Madeleine McCann’s parents hit by ‘150 vile tweets a DAY from online trolls’

[Eleanor]

I am more concerned about possible Libel of David Edgar.

[John]

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.

[stephen25000]

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 ?

[Brietta]

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. 

[Alice Purjorick]

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 
"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.

[Brietta]

Or maybe as I posted a few days ago 
"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.

[Alfie]

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. 

[G-Unit]

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.

[faithlilly]

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 ).

[Alfie]

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?

[Alfie]

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".

[stephen25000]

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.

[Robittybob1]

So what are you suggesting here?

Whatever it was it was close to slander, may even libel.

[G-Unit]

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/

[slartibartfast]

Whatever it was it was close to slander, may even libel.

Definitely not slander.