
I don't see the need to support your assertion/opinion until basic facts are established. Since you too are making claims without the facts, you are simply playing an emotion game.
Either produce the relevant facts, or it's game over.
-
What is blatantly obvious, is that certain parties only have sympathy for the McCann's, and won't accept it happens to others, unless of course it suits their agenda.
Meanwhile, some have repeatedly abused other posters on here, and when getting a taste of their own medicine, immediately run to the mods. A true sign of a bully.
I wonder how many former posters on here have departed for that reason. &%+((£
-
The only way you can assert this is if you have purchased and read the report.
Since you haven't provided the pertinent details, it is safe to assume you have not.
Therefore an unverified claim peddled as fact.
Game over.
I have read the whole report actually. It makes no mention of '150 vile tweets a day'. The newspaper in question has taken an estimate provided by the author of the report given to the paper of the number of abusive comments made about the McCanns on a daily basis across various social media platforms, not just twitter and turned it into an attention grabbing headline. It's his estimate based on the work he and his colleagues undertook over a six week period. If you wish to disbelieve the author's estimate or the work he and his colleagues did on the subject then that's entirely up to you. I've no interest in what you believe or in trying to convince you that the McCanns are the subject of a huge amount of online abuse on a daily basis. I know what I know, and I know I'm right, that is all. 8(>((
-
no hypocrisy....I am standing up to the bullies and like all bullies...when someone stands up to them they start to cry
The only way anyone could do that is by being on Twitter, reading the McCann hashtag stream, and responding to your so-called bullies.
Have you been doing that? Is this just hot air?
Enlighten us to which bullies you have made cry.
-
One thing the report on abuse didn't touch on is the way the trolls like to link the McCann case to other high profile news stories (particularly ones involving high profile paedos or suspected paedos) - they do this by attaching #McCann to these stories in the hope presumably of boosting retweets and reaching a wider audience and getting #McCann trending. I can't think why else tweets like this abound:
Canine Truth @K9Truth 8h8 hours ago
More
Special Branch repeatedly covered up Cyril Smith's abuse of children
#McCann #Gamble
Canine Truth @K9Truth 19h19 hours ago
More
'Police gunman told me to ignore paedophiles’, says ex-child protection officer
#McCann
-
Mr B☜ @therealstevieb 10m10 minutes ago
More
Replying to @lindaweryhur @S100Maggie
Paedophilia is clearly something that governments wordwide aren't too bothered about ending #mccann #pizzagate
-
Will the mods give me permission to post 150 abusive tweets about the McCanns here in a 24 hour period?
-
I have read the whole report actually. It makes no mention of '150 vile tweets a day'. The newspaper in question has taken an estimate provided by the author of the report given to the paper of the number of abusive comments made about the McCanns on a daily basis across various social media platforms, not just twitter and turned it into an attention grabbing headline. It's his estimate based on the work he and his colleagues undertook over a six week period. If you wish to disbelieve the author's estimate or the work he and his colleagues did on the subject then that's entirely up to you. I've no interest in what you believe or in trying to convince you that the McCanns are the subject of a huge amount of online abuse on a daily basis. I know what I know, and I know I'm right, that is all. 8(>((
If you have read the whole report you will be able to answer very simple questions about it.
Which social media did the team monitor?
What was their methodology for classifying a message as abusive?
What was the total number of social media messages per day, relating to the McCanns?
What was the total number per day classified as abusive, according to the report?
Surely in a thread about The Sun's sensational assertion, a few facts would not go astray.
Don't be shy Alfie. Get your copy out and enlighten us. Or point us at somewhere we can read it for ourselves.
The alternative is 'trust me, I'm Alfie, and I say it is thus'.
-
If you have read the whole report you will be able to answer very simple questions about it.
Which social media did the team monitor?
What was their methodology for classifying a message as abusive?
What was the total number of social media messages per day, relating to the McCanns?
What was the total number per day classified as abusive, according to the report?
Surely in a thread about The Sun's sensational assertion, a few facts would not go astray.
Don't be shy Alfie. Get your copy out and enlighten us. Or point us at somewhere we can read it for ourselves.
The alternative is 'trust me, I'm Alfie, and I say it is thus'.
Why do I feel like it is me that is being bullied now? Your mocking tone in your last two sentences is very close to bullying IMO, as is the barrage of questions - I am not here for your interrogation. I have already said I don't care if you believe me or not, don't trust me, don't trust a word I say, that's really fine by me.
So, I suggest that if you really want answers to your questions (and I don't really think you are being that sincere in wanting to know) get your money out and pay for the report yourself, alternatively have a scout around one of the McCann hate forums, I'm sure someone on one of those has probably breached copyright and c & p'ed the whole report for your perusal. 8((()*/
-
Why do I feel like it is me that is being bullied now? Your mocking tone in your last two sentences is very close to bullying IMO, as is the barrage of questions - I am not here for your interrogation. I have already said I don't care if you believe me or not, don't trust me, don't trust a word I say, that's really fine by me.
So, I suggest that if you really want answers to your questions (and I don't really think you are being that sincere in wanting to know) get your money out and pay for the report yourself, alternatively have a scout around one of the McCann hate forums, I'm sure someone on one of those has probably breached copyright and c & p'ed the whole report for your perusal. 8((()*/
Of course you realised when you bought the report that it isn't available to cut and paste unless you pay first?
-
Of course you realised when you bought the report that it isn't available to cut and paste unless you pay first?
The problem there is that there is no ambiguity about copyright laws and they are easy to enforce. I believe Al Capone did time for tax evasion ... vile trolls might find that while they appear to be able to abuse the family of a missing child with apparent impunity ... copyright owners may have more protection under the law.
Al Capone in our yesterdays ... abusive trolls today??
-
Of course you realised when you bought the report that it isn't available to cut and paste unless you pay first?
What point are you trying to make?
-
Why do I feel like it is me that is being bullied now? Your mocking tone in your last two sentences is very close to bullying IMO, as is the barrage of questions - I am not here for your interrogation. I have already said I don't care if you believe me or not, don't trust me, don't trust a word I say, that's really fine by me.
So, I suggest that if you really want answers to your questions (and I don't really think you are being that sincere in wanting to know) get your money out and pay for the report yourself, alternatively have a scout around one of the McCann hate forums, I'm sure someone on one of those has probably breached copyright and c & p'ed the whole report for your perusal. 8((()*/
100% cop out.
-
The problem there is that there is no ambiguity about copyright laws and they are easy to enforce. I believe Al Capone did time for tax evasion ... vile trolls might find that while they appear to be able to abuse the family of a missing child with apparent impunity ... copyright owners may have more protection under the law.
Al Capone in our yesterdays ... abusive trolls today??
I wasn't asking for cut and paste, or breach of copyright.
The report says X. Alfie says he has a copy. The Sun says Y. Alfie expects us to accept The Sun version despite himself alleging it is inaccurate.
Alfie was requested to clarify and enlighten. Alfie declined.
The original study got past peer review before publication. It is therefore more reliable than The Sun.
If Alfie chooses to claim rather than explain, it is a matter for Alfie's conscience.
-
The problem there is that there is no ambiguity about copyright laws and they are easy to enforce. I believe Al Capone did time for tax evasion ... vile trolls might find that while they appear to be able to abuse the family of a missing child with apparent impunity ... copyright owners may have more protection under the law.
Al Capone in our yesterdays ... abusive trolls today??
Spot the difference between tax evasion and copyright infringement.
Tax easion is a criminal offence. Copyright infringement is a civil offence except in special and infrequent cases.
Vile trolls with Thompson guns wow.
-
No matter how some McCann supporters may complain, other people will have different views, no matter how distasteful.
Now since the McCann's don't use social media, not that we know that actually is true. How would they know about these '150 per day tweets' ?
Perhaps you can explain that with a logical answer .
-
No matter how some McCann supporters may complain, other people will have different views, no matter how distasteful.
Now since the McCann's don't use social media, not that we know that actually is true. How would they know about these '150 per day tweets' ?
Perhaps you can explain that with a logical answer .
They have friends who feel it their duty to tell them in every last detail. 8(0(*
-
They have friends who feel it their duty to tell them in every last detail. 8(0(*
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.
8(0(*
-
Each option implies the McCanns were rubbish doctors/parents.
As to the last option - golden rule of parenting:- never ever criticise another person's child either directly or indirectly.
-
Each option implies the McCanns were rubbish doctors/parents.
As to the last option - golden rule of parenting:- never ever criticise another person's child either directly or indirectly.
Where's Madeleine ?
-
Where's Madeleine ?
Your guess is as good as mine.
-
Where's Madeleine ?
The offensive tweets & remarks are not directed at Madeleine.
-
The offensive tweets & remarks are not directed at Madeleine.
The McCann's don't have twitter Misty.
So, can you please explain how they can receive tweets, when they don't have twitter accounts ?
I presume you understand the concept of mutually exclusive events.
-
The McCann's don't have twitter Misty.
So, can you please explain how they can receive tweets, when they don't have twitter accounts ?
I presume you understand the concept of mutually exclusive events.
The parents' friends use social media. Their children no doubt use social media, as do the twins' friends. Do you think the relentless attacks on the McCanns have changed people's perception of their family life? If the twins are taunted & bullied, is it right that they should doubt their parents because of the lies on social media? Mud sticks.
-
The parents' friends use social media. Their children no doubt use social media, as do the twins' friends. Do you think the relentless attacks on the McCanns have changed people's perception of their family life? If the twins are taunted & bullied, is it right that they should doubt their parents because of the lies on social media? Mud sticks.
How do you know if their children use social media ?
Why don't you blame the two people who instigated this case ?
-
How do you know if their children use social media ?
Why don't you blame the two people who instigated this case ?
In this day & age, it would be uncool for a child not to be using social media. All the children on that holiday are either at high school or due to start soon.
I blame the person/people who took Madeleine away from her family. It's a shame after 10 years you seem blinded by prejudice.
-
I wasn't asking for cut and paste, or breach of copyright.
The report says X. Alfie says he has a copy. The Sun says Y. Alfie expects us to accept The Sun version despite himself alleging it is inaccurate.
Alfie was requested to clarify and enlighten. Alfie declined.
The original study got past peer review before publication. It is therefore more reliable than The Sun.
If Alfie chooses to claim rather than explain, it is a matter for Alfie's conscience.
Your talking absolute nonsense. I have expected you to accept the Sun version? I explicitly stated the Sun used sensationalist headlines and that the report was about social media posts, not just twitter. The word "vile" was not used. You then asked for chapter and verse on the report and I told you to do your own research and find and read the report yourself. My conscience is 100% clear, I am not here to play games or jump to your tune.
-
I thought we'd covered this one off already. Just because the person being abused on social media can't or won't read it doesn't mean that it is Ok or doesn't cause harm. Which bit of this statement do people disagree with and why?
-
I thought we'd covered this one off already. Just because the person being abused on social media can't or won't read it doesn't mean that it is Ok or doesn't cause harm. Which bit of this statement do people disagree with and why?
So, how will it be stopped ?
-
So, how will it be stopped ?
It can't be, all that can be done is to shine a light on it and try and educate the young. Anti-bullying ethos features large in most schools, if it doesn't already it should extend to anti-online-bullying, raising awareness of the damage and suffering it causes.
-
Posters are reminded to address the points being made relative to the thread title and please refrain from making personal attacks on other members. TY
-
It can't be, all that can be done is to shine a light on it and try and educate the young. Anti-bullying ethos features large in most schools, if it doesn't already it should extend to anti-online-bullying, raising awareness of the damage and suffering it causes.
Including advice not to pass through the portals of establishments like this? Then they will not run against hypocritical types who pretend to abhor bullying but practice it with alacrity. No names no packdrill, eh old stick?
-
mcann supporters in the past have mocked disabled people ( they know who they are and deleting this wont change that ) and mentally ill people is that any better??
-
Here's another article on the subject from the Huddersfield Uni website (for those who find the Sun beneath them) which inludes a link to the originsl article which you can purchase for $19.95
https://www.hud.ac.uk/news/2017/february/exploringtheworldofthemadeleinemccanntrolls.php
-
mcann supporters in the past have mocked disabled people ( they know who they are and deleting this wont change that ) and mentally ill people is that any better??
Deflection. Do you think that 150 social media posts a day abusing the McCanns online is acceptable? If so why?
-
Spot the difference between tax evasion and copyright infringement.
Tax easion is a criminal offence. Copyright infringement is a civil offence except in special and infrequent cases.
Vile trolls with Thompson guns wow.
I don't know if the weapon of choice might have been a tommy gun or not ... but at least one named vile troll had a penchant for firearms ... remember Sheila Basher, anyone?
Marathon gun nut’s threat to kill Kate
Cops probe vile web death threat to mum of missing Madeleine
By GARY O’SHEA
17th March 2013, 12:00 am Updated: 5th April 2016, 12:54 am
A SICK internet troll has threatened to gun down Kate McCann as she runs the London Marathon, it emerged yesterday.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/593933/marathon-gun-nuts-threat-to-kill-kate/
-
I don't know if the weapon of choice might have been a tommy gun or not ... but at least one named vile troll had a penchant for firearms ... remember Sheila Basher, anyone?
Marathon gun nut’s threat to kill Kate
Cops probe vile web death threat to mum of missing Madeleine
By GARY O’SHEA
17th March 2013, 12:00 am Updated: 5th April 2016, 12:54 am
A SICK internet troll has threatened to gun down Kate McCann as she runs the London Marathon, it emerged yesterday.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/593933/marathon-gun-nuts-threat-to-kill-kate/
I have a feeling it is more or less anti-religion rather than anti-Kate.
-
I don't know if the weapon of choice might have been a tommy gun or not ... but at least one named vile troll had a penchant for firearms ... remember Sheila Basher, anyone?
Marathon gun nut’s threat to kill Kate
Cops probe vile web death threat to mum of missing Madeleine
By GARY O’SHEA
17th March 2013, 12:00 am Updated: 5th April 2016, 12:54 am
A SICK internet troll has threatened to gun down Kate McCann as she runs the London Marathon, it emerged yesterday.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/593933/marathon-gun-nuts-threat-to-kill-kate/
......and what happened to the police investigation on this ?
-
......and what happened to the police investigation on this ?
The armed offenders squad surrounded his/her home and shot him/her.
-
......and what happened to the police investigation on this ?
Almost certainly nothing. As reported, it isn't even really a threat, more a joke in bad taste.
If anything had come of it you can be sure that the family spokesperson would have let the world know.
-
The armed offenders squad surrounded his/her home and shot him/her.
Really. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
-
Almost certainly nothing. As reported, it isn't even really a threat, more a joke in bad taste.
If anything had come of it you can be sure that the family spokesperson would have let the world know.
It's reassuring to know though that police do take death threats online seriously, even if the threat turned out to be a "joke" don't you agree? Perhaps they wouldn't have bothered if the police weren't aware of the huge and hateful campaign against the McCanns which has been going on for years, but clearly they are and clearly threats of this nature should be taken seriously as quite obviously some of those involved in the hate campaign are "not the full shilling" and included convicted violent criminals amongst their number.
-
It's reassuring to know though that police do take death threats online seriously, even if the threat turned out to be a "joke" don't you agree? Perhaps they wouldn't have bothered if the police weren't aware of the huge and hateful campaign against the McCanns which has been going on for years, but clearly they are and clearly threats of this nature should be taken seriously as quite obviously some of those involved in the hate campaign are "not the full shilling" and included convicted violent criminals amongst their number.
These people would have been checked out Alfie.
-
What percentage of the GBP do you think donated to his fund? As for his online fanclub, yes we know there are dozens, it means nothing in the grand scheme of things. IT would be like me saying the GBP support the McCanns because they made Kate's book a bestseller, donated large amounts to the fund and they have half a million followers on facebook. I'm sure you would outright reject this notion.
But that is exactly what you claim.
-
But that is exactly what you claim.
Exactly WHAT do I claim, with cites please.
-
I have seen no mocking of disabled people on this site
If you are going to make such accusations you need to provide a cite
we are getting rather PC now.
-
Exactly WHAT do I claim, with cites please.
So you haven't claimed in the past that the GBP support the McCanns because they made Kate's book a bestseller, donated large amounts to the fund and they have half a million followers ?
Okay dokey I must have got that wrong. I thought you thought the McCanns still enjoyed great support.
-
we are getting rather PC now.
It's a total lie
-
So you haven't claimed in the past that the GBP support the McCanns because they made Kate's book a bestseller, donated large amounts to the fund and they have half a million followers ?
Okay dokey I must have got that wrong. I thought you thought the McCanns still enjoyed great support.
Yes they do enjoy great support amongst the GBP, how to quantify that as a percentage is impossible and it would be wrong to say that "the GBP support the McCanns", as it would be wrong to say t"he GBP support Amaral", however if we want to get into a pissing contest, the support for the former clearly outweighs support for the latter if you look at donations, sales and facebook followings over the last 10 years.
-
Yes they do enjoy great support amongst the GBP, how to quantify that as a percentage is impossible and it would be wrong to say that "the GBP support the McCanns", as it would be wrong to say t"he GBP support Amaral", however if we want to get into a pissing contest, the support for the former clearly outweighs support for the latter if you look at donations, sales and facebook followings over the last 10 years.
Who thinks that the level of donations to Sr Amaral is an accurate indicator, or indeed an indicator at all, of how people feel about the McCanns ?
-
Who thinks that the level of donations to Sr Amaral is an accurate indicator, or indeed an indicator at all, of how people feel about the McCanns ?
I don't think the two things are necessarily related at all.
-
I don't think the two things are necessarily related at all.
What?!
Alfie: I wasn't aware that the GBP generally had a huge amount of respect for foreign ex-policemen with criminal records.
G-Unit: Well the GoFundMe appeal proved you wrong there. The comments on the newspaper stories lately too. It seems a lot of people prefer him to a doctor and a 'resting' doctor with no criminal records.
You are clearly using the GoFundMe appeal as evidence that the GBP has a "huge amount of respect" for Amaral, changed your tune now haven't you?
-
GBP is that the Great Britain Police or something else?
-
GBP is that the Great Britain Police or something else?
Great British Public, Rob (not so great after voting for Brexit, though).
-
Great British Public, Rob (not so great after voting for Brexit, though).
OK public.
-
Who thinks that the level of donations to Sr Amaral is an accurate indicator, or indeed an indicator at all, of how people feel about the McCanns ?
It is no indicator, however it shows that NOT EVERONE hates Amaral.
-
As a reminder, using and/reading twitter is purely voluntary.
-
I am having some difficulty with what is going on at the moment, on all Threads.
I will be wiping the board very shortly.
I agree, please feel free to issue penalties where necessary and that goes for all moderators.
-
I agree, please feel free to issue penalties where necessary and that goes for all moderators.
That goes against modern classroom discipline. Rewards should be given for good behaviour also.
The current mode of behaviour management is " Golden Time"
That rewards well behaved children/posters.
-
That goes against modern classroom discipline. Rewards should be given for good behaviour also.
The current mode of behaviour management is " Golden Time"
That rewards well behaved children/posters.
Then we'd be complaining about teacher's pets.
-
As a reminder, using and/reading twitter is purely voluntary.
Very true and it appears Twitter, and You Tube to name but two are now bowing finally towards reigning in people, or accounts that are abusive, threatening or just plain nasty. Which I do welcome especially when it comes to certain content regarding Madeleine.
However, this is a double edged sword and where I am more than happy to see certain long standing and abusive twitter users removed, there is also content that is being restricted or removed that is highly questionable, for example comments, users or videos that do not continue the current political narrative.
This is the censorship argument in a nutshell. And I'm afraid as loathsome as these abusive people are on twitter if they are removed at the cost of all opinions of dissent whether politely stated or just abusive then I am not in support of it because the cost is too high
-
Very true and it appears Twitter, and You Tube to name but two are now bowing finally towards reigning in people, or accounts that are abusive, threatening or just plain nasty. Which I do welcome especially when it comes to certain content regarding Madeleine.
However, this is a double edged sword and where I am more than happy to see certain long standing and abusive twitter users removed, there is also content that is being restricted or removed that is highly questionable, for example comments, users or videos that do not continue the current political narrative.
This is the censorship argument in a nutshell. And I'm afraid as loathsome as these abusive people are on twitter if they are removed at the cost of all opinions of dissent whether politely stated or just abusive then I am not in support of it because the cost is too high
If it is on Facebook or Twitter it just gets lost in the enormity of it all.
-
Very true and it appears Twitter, and You Tube to name but two are now bowing finally towards reigning in people, or accounts that are abusive, threatening or just plain nasty. Which I do welcome especially when it comes to certain content regarding Madeleine.
However, this is a double edged sword and where I am more than happy to see certain long standing and abusive twitter users removed, there is also content that is being restricted or removed that is highly questionable, for example comments, users or videos that do not continue the current political narrative.
This is the censorship argument in a nutshell. And I'm afraid as loathsome as these abusive people are on twitter if they are removed at the cost of all opinions of dissent whether politely stated or just abusive then I am not in support of it because the cost is too high
we have laws taht govern defamation...malicious communication....obscene language...particularly if directed at a person. These laws are there for a reason so do we just ignore them on the net.
-
we have laws taht govern defamation...malicious communication....obscene language...particularly if directed at a person. These laws are there for a reason so do we just ignore them on the net.
I see part of the problem being who decides what should be suppressed.
-
I see part of the problem being who decides what should be suppressed.
That is my concern as well, for example between those You Tubers who have covered this case which ones do you think fall foul of the "restrictive" content filters now?
-
That is my concern as well, for example between those You Tubers who have covered this case which ones do you think fall foul of the "restrictive" content filters now?
we have rules governing what we can say in public why should the net be different
-
we have rules governing what we can say in public why should the net be different
Whose rules apply?
Say a Canadian using twitter which is American makes derogatory remarks about a Mexican public figure ?
-
Whose rules apply?
Say a Canadian using twitter which is American makes derogatory remarks about a Mexican public figure ?
depends which country the remarks were made in
-
We have posters talking about freedom of speech when there is not freedom of speech on this forum
-
We have posters talking about freedom of speech when there is not freedom of speech on this forum
Actually, there is. You just have to be a bit careful about how you voice it. An exercise in The English Language can be quite good fun if you try.
And I don't mean just you. Even myself and I on occasions.
-
Actually, there is. You just have to be a bit careful about how you voice it. An exercise in The English Language can be quite good fun if you try.
And I don't mean just you. Even myself and I on occasions.
Alfie is the expert on that.
-
depends which country the remarks were made in
I think the Canada is implied but rather than have a semantic argument let's say the remarks were made in Canada.
-
we have rules governing what we can say in public why should the net be different
Being a world wide net who will police it? if 2.5 million people all tw..ter bad lies about the McCanns that is a hell of a lot of procecutions in a hell of a lot of countries.
-
Being a world wide net who will police it? if 2.5 million people all tw..ter bad lies about the McCanns that is a hell of a lot of procecutions in a hell of a lot of countries.
Just think of much revenue will generate for the Find Madeleine Fund.
-
Just think of much revenue will generate for the Find Madeleine Fund.
*&*%£ 8)--)) yeah just think; jetting all around the world in courts- all speaking different langages.. sure to be on to a winner there!
But here's the thing... will it bring back Maddie?
-
*&*%£ 8)--)) yeah just think; jetting all around the world in courts- all speaking different langages.. sure to be on to a winner there!
But here's the thing... will it bring back Maddie?
Yes- It will keep the McCann name in the media not just for a year but the next 10 years as well.
-
Yes- It will keep the McCann name in the media not just for a year but the next 10 years as well.
From the McCanns' point of view is that going to be a good thing or a bad thing ?
10 more years would mean she still hadn't turned up
-
From the McCanns' point of view is that going to be a good thing or a bad thing ?
10 more years would mean she still hadn't turned up
Who knows?
-
Whose rules apply?
Say a Canadian using twitter which is American makes derogatory remarks about a Mexican public figure ?
That's a really interesting question...
-
US:
http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/
I know the EU isn't part of your question as formulated, but seeing as I stumbled on this:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20120508IPR44656/cross-border-defamation-by-the-press
http://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/6333/20150903%20-%20Cross%20border%20infringement%20of%20personal%20rights%20(final).pdf
Various other links (international):
http://revolutionsincommunication.com/law/?page_id=1283
-
A bit more for the pot...
Donald Trump: We're going to 'open up' libel laws
By Hadas Gold
02/26/16 02:31 PM EST
Donald Trump said on Friday he plans to change libel laws in the United States so that he can have an easier time suing news organizations.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866
-
A bit more for the pot...
Donald Trump: We're going to 'open up' libel laws
By Hadas Gold
02/26/16 02:31 PM EST
Donald Trump said on Friday he plans to change libel laws in the United States so that he can have an easier time suing news organizations.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866
Easier said than done.
However, does he have a personal in interest in this.
-
Easier said than done.
However, does he have a personal in interest in this ?
He'll be a McCann Supporter, I'll bet.
-
He'll be a McCann Supporter, I'll bet.
He only cares about himself.
As stated in the Mail today, by Dominic Lawson, he is the 'Celebrity President'.
An off-shoot of reality TV.
Heaven help the rest of us.
-
Easier said than done.
However, does he have a personal in interest in this ?
Is that a serious question? ;)
-
Is that a serious question? ;)
Not really.
-
Not really.
Typical
-
Typical
Never heard of humour Rob. 8(0(*
-
Never heard of humour Rob. 8(0(*
Humour is supposed to make us laugh not cringe.
-
Not really.
I didn't think so... :)
-
Humour is supposed to make us laugh not cringe.
You don't come across as having a sense of humour Rob.
Did you hear the one about the three Irishmen who went to a Job Centre because they wanted 'tree fellas ? 8)--))
By the way, I'm part Irish, so I'm not being racist or xenophobic.
-
I find Alice's hypothetical question genuinely fascinating (although perhaps it could be slightly adapted to add a European angle as well).
-
If I've understood this correctly, under US law(ssss), Twitter couldn't be sued as it's a social media platform.
However, as an account holder, Sally Bercow's "innocent face" tweet appears to have cost her a small fortune.
ETA:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-22652083
-
A bit more for the pot...
U.S. Defamation Law: Glossary
Actual Malice
Actual malice is the standard of proof public figures must satisfy to win a defamation lawsuit. Essentially, actual malice is present when a defendant knowingly pubishes or broadcasts a false statement of fact. Reckless disregard for the truth amounts to actual malice in some jurisdictions.
Defamation Per Quod
Per quod is essentially the opposite of per se. In a per quod defamation case, the plaintiff must prove the actual damages caused, as it may not be apparent to the average person.
Defamation Per Se
Some statements are naturally and obviously harmful; they are considered per se defamatory. In defamation per se claims, plaintiffs don't have to prove injury because the harm to is presumed. For example, falsely calling someone a criminal would fall under the per se umbrella.
Libel
Libel is written defamation. If the New York Times or Joe’s Ketchup blog publish something defamatory, it's considered libel. Blog comments and social media missives also fall under the libel category.
Single-Publication Rule
Different countries and states have different standards as to how many counts of defamation one can bring based on the number of re-prints. In jurisdictions that adhere to the single-publication rule "any form of mass communication or aggregate publication . . . is a single communication and can give rise to only one action for libel."
Slander
Slander is spoken or transitory defamation. If a radio or TV announcer says something defamatory on air, that is considered slander.
http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/
-
He only cares about himself.
As stated in the Mail today, by Dominic Lawson, he is the 'Celebrity President'.
An off-shoot of reality TV.
Heaven help the rest of us.
Yeha at least GAWG DOUBLE YA BOOSH had us all laughing at him, The americans must just sake their heads and wonder sometimes...
It would be interesting if Trumpie did /does support the McCanns.
-
A bit more for the pot...
U.S. Defamation Law: Glossary
Actual Malice
Actual malice is the standard of proof public figures must satisfy to win a defamation lawsuit. Essentially, actual malice is present when a defendant knowingly pubishes or broadcasts a false statement of fact. Reckless disregard for the truth amounts to actual malice in some jurisdictions.
Defamation Per Quod
Per quod is essentially the opposite of per se. In a per quod defamation case, the plaintiff must prove the actual damages caused, as it may not be apparent to the average person.
Defamation Per Se
Some statements are naturally and obviously harmful; they are considered per se defamatory. In defamation per se claims, plaintiffs don't have to prove injury because the harm to is presumed. For example, falsely calling someone a criminal would fall under the per se umbrella.
Libel
Libel is written defamation. If the New York Times or Joe’s Ketchup blog publish something defamatory, it's considered libel. Blog comments and social media missives also fall under the libel category.
Single-Publication Rule
Different countries and states have different standards as to how many counts of defamation one can bring based on the number of re-prints. In jurisdictions that adhere to the single-publication rule "any form of mass communication or aggregate publication . . . is a single communication and can give rise to only one action for libel."
Slander
Slander is spoken or transitory defamation. If a radio or TV announcer says something defamatory on air, that is considered slander.
http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/
I tried to keep Europe out of it quite deliberately as it leads to bias and voting for a monkey provided it wears the right coloured rosette... 8(0(*
The US law looks quite interesting except for libel per se the onus is pretty much on the plaintiff.
Per se seems to be restricted to :
1 Saying someone is useless at their job.
2 Saying someone has committed a criminal offence when they haven't.
3 Accusing someone of having a dose of Old Joe when they haven't.
-
That's it. I have had enough of this rubbish. At least try to be logical.
I will be deleting anything further.
-
I have a twitter account but don't use it. Waste of time
-
A bit more for the pot...
U.S. Defamation Law: Glossary
Actual Malice
Actual malice is the standard of proof public figures must satisfy to win a defamation lawsuit. Essentially, actual malice is present when a defendant knowingly pubishes or broadcasts a false statement of fact. Reckless disregard for the truth amounts to actual malice in some jurisdictions.
Defamation Per Quod
Per quod is essentially the opposite of per se. In a per quod defamation case, the plaintiff must prove the actual damages caused, as it may not be apparent to the average person.
Defamation Per Se
Some statements are naturally and obviously harmful; they are considered per se defamatory. In defamation per se claims, plaintiffs don't have to prove injury because the harm to is presumed. For example, falsely calling someone a criminal would fall under the per se umbrella.
Libel
Libel is written defamation. If the New York Times or Joe’s Ketchup blog publish something defamatory, it's considered libel. Blog comments and social media missives also fall under the libel category.
Single-Publication Rule
Different countries and states have different standards as to how many counts of defamation one can bring based on the number of re-prints. In jurisdictions that adhere to the single-publication rule "any form of mass communication or aggregate publication . . . is a single communication and can give rise to only one action for libel."
Slander
Slander is spoken or transitory defamation. If a radio or TV announcer says something defamatory on air, that is considered slander.
http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/
That's interesting, and that's US libel law.
If the same principle applies in Portuguese libel law, Amaral's goose ought to have been cooked.
Presumably it doesn't.
Or if it does, then the Supreme Court judges screwed up.
-
Troll? I never knew they existed.
-
Troll? I never knew they existed.
Reputed to live under bridges and have a strange attraction to goats
-
Reputed to live under bridges and have a strange attraction to goats
I'm not that way inclined.
-
I'm not that way inclined.
Don't knock it until you've tried it 8**8:/:
-
Don't knock it until you've tried it 8**8:/:
Are you speaking from experience, Master.