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: G-Unit on August 03, 2019, 09:52:30 AM
-
An interesting suggestion;
snip/
I think on this forum the overriding criterion in deciding whether one is open to learning, nice and wise is whether or not they believe Madeleine was abducted.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10927.msg550009#msg550009
Is that a sensible suggestion or is it as ridiculous as I think it is?
-
I'm with Pedro Do Carmo,he says in relation to whether Madeleine was abducted,"we don't know and have to be prepared to deal with different scenarios".Does that leave me open to learning with out a defined set of idea's?
-
An interesting suggestion;
snip/
I think on this forum the overriding criterion in deciding whether one is open to learning, nice and wise is whether or not they believe Madeleine was abducted.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10927.msg550009#msg550009
Is that a sensible suggestion or is it as ridiculous as I think it is?
I think the really wise person will be the one who can explain the presence of cadaver odour in the apartment, explain how Madeleine left by the front door yet that door was found closed, and then explain how the tracker dogs tracked her to the car park opposite the secondary reception, then to explain how she gets abducted from there.
-
I think the really wise person will be the one who can explain the presence of cadaver odour in the apartment, explain how Madeleine left by the front door yet that door was found closed, and then explain how the tracker dogs tracked her to the car park opposite the secondary reception, then to explain how she gets abducted from there.
Don't wise men keep their counsel.
-
I think the really wise person will be the one who can explain the presence of cadaver odour in the apartment, explain how Madeleine left by the front door yet that door was found closed, and then explain how the tracker dogs tracked her to the car park opposite the secondary reception, then to explain how she gets abducted from there.
What cadaver odour... None has been confirmed.. Therefore not a very wise post
-
I think the really wise person will be the one who can explain the presence of cadaver odour in the apartment, explain how Madeleine left by the front door yet that door was found closed, and then explain how the tracker dogs tracked her to the car park opposite the secondary reception, then to explain how she gets abducted from there.
Blimey, no wonder OG haven't come up with the answer
-
Not another dog thread ye gods! (apologies to erngath)
-
Don't wise men keep their counsel.
I thought that was ratepayers ....
But you are right. wise men keep their counsel .... I wonder what that means?
Looking up Google that seems to come from a book on Freemasonry. Written in 1795 ....
"Freemason's Magazine, Or General and Complete Library, Volume 4" says:
"None but fools babble ; wise men keep their counsel. This is surely verified in the present times; and I am certain, if the world had been acquainted with the ...."
-
I think suggesting that all those who believe Madeleine was abducted are open to learning, wise and nice is not supported by the evidence.
In my experience some of those who believe in the abduction are completely closed to learning anything which casts doubt on that belief. They are often unwise enough to lash out with nasty attacks on others, too, which results in them being sanctioned IMO.
-
Don't wise men keep their counsel.
Depends on the circumstances.. There is always a time to keep quiet and sometimes a time to speak
-
I think suggesting that all those who believe Madeleine was anducted are open to learnung, wise and nice is not supported by the evidence.
In my experience sone of those who believe in the abduction are completely closed to learning anything which casts doubt on that belief. They are often unwise enough to lash out with nasty attacks on others, too, which results in them being sanctioned imo.
Of course I think you are totally wrong... Ive carefully considered all the evidence and reached my conclusions. I'd be happy to change if any new evidence comes along. As for lashing out...I don't lash out but refuse to be bullied and tend to speak my mind... Admirable qualities IMO.
I'm
My opinion is sceptics have misunderstood the evidence... That's my genuine opinion but I'm not sure I'm allowed to express it.. But you are allowed to voice yours
-
I think suggesting that all those who believe Madeleine was anducted are open to learnung, wise and nice is not supported by the evidence.
In my experience sone of those who believe in the abduction are completely closed to learning anything which casts doubt on that belief. They are often unwise enough to lash out with nasty attacks on others, too, which results in them being sanctioned imo.
This is a very narrow minded and biased comment. As far as I can see, no one is very much worse than anyone else, regardless of what they believe.
And Supporters certainly don't have the franchise on lashing out with nasty attacks.
But what most Supporters do have is Hope.
-
Don't wise men keep their counsel.
This is a Discussion Forum.
-
I think suggesting that all those who believe Madeleine was anducted are open to learnung, wise and nice is not supported by the evidence.
In my experience sone of those who believe in the abduction are completely closed to learning anything which casts doubt on that belief. They are often unwise enough to lash out with nasty attacks on others, too, which results in them being sanctioned imo.
You critise posters for being sanction but this is a post that really deserves sanction imo
It's all about opinion
-
Fortunately this forum is fairly liberal and allows a wide range of views and opinions
-
Fortunately this forum is fairly liberal and allows a wide range of views and opinions
Thank You for that.
-
This is a very narrow minded and biased comment. As far as I can see, no one is very much worse than anyone else, regardless of what they believe.
And Supporters certainly don't have the franchise on lashing out with nasty attacks.
But what most Supporters do have is Hope.
As you quite rightly say, there is no way one group can be described as superior in character to another group based purely on belief in a particular theory. Life isn't so uncomplicated.
-
As you quite rightly say, there is no way one group can be described as superior in character to another group based purely on belief in a particular theory. Life isn't so uncomplicated.
No one has used the word superior... I would say supporters have a better understanding of the evidence
-
As you quite rightly say, there is no way one group can be described as superior in character to another group based purely on belief in a particular theory. Life isn't so uncomplicated.
Life is uncomplicated for me. I live in a community that is rife with gossip among expats. I never believe a word of it, and I never repeat a word I hear. And I mostly feel sorry for those who spend their lives in the process of destroying the reputations of others. They simply do not know of what they do.
-
No one has used the word superior... I would say supporters have a better understanding of the evidence
Back to Logistics. I have an IQ of 149. My general knowledge is somewhat limited, but there is nothing wrong with my ability to work out what is possible and what isn't.
-
No one has used the word superior... I would say supporters have a better understanding of the evidence
I think until ALL the evidence is known there is no way of knowing that.
-
What's possible is of little importance. What actually happened is all that matters.
-
What's possible is of little importance. What actually happened is all that matters.
What isn't possible is all that actually matters at this stage.
-
What isn't possible is all that actually matters at this stage.
Who's to decide what is impossible ?
All opinion - IMO ?{)(**
-
I think the really wise person will be the one who can explain the presence of cadaver odour in the apartment, explain how Madeleine left by the front door yet that door was found closed, and then explain how the tracker dogs tracked her to the car park opposite the secondary reception, then to explain how she gets abducted from there.
All that is done already Rob, but seems people have me on 'ignore'. I am not liked, but then my posts are long very often; they need to be.
That is up to them, but if they dont' read and consider, then they cant make your observation.
The tracker dogs were not tracking Madeleine IMO but the man who lifted Madeleine. I think that he left his nervous sweaty smell on the towel and blanket and it overpowered Madeleines delicate scent and The dogs sniffing the blanket etc latched onto his smell in preference to Madeleines. The front door would be closed by the lifter(?spotty man? ) or by Tannerman in that case.
Why do you think that she was abducted from the car park opposite the Tapas reception ?
He passed her over to Tannerman IMO. I think she left via the front of the apartment, carried by Tannerman and was due to be picked up near 5A car park entrance. But the pick up car didn't arrive due to Gerry and Jez being in the way. Fear of being seen by Gerry
As for the Cadaver odour, there is a big question mark over whether the only questionable spot, was where the ashes of Tasmin Silences Grandpa were probably kept.
Interesting that his name was Mccann $65*
If there was any DNA evidence existing does this mean that his DNA would be the same as, or similar to Gerrys ? Anyone know?
-
I think until ALL the evidence is known there is no way of knowing that.
I dont think so...based on all the evidence we know i cannot see the parents being involved. of course I could be wrong and theyve just been incredibly clever. But based on the known evidence they are not.....and SY and the PJ seem to agree. Thats two police forces.I cannot see a realistic raeson why both police forces...if they have evidence...are not pursuing the mccanns.
-
I think until ALL the evidence is known there is no way of knowing that.
Don't rise to it.
-
All that is done already Rob, but seems people have me on 'ignore'. [/b]
Snip
The ignore function as been disabled,whether people choose to read certain posters is of course another matter.
-
Who's to decide what is impossible ?
All opinion - IMO ?{)(**
Anything that is logistically impossible cannot be done. Unless you can prove otherwise.
-
Anything that is logistically impossible cannot be done. Unless you can prove otherwise.
Fortunately there is no need for me to prove anything.
-
I dont think so...based on all the evidence we know i cannot see the parents being involved. of course I could be wrong and theyve just been incredibly clever. But based on the known evidence they are not.....and SY and the PJ seem to agree. Thats two police forces.I cannot see a realistic raeson why both police forces...if they have evidence...are not pursuing the mccanns.
What do we know about the current investigation?
When Redwood, Rowley et al were asked if the parents or their friends were suspects they said no....what did you expect them to say ? I’m sure if the same question had been asked about Huntley or Halliwell before they were arrested and subsequently charged the answer would have been that they were not suspects. If there had not been leaks about the first Portuguese investigation we would not have known that the parents were suspects until they were made arguidos.
-
If the parents were suspects I would expect them to be investigated..
Indeed and if or when they are charged that’s when we’ll know that they have been.
-
All that is done already Rob, but seems people have me on 'ignore'. I am not liked, but then my posts are long very often; they need to be.
That is up to them, but if they dont' read and consider, then they cant make your observation.
The tracker dogs were not tracking Madeleine IMO but the man who lifted Madeleine. I think that he left his nervous sweaty smell on the towel and blanket and it overpowered Madeleines delicate scent and The dogs sniffing the blanket etc latched onto his smell in preference to Madeleines. The front door would be closed by the lifter(?spotty man? ) or by Tannerman in that case.
Why do you think that she was abducted from the car park opposite the Tapas reception ?
He passed her over to Tannerman IMO. I think she left via the front of the apartment, carried by Tannerman and was due to be picked up near 5A car park entrance. But the pick up car didn't arrive due to Gerry and Jez being in the way. Fear of being seen by Gerry
As for the Cadaver odour, there is a big question mark over whether the only questionable spot, was where the ashes of Tasmin Silences Grandpa were probably kept.
Interesting that his name was Mccann $65*
If there was any DNA evidence existing does this mean that his DNA would be the same as, or similar to Gerrys ? Anyone know?
As I said, because I think its right: "I think the really wise person will be the one who can explain the presence of cadaver odour in the apartment, explain how Madeleine left by the front door yet that door was found closed, and then explain how the tracker dogs tracked her to the car park opposite the secondary reception, then to explain how she gets abducted from there."
So you think you have done all that already!
" who can explain the presence of cadaver odour in the apartment" - so you say it was from ashes in the apartment - seems like a long shot.
"explain how Madeleine left by the front door yet that door was found closed," From memory you were saying intruder had a key. - seems like a long shot.
Then explain how the tracker dogs tracked her to the car park opposite the secondary reception - right the intruder's sweaty odour got onto the two items used fro tracking - seems like a long shot.
Then to explain how she gets abducted from there. OK I think you have a car in this location. From my understand that seems an unusual place to have a getaway car parked so it seems like a long shot.
All these long shots - so does that reflect your character. Maybe it does!
-
As I said, because I think its right: "I think the really wise person will be the one who can explain the presence of cadaver odour in the apartment, explain how Madeleine left by the front door yet that door was found closed, and then explain how the tracker dogs tracked her to the car park opposite the secondary reception, then to explain how she gets abducted from there."
So you think you have done all that already!
" who can explain the presence of cadaver odour in the apartment" - so you say it was from ashes in the apartment - seems like a long shot.
"explain how Madeleine left by the front door yet that door was found closed," From memory you were saying intruder had a key. - seems like a long shot.
Then explain how the tracker dogs tracked her to the car park opposite the secondary reception - right the intruder's sweaty odour got onto the two items used fro tracking - seems like a long shot.
Then to explain how she gets abducted from there. OK I think you have a car in this location. From my understand that seems an unusual place to have a getaway car parked so it seems like a long shot.
All these long shots - so does that reflect your character. Maybe it does!
I think a wise person will understand theres no confirmation of cadaver odour....and as for th tracker dog...it could well have been following an old scent...a wise person would understand this..imo
-
I think a wise person will understand theres no confirmation of cadaver odour....and as for th tracker dog...it could well have been following an old scent...a wise person would understand this..imo
‘This isn't the thread to discuss why we believe what we do’
-
I think a wise person will understand theres no confirmation of cadaver odour....and as for th tracker dog...it could well have been following an old scent...a wise person would understand this..imo
A wiser man would know the dog handler knows his dog's reaction. His body language means something too.
An even wiser man would know tracker dogs track direction as well.
-
A wiser man would know the dog handler knows his dog's reaction. His body language means something too.
An even wiser man would know tracker dogs track direction as well.
thats your opinion...i think you are over simplyfying things..I think you are wrong
-
thats your opinion...i think you are over simplyfying things..I think you are wrong
Grime says about the body language in the video and there are plenty of general observations about tracker dogs tracking direction, so the wise man is more amazed rather than reduced to knocking the facts.
-
Grime says about the body language in the video and there are plenty of general observations about tracker dogs tracking direction, so the wise man is more amazed rather than reduced to knocking the facts.
what facts...no confirmation of cadaver odour...no confirmation the tracker dog was following maddies scent of the evening of 3/5/
a wise man understands what is or isnt a fact
-
what facts...no confirmation of cadaver odour...no confirmation the tracker dog was following maddies scent of the evening of 3/5/
a wise man understands what is or isnt a fact
A wise man would know we were not discussing those particular facts, but Grime's claim about his dog's body language, and the known fact tracker dogs track direction of the trail as well as the trail.
-
A wise man would know we were not discussing those particular facts, but Grime'sclaim about his dog's body language, and the known fact tracker dogs track direction of the trail as well as the trail.
your post is all your opinion and should carry a caveat to show such..the FACT is there is no confirmation of cadaver odour
-
your post is all your opinion and should carry a caveat to show such..the FACT is there is no confirmation of cadaver odour
I was talking about the hypothetical wise man, that was raised by Barrier (from the book written about the Stonemasons in 1795 AD).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10946.msg550030#msg550030
-
I was talking about the hypothetical wise man, that was raised from the book written about the Stonemasons in 1795 AD.
Im talking about real wise poeple...I dont think the stonemasons of 1795 were familiar with grimes claims
-
Im talking about real wise poeple...I dont think the stonemasons of 1795 were familiar with grimes claims
So do you disagree that "wise men should keep their counsel" as Barrier informed (words to the effect) the forum?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10946.msg550030#msg550030
-
An interesting suggestion;
snip/
I think on this forum the overriding criterion in deciding whether one is open to learning, nice and wise is whether or not they believe Madeleine was abducted.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10927.msg550009#msg550009
Is that a sensible suggestion or is it as ridiculous as I think it is?
Why do you think it is ridiculous? I think Davel talks a lot of sense, you don’t. You probably think Faithlilly talks a lot of sense, I don’t. Why should this be, if not for attitudes towards those based on whether or not they agree on what they think happened to Madeleine? Plus my comment (which you have chosen to make a big song and dance over) was ever so slightly tongue-in-cheek and there are occasionally exceptions to the rule. However you clearly think I write ridiculous things so must be one of the stupid ones, not open to learning and nasty with it. @)(++(*
-
So do you disagree that "wise men should keep their counsel" as Barrier informed (words to the effect) the forum?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10946.msg550030#msg550030
yes I disagree and Ive already said why...how will the less wise learn unless the wise speak
-
yes I disagree and Ive already said why...how will the less wise learn unless the wise speak
Action speaks louder than words... I'm looking for action .... what next ... inaction ... refusal to answer .... repetition ... ad infinitum ....
-
Action speaks louder than words... I'm looking for action .... what next ... inaction ... refusal to answer .... repetition ... ad infinitum ....
a meaningless post...doesnt really make any sense...Im happy to answer just about any question...unless ive answered the same question several times before.
-
a meaningless post...doesnt really make any sense...Im happy to answer just about any question...unless ive answered the same question several times before.
Physician heal thyself.... Pull your own teeth .... Take your medicine. I've suffered years of your ellipses ... have some ..... with pleasure.
-
Physician heal thyself.... Pull your own teeth .... Take your medicine. I've suffered years of your ellipses ... have some ..... with pleasure.
what a totally bizarre post
-
what a totally bizarre post
well now you know what it feels like.
-
well now you know what it feels like.
it doesnt feel like anything....its just a bizarre crazy post...are you OK
-
it doesnt feel like anything....its just a bizarre crazy post...are you OK
Of course I'm OK... I've been concerned for you as well remember.
-
Of course I'm OK... I've been concerned for you as well remember.
which is bizarre...youve even started putting ellipses in your posts now
-
which is bizarre...youve even started putting ellipses in your posts now
I've learnt that from Trump.
-
What cadaver odour... None has been confirmed.. Therefore not a very wise post
It was confirmed, so not very wise post.
-
It was confirmed, so not very wise post.
Who confirmed it?
-
It was confirmed, so not very wise post.
it wasnt...and hasnt been....so not a very wise post...a cite is required which you will not be unable to provide
your lack of knowledge confirms that sceptics...in general,,, do not understand the evidence
-
No one or nothing was able to confirm the dog alerts. The end.
-
As quick as I post, it's erased. Someone needs to have a word with the internet branch of the WRVS.
-
No one or nothing was able to confirm the dog alerts. The end.
I'd explain, but this post will disappear.
POOF!
-
Any more nonsense and Warning Points will be applied.
-
I'd explain, but this post will disappear.
POOF!
PM me if you like.
-
No one or nothing was able to confirm the dog alerts. The end.
Im my theory it was possible to have statements which might confirm why cadaver odour may have been found in the apartment.
1. Someone could confess to bringing a cadaver into the rooms.
2. Someone could confess to removing the cadaver presumably after the PJ left for the night.
There was a window of opportunity once the PJ left, provided one had access to a key.
So how does this reflect on my character? I'd like to think I am creative in my thinking, and smart to come along with a potential solution. I'm also feeling glad that it probably doesn't involve the parents as we know fairly well they were in the Payne's residence at that time. Concerned that we are only discussing what happened on the first day of being missing yet now 12 years have passed.
-
Why has my post pointing out that G-Unit has misunderstood what I wrote been removed? Why am I denied right of reply to a thread that was set up in an attempt to ridicule what I wrote on another thread? How is this fair?
-
I think suggesting that all those who believe Madeleine was abducted are open to learning, wise and nice is not supported by the evidence.
In my experience some of those who believe in the abduction are completely closed to learning anything which casts doubt on that belief. They are often unwise enough to lash out with nasty attacks on others, too, which results in them being sanctioned IMO.
You have totally misunderstood my post and then sought to make capital out of it. I did NOT claim one side was superior to the other, only that many on each side believes those on the otehr to be deficient in certain ways based purely on what they believe happened in the McCann case. This is not remotely ridiculous but actually quite accurate, so kindly get your facts right before seeking to make an example of my posts, ta muchly.
-
Why has my post pointing out that G-Unit has misunderstood what I wrote been removed? Why am I denied right of reply to a thread that was set up in an attempt to ridicule what I wrote on another thread? How is this fair?
I was surprised they were removed but they have been. Ask Admin to restore them.
-
Im my theory it was possible to have statements which might confirm why cadaver odour may have been found in the apartment.
1. Someone could confess to bring a cadaver into the rooms.
2. Someone could confess to removing the cadaver presumably after the PJ left for the night.
There was a window of opportunity once the PJ left, provided one had access to a key.
So how does this reflect on my character? I'd like to think I am creative in my thinking, and smart to come along with a potential solution. I'm also feeling glad that it probably doesn't involve the parents as we know fairly well they were in the Payne's residence at that time. Concerned that we are only discussing what happened on the first day of being missing yet now 12 years have passed.
You think your theories make you look creative and smart.. I would say others have a different opinion
-
You have totally misunderstood my post and then sought to make capital out of it. I did NOT claim one side was superior to the other, only that many on each side believes those on the otehr to be deficient in certain ways bs is not remotely ridiculous but actually quite accurate, so kindly get your facts right before seeking to make an example of my posts, ta muchly.
Despite your original post having been deleted, along with my reply, it still exists on this thread, The only way you're going to erase it is by getting this thread deleted. I expect you'll manage it eventually.
Until then, anyone who wants to can read it and make their own minds up about what you said. They can see that there was no mention of 'many on each side' or of what those 'many' believe. Members can decide whether I misunderstood or whether you failed to adequately express your thoughts.
Even your revised explanation; that people find others 'deficient in certain ways based purely on what they believe happened in the McCann case' isn't necessarily accurate. Perhaps people find others deficient in certain ways for reasons other than their stance on the McCann case. I, for one, don't use that as my criterion.
-
Despite your original post having been deleted, along with my reply, it still exists on this thread, The only way you're going to erase it is by getting this thread deleted. I expect you'll manage it eventually.
Until then, anyone who wants to can read it and make their own minds up about what you said. They can see that there was no mention of 'many on each side' or of what those 'many' believe. Members can decide whether I misunderstood or whether you failed to adequately express your thoughts.
Even your revised explanation; that people find others 'deficient in certain ways based purely on what they believe happened in the McCann case' isn't necessarily accurate. Perhaps people find others deficient in certain ways for reasons other than their stance on the McCann case. I, for one, don't use that as my criterion.
I have not reported this thread or complained about it to the mods, in fact I am annoyed that my earlier comments on here have been deleted. It is a FACT that you misunderstood what I wrote (and took the comment out of context), because the premise of this thread is that you believed I meant that people who think Madeleine was abducted have superior characters. The honorable, decent thing to do would be to apologise for misrepresenting my views and starting a thread with a false premise. It takes character and humility to apologise, so let’s call this a test of character. Over to you.
-
I have not reported this thread or complained about it to the mods, in fact I am annoyed that my earlier comments on here have been deleted. It is a FACT that you misunderstood what I wrote, because the premise of this thread is that you believed I meant that people who think Madeleine was abducted have superior characters. The honorable, decent thing to do would be to apologise for misrepresenting my views and starting a thread with a false premise. It takes character and humility to apologise, so let’s call this a test of character. Over to you.
I reproduced your post exactly as you wrote it. You may not have meant what you said, but you did say it and I don't think I misunderstood or misrepresented it. I'm sorry you're upset, that wasn't my intention. You do, of course, have the right to reply and have done so.
I will leave it to others to judge who they agree with.
-
No one has used the word superior... I would say supporters have a better understanding of the evidence
Which is a bit rich considering they do not have access to ALL evidence. Bit of a moot point in that post.
-
You think your theories make you look creative and smart.. I would say others have a different opinion
I think Rob is prepared to look outside the box. Is he to be vilified for that Davel?
-
What I originally wrote (taken out of the context of the discussion on another thread):
“I think on this forum the overriding criterion in deciding whether one is open to learning, nice and wise is whether or not they believe Madeleine was abducted”.
G-Unit has invited ridicule ( she suggests it is ridiculous in her opening post) on what I wrote by interpreting it to mean
“there is no way one group can be described as superior in character to another group based purely on belief in a particular theory”.
Nowhere in my original quote do I suggest that one group is superior to another.
My meaning was that each of us has a tendency to judge the other’s niceness, open to learningness and wiseness based on their beliefs about what happened to Madeleine.
G-Unit refuses to accept her mistake, and refuses to apologise for her misunderstanding, despite the fact that I have made it very clear that she was mistaken. I am not upset but I do not like to be misrepresented.
I hope that is now clear to all.
Thanks for listening!
-
I reproduced your post exactly as you wrote it. You may not have meant what you said, but you did say it and I don't think I misunderstood or misrepresented it. I'm sorry you're upset, that wasn't my intention. You do, of course, have the right to reply and have done so.
I will leave it to others to judge who they agree with.
IMO sceptics will support your position and McCann supporters will support mine, regardless of the facts. Let’s see if I am right or not.
-
I reproduced your post exactly as you wrote it. You may not have meant what you said, but you did say it and I don't think I misunderstood or misrepresented it. I'm sorry you're upset, that wasn't my intention. You do, of course, have the right to reply and have done so.
I will leave it to others to judge who they agree with.
I saw and read the offending post- there was no misunderstanding at all. No need to apologise for getting it right G.
It does covey what very early posts from supporters would impl y(and still try to do). sceptics=Nasty Trolls, mentaly ill, low intellegence etc . Certain mods swipe posts they do not like because they can, and no other reason. Sad but true.
-
I saw and read the offending post- there was no misunderstanding at all. No need to apologise for getting it right G.
It does covey what very early posts from supporters would impl y(and still try to do). sceptics=Nasty Trolls, mentaly ill, low intellegence etc . Certain mods swipe posts they do not like because they can, and no other reason. Sad but true.
is it important what i think of you and other sceptics....im not at all bothered about sceptics opinions of me...its what people think of me in the real world that counts
-
is it important what i think of you and other sceptics....im not at all bothered about sceptics opinions of me...its what people think of me in the real world that counts
Ofcoure it is important to you, this is your world. It gives you the ideation of being someone people seek validation from- Which we don't! So why VS makes a song and dance about denying it makes it more bizarre to be honest.
I come here to discuss in amature way about a ,missing child. This is your life support. Evidence:your spats with Rob on every thread about dogs is boring,mundane and should be swiped upon seen.
-
Ofcoure it is important to you, this is your world. It gives you the ideation of being someone people seek validation from- Which we don't! So why VS makes a song and dance about denying it makes it more bizarre to be honest.
I come here to discuss in amature way about a ,missing child. This is your life support. Evidence:your spats with Rob on every thread about dogs is boring,mundane and should be swiped upon seen.
I have all those things in the real world....Im not looking for anything here....massive fail....again im not bothered by your mistaken opinion
-
I saw and read the offending post- there was no misunderstanding at all. No need to apologise for getting it right G.
It does covey what very early posts from supporters would impl y(and still try to do). sceptics=Nasty Trolls, mentaly ill, low intellegence etc . Certain mods swipe posts they do not like because they can, and no other reason. Sad but true.
Well it was quite obvious you would support G-Unit. I am the best person to judge whether or not there was a misunderstanding because I know what I meant when I wrote the post. Had I known at the time it would have taken on such importance to this forum I would have added a three hundred word explanation at the end of it so there could have been absolutely no doubt, except in the most enfeebled of minds.
-
Ofcoure it is important to you, this is your world. It gives you the ideation of being someone people seek validation from- Which we don't! So why VS makes a song and dance about denying it makes it more bizarre to be honest.
I come here to discuss in amature way about a ,missing child. This is your life support. Evidence:your spats with Rob on every thread about dogs is boring,mundane and should be swiped upon seen.
So I should have my posts misrepresented and misunderstood and keep quiet about it, is that the mature thing to do?
-
Next time I’m accused of misrepresenting or misunderstanding someone’s views this thread will come in very handy. 8((()*/
-
Next time I’m accused of misrepresenting or misunderstanding someone’s views this thread will come in very handy. 8((()*/
Well what a mess. As I see it VS writes something and G-unit is offended by it, and nothing said will change people's minds.
I think we all need to learn from this experience. No apologies are required, but let's try not to go there again into that no man's land.
-
So I should have my posts misrepresented and misunderstood and keep quiet about it, is that the mature thing to do?
TBH it makes not a jot of difference how this issue is played out....this is not real life and you really don’t care what sceptics think of you ( as you said supporters will support you ).
What is undeniable though is that at some point during each sceptics membership of this forum they have been accused of lack of intellect, lack of empathy, being evil, being cowardly, lacking the capacity or insight to understand other’s grief etc, etc, etc and why are they accused of this.....simply because they question the parent’s narrative. It’s simplistic and, for adults to act in this way, rather immature.
-
TBH it makes not a jot of difference how this issue is played out....this is not real life and you really don’t care what sceptics think of you ( as you said supporters will support you ).
What is undeniable though is that at some point during each sceptics membership of this forum they have been accused of lack of intellect, lack of empathy, being evil, being cowardly, lacking the capacity or insight to understand other’s grief etc, etc, etc and why are they accused of this.....simply because they question the parent’s narrative. It’s simplistic and, for adults to act in this way, rather immature.
Yes, and of course supporters are never accused of any character flaws at all, well apart from being senile or being so old they don’t really know what’s going on, dribbling down their cardis (you to me, once), drunk, gullible, sheeple, in love with the McCanns, child neglect and paedo apologists, etc, etc.
-
let's try not to go there again into that no man's land. - Too late they already have.
Let bygones be bygones.
-
TBH it makes not a jot of difference how this issue is played out....this is not real life and you really don’t care what sceptics think of you ( as you said supporters will support you ).
What is undeniable though is that at some point during each sceptics membership of this forum they have been accused of lack of intellect, lack of empathy, being evil, being cowardly, lacking the capacity or insight to understand other’s grief etc, etc, etc and why are they accused of this.....simply because they question the parent’s narrative. It’s simplistic and, for adults to act in this way, rather immature.
in your opinion...its not really of any importance what you think of anyone here and its not of any importance what they think of you....
-
What I originally wrote (taken out of the context of the discussion on another thread):
“I think on this forum the overriding criterion in deciding whether one is open to learning, nice and wise is whether or not they believe Madeleine was abducted”.
G-Unit has invited ridicule ( she suggests it is ridiculous in her opening post) on what I wrote by interpreting it to mean
“there is no way one group can be described as superior in character to another group based purely on belief in a particular theory”.
Nowhere in my original quote do I suggest that one group is superior to another.
My meaning was that each of us has a tendency to judge the other’s niceness, open to learningness and wiseness based on their beliefs about what happened to Madeleine.
G-Unit refuses to accept her mistake, and refuses to apologise for her misunderstanding, despite the fact that I have made it very clear that she was mistaken. I am not upset but I do not like to be misrepresented.
I hope that is now clear to all.
Thanks for listening!
The original discussion was about whether older peiple were wiser than younger people. You chose to introduce thesupporter/sceptic devide, no-one else.
-
The original discussion was about whether older peiple were wiser than younger people. You chose to introduce thesupporter/sceptic devide, no-one else.
Did I describe one set as superior to the other? The simple fact is that I did not. YOU chose to start an entire thread on a misunderstanding which you surely must have known would result in a slagging match. It certainly has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your alleged desire to find out the truth about what happened to Madeleine.
-
let's try not to go there again into that no man's land. - Too late they already have.
Let bygones be bygones.
Can I ask on what basis this thread was approved?
-
Too late now, we're on page 7
-
Can I ask on what basis this thread was approved?
I would like to know that.
-
Too late now, we're on page 7
My guess is it was started because the forum had gone a bit flat and it was felt that a nice bit of antagonism was just what was needed to kick start it back into life.
-
My guess is it was started because the forum had gone a bit flat and it was felt that a nice bit of antagonism was just what was needed to kick start it back into life.
I don't think we need a new thread for that - most threads seem to go along those lines as it is.
-
I don't think we need a new thread for that - most threads seem to go along those lines as it is.
Well someone clearly did as I can think of no other reason for this thread’s existence.
-
Seems to have worked.
-
Yes, and of course supporters are never accused of any character flaws at all, well apart from being senile or being so old they don’t really know what’s going on, dribbling down their cardis (you to me, once), drunk, gullible, sheeple, in love with the McCanns, child neglect and paedo apologists, etc, etc.
Firstly the cardi thing was a little joke, a lighthearted remark....most people wouldn’t be offended by being accused of wearing a cardigan...obviously it’s a touchy subject for you. Secondly it’s undeniable that most supporters on this forum, and from what I’ve seen in the wider supporter community, are over 50 and, like it or not, that generation did show, perhaps unearned, deference to doctors and their opinions. The other ‘opinions’ are directed at sceptics ( though perhaps not the ‘in love with the McCanns’ and ‘neglect apologist’ ones ) just as much as supporters.
Interesting that supporters constantly say that you can’t judge the parent’s psychology on the interviews etc that they have given yet are quite prepared to judge sceptics on their opinion of this case. I sniff a double standard.
-
Firstly the cardi thing was a little joke, a lighthearted remark....most people wouldn’t be offended by being accused of wearing a cardigan...obviously it’s a touchy subject for you. Secondly it’s undeniable that most supporters on this forum, and from what I’ve seen in the wider supporter community, are over 50 and, like it or not, that generation did show, perhaps unearned, deference to doctors and their opinions. The other ‘opinions’ are directed at sceptics ( though perhaps not the ‘in love with the McCanns’ and ‘neglect apologist’ ones ) just as much as supporters.
Interesting that supporters constantly say that you can’t judge the parent’s psychology on the interviews etc that they have given yet are quite prepared to judge sceptics on their opinion of this case. I sniff a double standard.
Stop dribbling down your apron, there's an old dear*
* Mods note - this is simply light-hearted banter the likes of which no one could possibly object to.
Face facts Faithlilly both sides make generalisations, both sides judge the other side as having defects - that's what my comment was about, FGS.
-
Seems to have worked.
Like a dream.
-
What does it say about a person who uses the perceived age of a group as a criticism of that group? What does it say about a person who makes "light-hearted" remarks to someone else on the forum they perceive to be very old, such as "I can picture you dribbling down your cardigan"? Can we judge a person's character from stuff like this?
-
Stop dribbling down your apron, there's an old dear*
* Mods note - this is simply light-hearted banter the likes of which no one could possibly object to.
Face facts Faithlilly both sides make generalisations, both sides judge the other side as having defects - that's what my comment was about, FGS.
Nail on the head. Lighthearted banter just like that.
Second point.....agreed. The more interesting question is why do we find it necessary? To discuss the case do we really need to demonise the opposing side ?
-
Nail on the head. Lighthearted banter just like that.
Second point.....agreed. The more interesting question is why do we find it necessary? To discuss the case do we really need to demonise the opposing side ?
I don't feel demonised. Do you?
-
I don't feel demonised. Do you?
It’s the intention that matters, not the result.
-
Nail on the head. Lighthearted banter just like that.
Second point.....agreed. The more interesting question is why do we find it necessary? To discuss the case do we really need to demonise the opposing side ?
I don't think what you wrote was with any affection, or light-heartedness but with a desire to ridicule and insult, in fact it is ageist and unpleasant IMO, in the same way that people claim their racist, sexist, disablist, homophobic, anti-semitic comments are just "light hearted banter" and that the victims of iit should just lighten up and get a sens of humour. Not acceptable. IMO.
-
I don't think what you wrote was with any affection, or light-heartedness but with a desire to ridicule and insult, in fact it is ageist and unpleasant IMO, in the same way that people claim their racist, sexist, disablist, homophobic, anti-semitic comments are just "light hearted banter" and that the victims of iit should just lighten up and get a sens of humour. Not acceptable. IMO.
Oh behave, do VS.
Would it help if I admit that I, on occasion, wear a cardi too ?
-
It’s the intention that matters, not the result.
That's not what some sceptics say when appearing to defend vile comments about the McCanns on social media.
-
That's not what some sceptics say when appearing to defend vile comments about the McCanns on social media.
Shouldn’t we be better than that ?
-
It’s the intention that matters, not the result.
No Snowflakes on here, I don't think. So what's the point?
-
Shouldn’t we be better than that ?
I think so, the question is - can we be? Not all the while threads like this are started to deliberately antagonise. I am fully prepared to debate your theories objectively and without recourse to any name-calling, or judgements about your personality, your age, what clothes you wear, what sort of house you live in, your nationality, your political beliefs, not even in light-hearted banter. We tried it once before as I recall and you got cross with me after about two exchanges and flounced off.
-
I think so, the question is - can we be? Not all the while threads like this are started to deliberately antagonise. I am fully prepared to debate your theories objectively and without recourse to any name-calling, or judgements about your personality, your age, what clothes you wear, what sort of house you live in, your nationality, your political beliefs, not even in light-hearted banter. We tried it once before as I recall and you got cross with me after about two exchanges and flounced off.
Deliberately antagonise? You can’t antagonise individuals if they don’t want to be antagonised.
Did I get cross ? I honestly don’t remember...and I don’t tend to flounce..but it’s a memory you’ve obviously retained so I have to bow to your recall.
Shall we start again ?
-
in your opinion...its not really of any importance what you think of anyone here and its not of any importance what they think of you....
I strongly disagree. Some of us look upon this forum as a community, some people are known while others prefer to remain anonymous. I for one wouldn't dream of intentionally upsetting anyone here, anonymous or not.
-
Deliberately antagonise? You can’t antagonise individuals if they don’t want to be antagonised.
Did I get cross ? I honestly don’t remember...and I don’t tend to flounce..but it’s a memory you’ve obviously retained so I have to bow to your recall.
Shall we start again ?
Exactly.
If you find a thread not to your liking, then don't participate in it.
-
I strongly disagree. Some of us look upon this forum as a community, some people are known while others prefer to remain anonymous. I for one wouldn't dream of intentionally upsetting anyone here, anonymous or not.
you miss my point....im not bothered what anyone here thinks of me ...its unimportant...im regularly insulted....doesnt bother me. ...but if i am insulted i may well respond
-
Deliberately antagonise? You can’t antagonise individuals if they don’t want to be antagonised.
Did I get cross ? I honestly don’t remember...and I don’t tend to flounce..but it’s a memory you’ve obviously retained so I have to bow to your recall.
Shall we start again ?
Didn’t you just write “it’s the intention, not the result”? What was the intention of this thread do you think?
-
you miss my point....im not bothered what anyone here thinks of me ...its unimportant...im regularly insulted....doesnt bother me. ...but if i am insulted i may well respond
From your behaviour on here you do seem to crave attention...positive or negative doesn’t really matter as long as it’s attention. Perhaps that’s something you need to look at ?
-
Exactly.
If you find a thread not to your liking, then don't participate in it.
I participated in this thread because my words were dragged over from another thread and misrepresented, in an attempt to attract ridicule IMO. I won’t stand for that.
-
you miss my point....im not bothered what anyone here thinks of me ...its unimportant...im regularly insulted....doesnt bother me. ...but if i am insulted i may well respond
If it doesn't bother you, why do you feel the need to respond ?
-
Didn’t you just write “it’s the intention, not the result”? What was the intention of this thread do you think?
I think your question needs to be directed at the individual who started the thread.
-
From your behaviour on here you do seem to crave attention...positive or negative doesn’t really matter as long as it’s attention. Perhaps that’s something you need to look at ?
Spare us the free psychiatric evaluations, please!
-
From your behaviour on here you do seem to crave attention...positive or negative doesn’t really matter as long as it’s attention. Perhaps that’s something you need to look at ?
and perhaps yu are just avery poor judge
-
I think your question needs to be directed at the individual who started the thread.
I already have. What do you think?
-
If it doesn't bother you, why do you feel the need to respond ?
because i enjoy taking poeple down a peg or two...its a bit of fun. Like the person whos been hararssing me for the past few months..LOL
-
because i enjoy taking poeple down a peg or two...its a bit of fun. Like the person whos been hararssing me for the past few months..LOL
That's a strange idea of fun - IMO.
-
and perhaps yu are just avery poor judge
Perhaps and of course I am simply basing my opinion on your behaviour here.....perhaps you are totally different in ‘real life’.
-
I don't think what you wrote was with any affection, or light-heartedness but with a desire to ridicule and insult, in fact it is ageist and unpleasant IMO, in the same way that people claim their racist, sexist, disablist, homophobic, anti-semitic comments are just "light hearted banter" and that the victims of iit should just lighten up and get a sens of humour. Not acceptable. IMO.
Others claim they were being ironic, or tongue in cheek. It's probably better to say what one means and mean what one says. I tend to add 'lol' as a clue if I'm using banter.
-
Perhaps and of course I am simply basing my opinion on your behaviour here.....perhaps you are totally different in ‘real life’.
To change the subject ever so slightly what is your avatar trying (and failing) to communicate to the forum?
-
Others claim they were being ironic, or tongue in cheek. It's probably better to say what one means and mean what one says. I tend to add 'lol' as a clue if I'm using banter.
lol is not a get out of jail free card for writing offensive, antagonistic clap-trap. Faithlilly was not being tongue in cheek when she painted a picture of me as an old man dribbling down my cardigan, that’s clearly how she saw me. How wrong is it possible for a person to be! Lol.
-
lol is not a get out of jail free card for writing offensive, antagonistic clap-trap. Faithlilly was not being tongue in cheek when she painted a picture of me as an old man dribbling down my cardigan, that’s clearly how she saw me. How wrong is it possible for a person to be! Lol.
Its an interesting, if disturbing image. I doubt I'll be able to get that out of my mind now.
-
Perhaps and of course I am simply basing my opinion on your behaviour here.....perhaps you are totally different in ‘real life’.
well done
-
That's a strange idea of fun - IMO.
I enjoy taking those who criticise me down peg or two....is what I should have said
-
because i enjoy taking poeple down a peg or two...its a bit of fun..LOL
Do you think you suceed in taking people down a peg or two?
-
Do you think you suceed in taking people down a peg or two?
I know i do
-
lol is not a get out of jail free card for writing offensive, antagonistic clap-trap. Faithlilly was not being tongue in cheek when she painted a picture of me as an old man dribbling down my cardigan, that’s clearly how she saw me. How wrong is it possible for a person to be! Lol.
Faithlilly was being tongue in cheek....apologies if you couldn’t see the joke.
-
well done
Would it be the more mature option to bring that ‘better self’ here? What do you gain from acting like a spoiled child ?
-
Would it be the more mature option to bring that ‘better self’ here? What do you gain from acting like a spoiled child ?
im obviously getting to you
-
Would it be the more mature option to bring that ‘better self’ here? What do you gain from acting like a spoiled child ?
Its a relief valve from being hen-pecked at home, I reckon. 8(0(*
-
Its a relief valve from being hen-pecked at home, I reckon. 8(0(*
my wifes away at the moment so im cooking washing cleaning.......well cooking anyway
-
Faithlilly was being tongue in cheek....apologies if you couldn’t see the joke.
No you weren’t, insulting descriptions of other forum members, alluding to their infirmities are no joke.
-
No you weren’t, insulting descriptions of other forum members, alluding to their infirmities are no joke.
Other member’s infirmities ? When ?
-
And then there was this “joke” about supporters
Offline Faithlilly
Executive Member
******
Posts: 12167
Total likes: 4291
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine
« Reply #222 on: September 08, 2014, 11:00:21 PM »
Quote
Off course the supporters will gobble the book up like a huge pork(ie) sandwich, only stopping to wipe the excited greasy dribble from the corners of their mouths.
-
Other member’s infirmities ? When ?
Dribbling down your cardigan implies a drooling senile old person not in control of their faculties, right?
-
Dribbling down your cardigan implies a drooling senile old person not in control of their faculties, right?
Like the decrepit old priest from Father Ted? Right - gotcha
-
I know i do
Sorry, I don't agree. That's because I haven't noticed anyone retiring deflated and defeated after a discussion with you. Have you?
-
Like the decrepit old priest from Father Ted? Right - gotcha
Yes, quite. I think this is also a sly (but mistaken) allusion. @)(++(*
-
And then there was this “joke” about supporters
Offline Faithlilly
Executive Member
******
Posts: 12167
Total likes: 4291
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine
« Reply #222 on: September 08, 2014, 11:00:21 PM »
Quote
Off course the supporters will gobble the book up like a huge pork(ie) sandwich, only stopping to wipe the excited greasy dribble from the corners of their mouths.
I think its a sign of how wide of the mark faiths ideas are. She doesnt understand how intelligent educated professionals...who I feel she may have a grudge against...can support the mccanns innocence. I actually predicted there would be nothing new in the book.....i dont need such a book to add to my knowledge and understanding of the case
-
Sorry, I don't agree. That's because I haven't noticed anyone retiring deflated and defeated after a discussion with you. Have you?
Where’s Cheeky Monkey?
-
Sorry, I don't agree. That's because I haven't noticed anyone retiring deflated and defeated after a discussion with you. Have you?
you are hardly likely to agree...but its significant youve introduced the words deflated and defeated,,...is that how you feel
-
my wifes away at the moment so im cooking washing cleaning.......well cooking anyway
Gourmet I presume?
-
Gourmet I presume?
Of course
Moo pad gapow for lunch
-
Of course
Moo pad gapow for lunch
The little woman left something in the freezer for you then?
-
The little woman left something in the freezer for you then?
Lol.. No I can actually cook...
my crispy belly pork is wonderful...but it takes two days
-
And then there was this “joke” about supporters
Offline Faithlilly
Executive Member
******
Posts: 12167
Total likes: 4291
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine
« Reply #222 on: September 08, 2014, 11:00:21 PM »
Quote
Off course the supporters will gobble the book up like a huge pork(ie) sandwich, only stopping to wipe the excited greasy dribble from the corners of their mouths.
Do you really keep track of 5 year old posts?
&%%6
Hang on, your profile says you joined only a little over a year ago.
*%87
-
Of course
Moo pad gapow for lunch
I cooked toad in the hole, buttery new potatoes with chopped baby spinach, cauliflower, carrots and gravy. Definitely not gourmet, but very nice according to those who ate it.
-
Do you really keep track of 5 year old posts?
&%%6
Hang on, your profile says you joined only a little over a year ago.
*%87
on the top left is a "search " box.......if you are clever with your search parameters its surprising how quickly you can find things
-
I cooked toad in the hole, buttery new potatoes with chopped baby spinach, cauliflower, carrots and gravy. Definitely not gourmet, but very nice according to those who ate it.
it just depends how well its cooked....a forgotten art for some young poeple. What ive just cooked is basically street food...just make it tiny portions and its gourmet
-
Do you really keep track of 5 year old posts?
&%%6
Hang on, your profile says you joined only a little over a year ago.
*%87
Why are you attempting to goad me with your stupid smileys?
-
Why are you attempting to goad me with your stupid smileys?
I dont think sils goading...I think this one.
*%87
is whats going on in his head
hes probably just a sweet cardigan wearing old man
-
on the top left is a "search " box.......if you are clever with your search parameters its surprising how quickly you can find things
That's when you know it exists and have some idea of its content. Which Verti clearly did not.
-
And then there was this “joke” about supporters
Offline Faithlilly
Executive Member
******
Posts: 12167
Total likes: 4291
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine
« Reply #222 on: September 08, 2014, 11:00:21 PM »
Quote
Off course the supporters will gobble the book up like a huge pork(ie) sandwich, only stopping to wipe the excited greasy dribble from the corners of their mouths.
In what way is that ageist ?
-
That's when you know it exists and have some idea of its content. Which Verti clearly did not.
i think you miss the point...type in supporters and perhaps another word...search in faiths posts and see what comes up
*%87
-
That's when you know it exists and have some idea of its content. Which Verti clearly did not.
He probably networks with others of a like mind.
-
Dribbling down your cardigan implies a drooling senile old person not in control of their faculties, right?
Dribbling down your cardigan ? Did I say that ?
-
I think its a sign of how wide of the mark faiths ideas are. She doesnt understand how intelligent educated professionals...who I feel she may have a grudge against...can support the mccanns innocence. I actually predicted there would be nothing new in the book.....i dont need such a book to add to my knowledge and understanding of the case
No, that’s true...I don’t understand how intelligent, educated people believe the parent’s narrative....and that’s why I don’t.
BTW I think in your post you have encapsulated exactly why G asked her question.
-
That's when you know it exists and have some idea of its content. Which Verti clearly did not.
if you search for...supporters and dribble in faiths posts...thats the second one that comes up...that was my thought and shows whos the best armchair detective
-
Why are you attempting to goad me with your stupid smileys?
I think that the phrase is 'hoisted by your on petard'.
Reincarnation is a double edged sword.
If you don't like smileys on this forum, PM John requesting they be removed.
&^^&*
-
if you search for...supporters and dribble in faiths posts...thats the second one that comes up...that was my thought and shows whos the best armchair detective
Gold star...go to the top of the class.
( is this really a grown man ? )
-
No, that’s true...I don’t understand how intelligent, educated people believe the parent’s narrative....and that’s why I don’t.
BTW I think in your post you have encapsulated exactly why G asked her question.
what is not to believe in the parent account...G should have asked the question of me...i would be quite happy to answer
-
I think that the phrase is 'hoisted by your on petard'.
Reincarnation is a double edged sword.
If you don't like smileys on this forum, PM John requesting they be removed.
&^^&*
In what way do you perceive I have been "hoisted by my own petard"? &%%6
I think that's a pretty stupid observation on your part. *%87
-
Gold star...go to the top of the class.
( is this really a grown man ? )
I dont have to go anywhere ..thats where I came from..I was absolutely correct re how VS found your post
-
Gold star...go to the top of the class.
( is this really a grown man ? )
And it didn't take long for Faithlilly's insults to start up again did it? Is this your "better half" talking now?
-
In what way is that ageist ?
It's not, it's just offensive, it's bracketing all supporters together as slobbering idiots. Now doubt it was light-hearted banter, (ho! ho!) but it comes across as something much nastier. IMO.
-
That's when you know it exists and have some idea of its content. Which Verti clearly did not.
What are you on about? How do you think I found the posts? Consulted my ten volume ring-bound notebooks of nasty things Faithlilly has written through the years?
-
i think you miss the point...type in supporters and perhaps another word...search in faiths posts and see what comes up
*%87
I haven't missed the point.
As you have now clocked up 33,333 posts, it would appear you have more time to spend on such trivia than I do.
Perhaps Vert with his burgeoning post count is cast from the same mould?
-
I haven't missed the point.
As you have now clocked up 33,333 posts, it would appear you have more time to spend on such trivia than I do.
Perhaps Vert with his burgeoning post count is cast from the same mould?
Let's never forget you believe Davel and I are actually the same poster! @)(++(*
-
I haven't missed the point.
As you have now clocked up 33,333 posts, it would appear you have more time to spend on such trivia than I do.
Perhaps Vert with his burgeoning post count is cast from the same mould?
I may well spend less time...but post much quicker.....im not retired as you are...and I dont waste time staying up all night watching tv programmes
-
It's not, it's just offensive, it's bracketing all supporters together as slobbering idiots. Now doubt it was light-hearted banter, (ho! ho!) but it comes across as something much nastier. IMO.
But I thought the point was that it was ageist ?
You really don’t want to be nice, do you ?
-
But I thought the point was that it was ageist ?
You really don’t want to be nice, do you ?
I didn't say it was ageist, just another example of your obsession with dribbling supporters I am perfectly nice thanks, I don''t think I've ever accused you of being old, wearing stained clothes or dribbling. What have I written on this thread that isn't nice apart from the stuff I've quoted that you wrote and which is plain nasty?
-
I didn't say it was ageist, just another example of your obsession with dribbling supporters I am perfectly nice thanks, I don''t think I've ever accused you of being old, wearing stained clothes or dribbling. What have I written on this thread that isn't nice apart from the stuff I've quoted that you wrote and which is plain nasty?
Obsession ? One post ? Cardigan ? One post...and aimed at you.
I did make the comment that older people tend to view professionals like doctors, consultants etc in a higher regard than they possibly deserve and while this is a generalisation, in the main I think it remains true. It certainly wasn’t offensive.
If my posts are playing on your mind months, and even years, after I posted them perhaps you need to stop reading my posts ? My opinion, I’m sure, doesn’t matter a jot to you so why are you so vexed ?
-
Obsession ? One post ? Cardigan ? One post...and aimed at you.
I did make the comment that older people tend to view professionals like doctors, consultants etc in a higher regard than they possibly deserve and while this is a generalisation, in the main I think it remains true. It certainly wasn’t offensive.
If my posts are playing on your mind months, and even years, after I posted them perhaps you need to stop reading my posts ? My opinion, I’m sure, doesn’t matter a jot to you so why are you so vexed ?
never mind doctors ...consultants... I think some posters are holding dog trainers in higher regard than they deserve...
-
Obsession ? One post ? Cardigan ? One post...and aimed at you.
I did make the comment that older people tend to view professionals like doctors, consultants etc in a higher regard than they possibly deserve and while this is a generalisation, in the main I think it remains true. It certainly wasn’t offensive.
If my posts are playing on your mind months, and even years, after I posted them perhaps you need to stop reading my posts ? My opinion, I’m sure, doesn’t matter a jot to you so why are you so vexed ?
Faith....why dont you put your hand up and admit that some of your posts are just plain nasty and intentionally offensive. Ill give you credit and say sometimes you word them quite well to disguise your intent. Admit it...get it off your chest it will make you feel better...and we can all move on.
-
Let's never forget you believe Davel and I are actually the same poster! @)(++(*
No doubt with your elephantine memory or your ace forum searching skills, you will be able to come up with a quote?
I've got better things to do with my time. I'm off to wash the dishes.
&^&*%
-
Faith....why dont you put your hand up and admit that some of your posts are just plain nasty and intentionally offensive. Ill give you credit and say sometimes you word them quite well to disguise your intent. Admit it...get it off your chest it will make you feel better...and we can all move on.
You will have some examples of course ?
-
Let's never forget you believe Davel and I are actually the same poster! @)(++(*
I don't quite see you as socks out of the same drawer, more like donkeys out of the same sanctuary. 8)-)))
-
Can I ask on what basis this thread was approved?
The OP seemed reasonable to me.
"An interesting suggestion;
snip/
I think on this forum the overriding criterion in deciding whether one is open to learning, nice and wise is whether or not they believe Madeleine was abducted.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10927.msg550009#msg550009
Is that a sensible suggestion or is it as ridiculous as I think it is?
-
Too late now, we're on page 7
And we were then and now on page 13! Another 6 pages in 5 hours.
-
And we were then and now on page 13! Another 6 pages in 5 hours.
Ya. Very interesting.
-
And we were then and now on page 13! Another 6 pages in 5 hours.
This thread must have something going for it then.
Mind you, we did get temporarily sidetracked into Fanny Craddock territory
-
This thread must have something going for it then.
Mind you, we did get temporarily sidetracked into Fanny Craddock territory
Im surprised that post got past the censors
-
The OP seemed reasonable to me.
"An interesting suggestion;
snip/
I think on this forum the overriding criterion in deciding whether one is open to learning, nice and wise is whether or not they believe Madeleine was abducted.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10927.msg550009#msg550009
Is that a sensible suggestion or is it as ridiculous as I think it is?
The fallacy in the statement is that sceptics think supporters are closed minded and have repeatedly said as much..that imo is ridiculous
-
I don't quite see you as socks out of the same drawer, more like donkeys out of the same sanctuary. 8)-)))
And this is not an insult I suppose? I thought it was us supporters that we were striving to paint as the nasty ones on this thread, it seems to be having the opposite effect....
-
You will have some examples of course ?
Im too nice a person to embarrass you
-
No doubt with your elephantine memory or your ace forum searching skills, you will be able to come up with a quote?
I've got better things to do with my time. I'm off to wash the dishes.
&^&*% &^&*%
I wouldnt call washing the dishes having something better to do with your time...cant you train goncalo to use the dishwasher
-
And this is not an insult I suppose? I thought it was us supporters that we were striving to paint as the nasty ones on this thread, it seems to be having the opposite effect....
On reflection, possibly, but only if you're of a sensitive nature.
Perhaps I should have said like zebras out of the same zoo, as no two zebras have the same stripe pattern.
-
Its a relief valve from being hen-pecked at home, I reckon. 8(0(*
That thought never occurred to me.
-
On reflection, possibly, but only if you're of a sensitive nature.
Perhaps I should have said like zebras out of the same zoo, as no two zebras have the same stripe pattern.
Im sure you wouldnt be offended if I said that you and faith remind me of two cheeks from the same.........not donkey...no....Ass
-
Obsession ? One post ? Cardigan ? One post...and aimed at you.
I did make the comment that older people tend to view professionals like doctors, consultants etc in a higher regard than they possibly deserve and while this is a generalisation, in the main I think it remains true. It certainly wasn’t offensive.
If my posts are playing on your mind months, and even years, after I posted them perhaps you need to stop reading my posts ? My opinion, I’m sure, doesn’t matter a jot to you so why are you so vexed ?
I didn’t write obsession with cardigans did I? Your obsession is with painting McCann supporters as sad old dears who dribble, stain their clothes, defer to doctors and thus worship the McCanns. You have made numerous posts through the years to this effect and it’s really rather stupid IMO. Your posts do not trouble me or play on my mind in any way, once I’m off this forum you cease to exist, but when I’m on this forum I will refer to posts you have made. Ihave a good memory particularly for the more shall we say colourful posts that have been made, if you don’t like having them repeated to you later I suggest you delete them, or dom’t make them in the first place.
-
Im sure you wouldnt be offended if I said that you and faith remind me of two cheeks from the same.........not donkey...no....Ass
Not at all, though I would be astonished that you had up with something so witty , as supporters seem to be singularly lacking in humour - in my experience.
-
I think its a sign of how wide of the mark faiths ideas are. She doesnt understand how intelligent educated professionals...who I feel she may have a grudge against...can support the mccanns innocence. I actually predicted there would be nothing new in the book.....i dont need such a book to add to my knowledge and understanding of the case
I quite like your description of me. Thanks Davel.
-
Not at all, though I would be astonished that you had up with something so witty , as supporters seem to be singularly lacking in humour - in my experience.
humour is all about timing...and it doesnt really work when you add to your post later to try and make it humerous
-
I'll tell you what. There aren't half some characters on here.
-
No doubt with your elephantine memory or your ace forum searching skills, you will be able to come up with a quote?
I've got better things to do with my time. I'm off to wash the dishes.
&^&*% &^&*%
Nah mate, it got deleted to save your blushes. Some things are just too ludicrous to remain on the board and that was one of them, also I believe accusing members of being someone else or questioning their ID is frowned on here.
-
I quite like your description of me. Thanks Davel.
sorry rob I thought you were unemployed rather than a professional
-
Where’s Cheeky Monkey?
It was the idea of warning points that freaked him out.
-
I'll tell you what. There aren't half some characters on here.
Would you have it any other way ? ?{)(**
-
It was the idea of warning points that freaked him out.
Good Heavens. No one else seems to care.
-
Would you have it any other way ? ?{)(**
Certainly not. It's a howl a minute.
-
Not at all, though I would be astonished that you had up with something so witty , as supporters seem to be singularly lacking in humour - in my experience.
What utter balls.
-
Im too nice a person to embarrass you
Thank you....it’s a pity you’ve had to embarrass yourself to do it but I appreciate your sacrifice.
-
It’s kind of ironic how a thread that was allegedly about how supporters see themselves as superior to sceptics has turned out to be a shitfest of insults directed at supporters, with certain sceptics pointing out all our alleged character flaws. LOL.
-
Thank you....it’s a pity you’ve had to embarrass yourself to do it but I appreciate your sacrifice.
im never embarrassed...my aim is to have no ego.. Ive pretty well achieved it
-
You will have some examples of course ?
Hang on a mo, let me consult my 10 volume dossier - brb.
-
What utter balls.
I think bollocks is the word you want.
Balls are things that hang around in tennis players' shorts.
-
I wouldnt call washing the dishes having something better to do with your time...cant you train goncalo to use the dishwasher
He'd need to go and buy a dishwasher first, and have it installed.
(&^&
-
It’s kind of ironic how a thread that was allegedly about how supporters see themselves as superior to sceptics has turned out to be a shitfest of insults directed at supporters, with certain sceptics pointing out all our alleged character flaws. LOL.
You may consider it a refreshing change.
-
Ya. Very interesting.
The thread moves along when VS starts debating with Faithlilly.
-
He'd need to go and buy a dishwasher first, and have it installed.
(&^&
my mistake ... I thought everyone had a dishwasher....
-
The thread moves along when VS starts debating with Faithlilly.
You call that Debate? I need to have a word with you.
-
This thread must have something going for it then.
Mind you, we did get temporarily sidetracked into Fanny Craddock territory
Fanny Craddock - I might have to Google that.
-
my mistake ... I thought everyone had a dishwasher....
Nah...I just wait to the kids have been washed in the tin bath and then use the water.
-
I think bollocks is the word you want.
Balls are things that hang around in tennis players' shorts.
If that’s an example of sceptic humour then all I can say is “don’t give up the day job”.
-
Fanny Craddock - I might have to Google that.
I'll save you the trouble. Only one D - I made a spelling mistake
-
Nah...I just wait to the kids have been washed in the tin bath and then use the water.
an ellipse and a spelling mistake...wait till rob sees that
-
If that’s an example of sceptic humour then all I can say is “don’t give up the day job”.
Being retired and comfortably off, I don't need a day job.
-
Nah mate, it got deleted to save your blushes. Some things are just too ludicrous to remain on the board and that was one of them, also I believe accusing members of being someone else or questioning their ID is frowned on here.
OK, no quote, just your unsupported allegation. Thanks for clearing that one up then.
*&(+(+
-
sorry rob I thought you were unemployed rather than a professional
No not unemployed. Attempting to solve the McCann case is my full time job (between other chores, like saving the Earth from Global Warming).
-
Good Heavens. No one else seems to care.
He was a newcomer. Davel is an old hand. I just don't know how he does it.
-
He was a newcomer. Davel is an old hand. I just don't know how he does it.
Friends in high places 8(0(*
-
I'll tell you what. There aren't half some characters on here.
Wait til they become whole ones.
-
im never embarrassed...my aim is to have no ego.. Ive pretty well achieved it
Who is the judge of that?
-
No not unemployed. Attempting to solve the McCann case is my full time job (between other chores, like saving the Earth from Global Warming).
I used to spend my time saving the planet but it just kept on getting messed up again
-
Who is the judge of that?
certainly not you or anyone here...its for me to know and others to find out
-
I dont see the point
Careful now, that's almost humour.
-
Careful now, that's almost humour.
careful...thats almost a compliment
-
keep it simple...google one word at a time
Craddock is a surname we had a Chris Craddock here. Can also be spelt with one "d" as in Cradock.
-
careful...thats almost a compliment
By Jove, so it was. Can't imagine what came over me. ?{)(**
-
By Jove, so it was. Can't imagine what came over me. ?{)(**
it was the power of Good
-
it was the power of Good
Nah, Pagan power
-
He was a newcomer. Davel is an old hand. I just don't know how he does it.
I do. I've had a few Warning Points in my time. Got Banned for five days once. John offered to reinstate me if I apologised and behaved. I settled for the ban in full.
-
Where’s Cheeky Monkey?
Where's the other 798.
-
Nah, Pagan power
I'll settle for that
-
an ellipse and a spelling mistake...wait till rob sees that
The singular of ellipses is ellipsis. ... is an ellipsis.
I do. I've had a few Warning Points in my time. Got Banned for five days once. John offered to reinstate me if I apologised and behaved. I settled for the ban in full.
Gave you time to wash the dishes.
-
Nah, Pagan power
Never underestimate a Pagan.
-
All that feasting in Valhalla - can't beat it
-
Craddock is a surname we had a Chris Craddock here. Can also be spelt with one "d" as in Cradock.
Just Google Fanny Cradock. She's got her own Wiki entry.
-
I dont see the point
The other end. Can you thread a needle to darn your socks?
-
Just Google Fanny Cradock. She's got her own Wiki entry.
4 husbands and bigamously married to Johnnie, it would seem - what a woman 8((()*/
-
No, it’s par for the course. You are a master of the insult and have been dishing it out to me and other supporters since year dot, yet seem to have a real persecution complex as evidenced by your heartfelt moan a few pages back. Poor sceptics, always being referred to as evil and mean and lacking in empathy. Quite often it’s the media doing that though isn’t it? You guys sure don’t get a great press that’s for sure. I wonder why, when you’re all such kind, lovely people?
It’s a pity we don’t have a fund to sue them, isn’t it ? Perhaps then we could turn around their opinion as the parents appear to have done.
-
4 husbands and bigamously married to Johnnie, it would seem - what a woman 8((()*/
what a women...i hope you beleive in equality ...LOL
-
certainly not you or anyone here...its for me to know and others to find out
I'd check their qualifications.
-
I'd check their qualifications.
you dont understand Rob
-
you dont understand Rob
I ask for wisdom and understanding.
-
Some relevance to the topic would be greatly appreciated.
-
Hey, one of my posts disappeared. What happened ? 8()(((@#
-
Some relevance to the topic would be greatly appreciated.
What?
-
I think suggesting that all those who believe Madeleine was abducted are open to learning, wise and nice is not supported by the evidence.
In my experience some of those who believe in the abduction are completely closed to learning anything which casts doubt on that belief. They are often unwise enough to lash out with nasty attacks on others, too, which results in them being sanctioned IMO.
The absence of any reliable evidence proving that Madeleine was abducted from her bedroom should be a red flag to any investigator worth his salt.
-
I ask for wisdom and understanding.
but would you understand wisdom
-
Hey, one of my posts disappeared. What happened ? 8()(((@#
Can we judge a person's character by their stance on the case?
-
The absence of any evidence indicative that Madeleine was abducted from her bedroom should be a red flag to any investigator worth his salt.
Off Topic.
-
The absence of any evidence indicative that Madeleine was abducted from her bedroom should be a red flag to any investigator worth his salt.
I absolutely agree but it would also depend on how well the crime scene was examined. Any investigator worth his salt would know that the dog alerts were not evidential and also would read the whole of the forensic report and not just the front page
-
Can we judge a person's character by their stance on the case?
i think judge is too strong a word
-
The absence of any reliable evidence proving that Madeleine was abducted from her bedroom should be a red flag to any serious investigator.
Possibly NSY are "serious investigators" ?
Do you doubt they are?
-
Off Topic.
Did you report it?
-
Can we judge a person's character by their stance on the case?
Character or judgement?
-
The absence of any reliable evidence proving that Madeleine was abducted from her bedroom should be a red flag to any investigator worth his salt.
Ive just re read your post...at such an early stage its unlikely any evidence would prove anything. I think on balance its highly likely madeleine was abducted
-
Character or judgement?
I think judgement is a much better word
-
Did you report it?
Certainly Not. Do you think I'm stupid, or what.
-
Possibly NSY are "serious investigators" ?
Do you doubt they are?
Hmm now there's a toughie
-
my mistake ... I thought everyone had a dishwasher....
I don’t :-(
-
Being retired and comfortably off, I don't need a day job.
Och, so literal.
-
OK, no quote, just your unsupported allegation. Thanks for clearing that one up then.
*&(+(+
Well it’s good to know that you no longer believe Davel and I are the same person anyway, progress!
-
It’s a pity we don’t have a fund to sue them, isn’t it ? Perhaps then we could turn around their opinion as the parents appear to have done.
There’s so many of you surely you could start a crowd funding campaign? Look how well you did for Amaral. Go on, sue, sue sue, you know you want to.
-
Who's this Sue to keep talking about ?
-
Who's this Sue to keep talking about ?
Ooh, another cracker. You should do stand up you’re utterly hilaire!
-
Ooh, another cracker. You should do stand up you’re utterly hilaire!
Now don't tell me, let me guess . You're annoyed @)(++(*
-
I don’t :-(
I've got a dish washer. The dog.
-
I've got a dish washer. The dog.
I do hope that's only the pre-wash
-
I do hope that's only a pre-wash
Why would I want to wash a plate after he's done with it?
-
Now don't tell me, let me guess . You're annoyed @)(++(*
Oh god yes, sooooo annoyed that you are soooo funny and I just can’t compete. It’s so upsetting.
-
Why would I want to wash a plate after he's done with it?
Carry on that way and you won't see ninety
-
Oh god yes, sooooo annoyed that you are soooo funny and I just can’t compete. It’s so upsetting.
I'm sure it is otherwise you wouldn't respond - unless you're one of these people who must try and always have the last word
-
Carry on that way and you won't see ninety
How do you think I got to eighty?
-
Can we judge a person’s star sign by their stance on the McCann case? I reckon G-Unit is a Leo. Star signs are totally real, I believe in them fully and utterly and can tell everyone’s star sign simply by their postings, see if I can’t.
ETA, she mght be Aries.
-
How do you think I got to eighty?
Right 8((()*/
-
Can we judge a person’s star sign by their stance on the McCann case? I reckon G-Unit is a Leo. Star signs are totally real, I believe in them fully and utterly and can tell everyone’s star sign simply by their postings, see if I can’t.
And I am?
-
There’s so many of you surely you could start a crowd funding campaign? Look how well you did for Amaral. Go on, sue, sue sue, you know you want to.
Do you think we could be sneaky too and pretend it’s to look for one of our kids ?
-
Can we judge a person’s star sign by their stance on the McCann case? I reckon G-Unit is a Leo. Star signs are totally real, I believe in them fully and utterly and can tell everyone’s star sign simply by their postings, see if I can’t.
Interesting talent. You must go down a wow at party time.
-
The absence of any reliable evidence proving that Madeleine was abducted from her bedroom should be a red flag to any investigator worth his salt.
Apparently there was enough reliable evidence to convince some it's a fact. It hasn't convinced me, probably because I don't share their intelligence and ability to understand this evidence.
-
Interesting talent. You must go down a wow at party time.
I read Palms. Well, I used to. But it's very boring.
-
I read Palms. Well, I used to. But it's very boring.
Trees?
-
And I am?
Gemini or Pisces
-
Trees?
Yep. I can do that as well.
-
Do you think we could be sneaky too and pretend it’s to look for one of our kids ?
Sure, go for it.
-
I've got a dish washer. The dog.
Who's coming for tea?
-
Apparently there was enough reliable evidence to convince some it's a fact. It hasn't convinced me, probably because I don't share their intelligence and ability to understand this evidence.
I dont consider it a fact ...just the most likely...based on the evidence
-
Interesting talent. You must go down a wow at party time.
Party? What’s that?
-
Sure, go for it.
Great......no wait, I couldn’t be that dishonest....or mercenary.
-
Gemini or Pisces
Taurus Gemini Cusp, so not bad.
-
I read Palms. Well, I used to. But it's very boring.
Don't tell me you me you were Madame Ruth down on 34th and vine selling love potion number 9 ?
-
Who's coming for tea?
Tea? Who drinks Tea? Gin is always best.
-
Tea? Who drinks Tea? Gin is always best.
Too right 8(*( 8(*(
-
Taurus Gemini Cusp, so not bad.
Yeah I have trouble with cusps.
-
Tea? Who drinks Tea? Gin is always best.
It’s all the rage at the moment.
-
Great......no wait, I couldn’t be that dishonest....or mercenary.
Why did you suggest it then? Silly Billy!
-
Why did you suggest it then? Silly Billy!
No name calling!
-
It’s all the rage at the moment.
Yeah too much choice. Which magazine recommended an Asda triple distilled gin, but I haven't been able to get hold of it yet
-
Why did you suggest it then? Silly Billy!
I know...but then I remembered that I couldn’t be that mendacious.
-
Yeah too much choice. Which magazine recommended an Asda triple distilled gin, but I haven't been able to get hold of it yet
Asda? Goodness me, how common.
-
I know...but then I remembered that I couldn’t be that mendacious.
Yes you already said. Yawn...is that the time?
-
Asda? Goodness me, how common.
I know, I usually go for Sainsbury Basic @)(++(*
-
Too right 8(*( 8(*(
So who's going to be The Forum Drunk from now on? You or me? Unless we wing it. We could be a really good double act, don't you think.
PS. No one knows the lengths to which I will go for us all to be Friends. No?
-
It’s all the rage at the moment.
Personally, I can't afford it. So I make my own.
-
Aldi every time...
-
Yes you already said. Yawn...is that the time?
Past your bedtime? Pop on the milk..
-
So who's going to be The Forum Drunk from now on? You or me? Unless we wing it. We could be a really good double act, don't you think.
PS. No one knows the lengths to which I will go for us all to be Friends. No?
Ill drink to that. 8)--))
It'll get right up the nose of these parsimonious do-gooders.
-
So who's going to be The Forum Drunk from now on? You or me? Unless we wing it. We could be a really good double act, don't you think.
PS. No one knows the lengths to which I will go for us all to be Friends. No?
I’ve had two glasses of wine and am mildly tiddly. I will be the forum drunk tonight if necessary.
-
Past your bedtime? Pop on the milk..
No, I just found your post a bit boringly repetitious that’s all.
-
Personally, I can't afford it. So I make my own.
I prefer my juniper berries crushed and mixed with garlic and red cabbage, baked in the oven for 40 minutes.
-
Aldi every time...
Not bad, I believe.
I would recommend Lidl tonic water.
-
I prefer my juniper berries crushed and mixed with garlic and red cabbage, baked in the oven for 40 minutes.
Do you serve it with other vegetables ?
-
No, I just found your post a bit boringly repetitious that’s all.
Oh well, can’t win em all.
-
Oh well, can’t win em all.
Its the alcohol speaking, you know.
-
Its the alcohol speaking, you know.
Now don’t be accusing Faithlilly of drunkenness, that’s not very nice.
-
Do you serve it with other vegetables ?
It’s lovely with a chicken breast, wrapped in Parma ham if you’re a meat eater. Heat some olive oil and gently fry the garlic and juniper berries ( crushed ) then toss the sliced red cabbage in the oil and bake in a medium oven. The tips become lovely and crispy.
-
Now don’t be accusing Faithlilly of drunkenness, that’s not very nice.
By the sounds of it she mixes her own, so who knows what level of debauchery she gets to.
-
Ill drink to that. 8)--))
It'll get right up the nose of these parsimonious do-gooders.
Oh Gosh. This could be fun. And don't think I don't mean it.
-
Not bad, I believe.
I would recommend Lidl tonic water.
Aldi..tonic 38p a litre...and its excellent
-
I’ve had two glasses of wine and am mildly tiddly. I will be the forum drunk tonight if necessary.
Oh Good. I could well pass out shortly.
-
By the sounds of it she mixes her own, so who knows what level of debauchery she gets to.
Bliddy hell its like Sodom and Gomorrah round here most nights.
-
I prefer my juniper berries crushed and mixed with garlic and red cabbage, baked in the oven for 40 minutes.
Oh My. That sounds lethal. Can I have the recipe?
-
Aldi..tonic 38p a litre...and its excellent
I'll give it a whirl, next time I'm in there.. They do a very nice Australian Reisling as well, if you like dry white.
-
Not bad, I believe.
I would recommend Lidl tonic water.
Lidl Gin isn't bad either. And their Vodka is okay.
-
I must say I'm pleased to see such a lot of common ground when it comes to alcohol 8)-)))
-
Do you serve it with other vegetables ?
Goodness me. I am nearly hysterical. But please let's not have carrots with this.
-
I must be a snob when it comes to alcohol,I prefer my cuba libres in Cuba.
-
Lidl Gin isn't bad either. And their Vodka is okay.
I mix the vodka with edible pigments to paint my cakes. Excellent.
-
Its the alcohol speaking, you know.
Two glasses of Wine? I don't think so. I use that to clean my teeth in the morning. What few teeth I've got left, that is.
-
Oh My. That sounds lethal. Can I have the recipe?
Read back Eleanor, it’s there.
-
Two glasses of Wine? I don't think so. I use that to clean my teeth in the morning. What few teeth I've got left, that is.
Yeah, I thought it was pretty amateurish, but we all have to start somewhere.
I believe some just can't hold their drink.
-
Bliddy hell its like Sodom and Gomorrah round here most nights.
This could well be the problem. Not enough Sodom or Gomorrah.
-
I must be a snob when it comes to alcohol,I prefer my cuba libres in Cuba.
Do you go there often?
-
Read back Eleanor, it’s there.
Merci Beaucoups.
-
Do you go there often?
Been there three yrs on the trot,not sure if we like it yet. 8(0(*
-
Yeah, I thought it was pretty amateurish, but we all have to start somewhere.
I believe some just can't hold their drink.
Then they ain't trying hard enough. No one in their right mind would post on here sober.
-
Been there three yrs on the trot,not sure if we like it yet. 8(0(*
If you get the trots, I'd steer clear of the place
-
I'll give it a whirl, next time I'm in there.. They do a very nice Australian Reisling as well, if you like dry white.
I do...as it happens..I'll have alook.
-
Been there three yrs on the trot,not sure if we like it yet. 8(0(*
Really? I'm impressed. And it takes some to impress me.
-
If you get the trots, I'd steer clear of the place
Its knowing what to avoid,went to Sharm 4 yrs in a row,never suffered once.
-
If you get the trots, I'd steer clear of the place
You have so made me laugh tonight.
-
I do...as it happens..I'll have alook.
Just buy a bottle to try, it might not be to your taste. What my son would have called a glugger.
-
Just buy a bottle to try, it might not be to your taste
if its dry white it will be fine...you dont expect a reisling to be dry but ive had some german ones that were really good...but the australians do wine so well
-
So going by last nights post's can it be said a character can be formed in the minds eye of a poster,I'd think not,last night was a put up job.
-
An interesting suggestion;
snip/
I think on this forum the overriding criterion in deciding whether one is open to learning, nice and wise is whether or not they believe Madeleine was abducted.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10927.msg550009#msg550009
Is that a sensible suggestion or is it as ridiculous as I think it is?
I can't see anything relevant to the thread in the link you've posted?
You can see the sort of divisions you see here in all other cases eg whether or not Bamber is guilty or a miscarriage of justice. Same for others still serving sentences eg Rettendon murders and Luke Mitchell. Even when convictions are quashed the debates rages on eg David Bain.
It certainly doesn't have anything to do with intelligence. In the case of David Bain I've read reports by two eminent judges; one is skewed towards moj the other skewed towards guilt. Maybe personality traits but I've not really seen any evidence for this. I think it just comes down to what weight individuals place on the various pieces of info and this will obviously tip the scales one way or the other.
At the end of the day there can only be one truth re MM's disappearance. An analogy might be religion where again there can only be one truth: creationism v evolution. But where individuals sit here tends to have been influenced by their upbringing ie family and school as opposed to forming their own opinions about high profile and contentious crimes.
-
I can't see anything relevant to the thread in the link you've posted?
You can see the sort of divisions you see here in all other cases eg whether or not Bamber is guilty or a miscarriage of justice. Same for others still serving sentences eg Rettendon murders and Luke Mitchell. Even when convictions are quashed the debates rages on eg David Bain.
It certainly doesn't have anything to do with intelligence. In the case of David Bain I've read reports by two eminent judges; one is skewed towards moj the other skewed towards guilt. Maybe personality traits but I've not really seen any evidence for this. I think it just comes down to what weight individuals place on the various pieces of info and this will obviously tip the scales one way or the other.
At the end of the day there can only be one truth re MM's disappearance. An analogy might be religion where again there can only be one truth: creationism v evolution. But where individuals sit here tends to have been influenced by their upbringing ie family and school as opposed to forming their own opinions about high profile and contentious crimes.
I think what you say is true in some cases where the evidence can be interpreted in different ways. I think in this case the evidence sceptics use does not stand up to scrutiny and is flawed. All the evidence used to make the McCanns arguidos was later not confirmed. Ie there was no evidence to support the accusations which appears still to be the case. Pedro do Carmo of the PJ said the McCanns are not suspects and there's no evidence against them.
Your analogy of creationism shows that some will passionately believe something which is patently untrue and believe there is evidence to support it when there's not.
It's a very good analogy
-
I think what you say is true in some cases where the evidence can be interpreted in different ways. I think in this case the evidence sceptics use does not stand up to scrutiny and is flawed. All the evidence used to make the McCanns arguidos was later not confirmed. Ie there was no evidence to support the accusations which appears still to be the case. Pedro do Carmo of the PJ said the McCanns are not suspects and there's no evidence against them.
Your analogy of creationism shows that some will passionately believe something which is patently untrue and believe there is evidence to support it when there's not.
It's a very good analogy
I don't see this case being any different to the other cases I've looked at. Have you looked at any other cases in any sort of detail?
There are many who view the T9 as having some involvement and its by no means limited to the likes of those here on social media. Eg Pat Browne, criminal profiler and Craig Murry, former British diplomat to name just two.
The fact you perceive something a certain way which causes you to form certain beliefs doesn't make you right when you're unable to prove them.
I believe MM was abducted by person(s) unknown to her and I don't believe in any deity, neither of which I can prove so this doesn't make me right. It just means I have formed opinions and beliefs which many others will disagree with and they are perfectly entitled to do so.
And imo the McCanns have been absolute fools in attempting to silence their critics through libel law. Of course Carter-Ruck were happy to oblige it is after all what they do for a living but in whose best interest?
-
I don't see this case being any different to the other cases I've looked at. Have you looked at any other cases in any sort of detail?
There are many who view the T9 as having some involvement and its by no means limited to the likes of those here on social media. Eg Pat Browne, criminal profiler and Craig Murry, former British diplomat to name just two.
The fact you perceive something a certain way which causes you to form certain beliefs doesn't make you right when you're unable to prove them.
I believe MM was abducted by person(s) unknown to her and I don't believe in any deity, neither of which I can prove so this doesn't make me right. It just means I have formed opinions and beliefs which many others will disagree with and they are perfectly entitled to do so.
And imo the McCanns have been absolute fools in attempting to silence their critics through libel law. Of course Carter-Ruck were happy to oblige it is after all what they do for a living but in whose best interest?
I'm still in agreement with the PJ. There's not enough evidence to decide what happened to Madeleine. Theories are all very well, but the vast majority of them ignore existing evidence ot include speculation. I can see possibilities, but like Rowley I can see no difinitive evidence showing what happened on May 3rd 2007.
-
I'm still in agreement with the PJ. There's not enough evidence to decide what happened to Madeleine. Theories are all very well, but the vast majority of them ignore existing evidence ot include speculation. I can see possibilities, but like Rowley I can see no difinitive evidence showing what happened on May 3rd 2007.
Its a view I also hold and which I've oft repeated the ending will pan out along the lines of imo:
"Person or persons unknown removed Madeleine from 5a without leaving a trace to her whereabouts."
SY and PJ may have their evidence but its limited imo and can't be brought before any court.
-
I don't see this case being any different to the other cases I've looked at. Have you looked at any other cases in any sort of detail?
There are many who view the T9 as having some involvement and its by no means limited to the likes of those here on social media. Eg Pat Browne, criminal profiler and Craig Murry, former British diplomat to name just two.
The fact you perceive something a certain way which causes you to form certain beliefs doesn't make you right when you're unable to prove them.
I believe MM was abducted by person(s) unknown to her and I don't believe in any deity, neither of which I can prove so this doesn't make me right. It just means I have formed opinions and beliefs which many others will disagree with and they are perfectly entitled to do so.
And imo the McCanns have been absolute fools in attempting to silence their critics through libel law. Of course Carter-Ruck were happy to oblige it is after all what they do for a living but in whose best interest?
I'm not sure you have looked at this case in much detail. I'm guided by the evidence and there's no real evidence against the McCanns and IMO lots of evidence to show they weren't involved. You perpetuate the myth that the McCanns silence their critics... That's far from the truth. They have used libel law to prevent false allegations of criminal behaviour... That's quite normal. Murat has done the same... Both here and in Portugal.. Do you think he's foolish too.
People are free to express their opinion within the law. My criticism of sceptics is that their beliefs are not based on real evidence as far as I can see
-
I'm not sure you have looked at this case in much detail. I'm guided by the evidence and there's no real evidence against the McCanns and IMO lots of evidence to show they weren't involved. You perpetuate the myth that the McCanns silence their critics... That's far from the truth. They have used libel law to prevent false allegations of criminal behaviour... That's quite normal. Murat has done the same... Both here and in Portugal.. Do you think he's foolish too.
People are free to express their opinion within the law. My criticism of sceptics is that their beliefs are not based on real evidence as far as I can see
There is no real evidence,ask Rowley.
-
There is no real evidence,ask Rowley.
My point is there's no real evidence against the McCanns... I think they had no choice but to go to the ECHR and I think it will be very interesting to see what happens
-
My point is there's no real evidence against the McCanns... I think they had no choice but to go to the ECHR and I think it will be very interesting to see what happens
When you say "McCanns" are you including the rest of the Tapas 9 in that descriptor?
If some researcher concludes the T9 are involved, could it be that the McCanns are innocent leaving the blame on the others (or T7)?
-
My point is there's no real evidence against the McCanns... I think they had no choice but to go to the ECHR and I think it will be very interesting to see what happens
Don't waste your life waiting, 2 yrs on Thursday was the last major event,"Application requiring a decision".
-
Don't waste your life waiting, 2 yrs on Thursday was the last major event,"Application requiring a decision".
I'm not wasting anything I'm busy all the time...
-
I'm not sure you have looked at this case in much detail.I'm guided by the evidence and there's no real evidence against the McCanns and IMO lots of evidence to show they weren't involved. You perpetuate the myth that the McCanns silence their critics... That's far from the truth. They have used libel law to prevent false allegations of criminal behaviour... That's quite normal. Murat has done the same... Both here and in Portugal.. Do you think he's foolish too.
People are free to express their opinion within the law. My criticism of sceptics is that their beliefs are not based on real evidence as far as I can see
I look forward to you filling in my knowledge gaps.
You're guided by the evidence as you perceive it. Others clearly perceive the evidence differently. Perhaps unsurprising since there is no real evidence.
I don't perpetuate any myths. The fact is the McCanns attempt to silence their critics via libel lawyers. This ranges from the UK tabloids to Amaral and even an individual leaflet dropping in Rothley. Traditional and social media is a two-way thing ie anyone who uses it as platform to advocate this, that or the other cannot expect everyone to share their views whether it be a missing child or Brexit.
Murat is different in that he was just being a good citizen offering up a skill set ie translating. The McCanns actively sought to use all forms of medium in their pursuit to find MM. No reason why they shouldn't have done this but they were again naive if they expected everyone to share their views. Jon Corner, friend of the McCanns, said to them very early on that he thought they might end up being the story and he was right.
-
I look forward to you filling in my knowledge gaps.
You're guided by the evidence as you perceive it. Others clearly perceive the evidence differently. Perhaps unsurprising since there is no real evidence.
I don't perpetuate any myths. The fact is the McCanns attempt to silence their critics via libel lawyers. This ranges from the UK tabloids to Amaral and even an individual leaflet dropping in Rothley. Traditional and social media is a two-way thing ie anyone who uses it as platform to advocate this, that or the other cannot expect everyone to share their views whether it be a missing child or Brexit.
Murat is different in that he was just being a good citizen offering up a skill set ie translating. The McCanns actively sought to use all forms of medium in their pursuit to find MM. No reason why they shouldn't have done this but they were again naive if they expected everyone to share their views. Jon Corner, friend of the McCanns, said to them very early on that he thought they might end up being the story and he was right.
Are you aware of the credibility of pat brown... What she claims and what she bases her claims on... Same goes for Craig Brown.
The McCanns cannot silence their critics. They can only use the law to stop the tide of allegations re criminal behaviour being made against them. I wonder how awful the things that would be said against them if they hadn't done this. I think they were absolutely right... You don't....but it's their decision.
There is no real evidence against the McCanns and therefore I think it's totally unfair to pretend there is.
Social media is a two way thing but posters need to behave responsibly and obey the law.. Are you suggesting posters and newspapers should be above the law
-
I look forward to you filling in my knowledge gaps.
You're guided by the evidence as you perceive it. Others clearly perceive the evidence differently. Perhaps unsurprising since there is no real evidence.
I don't perpetuate any myths. The fact is the McCanns attempt to silence their critics via libel lawyers. This ranges from the UK tabloids to Amaral and even an individual leaflet dropping in Rothley. Traditional and social media is a two-way thing ie anyone who uses it as platform to advocate this, that or the other cannot expect everyone to share their views whether it be a missing child or Brexit.
Murat is different in that he was just being a good citizen offering up a skill set ie translating. The McCanns actively sought to use all forms of medium in their pursuit to find MM. No reason why they shouldn't have done this but they were again naive if they expected everyone to share their views. Jon Corner, friend of the McCanns, said to them very early on that he thought they might end up being the story and he was right.
Some believe the earth is 6000 years old... I'm entitled and reasonable to think they are daft
-
Are you aware of the credibility of pat brown... What she claims and what she bases her claims on... Same goes for Craig Brown.
Pat Brown and Craig Murray and others in such capacities are entitled to their views much the same way as posters are here.
The McCanns cannot silence their critics. They can only use the law to stop the tide of allegations re criminal behaviour being made against them. I wonder how awful the things that would be said against them if they hadn't done this. I think they were absolutely right... You don't....but it's their decision.
And how might it be had they just taken the knocks and weathered the storm? Or taken another course of action eg employ the services of a forensic scientist re the dogs and dna and KM wrote a sequel of sorts to her book?
There is no real evidence against the McCanns and therefore I think it's totally unfair to pretend there is.
There doesn't have to be any "evidence" as you put it for the media, public and others to orchestrate a witch hunt. It is unfair but that's life I'm afraid. The McCanns are far luckier than many in that they have each other, and an army of supporters both lay and professional. Consider those who spend years, and sometimes decades, behind bars as the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Or those who come close to it eg Colin Stagg and Christopher Jefferies.
Social media is a two way thing but posters need to behave responsibly and obey the law.. Are you suggesting posters and newspapers should be above the law
No one is above the law but everyone is entitled to voice their opinion its called freedom of speech. Remind me where the McCanns are with Amaral?
-
Pat Brown and Craig Murray and others in such capacities are entitled to their views much the same way as posters are here.
And how might it be had they just taken the knocks and weathered the storm? Or taken another course of action eg employ the services of a forensic scientist re the dogs and dna and KM wrote a sequel of sorts to her book?
There doesn't have to be any "evidence" as you put it for the media, public and others to orchestrate a witch hunt. It is unfair but that's life I'm afraid. The McCanns are far luckier than many in that they have each other, and an army of supporters both lay and professional. Consider those who spend years, and sometimes decades, behind bars as the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Or those who come close to it eg Colin Stagg and Christopher Jefferies.
No one is above the law but everyone is entitled to voice their opinion its called freedom of speech. Remind me where the McCanns are with Amaral?
You are wrong about freedom of speech... That is a massive mistake by you... It is not absolute and has restrictions. As for Amaral from what I have read the SC erred in its application of ECHR law and this may well be confirmed in a judgement. Ive supplied several cites
The McCcanns can only stop those who act outside the law and not simply those who criticise them
-
You are wrong about freedom of speech... That is a massive mistake by you... It is not absolute and has restrictions. As for Amaral from what I have read the SC erred in its application of ECHR law and this may well be confirmed in a judgement. Ive supplied several cites
The McCcanns can only stop those who act outside the law and not simply those who criticise them
Where have I said, or even suggested, freedom of speech comes without limitations?
As it stands the McCanns have been unsuccessful in suing Amaral.
-
Where have I said, or even suggested, freedom of speech comes without limitations?
As it stands the McCanns have been unsuccessful in suing Amaral.
You said everyone is entitled to voice their opinion... That is not true. The Amaral case is with the ECHR
-
Not really the Amaral case. It is McCann v The State of Portugal
-
You said everyone is entitled to voice their opinion... That is not true. The Amaral case is with the ECHR
Anyone is entitled to voice their opinion insofar as saying they believe the McCanns were involved in MM's disappearance since it can't be proved to the contrary.
I don't know why the UK media settled out of court? Maybe they went ott. Anyway settling out of court doesn't mean to say the courts would have upheld the McCann's claims. Sometimes its just cheaper and/or too risky if they lost in terms of readership going elsewhere etc.
-
Not really the Amaral case. It is McCann v The State of Portugal
But isn't this because the highest court in Portugal has already upheld Amaral's claims? Therefore it becomes The State of Portugal v ECHR?
-
Anyone is entitled to voice their opinion insofar as saying they believe the McCanns were involved in MM's disappearance since it can't be proved to the contrary.
I don't know why the UK media settled out of court? Maybe they went ott. Anyway settling out of court doesn't mean to say the courts would have upheld the McCann's claims. Sometimes its just cheaper and/or too risky if they lost in terms of readership going elsewhere etc.
That isn't true... You need to look at the law of libel.... In the UK the onus of proof is on the person making the claim..
If you state that opinion and can't prove it its libel
The case at the ECHR will decide whether Portugal allowed Amaral to breach the McCanns rights under article 8
-
That isn't true... You need to look at the law of libel.... In the UK the onus of proof is on the person making the claim..
What isn't true? How do you prove a negative when negative claims are assumed to be true so long as no evidence is presented to prove the claim false?
The case at the ECHR will decide whether Portugal allowed Amaral to breach the McCanns rights under article 8
Or the McCanns are in breach of Amarals rights. Maybe further developments will have taken place by then.
-
But isn't this because the highest court in Portugal has already upheld Amaral's claims? Therefore it becomes The State of Portugal v ECHR?
The ECHR is the adjudicator.
The issue is whether Portugal infringed the McCanns' human rights - as they claim, when making their legal decision.
-
The ECHR is the adjudicator
The plaintiff is the McCanns? and the defendant is Amaral or State of Portugal?
-
The plaintiff is the McCanns? and the defendant is Amaral or State of Portugal?
The defendant is Portugal
TheECHR does not hear cases between individuals.
-
The defendant is Portugal
TheECHR does not hear cases between individuals.
So who is the plaintiff?
-
So who is the plaintiff?
McCann v Portugal.. The ECHR only hears cases brought against sovereign States.
-
Anyone is entitled to voice their opinion insofar as saying they believe the McCanns were involved in MM's disappearance since it can't be proved to the contrary.
I don't know why the UK media settled out of court? Maybe they went ott. Anyway settling out of court doesn't mean to say the courts would have upheld the McCann's claims. Sometimes its just cheaper and/or too risky if they lost in terms of readership going elsewhere etc.
Are you saying that the UK libel laws allow you to claim anything you like about another person? Like could I write a newspaper article claiming a certain eldely popstar whose first name rhymes with spliff is a paedo, because the contrary can’t be proven?
-
McCann v Portugal.. The ECHR only hears cases brought against sovereign States.
Thanks. Yes that would explain then why the EHCR presided over Bamber's full life tariff in that it was Bamber v UK.
When is it due to be heard?
-
What isn't true? How do you prove a negative when negative claims are assumed to be true so long as no evidence is presented to prove the claim false?
Or the McCanns are in breach of Amarals rights. Maybe further developments will have taken place by then.
Let's deal with one at a time.. Libel... If anyone says the McCanns have lied to the police and are involved in the disappearance... That person has to prove they are right... If they cannot they are guilty of libel..
-
Are you saying that the UK libel laws allow you to claim anything you like about another person? Like could I write a newspaper article claiming a certain eldely popstar whose first name rhymes with spliff is a paedo, because the contrary can’t be proven?
Probably not as the editor is unlikely to allow publication.
However you could publish on Facebook or whatever . If the subject of your article feels strongly enough about it (s)he might take legal procedure against you, otherwise nothing will happen.
-
Thanks. Yes that would explain then why the EHCR presided over Bamber's full life tariff in that it was Bamber v UK.
When is it due to be heard?
Sometime in the next 5 to 10 years.
-
Are you saying that the UK libel laws allow you to claim anything you like about another person? Like could I write a newspaper article claiming a certain eldely popstar whose first name rhymes with spliff is a paedo, because the contrary can’t be proven?
Perhaps best if we just stick with the case in hand.
-
Perhaps best if we just stick with the case in hand.
The principle is exactly the same, so please answer the question.
-
Sometime in the next 5 to 10 years.
5 to 10 years &%%6 Do they have a backlog?
-
That isn't true... You need to look at the law of libel.... In the UK the onus of proof is on the person making the claim..
If you state that opinion and can't prove it its libel
The case at the ECHR will decide whether Portugal allowed Amaral to breach the McCanns rights under article 8
No, the ECHR is being asked to decide if Portugal breached the McCann's human rights.
-
5 to 10 years &%%6 Do they have a backlog?
Yes.
In fact the case is only at an initial stage of having been accepted, but no decision has been made as to whether the case will proceed to a judicial hearing.
A decision to reject or advance the case could be announced at any moment.
-
Let's deal with one at a time.. Libel... If anyone says the McCanns have lied to the police and are involved in the disappearance... That person has to prove they are right... If they cannot they are guilty of libel..
No they don't since no one knows what's factually right and what isn't.
How do you think so many have produced damning material about the McCanns and got away with it including Amaral? Amaral and his publishers no doubt took legal advice before they published as did the McCanns when they started litigation.
-
Yes.
In fact the case is only at an initial stage of having been accepted, but no decision has been made as to whether the case will proceed to a judicial hearing.
A decision to reject or advance the case could be announced at any moment.
Is this then the end of the road?
Is the book still available to purchase? I read Amaral made 350k from sales?
-
Is this then the end of the road?
Is the book still available to purchase? I read Amaral made 350k from sales?
There is no appeal against the ECHR decision - as far as I know.
-
The principle is exactly the same, so please answer the question.
I'm not a libel lawyer but I guess each case is viewed on its merit. Even lawyers can only give opinions. The McCanns were no doubt advised of the advantages and disadvantages by Isabel Duarte. Likewise I guess for who ever advised Amaral and any publishers.
-
No they don't since no one knows what's factually right and what isn't.
How do you think so many have produced damning material about the McCanns and got away with it including Amaral? Amaral and his publishers no doubt took legal advice before they published as did the McCanns when they started litigation.
Why do you think no Publisher in Britain will touch Amaral's book?
-
I note those who have produced material in a semi-professional way more recently eg Mark SudoKhani with his podcasts state they are not suggesting the McCanns are involved blah, blah and yet produce a load of material that leads listeners with little doubt that this is what he's driving at!?
-
Why do you think no Publisher in Britain will touch Amaral's book?
Probably because they don't wish to risk having to pay money out to an undeserving cause.
-
Why do you think no Publisher in Britain will touch Amaral's book?
Well it could be they could not be bothered with any litigation along with the fact it probably wouldn't sell that well in UK anyway. Is it still available? I understand he made 350k from book sales? Who distributed it? Do any break down figs exist?
Remember 'Spycatcher'?
-
Probably because they don't wish to risk having to pay money out to an undeserving cause.
Who is the undeserving cause? Amaral in Book Sales or The McCanns in Libel Damages?
-
Who is the undeserving cause? Amaral in Book Sales or The McCanns in Libel Damages?
The McCanns and their lawyers.
Just my opinion on the matter ?{)(**
-
I'm not a libel lawyer but I guess each case is viewed on its merit. Even lawyers can only give opinions. The McCanns were no doubt advised of the advantages and disadvantages by Isabel Duarte. Likewise I guess for who ever advised Amaral and any publishers.
You cannot accuse someone of a crime they have not been found guilty of in a newspaper in this country without breaking libel laws. I’m amazed you are unaware of this?
-
You cannot accuse someone of a crime they have not been found guilty of in a newspaper in this country without breaking libel laws. I’m amazed you are unaware of this?
It only becomes an issue if legal action is taken against you.
-
Well it could be they could not be bothered with any litigation along with the fact it probably wouldn't sell that well in UK anyway. Is it still available? I understand he made 350k from book sales? Who distributed it? Do any break down figs exist?
Remember 'Spycatcher'?
Tony Bennett was left with a very nasty bill after he Libelled The McCanns.
-
It only becomes an issue if legal action is taken against you.
Obviously, but the law in this country would be on Spliff’s side against the Sun claiming he was a paedo, every time.
-
Who is the undeserving cause? Amaral in Book Sales or The McCanns in Libel Damages?
But why attempt to silence your critics if you've nothing to hide? Not everyone who read Amaral's book was going to buy into his theories etc. In fact it may have assisted the McCanns. Imo nothing good can come out of this litigation. I think it would be better if they just kept their heads down battling away with the campaign.
-
But why attempt to silence your critics if you've nothing to hide? Not everyone who read Amaral's book was going to buy into his theories etc. In fact it may have assisted the McCanns. Imo nothing good can come out of this litigation. I think it would be better if they just kept their heads down battling away with the campaign.
In hindsight you’re probably right but the McCanns firmly believed that Amaral’s book and subsequent publicity campaignwas instrumental in convincing the Portuguese public that Madeleine was dead and that that was harmful to her prospects of recovery if she were still alive and findable.
-
But why attempt to silence your critics if you've nothing to hide? Not everyone who read Amaral's book was going to buy into his theories etc. In fact it may have assisted the McCanns. Imo nothing good can come out of this litigation. I think it would be better if they just kept their heads down battling away with the campaign.
You may well be right, but that's not the route they have chosen to take.
-
But why attempt to silence your critics if you've nothing to hide? Not everyone who read Amaral's book was going to buy into his theories etc. In fact it may have assisted the McCanns. Imo nothing good can come out of this litigation. I think it would be better if they just kept their heads down battling away with the campaign.
You think? Bennett and crew were handing out leaflets and booklets in the street, and even delivered to neighbours in The McCann's village and their immediate neighbours.
How would you like someone doing this to you in your own road?
-
But why attempt to silence your critics if you've nothing to hide? Not everyone who read Amaral's book was going to buy into his theories etc. In fact it may have assisted the McCanns. Imo nothing good can come out of this litigation. I think it would be better if they just kept their heads down battling away with the campaign.
And I think you are wrong. Amaral you may notice has gone very quiet...if he says anything now and the mccanns are successful in europe he cold find himself back in court. was Cliff richard wrong to sue...of course he wasnt. You have your opinion but the McCanns have done what they think is right and its their choice. I know people who still think maddies blood was found in the car
-
You think? Bennett and crew were handing out leaflets and booklets in the street, and even delivered to neighbours in The McCann's village and their immediate neighbours.
How would you like someone doing this to you in your own road?
Bennett et al problems were that they didn't stick to telling the truth. Had they done so, the case against them might have been dismissed.
-
Bennett et al problems were that they didn't stick to telling the truth. Had they done so, the case against them might have been dismissed.
Precisely. They said things that they couldn't prove. And even Innuendo was Ruled as Libel.
-
Bennett et al problems were that they didn't stick to telling the truth. Had they done so, the case against them might have been dismissed.
You think they would have been motivated to go around handing out leaflets stating there is no evidence that the McCanns hid Madeleine’s body? I very much doubt it!
-
You cannot accuse someone of a crime they have not been found guilty of in a newspaper in this country without breaking libel laws. I’m amazed you are unaware of this?
I think editors and journalists are a bit more savvy than you give them credit for. It was perfectly acceptable for papers to report on the McCanns when they were made aguidos and to explain the reasons why.
There's not a one size fits all. It would depend on the case against the individual(s) and what approach editors and journalists take.
The Daily Mail was very vocal in naming and shaming those involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence long before any trial took place.
-
You think they would have been motivated to go around handing out leaflets stating there is no evidence that the McCanns hid Madeleine’s body? I very much doubt it!
They may well still have been motivated to hand out leaflets stating the true events of the case and if they had restricted themselves to that, all that might have happened would have been an injunction halting their activities.
Bennett had legal training and should have been wise to the pitfalls that ultimately befell him.
-
I think editors and journalists are a bit more savvy than you give them credit for. It was perfectly acceptable for papers to report on the McCanns when they were made aguidos and to explain the reasons why.
There's not a one size fits all. It would depend on the case against the individual(s) and what approach editors and journalists take.
The Daily Mail was very vocal in naming and shaming those involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence long before any trial took place.
the mail is a good example...the mail knew it was committing libel...I remember the case at the time. The mail wanted to be sued...they wanted to force the alleged killers into court ...they knew they would not be sued
uk libel law is very simple ....you dont need to be apawyer to understand it. no one on theis forum can accuse the mccanns of being involved...that would be libel...check with John
-
I think editors and journalists are a bit more savvy than you give them credit for. It was perfectly acceptable for papers to report on the McCanns when they were made aguidos and to explain the reasons why.
There's not a one size fits all. It would depend on the case against the individual(s) and what approach editors and journalists take.
The Daily Mail was very vocal in naming and shaming those involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence long before any trial took place.
The Daily Mail isn't quite so keen now.
-
And I think you are wrong. Amaral you may notice has gone very quiet...if he says anything now and the mccanns are successful in europe he cold find himself back in court. was Cliff richard wrong to sue...of course he wasnt. You have your opinion but the McCanns have done what they think is right and its their choice. I know people who still think maddies blood was found in the car
The McCanns also appear to have gone very quiet.
-
The McCanns also appear to have gone very quiet.
why do you think thta is...but Im glad you agree amaral has
-
the mail is a good example...the mail knew it was committing libel...I remember the case at the time. The mail wanted to be sued...they wanted to force the alleged killers into court ...they knew they would not be sued
uk libel law is very simple ....you dont need to be apawyer to understand it. no one on theis forum can accuse the mccanns of being involved...that would be libel...check with John
Of course they can. It just wouldn't last as a post for very long @)(++(*
-
I think editors and journalists are a bit more savvy than you give them credit for. It was perfectly acceptable for papers to report on the McCanns when they were made aguidos and to explain the reasons why.
There's not a one size fits all. It would depend on the case against the individual(s) and what approach editors and journalists take.
The Daily Mail was very vocal in naming and shaming those involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence long before any trial took place.
I have sad it wasn’t acceptable for papers to report on the McCanns nor to explain the reasons why. Of course that is acceptable. There were however dozens of salacious and completely fabricated stories that appeared on the front page of the tabs - do you consider those acceptable too? As for naming and shaming the murderers of Stephen Lawrence - that was a very risky strategy, and those named could well have sued if they’d had the brazen balls to do so.
-
The mail article and the challenge they put out..
www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jan/04/stephen-lawrence-parents-daily-mail
-
They may well still have been motivated to hand out leaflets stating the true events of the case and if they had restricted themselves to that, all that might have happened would have been an injunction halting their activities.
Bennett had legal training and should have been wise to the pitfalls that ultimately befell him.
The papers already stated the true events of the case. What do you think Bennett knew about the case that was true and hadn’t been reported?
-
In hindsight you’re probably right but the McCanns firmly believed that Amaral’s book and subsequent publicity campaignwas instrumental in convincing the Portuguese public that Madeleine was dead and that that was harmful to her prospects of recovery if she were still alive and findable.
That particular claim was dismissed by the judge of the first instance because they were unable to prove it.
-
The papers already stated the true events of the case. What do you think Bennett knew about the case that was true and hadn’t been reported?
He clearly felt there should be greater publicity, particularly in the village of Rothley.
-
the mail is a good example...the mail knew it was committing libel...I remember the case at the time. The mail wanted to be sued...they wanted to force the alleged killers into court ...they knew they would not be sued
uk libel law is very simple ....you dont need to be apawyer to understand it. no one on theis forum can accuse the mccanns of being involved...that would be libel...check with John
There's a mountain of commentary online claiming the McCanns were involved. Ignore is the best policy imo. Pre-internet they would only have had to contend with traditional media but those days are over and good luck to anyone who wants to try and put the genie back in the bottle!
By the McCanns doing what they do they simply raise the profile of their critics and add to their ranks.
-
There's a mountain of commentary online claiming the McCanns were involved. Ignore is the best policy imo. Pre-internet they would only have had to contend with traditional media but those days are over and good luck to anyone who wants to try and put the genie back in the bottle!
By the McCanns doing what they do they simply raise the profile of their critics and add to their ranks.
John takes it seriously. That's for sure.
-
That particular claim was dismissed by the judge of the first instance because they were unable to prove it.
I'm aware of that. And?
-
He clearly felt there should be greater publicity, particularly in the village of Rothley.
No, he clearly felt that the McCanns home town, friends and neighbours should be convinced of their guilt by means of propaganda tactics. What an evil get.
-
There's a mountain of commentary online claiming the McCanns were involved. Ignore is the best policy imo. Pre-internet they would only have had to contend with traditional media but those days are over and good luck to anyone who wants to try and put the genie back in the bottle!
By the McCanns doing what they do they simply raise the profile of their critics and add to their ranks.
Victim blaming, that's what you're doing.
-
Fanatics often are. (Response to 426)
-
No, he clearly felt that the McCanns home town, friends and neighbours should be convinced of their guilt by means of propaganda tactics. What an evil get.
Even hiding in bushes, would you believe.
-
Even hiding in bushes, would you believe.
I do believe. A most unpleasant individual, am I allowed to judge his character by his stance on the case?
-
You think? Bennett and crew were handing out leaflets and booklets in the street, and even delivered to neighbours in The McCann's village and their immediate neighbours.
How would you like someone doing this to you in your own road?
I have no real idea who this character is etc but from KM's book there was only limited action they could take and he apparently is still vocal online.
People can form their own opinions. Most people I think would be highly suspicious of such an individual and see him/her as being somewhat disturbed to go to such lengths especially when law enforcement have been unable to find any evidence against the McCanns.
I think KM is probably the driving force behind the litigation as she strikes me as someone who likes a lot of control.
-
There's a mountain of commentary online claiming the McCanns were involved. Ignore is the best policy imo. Pre-internet they would only have had to contend with traditional media but those days are over and good luck to anyone who wants to try and put the genie back in the bottle!
By the McCanns doing what they do they simply raise the profile of their critics and add to their ranks.
they have ignored most of the online stuff..but they couldnt ignore mainstream media imo.
-
I do believe. A most unpleasant individual, am I allowed to judge his character by his stance on the case?
Don't suppose anyone really cares, one way or the other - but if it makes you feel better then fine.
-
why do you think thta is...but Im glad you agree amaral has
He seems to have spoken to the latest commentators; Netflix and Saunokonoko. Wasn't May 2017 the last McCann interview? Apart from Gerry's mental health radio interview that is, which was about his feelings, not the actual case.
-
I have no real idea who this character is etc but from KM's book there was only limited action they could take and he apparently is still vocal online.
People can form their own opinions. Most people I think would be highly suspicious of such an individual and see him/her as being somewhat disturbed to go to such lengths especially when law enforcement have been unable to find any evidence against the McCanns.
I think KM is probably the driving force behind the litigation as she strikes me as someone who likes a lot of control.
Do you think so?
I see her as the more vindictive of the pair, but I feel he equally likes/needs control.
-
John takes it seriously. That's for sure.
I wouldn't be here if he didn't.
-
Don't suppose anyone really cares, one way or the other - but if it makes you feel better then fine.
Oops, I think I already did. He is sceptic in extremis, but I think a little bit of him resides at the heart of every sceptic.
-
I have no real idea who this character is etc but from KM's book there was only limited action they could take and he apparently is still vocal online.
People can form their own opinions. Most people I think would be highly suspicious of such an individual and see him/her as being somewhat disturbed to go to such lengths especially when law enforcement have been unable to find any evidence against the McCanns.
I think KM is probably the driving force behind the litigation as she strikes me as someone who likes a lot of control.
he doesnt say anything of importance online...if he did he would be in contempt of court and probably jailed
-
I wouldn't be here if he didn't.
john takes libel seriously is what was meant
-
Oops, I think I already did. He is sceptic in extremis, but I think a little bit of him resides at the heart of every sceptic.
You mean the little bit that says ' we don't believe them' ?
-
Do you think so?
I see her as the more vindictive of the pair, but I feel he equally likes/needs control.
Yes I think the book is revealing eg avoiding putting the lights on "at all costs" to avoid waking the children. I think KM likes everything ordered which might come from being an only child. Whereas GM grew up as 1 of 5 siblings I believe in a 1 bed? property meaning the chances are things were probably chaotic.
-
You mean the little bit that says ' we don't believe them' ?
No, that obviously goes without saying, by definition of being a sceptic.
-
john takes libel seriously is what was meant
It seems he doesn't care that much now there's a new deputy in town.
-
he doesnt say anything of importance online...if he did he would be in contempt of court and probably jailed
But there's a mountain of stuff online which is highly critical of the McCanns. And imo had they just kept their heads down and taken a different approach they would have fewer critics.
-
It seems he doesn't care that much now there's a new deputy in town.
Just as long as it isn't Deputy Dawg, as it would lead to endless argument over what the pronouncements meant 8)--))
-
john takes libel seriously is what was meant
Of course he does he's the owner of the forum and the rules are set out on the homepage.
-
Of course he does he's the owner of the forum and the rules are set out on the homepage.
So what constitutes libel in your view then?
-
Oops, I think I already did. He is sceptic in extremis, but I think a little bit of him resides at the heart of every sceptic.
All sceptics? I think he's an absolute weapon and quite possibly three parts mad.
Actually, maybe you're right.....
He was on a podcast on something or other a couple of weeks ago. Can confirm that he's still banging on about the same stuff, but he's been reeled right in under threat of litigation - he kept referring to it. Tool.
-
Of course he does he's the owner of the forum and the rules are set out on the homepage.
and thats why posters cant make accusations against the mccanns on the forum
-
But there's a mountain of stuff online which is highly critical of the McCanns. And imo had they just kept their heads down and taken a different approach they would have fewer critics.
I dont believe that to be true at all....theres loads online about the US govt being behind 911....the govt just ignore it....it hasnt gone away You keep using the word critics...teh mcccanns ahve millions of critics for leaving the children....only a small part of those believe the mccanns are lying and are involved in the disappearance
-
So what constitutes libel in your view then?
As I said earlier I'm not a libel lawyer and even those who are can only offer up opinion which is often proved wrong in the courts.
-
As I said earlier I'm not a libel lawyer and even those who are can only offer up opinion which is often proved wrong in the courts.
the law is so clear cut and simple it rarely reaches the courts...you claim its opinion often proved wrong in courts....do you have any cite for that because I dont beleive its true
-
I dont believe that to be true at all....theres loads online about the US govt being behind 911....the govt just ignore it....it hasnt gone away You keep using the word critics...teh mcccanns ahve millions of critics for leaving the children....only a small part of those believe the mccanns are lying and are involved in the disappearance
Exactly people have all sorts of views and imo they are best left to it. Hate crime is different ie inciting hatred towards groups of people by way of race, ethnicity etc.
I was surprised by the amount of anti McCann material online. There are far more homemade vids on YouTube that are anti as opposed to pro. In fact I haven't seen any homemade vids that are pro just anti or neutral. What about this body language expert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwALaaxavLA
-
the law is so clear cut and simple it rarely reaches the courts...you claim its opinion often proved wrong in courts....do you have any cite for that because I dont beleive its true
No it isn't. If it was the McCanns would not have ended up on a hiding to nothing with Amaral.
-
Exactly people have all sorts of views and imo they are best left to it. Hate crime is different ie inciting hatred towards groups of people by way of race, ethnicity etc.
I was surprised by the amount of anti McCann material online. There are far more homemade vids on YouTube that are anti as opposed to pro. In fact I haven't seen any homemade vids that are pro just anti or neutral. What about this body language expert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwALaaxavLA
body language is not an exact science...it isnt evidence...its opinion
-
No it isn't. If it was the McCanns would not have ended up on a hiding to nothing with Amaral.
I should have made it clear im talking about the UK. Was the amaral verdict lawful...we dont know yet. Judging by what Ive read on the ECHR website it wasnt.
-
Exactly people have all sorts of views and imo they are best left to it. Hate crime is different ie inciting hatred towards groups of people by way of race, ethnicity etc.
I was surprised by the amount of anti McCann material online. There are far more homemade vids on YouTube that are anti as opposed to pro. In fact I haven't seen any homemade vids that are pro just anti or neutral. What about this body language expert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwALaaxavLA
I suppose there's limited scope for saying 'I don't believe they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance'.
Perhaps someone like Davel could make a video showing all the evidence that points to their non-involvement.
-
and thats why posters cant make accusations against the mccanns on the forum
Within reason they can and do as is their right to express their opinions.
-
Within reason they can and do as is their right to express their opinions.
now you have changed what you initially claimed.....within reason. Their right to express opinion is governed by law...including libel law and is not absolute
-
I suppose there's limited scope for saying 'I don't believe they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance'.
Perhaps someone like Davel could make a video showing all the evidence that points to their non-involvement.
The case against the McCanns turned on the dogs and the lcn dna. Imo the McCanns would have been better to have produced material in various forms assisted by experts and use this in their campaign as opposed to litigation lawyers.
-
now you have changed what you initially claimed.....within reason. Their right to express opinion is governed by law...including libel law and is not absolute
What did I initially claim that's different to what I'm claiming now?
-
body language is not an exact science...it isnt evidence...its opinion
That's not the point. The point is there's a mountain of anti McCann material online and I've no idea why it bothers you so much.
-
No it isn't. If it was the McCanns would not have ended up on a hiding to nothing with Amaral.
The Law is somewhat different in Portugal.
-
That's not the point. The point is there's a mountain of anti McCann material online and I've no idea why it bothers you so much.
I suppose it depends on whether or not you believe in Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
-
The Law is somewhat different in Portugal.
But ultimately it is the ECHR who gets to decide. Lol will Brexit affect the outcome?
-
But ultimately it is the ECHR who gets to decide. Lol will Brexit affect the outcome?
I have no idea. Does anyone?
-
But ultimately it is the ECHR who gets to decide. Lol will Brexit affect the outcome?
No, because Portugal is not leaving the EU or the ECHR
-
As I said earlier I'm not a libel lawyer and even those who are can only offer up opinion which is often proved wrong in the courts.
I'm not asking you to be a lawyer, I'm asking you to be a moderator. John says no libel is permitted so what constitutes libel?
-
I suppose it depends on whether or not you believe in Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
But it works both ways. I believe Bamber is a miscarriage of justice despite the fact he was found guilty in a court of law over 3 decades ago and his case has been to the appeal courts twice. In the eyes of the law and most Bamber is guilty but I have freedom of speech to voice my opinions to the contrary.
Even if MM is found alive tomorrow it will not stop the McCann critics making all sorts of spurious claims.
Imo the McCanns are absolute fools to get involved in litigation and the lawyers will not encourage them otherwise since this is how they make their living. They want the pounds rolling in and the kudos of winning a high profile case.
-
I'm not asking you to be a lawyer, I'm asking you to be a moderator. John says no libel is permitted so what constitutes libel?
If anyone here believes the McCanns are not involved, as I do, they're better off posting up their arguments than attempting to silence their critics by over moderation.
-
But it works both ways. I believe Bamber is a miscarriage of justice despite the fact he was found guilty in a court of law over 3 decades ago and his case has been to the appeal courts twice. In the eyes of the law and most Bamber is guilty but I have freedom of speech to voice my opinions to the contrary.
Even if MM is found alive tomorrow it will not stop the McCann critics making all sorts of spurious claims.
Imo the McCanns are absolute fools to get involved in litigation and the lawyers will not encourage them otherwise since this is how they make their living. They want the pounds rolling in and the kudos of winning a high profile case.
Making all sorts of claims.
You would need to know what they were before attempting to assess whether they were valid or spurious.
-
But it works both ways. I believe Bamber is a miscarriage of justice despite the fact he was found guilty in a court of law over 3 decades ago and his case has been to the appeal courts twice. In the eyes of the law and most Bamber is guilty but I have freedom of speech to voice my opinions to the contrary.
Even if MM is found alive tomorrow it will not stop the McCann critics making all sorts of spurious claims.
Imo the McCanns are absolute fools to get involved in litigation and the lawyers will not encourage them otherwise since this is how they make their living. They want the pounds rolling in and the kudos of winning a high profile case.
Arguing that someone is innocent is hardly the same as saying they are guilty.
Carter Ruck work for The McCanns on a No Win, No Fee basis.
-
If anyone here believes the McCanns are not involved, as I do, they're better off posting up their arguments than attempting to silence their critics by over moderation.
That's a mealy mouthed reply and really doesn't make things clear at all. Can you please clarify the rules on libel on this forum otherwise how on earth are we expected to adhere to them?
-
Making all sorts of claims.
You would need to know what they were before attempting to assess whether they were valid or spurious.
The idea this Bennett character is going to send the McCanns a heartfelt written apology along with a bouquet of flowers isn't going to happen imo. Those at the extreme end will say the McCanns arranged the abduction so they could devote more time to the twins or other such nonsense.
-
Arguing that someone is innocent is hardly the same as saying they are guilty.
Isn't it?
Carter Ruck work for The McCanns on a No Win, No Fee basis.
I was thinking of Isobel Duarte?
-
The idea this Bennett character is going to send the McCanns a heartfelt written apology along with a bouquet of flowers isn't going to happen imo. Those at the extreme end will say the McCanns arranged the abduction so they could devote more time to the twins or other such nonsense.
So they might.
It would make for an interesting twist and enliven the various forums for at least another few years.
-
That's a mealy mouthed reply and really doesn't make things clear at all. Can you please clarify the rules on libel on this forum otherwise how on earth are we expected to adhere to them?
You've spent the last hour or two telling me what the libel laws are and now you're asking me to explain them. How many more times, I'm not a libel lawyer.
I think we do just fine here. The board reaches a natural equilibrium in that we have a balance of both camps. Excessive moderation would stifle healthy debate.
-
So they might.
It would make for an interesting twist and enliven the various forums for at least another few years.
It certainly would 8((()*/
-
No, because Portugal is not leaving the EU or the ECHR
But the country in which the plaintiffs reside will be according to BoJo so will this affect the outcome?
-
But ultimately it is the ECHR who gets to decide. Lol will Brexit affect the outcome?
No brexit won't affect it... Why should it
-
If anyone here believes the McCanns are not involved, as I do, they're better off posting up their arguments than attempting to silence their critics by over moderation.
You seem to think you are in a position to tell the McCanns what they should do.... What their supporters should do.... And you've already told SY where they've gone wrong.
I see no point in trying to persuade anyone here that the McCanns are almost certainly innocent....its of no interest to me what posters here think
-
You seem to think you are in a position to tell the McCanns what they should do.... What their supporters should do.... And you've already told SY where they've gone wrong.
I see no point in trying to persuade anyone here that the McCanns are almost certainly innocent....its of no interest to me what posters here think
I'm entitled to my opinion am I not? I'm certainly not alone in thinking the McCanns are best off avoiding litigation; Ian Horrocks said the same in his report. How do you know what I said in my email to SY?
-
No brexit won't affect it... Why should it
Are you asking me or telling me?
The plaintiffs are currently residents of a country which is part of the EU. In a few weeks time that might no longer be the case.
-
Are you asking me or telling me?
The plaintiffs are currently residents of a country which is part of the EU. In a few weeks time that might no longer be the case.
I'm telling you... The action is against Portugal who are not involved in brexit... Doesn't matter where the McCanns are from
-
Are you asking me or telling me?
The plaintiffs are currently residents of a country which is part of the EU. In a few weeks time that might no longer be the case.
It doesn't matter where the plaintiffs come from, though if they have any sense, the McCanns will have obtained Irish citizenship to avoid the worse of Brexit.
The case is being brought against a signature of the ECHR and that's all that matters
-
But it works both ways. I believe Bamber is a miscarriage of justice despite the fact he was found guilty in a court of law over 3 decades ago and his case has been to the appeal courts twice. In the eyes of the law and most Bamber is guilty but I have freedom of speech to voice my opinions to the contrary.
Even if MM is found alive tomorrow it will not stop the McCann critics making all sorts of spurious claims.
Imo the McCanns are absolute fools to get involved in litigation and the lawyers will not encourage them otherwise since this is how they make their living. They want the pounds rolling in and the kudos of winning a high profile case.
In my opinion their lawyer Duarte was keen to make a splash, but her case was badly prepared and therefore weak imo. Claiming that someone was depressed without medical evidence was never going to work, for example. Especially when the alleged sufferer denied being depressed on the witness stand. I don't suppose she gained any Brownie points for telling the Supreme Court judges they didn't understand the legal significance of the archiving report either.
-
Don't you think I haven't done that. Look I'll have another look at it. It could be a problem of a definition in one country not being applicable in another.
Is the forum under UK law or USA law?
I pointed out once before the rules of the forum mention USA law only.
-
Don't you think I haven't done that. Look I'll have another look at it. It could be a problem of a definition in one country not being applicable in another.
Is the forum under UK law or USA law?
I pointed out once before the rules of the forum mention USA law only.
john is governed by UK law
-
Don't you think I haven't done that. Look I'll have another look at it. It could be a problem of a definition in one country not being applicable in another.
Is the forum under UK law or USA law?
I pointed out once before the rules of the forum mention USA law only.
the mods are supposed to enforce the rules...but when the mods dont understand what is and isnt libel then they cant enforce the rules
-
john is governed by UK law
Then the forum rules need changing.
-
the mods are supposed to enforce the rules...but when the mods dont understand what is and isnt libel then they cant enforce the rules
John has the last word. He countermands Mod's decisions if he disagrees.
-
Maybe Holly has spent too much time discussing Bamber who can’t be libelled as he was found guilty of murder.
-
the mods are supposed to enforce the rules...but when the mods dont understand what is and isnt libel then they cant enforce the rules
I feel that is libellous.
-
I think editors and journalists are a bit more savvy than you give them credit for. It was perfectly acceptable for papers to report on the McCanns when they were made aguidos and to explain the reasons why.
There's not a one size fits all. It would depend on the case against the individual(s) and what approach editors and journalists take.
The Daily Mail was very vocal in naming and shaming those involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence long before any trial took place.
Same as it is perfectly acceptable to describe what the police investigation thought at the beginning of the case and the reason why.
-
Same as it is perfectly acceptable to describe what the police investigation thought at the beginning of the case and the reason why.
No one has said otherwise.
-
Same as it is perfectly acceptable to describe what the police investigation thought at the beginning of the case and the reason why.
Are you talking about a specific case or cases in general?
-
Same as it is perfectly acceptable to describe what the police investigation thought at the beginning of the case and the reason why.
That isn't what Amaral did though. In his documentary he said...
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
00.58 - Discover the whole truth about what happened that day – a death that many people want to cover up.
-
That isn't what Amaral did though. In his documentary he said...
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
00.58 - Discover the whole truth about what happened that day – a death that many people want to cover up.
Wow that was good, now what was the source? It wouldn't have been so bad if he actually followed through, but I feel Goncalo Amaral failed in proving it.
-
It doesn't matter where the plaintiffs come from, though if they have any sense, the McCanns will have obtained Irish citizenship to avoid the worse of Brexit.
The case is being brought against a signature of the ECHR and that's all that matters
Yes I see now, thanks.
I still don't understand how the McCanns attempting to sue Amaral will assist in finding out what happened to Madeleine?
-
Yes I see now, thanks.
I still don't understand how the McCanns attempting to sue Amaral will assist in finding out what happened to Madeleine?
In the case of a stranger abduction the help of the public to supply informtion is paramount. if the portuguese public beleive maddie died in the apartmnet and her parents covered up the death then there will be little help.
The mcCanns went to court to stop amaral making the claim that maddie was dead and they were involved. There is no real evidence to support this but amaral has gone on TV and said he can prove it happened.
Unfortunately the portuguese court have allowed him to make the unproven claim that he has proof maddie died in the apartment
-
Yes I see now, thanks.
I still don't understand how the McCanns attempting to sue Amaral will assist in finding out what happened to Madeleine?
I don't think that was ever the intent
1 Shut him up
2 Screw him for lots and lots of lovely money and make him feel fear.
IMO
-
That isn't what Amaral did though. In his documentary he said...
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
00.58 - Discover the whole truth about what happened that day – a death that many people want to cover up.
I think that could be a mistranslation. @)(++(*
-
I think that could be a mistranslation. @)(++(*
I understand your embarrassmnet but in this case we have amaral speaking these words so any translation can be checked
-
The questions would be - has it been checked and if so, by whom ?
-
The questions would be - has it been checked and if so, by whom ?
its on the Joanna morais website.
so suddenly you question a transaltion...at lest this one can be checked
-
Madeleine McCann's death 'covered up by parents who faked kidnap', court hears
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html
-
its on the Joanna morais website.
so suddenly you question a transaltion...at lest this one can be checked
No, I was trying to clarify what you said - ie it can be checked - by asking if it had been checked
Not querying the validity at all.
-
Maybe Holly has spent too much time discussing Bamber who can’t be libelled as he was found guilty of murder.
Nothing to do with Bamber per se.
In a nutshell the person responsible for the murders can only have been either Bamber or his adopted sister Sheila Caffell, nee Bamber. The fact myself and others who 'support' Bamber have expressed such views on forums etc means by default we are claiming the courts are wrong and that Bamber is the victim of a moj and the perp is Sheila Cafell but no one has mentioned the words libel or sue.
Some at the extreme end have posted ghastly and often totally unfounded comments about Sheila Caffell, her former husband, the adoptive parents, the extended family, the chief prosecution witness and many others but afaik no one has attempted to sue anyone. And the extended family are not without financial means.
-
Nothing to do with Bamber per se.
In a nutshell the person responsible for the murders can only have been either Bamber or his adopted sister Sheila Caffell, nee Bamber. The fact myself and others who 'support' Bamber have expressed such views on forums etc means by default we are claiming the courts are wrong and that Bamber is the victim of a moj and the perp is Sheila Cafell but no one has mentioned the words libel or sue.
Some at the extreme end have posted ghastly and often totally unfounded comments about Sheila Caffell, her former husband, the adoptive parents, the extended family, the chief prosecution witness and many others but afaik no one has attempted to sue anyone. And the extended family are not without financial means.
any posts on small forums with limited readership would probably not be deemed to substantially harm someones reputation. Its part of libel law
-
No, I was trying to clarify what you said - ie it can be checked - by asking if it had been checked
Not querying the validity at all.
Im surprised posters are not alraedy aware of it...its been around several years and posted here many times. its also mentioned in the SC judgement
-
Then one must be grateful that others have such powers of recall ?{)(**
-
Don't you think I haven't done that. Look I'll have another look at it. It could be a problem of a definition in one country not being applicable in another.
Is the forum under UK law or USA law?
I pointed out once before the rules of the forum mention USA law only.
I recall looking into this some time ago and the rules seem quite clear?
https://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/what-we-do/content-removal/websites/
As far as I can see posters who believe the McCanns are responsible for MM's disappearance are at liberty to express those opinions via posts so long as they make clear it is just their opinion.
The JBF has a thread dedicated to MM where a member of admin makes all sorts of unfounded claims. Another member of admin, who afaik has never contributed to the thread, is a non-practicing criminal barrister.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,386.msg5378.html#msg5378
-
any posts on small forums with limited readership would probably not be deemed to substantially harm someones reputation. Its part of libel law
There's a mountain of anti McCann material on the web which the McCanns have no way of controlling even if they wanted to.
-
There's a mountain of anti McCann material on the web which the McCanns have no way of controlling even if they wanted to.
Im well aware of that. The point is if they could have shown that what amaral was saying was untrue...it may have helped. Unfortuntely the SC in portugal supported amaral in his right to make false claims...thats why the ECHR are now involved.
-
I recall looking into this some time ago and the rules seem quite clear?
https://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/what-we-do/content-removal/websites/
As far as I can see posters who believe the McCanns are responsible for MM's disappearance are at liberty to express those opinions via posts so long as they make clear it is just their opinion.
The JBF has a thread dedicated to MM where a member of admin makes all sorts of unfounded claims. Another member of admin, who afaik has never contributed to the thread, is a non-practicing criminal barrister.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,386.msg5378.html#msg5378
its not clear what is allowed to be posted...am I allowed to say that imo....grime subconciosly cued his dogs.
Am i allowed to say that imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities
-
Im well aware of that. The point is if they could have shown that what amaral was saying was untrue...it may have helped. Unfortuntely the SC in portugal supported amaral in his right to make false claims...thats why the ECHR are now involved.
I read the SC? gave more weight to Amaral's right to express himself than the McCann's honour?
-
I read the SC? gave more weight to Amaral's right to express himself than the McCann's honour?
Thts right ...the SC had to balance the mccanns rights under article 8 against amarals right under article 10....they decided to favour amaral. There is a whole list of cases on the ECHR website involving the conflict between 8 and 10.
Ive read them and posted them here. Based on that I would say the SC got it clearly wrong....even denying the mccanns the right to the presumption of innocence. The SC said it didnt apply in a civil case...the ECHR says it does
-
its not clear what is allowed to be posted...am I allowed to say that imo....grime subconciosly cued his dogs.
Am i allowed to say that imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities
I don't see why not especially given the reliability of the dogs has been highlighted in a report produced by the National Police Improvement Agency:
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf
Page 25
Forensic scientists have also demonstrated how inanimate items can act as an odour transporting media:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037907380700134X#!
I'm not sure Grime did subconsciously cue his dogs as it seems to me based on the above its just as likely the dogs alerted to some benign odour transported from elsewhere.
Afaik the PJ looked into whether or not anyone died in 5A prior to the McCanns arrival but how could they possibly exclude benign odour trasference?
-
its not clear what is allowed to be posted...am I allowed to say that imo....grime subconciosly cued his dogs.
Am i allowed to say that imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities
You should be able to, but I wouldn't dare.
-
Im well aware of that. The point is if they could have shown that what amaral was saying was untrue...it may have helped. Unfortuntely the SC in portugal supported amaral in his right to make false claims...thats why the ECHR are now involved.
No undue bias there, I'm pleased to see .
-
Thts right ...the SC had to balance the mccanns rights under article 8 against amarals right under article 10....they decided to favour amaral. There is a whole list of cases on the ECHR website involving the conflict between 8 and 10.
Ive read them and posted them here. Based on that I would say the SC got it clearly wrong....even denying the mccanns the right to the presumption of innocence. The SC said it didnt apply in a civil case...the ECHR says it does
Well it will be interesting to hear the ECHR's final say on the matter but I understand from others here this could take years.
-
Well it will be interesting to hear the ECHR's final say on the matter but I understand from others here this could take years.
It could, if the Court decides to hear the case.
A reject decision could be much swifter.
-
You should read what Amnesty International have had to say about Portugal.
-
You should read what Amnesty International have had to say about Portugal.
Why ?
I don't live there, or come under their jurisdiction in any way.
-
In the case of a stranger abduction the help of the public to supply informtion is paramount. if the portuguese public beleive maddie died in the apartmnet and her parents covered up the death then there will be little help.
The mcCanns went to court to stop amaral making the claim that maddie was dead and they were involved. There is no real evidence to support this but amaral has gone on TV and said he can prove it happened.
Unfortunately the Portuguese court have allowed him to make the untrue claim that he has proof maddie died in the apartment
I recommend that people read the McCanns claims to the court and its findings for themselves.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
The statement of facts says what the claimants were able to prove. They did not prove that Amaral influenced public opinion in Portugal
The Judge states that it is not possible to determine what most people who have read or seen Mr Amaral's thesis actually think.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
-
Why ?
I don't live there, or come under their jurisdiction in any way.
Sorry. I wasn't referring to you in particular..
-
Well it will be interesting to hear the ECHR's final say on the matter but I understand from others here this could take years.
It's been 2 years... Realistically 3 years is the norm from what I have seen
-
its not clear what is allowed to be posted...am I allowed to say that imo....grime subconsciously cued his dogs.
Am i allowed to say that imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities
https://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/what-we-do/content-removal/internet-defamation/
From that article it states: "... or that is an honest opinion (which has some factual basis);..." Saying: "grime subconsciously cued his dogs ...." Has no factual basis. I defy you to show it.
Likewise saying: "imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities" has no factual basis.
-
Sorry. I wasn't referring to you in particular..
I know, but feel that the same would apply to most people who read on here.
I'm more concerned about the possibility of war breaking out in Iran or India, than I am about any Amnesty report.
-
From that article it states: "... or that is an honest opinion (which has some factual basis);..." Saying: "grime subconsciously cued his dogs ...." Has no factual basis. I defy you to show it.
Likewise saying: "imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities" has no factual basis.
A lot of what is said on here has no factual basis.
-
A lot of what is said on here has no factual basis.
A lot of what is said everywhere has no factual basis.
-
A lot of what is said on here has no factual basis.
Well according to that article it should do. Even "honest opinion" ought to have some factual basis to it.
Quote " honest opinion (which has some factual basis)" OK we would then be debating whether the factual basis was sufficient enough.
A lot of what is said everywhere has no factual basis.
If A lot of what is said everywhere has no factual basis should then the standard be raised? I can imagine the response to a question of someone's opinion just won't be answered.
-
I have a feeling John is not interested in getting a letter requesting removal of content. A lot of effort is going into moderation of the forum, so I think it would be unlikely to ever happen.
-
https://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/what-we-do/content-removal/internet-defamation/
From that article it states: "... or that is an honest opinion (which has some factual basis);..." Saying: "grime subconsciously cued his dogs ...." Has no factual basis. I defy you to show it.
Likewise saying: "imo....Grime has overplayed the dogs abilities" has no factual basis.
My post needs to be read in the context of the post it was a reply to. You provided a link to a Sunday Times article which contained an accusation of grime planting scent himself
-
Im well aware of that. The point is if they could have shown that what amaral was saying was untrue...it may have helped. Unfortuntely the SC in portugal supported amaral in his right to make false claims...thats why the ECHR are now involved.
You hit the nail on the head there. It was entirely up to them to prove their claims to the court. If they failed it was their fault, not the fault of the judges.
-
You hit the nail on the head there. It was entirely up to them to prove their claims to the court. If they failed it was their fault, not the fault of the judges.
But only in Portugal.
-
I recommend that people read the McCanns claims to the court and its findings for themselves.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
The statement of facts says what the claimants were able to prove. They did not prove that Amaral influenced public opinion in Portugal
The Judge states that it is not possible to determine what most people who have read or seen Mr Amaral's thesis actually think.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
The appeal to the ECHR is limited and I can't see how it could include the points you are raising. The SC judgement was almost entire re the balance of articles 8 and 10 so it follows that will be the basis of the claim
-
You hit the nail on the head there. It was entirely up to them to prove their claims to the court. If they failed it was their fault, not the fault of the judges.
I think you miss the point... From what I've read the SC erred in their application of the law. For one the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence... The SC as you are aware said no
-
I see this as a pointless exercise, as no one knows what the decision of the ECHR will be.
-
I see this as a pointless exercise, as no one knows what the decision of the ECHR will be.
I agree its pointless... There will be no agreement on the possible outcome... Pointless like a lot of debate here
-
At last, something we can agree on
-
I think you miss the point... From what I've read the SC erred in their application of the law. For one the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence... The SC as you are aware said no
I've missed nothing. The McCanns persuaded the first judge that;
Page 68
But is, in this case, the protection of the appellants' rights to their good name and reputation closely related to the presumption of innocence, as said in the first instance's sentence?
The SC judges answered that point. They never said the McCanns weren't entitled to the presumption of innocence, they said it was not closely related to the protection of their rights to their good name.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
-
I've missed nothing. The McCanns persuaded the first judge that;
Page 68
But is, in this case, the protection of the appellants' rights to their good name and reputation closely related to the presumption of innocence, as said in the first instance's sentence?
The SC judges answered that point. They never said the McCanns weren't entitled to the presumption of innocence, they said it was not closely related to the protection of their rights to their good name.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
I remember seeing a statement in the judgement saying the presumption of innocence did not apply in a civil case whereas the ECHR have said it does
-
I remember seeing a statement in the judgement saying the presumption of innocence did not apply in a civil case whereas the ECHR have said it dies
Only in cases where a crminal court has previously delivered a ruling imo. Hence Duarte's attempt to argue that the archiving diispatch was equal to a crminal judgement.
-
Only in cases where a crminal court has previously delivered a ruling imo. Hence Duarte's attempt to argue that the archiving diispatch was equal to a crminal judgement.
No you are wrong if you remember the case I quoted from Finland vs ECHR
-
Technically its not ECHR v anybody. They are the adjudicators
-
Nothing to do with Bamber per se.
In a nutshell the person responsible for the murders can only have been either Bamber or his adopted sister Sheila Caffell, nee Bamber. The fact myself and others who 'support' Bamber have expressed such views on forums etc means by default we are claiming the courts are wrong and that Bamber is the victim of a moj and the perp is Sheila Cafell but no one has mentioned the words libel or sue.
Some at the extreme end have posted ghastly and often totally unfounded comments about Sheila Caffell, her former husband, the adoptive parents, the extended family, the chief prosecution witness and many others but afaik no one has attempted to sue anyone. And the extended family are not without financial means.
You support Bamber? Now I really have to question your judgement.
-
You support Bamber? Now I really have to question your judgement.
Hang on a minute. I think he could be innocent.
-
Hang on a minute. I think he could be innocent.
Whaaaaat? No way Jose.
-
You support Bamber? Now I really have to question your judgement.
Like many question your judgement about the McCanns.
-
Like many question your judgement about the McCanns.
Not many. My view that the McCanns are innocent of their child’s death and or disappearance is the mainstream accepted view, most people I talk to about the case in rl don’t much like the McCanns but do believe their child was abducted. It’s only on the Lala internet that the conspiracy theories are accepted as true and the MSM version considered fake news.
-
Not many. My view that the McCanns are innocent of their child’s death and or disappearance is the mainstream accepted view, most people I talk to about the case in rl don’t much like the McCanns but do believe their child was abducted. It’s only on the Lala internet that the conspiracy theories are accepted as true and the MSM version considered fake news.
But there's a mountain of anti McCann material everywhere and not just from cranks either.
Here's not the place to discuss JB and I don't particularly want to go back on that board only to go round in circles with others but I would be interested in understanding your reasons why you believe Bamber is guilty and would be grateful if you could pm me when you have time. Thanks.
-
No you are wrong if you remember the case I quoted from Finland vs ECHR
The case where an editor and a jounalist of a magazine were charged with and convicted of aggravated defamation?
In other words they were convicted of a criminal not a civil offense.
The ECHR upheld the findings of the Finnish courts because the magazine story, printed as fact, lacked supporting evidence.
The ECHR mentioned the presumption of innocence because the article says the baseball players did the crime, which would harm a trial if ever one took place .They didn't act on that because it wasn't part of the application, they just pointed it out.
https://lovdata.no/static/EMDN/emd-2006-045130.pdf
The case was very different to the McCann case. It hadn't been widely reported, no investigation had taken place and so no files had been released. Amaral used the evidence gathered by an official investigation and his
conclusion matched that of the investigation as at 10th Deptember 2007.
-
But there's a mountain of anti McCann material everywhere and not just from cranks either.
Here's not the place to discuss JB and I don't particularly want to go back on that board only to go round in circles with others but I would be interested in understanding your reasons why you believe Bamber is guilty and would be grateful if you could pm me when you have time. Thanks.
Most of the anti McCann material on the net IS from cranks IMO. And as for Bamber, it was the forensics that proved Cavell could not have pulled the trigger on herself iirc.
-
The case where an editor and a jounalist of a magazine were charged with and convicted of aggravated defamation?
In other words they were convicted of a criminal not a civil offense.
The ECHR upheld the findings of the Finnish courts because the magazine story, printed as fact, lacked supporting evidence.
The ECHR mentioned the presumption of innocence because the article says the baseball players did the crime, which would harm a trial if ever one took place .They didn't act on that because it wasn't part of the application, they just pointed it out.
https://lovdata.no/static/EMDN/emd-2006-045130.pdf
The case was very different to the McCann case. It hadn't been widely reported, no investigation had taken place and so no files had been released. Amaral used the evidence gathered by an official investigation and his
conclusion matched that of the investigation as at 10th Deptember 2007.
Are you saying they were all thick?
-
The case where an editor and a jounalist of a magazine were charged with and convicted of aggravated defamation?
In other words they were convicted of a criminal not a civil offense.
The ECHR upheld the findings of the Finnish courts because the magazine story, printed as fact, lacked supporting evidence.
The ECHR mentioned the presumption of innocence because the article says the baseball players did the crime, which would harm a trial if ever one took place .They didn't act on that because it wasn't part of the application, they just pointed it out.
https://lovdata.no/static/EMDN/emd-2006-045130.pdf
The case was very different to the McCann case. It hadn't been widely reported, no investigation had taken place and so no files had been released. Amaral used the evidence gathered by an official investigation and his
conclusion matched that of the investigation as at 10th Deptember 2007.
Yeah and if he’d written a book about the World Cup Final in 1966 but only covered the first half of the game, he would have concluded it was a one-all draw.
-
The case where an editor and a jounalist of a magazine were charged with and convicted of aggravated defamation?
In other words they were convicted of a criminal not a civil offense.
The ECHR upheld the findings of the Finnish courts because the magazine story, printed as fact, lacked supporting evidence.
The ECHR mentioned the presumption of innocence because the article says the baseball players did the crime, which would harm a trial if ever one took place .They didn't act on that because it wasn't part of the application, they just pointed it out.
https://lovdata.no/static/EMDN/emd-2006-045130.pdf
The case was very different to the McCann case. It hadn't been widely reported, no investigation had taken place and so no files had been released. Amaral used the evidence gathered by an official investigation and his
conclusion matched that of the investigation as at 10th Deptember 2007.
you can point out disimilarities.......its article 8 vs 10...i could probably quote 20 more. amaral claimed he could prove maddie died in the apartment and the parents covered it up...thats "proved"...he didnt,...the evidence did not support it. The investigation didnt say there was proof maddie died in the apartment.
amaral stated a fact with no evidence to support his claim...thats why having looked at other echr cases im confident teh mccans will be successful.
-
you can point out disimilarities.......its article 8 vs 10...i could probably quote 20 more. amaral claimed he could prove maddie died in the apartment and the parents covered it up...thats "proved"...he didnt,...the evidence did not support it. The investigation didnt say there was proof maddie died in the apartment.
amaral stated a fact with no evidence to support his claim...thats why having looked at other echr cases im confident teh mccans will be successful.
I don't know which translation you are relying on, do you have a link please?
-
you can point out disimilarities.......its article 8 vs 10...i could probably quote 20 more. amaral claimed he could prove maddie died in the apartment and the parents covered it up...thats "proved"...he didnt,...the evidence did not support it. The investigation didnt say there was proof maddie died in the apartment.
amaral stated a fact with no evidence to support his claim...thats why having looked at other echr cases im confident teh mccans will be successful.
Weren't you confident that the McCanns would win their appeals?
-
Weren't you confident that the McCanns would win their appeals?
No
I was confident they would win the first case... At the appeal I said they may well lose
-
I don't know which translation you are relying on, do you have a link please?
What do you mean... Which translation... The translation of the video... The truth of the lie... Have you not seen it
It's even mentioned in the SC rulings
-
What do you mean... Which translation... The translation of the video... The truth of the lie... Have you not seen it
It's even mentioned in the SC rulings
Is there only one? Who added the translation to it?
-
Is there only one? Who added the translation to it?
I researched this and discovered that the owner of a video can order and pay for it to be translared. Is that how the subtitles got there? Who did it? What guatantee is there that it's correct?
-
I researched this and discovered that the owner of a video can order and pay for it to be translared. Is that how the subtitles got there? Who did it? What guatantee is there that it's correct?
far more than the translated statements of the tapas...at least here we have the original to compare
-
Weren't you confident that the McCanns would win their appeals?
Do any break down figs exist of % of time ECHR rule against lower courts?
-
Do any break down figs exist of % of time ECHR rule against lower courts?
staistics arent particulary important...its like sying bambers probably guilty based on statistics. I vaguely remember a recent case where the portuguese SC were overuled by the ECHR...it all depends on the strength of the case
-
far more than the translated statements of the tapas...at least here we have the original to compare
Please provide a link, as requested.
-
I researched this and discovered that the owner of a video can order and pay for it to be translared. Is that how the subtitles got there? Who did it? What guatantee is there that it's correct?
the transcript is on the Morais site....shes a portuguese speaker and this come sfrom page 14 of the SC judgement..
In this documentary, the defendant is explicit right in the opening :
"My name is Gonçalo Amaral and I was investigator of the Judicial Police for 27 years. I coordinated the investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance on May 3 2007. In the next 50 minutes I will prove that the child was not kidnapped" (n° 41).
-
Please provide a link, as requested.
joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
-
Do any break down figs exist of % of time ECHR rule against lower courts?
I'm probably being picky, but national courts aren't lower than the ECHR. The States which have signed up have agreed to allow the ECHR to decide on matters of human rights, nothing else. The ECHR can give it's opinion, but the States can't be forced to respond.
Portugal, for example, has a history of giving more weight to privacy and reputation than to freedom pf expression and has been criticised by the ECHR for that. That was mentioned by the SC judges, in fact.
-
I'm probably being picky, but national courts aren't lower than the ECHR. The States which have signed up have agreed to allow the ECHR to decide on matters of human rights, nothing else. The ECHR can give it's opinion, but the States can't be forced to respond.
Portugal, for example, has a history of giving more weight to privacy and reputation than to freedom pf expression and has been criticised by the ECHR for that. That was mentioned by the SC judges, in fact.
The McCanns case will of course be re human rights... It can't be anything else. Portugal simply could ignore an adverse verdict... I doubt that would happen.... But it would look very damming on the Portuguese state.
-
The McCanns case will of course be re human rights... It can't be anything else. Portugal simply could ignore an adverse verdict... I doubt that would happen.... But it would look very damming on the Portuguese state.
What will the McCanns get out of it if the ECHR rules in their favour?
-
What will the McCanns get out of it if the ECHR rules in their favour?
They will get a small amount of damages.... But more importantly, If Portugal enforce the law as they should it will prevent Amaral from making any further statements.
It will also humiliate Amaral and Portugal...
The actual court action may highlight the paucity of the evidence Amaral used to reach his conclusions and as his thesis was the opinion of the PJ at the time will show how misguided they were
-
joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
Your link doesn't work for me, but I think it's here;
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
I see that the original video is there. Can you understand what Amaral is saying then? The translation is by Astro, I notice, who helped to translate the witness statements in the files. The originals of them are also present, in writing and certified as correct by the interpreters and the witnesses. .
-
Your link doesn't work for me, but I think it's here;
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
I see that the original video is there. Can you understand what Amaral is saying then? The translation is by Astro, I notice, who helped to translate the witness statements in the files. The originals of them are also present, in writing and certified as correct by the interpreters and the witnesses. .
Adtro translated the written Portuguese in the witness statements not the McCanns oral statements of which there is no record.
-
Adtro translated the written Portuguese in the witness statements not the McCanns oral statements of which there is no record.
The Portuguese text is the record. Stop accusing the PJ/interpreter of making mistakes because neither you nor anyone else has any ptoof.
-
I'm glad to see this thread has veered completely off its absurd premise of a topic. Is it now just a free for all?
-
The Portuguese text is the record. Stop accusing the PJ/interpreter of making mistakes because neither you nor anyone else has any ptoof.
I'm saying we have no record of the McCanns actual statements and therefore cannot guarantee the accuracy of the Portuguese statements in the files... That's a fact
Colin Sutton has said the same... Kate in her book als says the statements contain mistakes.... My post is all fact
-
I'm saying we have no record of the McCanns actual statements and therefore cannot guarantee the accuracy of the Portuguese statements in the files... That's a fact
Colin Sutton has said the same... Kate in her book als says the statements contain mistakes.... My post is all fact
It's a fact that people have raised the possibility, It's not a fact that they're right. No-one can successfully argue against a statement which they signed imo.
-
It's a fact that people have raised the possibility, It's not a fact that they're right. No-one can successfully argue against a statement which they signed imo.
They can certainly argue about it in the UK.... I don't see why Portugal should be any different
-
They can certainly argue about it in the UK.... I don't see why Portugal should be any different
Successfully?
-
Successfully?
Yes... In my experience it concerns consent for medical treatment... A signature does not confirm in law that you have read and understood it
-
Yes... In my experience it concerns consent for medical treatment... A signature does not confirm in law that you have read and understood it
I suspect it's a little more cmplicated than that.
-
Yes... In my experience it concerns consent for medical treatment... A signature does not confirm in law that you have read and understood it
Could you give the forum an example of what you are saying?
-
Could you give the forum an example of what you are saying?
As I have already said.. In the UK.. The fact that you sign a medical consent form iis not proof you have given consent.
I remember around 10 years ago in Spain some surgeons wanted to stop treating UK patients s the surgeons were being sued based on the fact the treatment hadn't been explained properly even though they had signed the consent form in Spanish
-
As I have already said.. In the UK.. The fact that you sign a medical consent form iis not proof you have given consent.
I remember around 10 years ago in Spain some surgeons wanted to stop treating UK patients s the surgeons were being sued based on the fact the treatment hadn't been explained properly even though they had signed the consent form in Spanish
I thought it might be rather more complicated than you implied. Why were these surgeons treating UK patients, and why did they want to stop?
Who was suimg them?
Where was the case brought. In Spain or the UK?
If they didn't explain then under NHS guidlines that wouldn't be informed consent, which is what that signatire implies. Were they working under NHS rules in Spain or does Spain have similar guidelines?
Finally, the contents of the witness statements were explained to the witnesses in Portugal by the interpreters, who signed to testify that it was correct. So not the same at all.
-
I thought it might be rather more complicated than you implied. Why were these surgeons treating UK patients, and why did they want to stop?
Who was suimg them?
Where was the case brought. In Spain or the UK?
If they didn't explain then under NHS guidlines that wouldn't be informed consent, which is what that signatire implies. Were they working under NHS rules in Spain or does Spain have similar guidelines?
Finally, the contents of the witness statements were explained to the witnesses in Portugal by the interpreters, who signed to testify that it was correct. So not the same at all.
you misunderstand ....a signature in the UK does not confirm informed consent as you seem to think...the spanish case wa s a seperate point
-
It's a fact that people have raised the possibility, It's not a fact that they're right. No-one can successfully argue against a statement which they signed imo.
Im glad you say ...in your opinion...thats all it is opinion.....and I would say you are totally wrong. Certainly in the UK a patient can argue they have not given consent even though they have signed a consent form
-
I thought it might be rather more complicated than you implied. Why were these surgeons treating UK patients, and why did they want to stop?
Who was suimg them?
Where was the case brought. In Spain or the UK?
If they didn't explain then under NHS guidlines that wouldn't be informed consent, which is what that signatire implies. Were they working under NHS rules in Spain or does Spain have similar guidelines?
Finally, the contents of the witness statements were explained to the witnesses in Portugal by the interpreters, who signed to testify that it was correct. So not the same at all.
How did the interpreters communicate the statements back to the McCanns?
-
I thought it might be rather more complicated than you implied. Why were these surgeons treating UK patients, and why did they want to stop?
Who was suimg them?
Where was the case brought. In Spain or the UK?
If they didn't explain then under NHS guidlines that wouldn't be informed consent, which is what that signatire implies. Were they working under NHS rules in Spain or does Spain have similar guidelines?
Finally, the contents of the witness statements were explained to the witnesses in Portugal by the interpreters, who signed to testify that it was correct. So not the same at all.
so you seem to accept that a signature on a consent form may not be valid consent...even though the patient has signed it.
-
I notice that there's been no attempt to answer my questions about these alleged Spanish surgeons, so that seems to be nothing more than a vague rumour.
What bearing does signing a consent form in the UK have on signing a witness statement in Portugal? All the Portuguese police were required to do was to comply with Portuguese laws.
-
It's a fact that people have raised the possibility, It's not a fact that they're right. No-one can successfully argue against a statement which they signed imo.
You said no one can argue about a statement they have signed... I disagree.... It's pointless arguing over it no one can prove the point either way
-
You said no one can argue about a statement they have signed... I disagree.... It's pointless arguing over it no one can prove the point either way
The Portuguese police complied with Portuguese law. Your attempts to question their actions has failed. To prive your assertions you would need to show that Portuguese police statements have been successfully legally challenged in Portugal imo.
-
The Portuguese police complied with Portuguese law. Your attempts to question their actions has failed. To prive your assertions you would need to show that Portuguese police statements have been successfully legally challenged in Portugal imo.
Im questioning the accuracy of the statements. There is no proof that the statements in the files are an accurate account of what the mccans said...that is a fact
There is evidence that they are not accurate ...another fact
-
The Portuguese police complied with Portuguese law. Your attempts to question their actions has failed. To prive your assertions you would need to show that Portuguese police statements have been successfully legally challenged in Portugal imo.
One would need to go a bit further, I think.
One would need to get an instance in which a non-Portuguese speaker (preferably an English speaker) legally challenged in Portugal a statement on the basis that what he had signed as accurate was not what he had stated.
The medical consent procedures in England are a perfect example of a strawman.
-
I notice that there's been no attempt to answer my questions about these alleged Spanish surgeons, so that seems to be nothing more than a vague rumour.
What bearing does signing a consent form in the UK have on signing a witness statement in Portugal? All the Portuguese police were required to do was to comply with Portuguese laws.
That could well have been the problem.
-
The Portuguese police complied with Portuguese law. Your attempts to question their actions has failed. To prive your assertions you would need to show that Portuguese police statements have been successfully legally challenged in Portugal imo.
...And to prevent that happening it was probably read over by a legal team,before signing, who's comand of English would be like a native speaker. They could have refused to sign- they didn't so this is a strawman argument.
Kate got those files translated and what happened? o yeah NOTHING.
-
Im glad you say ...in your opinion...thats all it is opinion.....and I would say you are totally wrong. Certainly in the UK a patient can argue they have not given consent even though they have signed a consent form
How do patients in the UK give consent then. Is it a recorded statement of consent?
-
How do patients in the UK give consent then. Is it a recorded statement of consent?
They stand in front of a medical team -stick out their tongue - hold up their hand showing a palm and a say these words. "I hope to god I don't die- If I do it is my own fault" they sign a parchment paper in their own blood. all very legal and proper like.
OR
Mibeez they don't!
I think that Spanish post was for entrtainment only.
Back on track: the charachter assassination of Brenda Layland by supporters is evidence of unbalanced rehtoric as they were not so quick to judge fellow supporter-a known paedophile- who so involved himself in charachter assassination of sceptics...
To me that speaks volumes of a persons character!
-
Davel - How do patients in the UK give consent then?
-
Davel - How do patients in the UK give consent then?
they sign a consent form. Usually the surgeon will also go through the contra indications as well. The point im making is that although the patient might sign the form they can say at a later time they did not fully understand what they were signing
-
They stand in front of a medical team -stick out their tongue - hold up their hand showing a palm and a say these words. "I hope to god I don't die- If I do it is my own fault" they sign a parchment paper in their own blood. all very legal and proper like.
OR
Mibeez they don't!
I think that Spanish post was for entrtainment only.
Back on track: the charachter assassination of Brenda Layland by supporters is evidence of unbalanced rehtoric as they were not so quick to judge fellow supporter-a known paedophile- who so involved himself in charachter assassination of sceptics...
To me that speaks volumes of a persons character!
And yours, it could be said.
-
They stand in front of a medical team -stick out their tongue - hold up their hand showing a palm and a say these words. "I hope to god I don't die- If I do it is my own fault" they sign a parchment paper in their own blood. all very legal and proper like.
OR
Mibeez they don't!
I think that Spanish post was for entrtainment only.
Back on track: the charachter assassination of Brenda Layland by supporters is evidence of unbalanced rehtoric as they were not so quick to judge fellow supporter-a known paedophile- who so involved himself in charachter assassination of sceptics...
To me that speaks volumes of a persons character!
Double standards. No objectivity. Bias. It's all there.
-
Double standards. No objectivity. Bias. It's all there.
Whats the point in raising the Brenda Leyland topic again
-
they sign a consent form. Usually the surgeon will also go through the contra indications as well. The point im making is that although the patient might sign the form they can say at a later time they did not fully understand what they were signing
They can say anything they like. If they want recompense they have to sue for medical malpractice. To win the case they have to prove that the doctor didn't fully inform them. That is why letters are sent to patients setting out what they need to know, to cover the doctors backs.
-
They can say anything they like. If they want recompense they have to sue for medical malpractice. To ein the case they have to prove that the doctor didn't fully inform them.Thats why letters are sent to patienrs setting out what they need to know, to cover the doctors backs.
And the signature on the consent form does not confirm the patient has read and understood...
-
What then does it confirm? I presume there is a purpose for getting a signature
-
And the signature on the consent form does not confirm the patient has read and understood...
As it's irrelevant nobody cares, Davel. Go find evidence of a non Portuguese person succsessfully challenging a PJ
presented statement and it might be relevant.
-
Well, I guess that we now all have some idea of the character of everyone commenting on this Forum.
-
As it's irrelevant nobody cares, Davel. Go find evidence of a non Portuguese person succsessfully challenging a PJ
presented statement and it might be relevant.
I don't need to.. It's of no importance because the statements can never be used in court as they are witness statements. Theyre important to you because they are part of what you think is evidence that implicates the McCanns...
-
Well, I guess that we now all have some idea of the character of everyone commenting on this Forum.
No, I dont think you do. What a patronising thing to say. You are a mod not a person of any importance in anyones life beyong the keyboard and this thread. Keep it real here people.
-
I don't need to.. It's of no importance because the statements can never be used in court as they are witness statements. Theyre important to you because they are part of what you think is evidence that implicates the McCanns...
I find the statements a very useful source of information about all sorts of things.
-
I find the statements a very useful source of information about all sorts of things.
Some people find the Bible a useful source of information... Just depends on what you believe to be true
I see the statements as a rough guide but am certain they contain errors
-
No, I dont think you do. What a patronising thing to say. You are a mod not a person of any importance in anyones life beyong the keyboard and this thread. Keep it real here people.
How the hell can you speak for everyone?
-
How the hell can you speak for everyone?
The mod in question used a collective "we",so horses for courses.
-
And the signature on the consent form does not confirm the patient has read and understood...
Not relevant imo.