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: TTSOFAFM on September 25, 2013, 10:21:13 AM
-
Leafleting their neighbours.
Leaving leaflets at Gerry McCann's work place.
Sending a book to them and then saying because they never replied to it, it is ok to repeat those accusations.
Writing to social services about the welfare of the twins.
Sitting behind Gerry McCann at the press select hearing, just to intimidate him.
Heckling the father of a missing child in Portugal.
Ripping down posters.
Plots to kidnap the twins to make them confess.
People jumping over the garden fence.
A person standing in front of their home having their photograph taken.
Being constantly accused of harming their daughter.
Being constantly accused of defrauding the Find Madeleine Fund.
and so on and so on.
Do you not class this activity as persecuting the parents of a missing child? I do.
In fact I class all of the above as clear harassment of a family of a missing child.
-
Leafleting their neighbours.
Leaving leaflets at Gerry McCann's work place.
Sending a book to them and then saying because they never replied to it, it is ok to repeat those accusations.
Writing to social services about the welfare of the twins.
Sitting behind Gerry McCann at the press select hearing, just to intimidate him.
Heckling the father of a missing child in Portugal.
Ripping down posters.
Plots to kidnap the twins to make them confess.
People jumping over the garden fence.
A person standing in front of their home having their photograph taken.
Being constantly accused of harming their daughter.
Being constantly accused of defrauding the Find Madeleine Fund.
and so on and so on.
Do you not class this activity as persecuting the parents of a missing child? I do.
In fact I class all of the above as clear harassment of a family of a missing child.
They've had to cope with all this on top of Madeleine disappearing, and didn't someone write to the GMC questioning their fitness to practise, what a horrible thing to do.
-
They've had to cope with all this on top of Madeleine disappearing, and didn't someone write to the GMC questioning their fitness to practise, what a horrible thing to do.
Yes they did. I had forgotten about that one. I suspect there are many more examples of persecution this family have had to deal with. And yes they have had to deal with all of these things along with trying to find their daughter.
Such sadness 8(8-))
-
Leafleting their neighbours.
Leaving leaflets at Gerry McCann's work place.
Sending a book to them and then saying because they never replied to it, it is ok to repeat those accusations.
Writing to social services about the welfare of the twins.
Sitting behind Gerry McCann at the press select hearing, just to intimidate him.
Heckling the father of a missing child in Portugal.
Ripping down posters.
Plots to kidnap the twins to make them confess.
People jumping over the garden fence.
A person standing in front of their home having their photograph taken.
Being constantly accused of harming their daughter.
Being constantly accused of defrauding the Find Madeleine Fund.
and so on and so on.
Do you not class this activity as persecuting the parents of a missing child? I do.
In fact I class all of the above as clear harassment of a family of a missing child.
I think most people would.
-
Yes they did. I had forgotten about that one. I suspect there are many more examples of persecution this family have had to deal with. And yes they have had to deal with all of these things along with trying to find their daughter.
Such sadness 8(8-))
It is unbelievable how some people enjoy pouring salt into an open wound.
IIRC they even contacted GMs workplace.
-
It is unbelievable how some people enjoy pouring salt into an open wound.
IIRC they even contacted GMs workplace.
I bet the Glenfield are fed up to the back teeth of hearing from these obsessed loonies.
-
Kate and Gerry McCann are vilified, condemned and armchair detectives have become judge, jury and executioner as to whether the McCanns played a part in what happened to their daughter.
The Police Files clearly state that no crimes were committed and what suspicions the PJ initially had, to warrant the McCanns being made arguidos, were not confirmed or consolidated.
However this does not stop people.
During the last 6 years these actions have been carried out against the McCann family
Leafleting their neighbours.
Leaving leaflets at Gerry McCann's work place.
Sending a book to them and then saying because they never replied to it, it is OK to repeat those accusations because the family have not denied them.
Writing to social services about the welfare of the twins.
Sitting behind Gerry McCann at the press select hearing, just to intimidate him.
Heckling the father of a missing child in Portugal.
Ripping down posters.
Plots to kidnap the twins to make them confess.
People jumping over the garden fence.
A person standing in front of their home having their photograph taken.
Being constantly accused of harming their daughter.
Being constantly accused of defrauding the Find Madeleine Fund.
GMC being contacted as to whether the McCanns were fit to practice medicine. (Thank you Rachael Granada for remembering this one.
and so on and so on.
Yes those that doubt the McCanns will play the 'McCanns are ruining Goncalo's life'.
Correction. The McCanns are not to blame for that one.
Goncalo Amaral wrote a book, the McCanns felt it hindered the search for their daughter as well as the book and documentary were libellous as it led the reader/viewer to believe that Madeleine was deceased and that the McCanns were involved in what happened.
The McCanns, took the legal route, which is well within their rights.
As they did with Mr Bennett, who played a part in the majority of those actions (listed above) that can be perceived as harassment or persecution.
If I posted on here that so and so murdered Mr A and disposed of Mr A's body and then wrote a book about it, and did so without evidence to back up my claims, then I am liable for libel proceedings to be initiated against me. You just can't go around accusing people of heinous crimes. And you can't go around saying someone is deceased without proof and that is what Goncalo Amaral clearly states in his book.
The McCanns apart from having to deal with the emotional rollercoaster of their daughter being taken, they have had to endure all those things listed above. But not once, have I seen letters written to people from the McCanns or the McCanns playing tit for tat. What action they have taken, has been via solicitors and has been dealt with in Courts of Law. They have not embarked on a persecution campaign with any person.
The only letter I have read, is the one where Kate McCann writes to Paulo Rebelo pleading and begging for the PJ to work with them to help find Madeleine. And again that letter became public knowledge due to the Police Files being made public. The McCanns wrote in confidence to the Police begging their assistance.
4th December 2007
Dear Mr Rebelo,
I hope you do not mind me writing to you and that you will read my letter. I am Madeleine McCann's mother.
I am not sure if you are a parent or not, but for my husband and myself, and the whole of our family, the last seven months has been the most difficult, sad and unbearable time that any parent could possibly imagine. Madeleine is the most precious thing in our life.
As her mother, the pain and anxiety I feel for her is indescribable and the feeling of helplessness overwhelming. The 'accusations' and media smearing, although upsetting, are very much secondary.
I am appealing to you as a fellow human being to work with us (if possible include us) and to remember that we are Madeleine's parents and have needs.
With regard to this latter point, I would be grateful if you were able to keep us informed to some degree as to how the investigation is going - what work is being done to help find our daughter etc.
I'm sure you will agree that this request is not unreasonable and is in fact humane.
I am fairly familiar now with the workings of 'judicial secrecy' but even if we could have a little bit of information in the broadest of terms it would help.
Lack of communication and a void of information, particularly as the parent of a missing child, is torture. We will continue to work with the PJ (and are keen to do so as soon as possible!) as we have done since that moment when I discovered that Madeleine had been taken.
This shouldn't be about 'finger-pointing blame', nor should it be about differences in culture. It should be about a beautiful, innocent little girl who is still missing. She is the victim in all of this.
It would be good for Madeleine if we could all work together to help find her and the person(s) who took her.
I would be very grateful if you could give some thought and consideration to my letter and look forward to your reply. I can only ask.
Yours sincerely,
Kate McCann.
Even Sofia Leal, the wife, ex-wife (god knows which, it changes by the minute) decided to play a part in this campaign of adding more pain to a family who have a child missing, by writing an open letter to Kate McCann. Which must have caused Kate McCann great stress, if she read it. And what the heck Goncalo's not climbing the ladder, because he would not parade himself up and down the corridors of the PJ Institute has to do with the McCanns or Madeleine's disappearance, I don't know. That letter reads to me as a letter written to Kate to try to blame her and her family and to make them feel guilty, for the lack of promotion and career prospects, due to her own husband's failings.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-letter-gonalo-amaral-wife-reacts.html
Just because Kate McCann said in an interview to Expresso that
Kate – All that I am going to say about this – because I'm not going to waste any time on Mr Amaral – is that as a professional and as a person his behaviour has been a disgrace.
When asked
Q – Your English lawyers already have a translated copy and they are analysing it. Do you intend to sue Gonçalo Amaral?
To accuse a family of being involved in what happened to their daughter, without evidence, is a disgrace. His hypothesis, including fridges, moving bodies in hired cars, and missing pink blankets, is a disgrace.
But this post is not about Goncalo Amaral
It is about the persecution or harassment of the McCanns. So what is it persecution or harassment? I go with harassment.
-
Great post, TTS, written from the heart. I just can't imagine having to cope with all that on top of a child going missing.
I would say harassment as well.
Only s..m would post leaflets to the neighbours of a missing child.
Amaral has been the architect of his own misfortune, and his wife sounds just as bad from that horrible letter.
-
Is it being suggested that the unsolved mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance should not be discussed on the UK Justice forum ?
-
Persecution or Harassment? Neither. Stupidity in the events you've listed, but most or all only happened once.
I wouldn't worry. You have the nation's finest lawyers, PR firms, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, a TV network and entire English press on your side.
Persecution and Harassment? Nah.
-
Is it being suggested that the unsolved mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance should not be discussed on the UK Justice forum ?
What you talking about icabod?! It was a list of all the horrible things that Kate and Gerry McCann have had to put up with from obsessed loonies on top of their child going missing.
-
The Police Files clearly state that no crimes were committed
Quite clearly at least one was.
-
Persecution or Harassment? Neither. Stupidity in the events you've listed, but most or all only happened once.
I wouldn't worry. You have the nation's finest lawyers, PR firms, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, a TV network and entire English press on your side.
Persecution and Harassment? Nah.
So in your view posting nasty leaflets design to cause distress, trying to get them dismissed off the GMC list, writing to Social Services are just stupidity? Would you still have the same view if someone did that to you?
-
Quite clearly at least one was.
What crime was committed?
-
So in your view posting nasty leaflets design to cause distress, trying to get them dismissed off the GMC list, writing to Social Services are just stupidity? Would you still have the same view if someone did that to you?
If I were involved in a case like this, yes I would. A crime was committed by somebody.
-
If I were involved in a case like this, yes I would. A crime was committed by somebody.
So you'd just brush off obsessed loony stalkers trying to get you sacked, have your children removed, posting nasty leaflets to your neighbours etc. Well I sincerely hope that you are never put in that position, on top of having to cope with a child going missing.
Yes, a crime has been committed but not by Kate or Gerry McCann.
-
What you talking about icabod?! It was a list of all the horrible things that Kate and Gerry McCann have had to put up with from obsessed loonies on top of their child going missing.
I took it from the op that any critisism or questioning of the McCann's version of events was unacceptable
Was I wrong ?
IS it acceptable in the OP's opinion ( and in yours ) to critisise the McCanns in any way, and to question their version of events sceptically ?
-
Is it being suggested that the unsolved mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance should not be discussed on the UK Justice forum ?
Have I said that? No. However, freedom of speech does not give you freedom to libel someone.
One Tweet I did find enlightening was the one from CPS with regards to S.127 of the Communications Act 2003
(http://i.imgur.com/EXSsWQj.png)
Section 127 Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).
So if by retweeting a libellous or menacing tweet you could be in breach of S.127 then it is obvious if someone accuses the McCanns of being involved in what happened to their daughter, that person is in breach of said act.
That point being even more valid, due to the fact of Lord Justice Tugendhat's decision, especially number 128 where he states this.
In the present case there can be no doubt that the Defendant had the required knowledge. In any event, I am sure that he intended to allege that the Claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter, and did in fact dispose of her body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done. I am sure that he intended his words to bear the other meanings which I have held they do bear. The words are too clear, and the repetitions too numerous, for any other interpretation to be put upon what he did. And while the Defendant has made frequent references to statements emanating from the Portuguese authorities during their investigations, he makes no mention of the Report of the District Attorney dated 21 July 2008, a copy of which is exhibited to the third affidavit of Ms Martorell. That includes the following (in translation):
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/283.html
The Judge has accepted the conclusions of the Archiving Dispatch and has therefore placed on record that the McCanns have not committed any crimes.
Just pointing out that people should be careful what they post.
-
So you'd just brush off obsessed loony stalkers trying to get you sacked, have your children removed, posting nasty leaflets to your neighbours etc. Well I sincerely hope that you are never put in that position, on top of having to cope with a child going missing.
Yes, a crime has been committed but not by Kate or Gerry McCann.
You're grossly exaggerating. We're British - we shout a lot, but that's it mainly. You should see what happens in other countries in missing child cases. A child disappeared Rachel. It's no surprise people were passionate is it.
-
Persecution or Harassment? Neither. Stupidity in the events you've listed, but most or all only happened once.
I wouldn't worry. You have the nation's finest lawyers, PR firms, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, a TV network and entire English press on your side.
Persecution and Harassment? Nah.
agree fully
-
Point 1 - and it's a big one - The PJ's summary report left no-one in any doubt as to what the investigating force thought and even though the archiving summary reported there was not enough evidence of the McCanns having committed a crime to continue to constitute them arguidos it did quite clearly state that the McCanns and their friends failed to cooperate and did not effectively "eliminate themselves from the enquiry". Furthermore it did not say that the PJ report that preceeded the archiving report was wrong, it merely archived the case and explained why.
Bearing point 1 in mind, while there is no clear evidence of either of the two binary possibilities (abduction or death & cover up) then either possibility is equally as likely (being kind to the McCanns really there). This means it is theoretically possible that they ARE involved in what the investigating force thought - death and a cover up. All the time that condition is true, the McCanns are absolutely, 100% fair game to be questioned.
You have highlighted a number of actions taken by a hard-core (and quite possibly lunatic) minority which are utterly unreasonable (stalking, threats) and some actions that are perfectly reasonable (leafleting - ONLY IF ACCURATE TO THE FACTS, questioning on the fund usage, questioning on their stories, questioning on their actions).
The McCanns have no divine right to have their version of events go unquestioned. They do have a personal right to privacy and I condemn all those that flout that right. However you and most of your fellow pros mistake the [ censored word] sticking up for themselves as personal attacks on the McCanns. If you're going to tar every single person that doesn't subscribe to "the truth according to St.s Gerry & Kate" as a <word I won't use beginning with h> and lump them in via guilt by association with those utter morons that do unreasonable things then you deserve all the abuse you're going to get.
I've said for years that the biggest failing of the Pro brigade is to realise and understand that they're not just dealing with a small hard core band of nutters and that, quite honestly, the number of sceptics at least matches the number of believers and that only very few of them are the lunatics that you seem to think we all are. You are massively underestimating the strength and depth of suspicion there is towards the McCanns in the UK and immediately go into denial about this whenever it's brought up.
-
Persecution or Harassment? Neither. Stupidity in the events you've listed, but most or all only happened once.
I wouldn't worry. You have the nation's finest lawyers, PR firms, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, a TV network and entire English press on your side.
Persecution and Harassment? Nah.
YOU???
Are you now stupidly trying to imply that I either Kate or Gerry McCann, by using the term 'you'? How foolish if you are.
-
I took it from the op that any critisism or questioning of the McCann's version of events was unacceptable
Was I wrong ?
IS it acceptable in the OP's opinion ( and in yours ) to critisise the McCanns in any way, and to question their version of events sceptically ?
I think you have the wrong end of the stick, icabod. Speak your mind as long as you don't libel anyone or accuse people of crimes without evidence to back it up.
-
YOU???
Are you now stupidly trying to imply that I either Kate or Gerry McCann, by using the term 'you'? How foolish if you are.
You as in devoted supporters.
-
YOU???
Are you now stupidly trying to imply that I either Kate or Gerry McCann, by using the term 'you'? How foolish if you are.
It makes it very hard to hold conversations with some people if they fail to grasp the difference between "you" as in "hey, you're Kate McCann!" and "you" as in "all of you who support the McCanns", i.e. "your side" as opposed to "our side"...
-
Point 1 - and it's a big one - The PJ's summary report left no-one in any doubt as to what the investigating force thought and even though the archiving summary reported there was not enough evidence of the McCanns having committed a crime to continue to constitute them arguidos it did quite clearly state that the McCanns and their friends failed to cooperate and did not effectively "eliminate themselves from the enquiry". Furthermore it did not say that the PJ report that preceeded the archiving report was wrong, it merely archived the case and explained why.
Bearing point 1 in mind, while there is no clear evidence of either of the two binary possibilities (abduction or death & cover up) then either possibility is equally as likely (being kind to the McCanns really there). This means it is theoretically possible that they ARE involved in what the investigating force thought - death and a cover up. All the time that condition is true, the McCanns are absolutely, 100% fair game to be questioned.
You have highlighted a number of actions taken by a hard-core (and quite possibly lunatic) minority which are utterly unreasonable (stalking, threats) and some actions that are perfectly reasonable (leafleting - ONLY IF ACCURATE TO THE FACTS, questioning on the fund usage, questioning on their stories, questioning on their actions).
The McCanns have no divine right to have their version of events go unquestioned. They do have a personal right to privacy and I condemn all those that flout that right. However you and most of your fellow pros mistake the [ censored word] sticking up for themselves as personal attacks on the McCanns. If you're going to tar every single person that doesn't subscribe to "the truth according to St.s Gerry & Kate" as a <word I won't use beginning with h> and lump them in via guilt by association with those utter morons that do unreasonable things then you deserve all the abuse you're going to get.
I've said for years that the biggest failing of the Pro brigade is to realise and understand that they're not just dealing with a small hard core band of nutters and that, quite honestly, the number of sceptics at least matches the number of believers and that only very few of them are the lunatics that you seem to think we all are. You are massively underestimating the strength and depth of suspicion there is towards the McCanns in the UK and immediately go into denial about this whenever it's brought up.
Where have I indicated that I think all McCann sceptics are lunatics? And the fact that you support leafleting of that kind, designed to cause distress and upset, speaks volumes.
I just hope no-one ever does it to your family. Then you may have a different view.
-
It makes it very hard to hold conversations with some people if they fail to grasp the difference between "you" as in "hey, you're Kate McCann!" and "you" as in "all of you who support the McCanns", i.e. "your side" as opposed to "our side"...
TT is clearly ?8)@)-) C. I suspect whatever we say won't change that.
-
Point 1 - and it's a big one - The PJ's summary report left no-one in any doubt as to what the investigating force thought and even though the archiving summary reported there was not enough evidence of the McCanns having committed a crime to continue to constitute them arguidos it did quite clearly state that the McCanns and their friends failed to cooperate and did not effectively "eliminate themselves from the enquiry". Furthermore it did not say that the PJ report that preceeded the archiving report was wrong, it merely archived the case and explained why.
Bearing point 1 in mind, while there is no clear evidence of either of the two binary possibilities (abduction or death & cover up) then either possibility is equally as likely (being kind to the McCanns really there). This means it is theoretically possible that they ARE involved in what the investigating force thought - death and a cover up. All the time that condition is true, the McCanns are absolutely, 100% fair game to be questioned.
You have highlighted a number of actions taken by a hard-core (and quite possibly lunatic) minority which are utterly unreasonable (stalking, threats) and some actions that are perfectly reasonable (leafleting - ONLY IF ACCURATE TO THE FACTS, questioning on the fund usage, questioning on their stories, questioning on their actions).
The McCanns have no divine right to have their version of events go unquestioned. They do have a personal right to privacy and I condemn all those that flout that right. However you and most of your fellow pros mistake the [ censored word] sticking up for themselves as personal attacks on the McCanns. If you're going to tar every single person that doesn't subscribe to "the truth according to St.s Gerry & Kate" as a <word I won't use beginning with h> and lump them in via guilt by association with those utter morons that do unreasonable things then you deserve all the abuse you're going to get.
I've said for years that the biggest failing of the Pro brigade is to realise and understand that they're not just dealing with a small hard core band of nutters and that, quite honestly, the number of sceptics at least matches the number of believers and that only very few of them are the lunatics that you seem to think we all are. You are massively underestimating the strength and depth of suspicion there is towards the McCanns in the UK and immediately go into denial about this whenever it's brought up.
its just not in the uk its globally suspicious
-
I've said for years that the biggest failing of the Pro brigade is to realise and understand that they're not just dealing with a small hard core band of nutters and that, quite honestly, the number of sceptics at least matches the number of believers and that only very few of them are the lunatics that you seem to think we all are. You are massively underestimating the strength and depth of suspicion there is towards the McCanns in the UK and immediately go into denial about this whenever it's brought up.
Sorry to snip your post, but I wanted to address this last point
It is a myth that has been encouraged and pertetuated by the McCanns themselves
In Kate's book there is a chapter entitled : THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE MAD
'The 'GOOD' of course are those people who accept without question the McCann's version of events, whilst ANYONE who does not, is designated as either 'BAD' or 'MAD'
As to your calculation that there are as many sceptics as believers, Kate thinks differently ... she says that ( using her own terminology ) "for every baddy there are a thousand goodies; probably many more"
-
Sorry to snip your post, but I wanted to address this last point
It is a myth that has been encouraged and pertetuated by the McCanns themselves
In Kate's book there is a chapter entitled : THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE MAD
'The 'GOOD' of course are those people who accept without question the McCann's version of events, whilst ANYONE who does not, is designated as either 'BAD' or 'MAD'
As to your calculation that there are as many sceptics as believers, Kate thinks differently ... she says that ( using her own terminology ) "for every baddy there are a thousand goodies; probably many more"
in many ways i kinda compare this case to sciencetology in their belief/cult they are not allowed to question anything remmber poor katie holmes?? im sorry but thats how i see things
-
I think you have the wrong end of the stick, icabod. Speak your mind as long as you don't libel anyone or accuse people of crimes without evidence to back it up.
Some people don't grasp the fact that by Tony Bennett going to court the Judge accepted the conclusions of the archiving dispatch (as it was used in court) and therefore ruled against Tony Bennett because the archiving dispatch clearly stated that no crimes had been committed by Kate and Gerry McCann.
That is why Bennett lost, the judge accepted the Archiving Dispatch as evidence. The Judge even went on to clarify Article 10.
The right to freedom of expression, whether at common law or under Art 10, is not an absolute right that prevails over all others.
Many of the above things I listed, were NOT one offs. Many were orchestrated by the Madeleine Foundation under the guidance of Mr Tony Bennett and Ms Deborah Butler, with the backing of a vast majority of anti-McCanns.
-
It makes it very hard to hold conversations with some people if they fail to grasp the difference between "you" as in "hey, you're Kate McCann!" and "you" as in "all of you who support the McCanns", i.e. "your side" as opposed to "our side"...
Just clarifying C.Edwards after all Gilet, I think was asked, on this forum, if they were an acquaintance of the McCanns.
-
Some people don't grasp the fact that by Tony Bennett going to court the Judge accepted the conclusions of the archiving dispatch (as it was used in court) and therefore ruled against Tony Bennett because the archiving dispatch clearly stated that no crimes had been committed by Kate and Gerry McCann.
That is why Bennett lost, the judge accepted the Archiving Dispatch as evidence. The Judge even went on to clarify Article 10.
That's not why he lost. I think by mentioning those things the Judge was also saying he would lose on the libel issue as well if he decided to test it, but he lost his case in February simply because he breached the terms of a previous court order.
Many of the above things I listed, were NOT one offs. Many were orchestrated by the Madeleine Foundation under the guidance of Mr Tony Bennett and Ms Deborah Butler, with the backing of a vast majority of anti-McCanns.
That simply isn't true. Most had nothing to do with the 'foundation'.
-
Some people don't grasp the fact that by Tony Bennett going to court the Judge accepted the conclusions of the archiving dispatch (as it was used in court) and therefore ruled against Tony Bennett because the archiving dispatch clearly stated that no crimes had been committed by Kate and Gerry McCann.
That is why Bennett lost, the judge accepted the Archiving Dispatch as evidence. The Judge even went on to clarify Article 10.
Many of the above things I listed, were NOT one offs. Many were orchestrated by the Madeleine Foundation under the guidance of Mr Tony Bennett and Ms Deborah Butler, with the backing of a vast majority of anti-McCanns.
I thought Bennet was taken to court ( and found guilty ) for breaking legal undertakings he had made previously
I did not follow that case closely though, and may be wrong
My own personal opinion, however, is that the 'leafleting campaign' was utterly wrong and was, indeed, a form of direct harassment
-
That's not why he lost. I think by mentioning those things the Judge was also saying he would lose on the libel issue as well if he decided to test it, but he lost his case in February simply because he breached the terms of a previous court order.
That simply isn't true. Most had nothing to do with the 'foundation'.
I'm afraid it is true, Lyall. The leafleting, the letter to the GMC, the E-mail to social services, the visit to the Glenfield, the stalking of Gerry McCann to that committee meeting. All the handiwork of the foundation.
-
I'm afraid it is true, Lyall. The leafleting, the letter to the GMC, the E-mail to social services, the visit to the Glenfield, the stalking of Gerry McCann to that committee meeting. All the handiwork of the foundation.
It's not true they had the support of the "vast majority", as TT said.
-
I'm afraid it is true, Lyall. The leafleting, the letter to the GMC, the E-mail to social services, the visit to the Glenfield, the stalking of Gerry McCann to that committee meeting. All the handiwork of the foundation.
There were furious efforts in debates to try to get them not to do these things, and over the contents of the booklet.
-
That simply isn't true. Most had nothing to do with the 'foundation'.
Are you sure?
Leafleting their neighbours. Madeleine Foundation
Leaving leaflets at Gerry McCann's work place. Madeleine Foundation
Sending a book to them and then saying because they never replied to it, it is OK to repeat those accusations because the family have not denied them. Madeleine Foundation
Writing to social services about the welfare of the twins. Madeleine Foundation
Sitting behind Gerry McCann at the press select hearing, just to intimidate him. Madeleine Foundation
Heckling the father of a missing child in Portugal. Portuguese Citizens
Ripping down posters. Portuguese Citizens
Plots to kidnap the twins to make them confess. Forum Poster
People jumping over the garden fence. Unknown
A person standing in front of their home having their photograph taken. Madeleine Foundation
Being constantly accused of harming their daughter. Madeleine Foundation Forum Poster
Being constantly accused of defrauding the Find Madeleine Fund. Madeleine Foundation Forum Poster
GMC being contacted as to whether the McCanns were fit to practice medicine. (Thank you Rachael Granada for remembering this one. Promoted by Madeleine Foundation Forum Poster
Seems to me as if the Madeleine Foundation, under the guidance of Tony Bennett was involved in the vast majority of things I quoted.
-
It's not true they had the support of the "vast majority", as TT said.
OK, fair enough - I read your post wrong, sorry. But as you can see from TT's post above, the foundation were behind much of the stalking and harassment.
-
OK, fair enough - I read your post wrong, sorry.
No worries 8(>((
-
Most people had nothing to do with the 'foundation' TT. 8(0(*
(we know what they got up to, but it didn't have majority support. Forums split and closed over their activities)
-
No worries 8(>((
the vast mojority of so called us anti disagreed with all of that stuff
-
Another insight into law from Judge Tugendhat about compiling facts. Again taken from the Judgement with regards to Tony Bennett
In my judgment breach #14 (16 April 2011) is proved. A list of factual statements can carry an inferential meaning additional to the literal meaning of each fact, and that is very clearly the case here. I am satisfied that the posting bears meaning (b) and (ca). It would in any event bear meaning (cb).
-
the vast mojority of so called us anti disagreed with all of that stuff
8((()*/
-
Are you sure?
Leafleting their neighbours. Madeleine Foundation
Leaving leaflets at Gerry McCann's work place. Madeleine Foundation
Sending a book to them and then saying because they never replied to it, it is OK to repeat those accusations because the family have not denied them. Madeleine Foundation
Writing to social services about the welfare of the twins. Madeleine Foundation
Sitting behind Gerry McCann at the press select hearing, just to intimidate him. Madeleine Foundation
Heckling the father of a missing child in Portugal. Portuguese Citizens
Ripping down posters. Portuguese Citizens
Plots to kidnap the twins to make them confess. Forum Poster
People jumping over the garden fence. Unknown
A person standing in front of their home having their photograph taken. Madeleine Foundation
Being constantly accused of harming their daughter. Madeleine Foundation Forum Poster
Being constantly accused of defrauding the Find Madeleine Fund. Madeleine Foundation Forum Poster
GMC being contacted as to whether the McCanns were fit to practice medicine. (Thank you Rachael Granada for remembering this one. Promoted by Madeleine Foundation Forum Poster
Seems to me as if the Madeleine Foundation, under the guidance of Tony Bennett was involved in the vast majority of things I quoted.
I am glad you have acknowledged that the unpleasant activities you quoted in the op were the responsibility of a handful of obsessive individuals and that it in no way reflects on others who question the McCann's version of events
-
Another insight into law from Judge Tugendhat about compiling facts. Again taken from the Judgement with regards to Tony Bennett
Yes he was I think saying the booklet wouldn't have a chance in a libel trial, so I think he was actually doing TB a favour there by deterring him from continuing with his action.
-
Another insight into law from Judge Tugendhat about compiling facts. Again taken from the Judgement with regards to Tony Bennett
If this thread is a denouncement of this chap Bennett, I don't really see the point
He is not here ... and his activities are not defended by anyone on this forum
What are you hoping to achieve ?
-
If this thread is a denouncement of this chap Bennett, I don't really see the point
He is not here ... and his activities are not defended by anyone on this forum
What are you hoping to achieve ?
Oh there will be some who defend Bennett, icabod. They just don't have the nerve to post.
-
Oh there will be some who defend Bennett, icabod. They just don't have the nerve to post.
Is that the purpose of this thread then ? ... goading forum members who are 'imagined' to be supportive of Bennett's activities ?
oh well, as long as it has been established that Bennett's activities has nothing to do with forum members here who doubt and question the Mccann's version of events
-
Apologies for saying the vast majority of anti-McCanns are Madeleine Foundation supporters. However I am surprised at the number of members that post on Jill Havern's forum. Especially with that forum clearly associated with the Foundation, even to the point of allowing members to raise funds for paying Mr Bennett's legal fees. So there must be quite a few people who post on that forum as the visitor numbers are far greater than any other forum with regards to discussing Madeleine McCann.
Mind you it is surprising what you do find on your computer, here is Mr Bennett himself saying that CMMOMM is the best forum with the highest members.
http://oi42.tinypic.com/wqzogi.jpg
Surely people who can't stand the Madeleine Foundation would register with a forum that actively promotes the foundation? It seems some do. Funny had the same writing style, is apparent on both here and on CMMOMM.
Again this thread is not about Bennett or Amaral it is about the incidents that the McCanns have had to endure during the last 6 years as well as having to live with the turmoil of their first born taken from them.
But nobody can deny the fact that the Madeleine Foundation was behind many of those acts.
Apologies, for the edit. Something went wrong with the initial paragraph. I have corrected now.
-
Is that the purpose of this thread then ? ... goading forum members who are 'imagined' to be supportive of Bennett's activities ?
oh well, as long as it has been established that Bennett's activities has nothing to do with forum members here who doubt and question the Mccann's version of events
I think they miss him 8)--))
-
Is that the purpose of this thread then ? ... goading forum members who are 'imagined' to be supportive of Bennett's activities ?
oh well, as long as it has been established that Bennett's activities has nothing to do with forum members here who doubt and question the Mccann's version of events
Don't be a silly-billy icabod! ;-)
I was just making an observation. And yes, I agree that many sceptics strongly disagreed with the foundation's stalking tactics.
-
Apologies for saying the vast majority of anti-McCanns are Madeleine Foundation supporters. However I am surprised at them numbers that post on Jill Havern's forum, that is clearly associated with the Foundation, even to the point of allowing members to raise funds for paying Mr Bennett's legal fees.
Mind you it is surprising what you do find on your computer, here is Mr Bennett himself saying that CMMOMM is the best forum with the highest members.
http://oi42.tinypic.com/wqzogi.jpg
Surely people who can't stand the Madeleine Foundation would register with a forum that actively promotes the foundation? It seems some do. Funny had the same writing style, is apparent on both here and on CMMOMM.
Again this thread is not about Bennett or Amaral it is about the incidents that the McCanns have had to endure during the last 6 years as well as having to live with the turmoil of their first born taken from them.
But nobody can deny the fact that the Madeleine Foundation was behind many of those acts.
I registered on that forum, as at the time it was the only substantial one - the other one doesn't take new members.
It didn't mean I was a foundation supporter.
I'm sure it's the same for many others registered there.
-
I registered on that forum, as at the time it was the only substantial one - the other one doesn't take new members.
It didn't mean I was a foundation supporter.
I'm sure it's the same for many others registered there.
So I take it you are banned. Because it has become evident that if you don't agree with the Madeleine Foundation and Tony Bennett you are given the boot.
There again, if I disagreed with a view point I would speak out, not many do on that forum. Perhaps they lurk and don't say a word out of fear of being banned. Who knows.
But as I said this post is about the many injustices that the McCann family have had to endure.
-
So I take it you are banned. Because it has become evident that if you don't agree with the Madeleine Foundation and Tony Bennett you are given the boot.
There again, if I disagreed with a view point I would speak out, not many do on that forum. Perhaps they lurk and don't say a word out of fear of being banned. Who knows.
But as I said this post is about the many injustices that the McCann family have had to endure.
Nope, they never banned me. I just vanished overnight - nobody noticed @)(++(*
-
But back to the topic. Are you really claiming that the activities of a few people in any way compares to the effect the press had in 2007 and early 2008? >@@(*&)
-
Who really thinks GM was intimated by someone sitting behind him?
Who thinks GM is intimidated by anyone? Really?
-
So I take it you are banned. Because it has become evident that if you don't agree with the Madeleine Foundation and Tony Bennett you are given the boot.
There again, if I disagreed with a view point I would speak out, not many do on that forum. Perhaps they lurk and don't say a word out of fear of being banned. Who knows.
But as I said this post is about the many injustices that the McCann family have had to endure.
I was banned from there. I was accused of being a closet Pro (among other things) and most of the trouble came because I was trying to (indirectly) talk Bennett out of making things worse for himself at the impending trial.
-
Who really thinks GM was intimated by someone sitting behind him?
Who thinks GM is intimidated by anyone? Really?
I think that Portuguese journalist ( Sandra ? ) made a pretty good fist of it
When she confronted Gerry with the dogs' evidence she really did have him squirming
.... "ask the dogs Sandra"
-
In the 2008 Emma Loach film Madeleine's parents mention the letters they get - the insults and the threats. They'll have received such letters no doubt every day after returning to the UK, from nutters nothing whatsover to do with online groups - everyone with a high profile does unfortunately.
You should tell the whole story TT. The infrequent activities of online groups is probably just a fraction of what they have had to deal with from genuinely disturbed attention seekers, and most of it is nothing at all to do with any of us.
-
But back to the topic. Are you really claiming that the activities of a few people in any way compares to the effect the press had in 2007 and early 2008? >@@(*&)
It is all part and parcel.
Leaks from Portugal of how the McCanns were involved. Leaks reprinted in British newspapers. People believing the press. Some people who decided the McCanns were involved and thought the McCanns were getting away with a crime, decided to become nothing but a lynch-mob and acted like vigilantes. Press banging on car windows frightening little children. Standing on street corners handing out leaflets to shoppers trying to make the British Public turn against a family. Despicable behaviour.
Society does not have a place for vigilantes nor lynch-mobs, and that is what some people became, nothing but vigilantes out on a witch-hunt. And the McCanns were the targets.
-
But back to the topic. Are you really claiming that the activities of a few people in any way compares to the effect the press had in 2007 and early 2008? >@@(*&)
The press were awful, and thoroughly deserved the drubbing they got from Carter Ruck. But their lies were confined to paper, which people choose whether to read or buy.
However, the houndation took things out into the community - leafleting Rothley, going to the Glenfield, writing to the GMC and the social services, stalking Gerry to the committee meeting. Kate and Gerry McCann weren't given a choice in any of that stalking.
-
It is all part and parcel.
Leaks from Portugal of how the McCanns were involved. Leaks reprinted in British newspapers. People believing the press. Some people who decided the McCanns were involved and thought the McCanns were getting away with a crime, decided to become nothing but a lynch-mob and acted like vigilantes. Press banging on car windows frightening little children. Standing on street corners handing out leaflets to shoppers trying to make the British Public turn against a family. Despicable behaviour.
Society does not have a place for vigilantes nor lynch-mobs, and that is what some people became, nothing but vigilantes out on a witch-hunt. And the McCanns were the targets.
Yes - it all stemmed from the PJ leaks in PT. If they hadn't been leaking like sieves, then the press wouldn't have got hold of any of the lies. Lies which fuelled a stalking campaign in the UK against a struggling family.
-
The press were awful, and thoroughly deserved the drubbing they got from Carter Ruck. But their lies were confined to paper, which people choose whether to read or buy.
However, the houndation took things out into the community - leafleting Rothley, going to the Glenfield, writing to the GMC and the social services, stalking Gerry to the committee meeting. Kate and Gerry McCann weren't given a choice in any of that stalking.
Exactly. That is the injustice of it all. They had no option other than to take legal action against people or totally give up on the search for their daughter and move away and hope these people give up hounding them.
-
In the 2008 Emma Loach film Madeleine's parents mention the letters they get - the insults and the threats. They'll have received such letters no doubt every day after returning to the UK, from nutters nothing whatsover to do with online groups - everyone with a high profile does unfortunately.
You should tell the whole story TT. The infrequent activities of online groups is probably just a fraction of what they have had to deal with from genuinely disturbed attention seekers, and most of it is nothing at all to do with any of us.
Indeed
Kate mentions in her book that over the last four years they have been contacted by several people, who Kate presumes to be suffering from conditions such as schizophrenia and manic-depression. She says that some of them seem to have become 'fixated' on Madeleine and her plight
Some of them are very persistent, tracking the McCanns down again and again, weilding their piles of papers full of totally illogical 'fact' figures and symbols. Kate says it was draining and at times a little scary
So, it seems, the McCanns have been harassed by 'supporters' too, who have become obsessed with the case
-
The press were awful, and thoroughly deserved the drubbing they got from Carter Ruck. But their lies were confined to paper, which people choose whether to read or buy.
However, the houndation took things out into the community - leafleting Rothley, going to the Glenfield, writing to the GMC and the social services, stalking Gerry to the committee meeting. Kate and Gerry McCann weren't given a choice in any of that stalking.
And then had the nerve to whine about being taken to Court over it!
Bennett was given how many chances to cease this yet still thought he and his crew were beyond the Law and morals of normal people.
Learned that he wasn't though didn't he? >@@(*&)
-
Yes - it all stemmed from the PJ leaks in PT. If they hadn't been leaking like sieves, then the press wouldn't have got hold of any of the lies. Lies which fuelled a stalking campaign in the UK against a struggling family.
Yes, but that's history, and has been for over five years. Yet the doubters remain.
-
Indeed
Kate mentions in her book that over the last four years they have been contacted by several people, who Kate presumes to be suffering from conditions such as schizophrenia and manic-depression. She says that some of them seem to have become 'fixated' on Madeleine and her plight
Some of them are very persistent, tracking the McCanns down again and again, weilding their piles of papers full of totally illogical 'fact' figures and symbols. Kate says it was draining and at times a little scary
So, it seems, the McCanns have been harassed by 'supporters' too, who have become obsessed with the case
Cheers 8((()*/ I'd forgotten that was in the book. So really someone sitting in a seat behind you is nothing.
-
Yes, but that's history, and has been for over five years. Yet the doubters remain.
By doubters if you mean a few #bleeps# on internet fora and diehard PT Amaral supporters. I think I'll go with the Portuguese Official conclusion and the nearly 70,000 signees of the Petition supporting the McCanns request for a Review.
Oh and the Metropolitan Police service who state Madeleine was abducted by strangers and possibly still alive as there is nothing to prove otherwise.
-
Indeed
Kate mentions in her book that over the last four years they have been contacted by several people, who Kate presumes to be suffering from conditions such as schizophrenia and manic-depression. She says that some of them seem to have become 'fixated' on Madeleine and her plight
Some of them are very persistent, tracking the McCanns down again and again, weilding their piles of papers full of totally illogical 'fact' figures and symbols. Kate says it was draining and at times a little scary
So, it seems, the McCanns have been harassed by 'supporters' too, who have become obsessed with the case
Do you have the page number for that Icabod?
-
By doubters if you mean a few #bleeps# on internet fora and diehard PT Amaral supporters. I think I'll go with the Portuguese Official conclusion and the nearly 70,000 signees of the Petition supporting the McCanns request for a Review.
Oh and the Metropolitan Police service who state Madeleine was abducted by strangers and possibly still alive as there is nothing to prove otherwise.
Thank you. A few. So how can a few be the cause of harassment or persecution? 8-)(--)
-
Yes, but that's history, and has been for over five years. Yet the doubters remain.
Those lies leaked by the PJ, and Amaral's book are to this day fuelling some absolutely disgusting hate on FB, Lyall.
-
Do you have the page number for that Icabod?
Yes, it's page 309 ( the chapter, THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE MAD )
-
Those lies leaked by the PJ, and Amaral's book are to this day fuelling some absolutely disgusting hate on FB, Lyall.
I agree, but again it's just a handful of people. It wouldn't be difficult to take action, but they haven't.
-
Indeed
Kate mentions in her book that over the last four years they have been contacted by several people, who Kate presumes to be suffering from conditions such as schizophrenia and manic-depression. She says that some of them seem to have become 'fixated' on Madeleine and her plight
Some of them are very persistent, tracking the McCanns down again and again, weilding their piles of papers full of totally illogical 'fact' figures and symbols. Kate says it was draining and at times a little scary
So, it seems, the McCanns have been harassed by 'supporters' too, who have become obsessed with the case
Perhaps the whole episode should be produced here to put this comment into context.
Over the last four years we have been contacted by various people evidently afflicted by conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disease (manic depression). Some of them appear to have become fixated on Madeleine and her plight. Paranoid delusions, delusions of ‘reference’ (when random events convey a special meaning to the sufferer) and ‘racing thoughts’ (where the mind uncontrollably brings up random thoughts and switches between them rapidly, whether or not they are related to each other) have come into play. All of these symptoms can be extremely sad, disabling and potentially dangerous for the person experiencing them.
Within days of Madeleine’s disappearance, several people with major psychiatric problems made their way over to Praia da Luz and somehow managed to get to see Gerry and me. In spite of the state we were in, we found it hard to ignore anybody who was trying to help, even if what they were telling us was complete nonsense. Some of them were very persistent: they would track us down again and again, wielding their piles of papers full of totally illogical ‘facts’, figures and symbols. It was draining and at times a little scary.
On our return to the UK we had a number of such callers turn up on our doorstep, along with assorted psychics and visionaries. Sometimes I would open the door and immediately wish I hadn’t: the behaviour of psychiatric patients can be unpredictable and with Sean and Amelie following me every time I answered the doorbell I felt very vulnerable and anxious. One day Gerry, in what I can only assume was a moment of weakness, let the self-appointed ‘Lord’s Helper’ into the house. He was a tall, elderly gentleman sporting a wooden crucifix the size of Kansas around his neck. I stared at Gerry in disbelief and soon decided it would be wise to take Sean and Amelie out to the park. Thankfully, the Lord’s Helper proved to be totally harmless, even if he was not on the same planet as us that day.
Gerry and I were, I suppose, fortunate to have been surrounded all our lives by good and loving people whose outlook on life and respect for others was similar to our own. But maybe this background only magnified our shock when we were first faced with the small but vociferous group who wished us ill. We had never come across people like this before and it is perhaps the fact that they are so rare that amplifies their voices. But their words and actions are generally less comprehensible than those of the psychiatric cases.
When criticism surfaced shortly after Madeleine was taken it was hard to bear. Nobody likes to be criticized, but this was kicking us when we were down. Then the criticism began to turn nasty. We received letters spitting venom like ‘Your daughter will be getting tortured and it’s all because of you,’ or ‘Your daughter’s six feet under. Shame on you.’ And those were the restrained ones. Other letter-writers took a warped pleasure, it seemed, in going into lurid detail which I couldn’t bring myself to repeat here about what might have happened to Madeleine ‘because of you’. Having to cope with this on top of our raw pain almost pushed us over the edge. We simply couldn’t understand why anyone would want to inflict more agony on us. These people were actually taking the trouble to sit down and write this filth, to spend money on a stamp and take their poison-pen letters to the postbox. Did this make them feel better? Needless to say, after Gerry and I were declared arguidos the abuse escalated. We had mail delivered to our house addressed ‘Child Killer Kate
McCann, Kate (2011-05-12). Madeleine (pp. 309-310). Random House UK. Kindle Edition.
Such sadness 8(8-))
-
Can't blame that lot on us 'anonymous lowlife' TT.
-
Have I blamed you? I am pointing out that people have hounded and persecuted the parents of a missing child. I have highlighted what the McCanns have had to endure during the last 6 years. That is all.
-
Have I blamed you? I am pointing out that people have hounded and persecuted the parents of a missing child. I have highlighted what the McCanns have had to endure during the last 6 years. That is all.
You are blaming us in your OP.
That's why I say you should tell the whole story, and not just the small part that suits an agenda.
-
Those lies leaked by the PJ, and Amaral's book are to this day fuelling some absolutely disgusting hate on FB, Lyall.
Aren't these leaked PJ lies obsessive allegations precisely feeding hatred ?
The PJ files are available since Summer 2008. Old story.
-
You are blaming us in your OP.
That's why I say you should tell the whole story, and not just the small part that suits an agenda.
TTS is not blaming all McCann sceptics, Lyall, TTS is just bringing home the harassment that Kate and Gerry McCann have had to suffer, a lot of it at the hands of the foundation. In no way is this saying that all McCann sceptics are nasty loony stalkers like the foundation members are.
-
My response in blue.
Point 1 - and it's a big one - The PJ's summary report left no-one in any doubt as to what the investigating force thought and even though the archiving summary reported there was not enough evidence of the McCanns having committed a crime to continue to constitute them arguidos it did quite clearly state that the McCanns and their friends failed to cooperate and did not effectively "eliminate themselves from the enquiry". Furthermore it did not say that the PJ report that preceeded the archiving report was wrong, it merely archived the case and explained why.
You may claim it is a big one but the PJ's summary report (June 2008) is a summation of diligences.
You may claim it "left no-one in any doubt as to what the investigating force thought" but you offer not one single piece of evidence to back up this statement. That report dated 20 June 2008 in my view is simply the listing of diligences and the reasons for those diligences. Please provide some indication of the sections of the report which do as you claim and lead everyone to, as you imply, suspect the McCanns.
That summary report from the PJ will have played a major part in the development of the conclusions which the AG came to a few weeks later. I wonder how your description of the report could possibly be accurate considering the conclusions made that there was no evidence of any crime by the McCanns.
Till you explain what is in the PJ Summative report which leads you to your ideas about it, it is really impossible to judge whether there is any credibility in your description of it.
My own view is as I have explained that the report is a listing of diligences with reason for those diligences. I do not see anything which leads me to believe what you believe and therefore would appreciate your direction to what it is that led you to write that description.
I do however believe that there is an underlying theme to the report. I believe that it is written in a way which is designed to respond to the media criticism of the PJ and to demonstrate how much effort was put into the search.
Bearing point 1 in mind, while there is no clear evidence of either of the two binary possibilities (abduction or death & cover up) then either possibility is equally as likely (being kind to the McCanns really there). This means it is theoretically possible that they ARE involved in what the investigating force thought - death and a cover up. All the time that condition is true, the McCanns are absolutely, 100% fair game to be questioned.
This paragraph will also rely on the accuracy of your description of the summary report. Till we see the basis for your description then it is difficult to judge what you are saying.
I would ask you to explain why you believe it is being kind to the McCanns to suggest that either possibility, abduction or death and cover-up are possible as you state that both are equally likely.
If both are equally likely why are you implying that it is a kindness on your part to consider the abduction as such?
If both scenarios are equally likely as you state then do you not see that it is also theoretically and just as logically possible that theoretically it is possible that anyone in PDL that night was involved in what the investigating force thought - abduction. All the time that condition is true then all the people who were in PDL that night are absolutely 100% fair game to be questioned.
One fundamental problem with your one-sided conclusion though, is that the people who have been questioned by the professionals (not just by internet cranks and busybodies) are the McCanns and Murat and the conclusion after that questioning and investigation is that there is NO EVIDENCE of any crime committed by them.
However, all those people the PJ failed to investigate and question...
You have highlighted a number of actions taken by a hard-core (and quite possibly lunatic) minority which are utterly unreasonable (stalking, threats) and some actions that are perfectly reasonable (leafleting - ONLY IF ACCURATE TO THE FACTS, questioning on the fund usage, questioning on their stories, questioning on their actions).
I am glad that you agree that stalking (as in turning up at the McCann house) and threats are beyond the pale and possibly the work of lunatics. I would describe them in more graphic terms but will remain polite in this post.
The question of leafleting is an interesting one. You place great importance on the need for accuracy.
Unfortunately those who have undertaken such leafleting have not been troubled regarding accuracy. No leaflet I have seen has been accurate and I believe Bennett brought problems on himself (for example) by his inability to be accurate.
You suggest leaflets would be OK if they merely questioned various aspects of the McCanns' behaviour.
But you don't caution that leaflets which simply infer criminal action through the use of questions would also be illegal. If a person was simply to leaflet on the subject using questions about the case which left the reader with the impression that the McCanns were guilty of a crime that would quite clearly be libelous and illegal. That was also highlighted by the Judge in the Bennett case if your remember?
The McCanns are not guilty of any crime and to suggest otherwise by open accusation or by inference is illegal. There is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in this country (and I believe Portugal) and anyone who fails to respect that is committing an offence of one kind or another.
There is a very important difference between fair questioning and questioning which leaves the reader/listener with an unfair view of the subject.
The McCanns have no divine right to have their version of events go unquestioned. They do have a personal right to privacy and I condemn all those that flout that right. However you and most of your fellow pros mistake the [ censored word] sticking up for themselves as personal attacks on the McCanns. If you're going to tar every single person that doesn't subscribe to "the truth according to St.s Gerry & Kate" as a <word I won't use beginning with h> and lump them in via guilt by association with those utter morons that do unreasonable things then you deserve all the abuse you're going to get.
I am interested in your acknowledgement of the McCanns' right to privacy. I do wonder how that right is being played out by the online [ censored word] who actually demand the right to see such things as photographs, medical reports etc. Those people are showing no respect for privacy are they?
As for tarring people with the 'h' word I would have some respect for your point of view if those more "reasonable" anti McCanns ever spoke out against the online lies, innacurate statements, abuse, threats and nastiness poured out daily by the lunatic fringe such as certain of the #McCann fraternity. Instead the "reasonable" posters either just accept it and associate with those lunatics or sit idly by and watch it happen. Anyone who retweets or befriends the sicker elements of anti-McCann behaviour and comment and does nothing about it deserves in my opinion to be tarred with whatever brush/name which is appropriate.
I've said for years that the biggest failing of the Pro brigade is to realise and understand that they're not just dealing with a small hard core band of nutters and that, quite honestly, the number of sceptics at least matches the number of believers and that only very few of them are the lunatics that you seem to think we all are. You are massively underestimating the strength and depth of suspicion there is towards the McCanns in the UK and immediately go into denial about this whenever it's brought up.
You make an interesting point that you believe that the number of anti McCanns possibly is greater in your view than that of Pros. I would love to know on what you base that belief. I really hope you are not relying on the comments on various news articles because only the most naive person would not be aware of the massive coordinated attacks which are organised by [ censored word] every time an opportunity to post occurs. I am most certainly not in denial that there is a proportion of the population who suspect the McCanns but I await some indication from you that it may actually be a majority of the population.
-
Aren't these leaked PJ lies obsessive allegations precisely feeding hatred ?
The PJ files are available since Summer 2008. Old story.
I don't understand your post, Anne?
-
TTS is not blaming all McCann sceptics, Lyall, TTS is just bringing home the harassment that Kate and Gerry McCann have had to suffer, a lot of it at the hands of the foundation. In no way is this saying that all McCann sceptics are nasty loony stalkers like the foundation members are.
Their activities are history too, just like the papers. Maybe you should stop disturbing old ground? >@@(*&)
People may get the idea it's being brought up again to use against current posters.
-
You are blaming us in your OP.
That's why I say you should tell the whole story, and not just the small part that suits an agenda.
My opening remarks for that post is
Kate and Gerry McCann are vilified, condemned and armchair detectives have become judge, jury and executioner as to whether the McCanns played a part in what happened to their daughter.
That is the truth.
I have NOT blamed this forum. I have not said Kate and Gerry McCann have been vilified and condemned by members of this forum. Have I?
I have laid the blame squarely at the feet of those who carry out this abysmal behaviour of hounding and persecuting the family of a missing child. If you have hounded or persecuted the McCanns then all I can say is, if the cap fits wear it.
If you haven't then your conscience is clear and you should not feel at all threatened by a truthful post.
All what I have stated with regards to the incidents relating to the what the McCanns have had to endure is the truth.
-
I don't understand your post, Anne?
I just mean hatred feeds hatred. This is a poison, Rachel.
-
My opening remarks for that post is
That is the truth.
I have NOT blamed this forum. I have not said Kate and Gerry McCann have been vilified and condemned by members of this forum. Have I?
I have laid the blame squarely at the feet of those who carry out this abysmal behaviour of hounding and persecuting the family of a missing child. If you have hounded or persecuted the McCanns then all I can say is, if the cap fits wear it.
If you haven't then your conscience is clear and you should not feel at all threatened by a truthful post.
All what I have stated with regards to the incidents relating to the what the McCanns have had to endure is the truth.
Emotion is frequently used as a weapon. I don't say by you TT, because I haven't discussed topics with you before today I think - but it's definitely used by others. Emotions from the past used to try and shame or embarrass or silence current posters, here and elsewhere. You can forgive us for being wary.
-
My opening remarks for that post is
That is the truth.
I have NOT blamed this forum. I have not said Kate and Gerry McCann have been vilified and condemned by members of this forum. Have I?
I have laid the blame squarely at the feet of those who carry out this abysmal behaviour of hounding and persecuting the family of a missing child. If you have hounded or persecuted the McCanns then all I can say is, if the cap fits wear it.
If you haven't then your conscience is clear and you should not feel at all threatened by a truthful post.
All what I have stated with regards to the incidents relating to the what the McCanns have had to endure is the truth.
The trouble is that sceptics are subliminally suspected to work against the McCanns. This is tiring. We should be allowed to doubt the abduction theory without being accused of blaspheme.
-
Their activities are history too, just like the papers. Maybe you should stop disturbing old ground? >@@(*&)
People may get the idea it's being brought up again to use against current posters.
The title of this thread is the harassment/persecution suffered by Kate and Gerry McCann - which I have been discussing, as have others.
Your second point is frankly preposterous, Lyall. Again, I have just been discussing matters concerning the thread topic.
-
The title of this thread is the harassment/persecution suffered by Kate and Gerry McCann - which I have been discussing, as have others.
Your second point is frankly preposterous, Lyall. Again, I have just been discussing matters concerning the thread topic.
It's not prepostorous Rachel. You won't have had it used against you, being on the other 'side' of the debate - I can tell you from much experience it is used often. In other media no distinction is made between the extremists and other posters - we're all lumped it together, and their crimes are used against us.
-
It's not prepostorous Rachel. You won't have had it used against you, being on the other 'side' of the debate - I can tell you from much experience it is used often. In other media no distinction is made between the extremists and other posters - we're all lumped it together, and their crimes are used against us.
It is *not* being put across like that in TT's OP, Lyall. TT is not lumping all sceptics together and blaming them for the stalking and harassment of Kate and Gerry McCann, the bulk of which was orchestrated by the floundation.
-
It is *not* being put across like that in TT's OP, Lyall. TT is not lumping all sceptics together and blaming them for the stalking and harassment of Kate and Gerry McCann, the bulk of which was orchestrated by the floundation.
But why mention that at all when I think we can see from K McCann's book they faced far more serious problems - why not start a thread listing those? Or an thread listing both? Instead a thread was started which just listed the effects of the few online.
You can see the point. 8(0(*
-
But why mention that at all when I think we can see from K McCann's book they faced far more serious problems - why not start a thread listing those? Or an thread listing both? Instead a thread was started which just listed the effects of the few online.
You can see the point. 8(0(*
Oh please Lyall, stop twisting words. The McCanns were dealing with horrendous stuff, as clearly stated in her book. A lot of the things I listed originated from the Madeleine Foundation who used to promote their cause of forums and blogs. And they still do, albeit a lot quieter now that Mr Bennett has been put firmly in his place.
Whether people on forums, on blogs, or in their own home using pen and paper, do not have the right to persecute and hound a family of a missing child. To do so is beyond contempt. And I do wonder how people would feel if the shoe was on the other foot? Would you like this happening to you if some tragic event happened in your life?
-
But why mention that at all when I think we can see from K McCann's book they faced far more serious problems - why not start a thread listing those? Or an thread listing both? Instead a thread was started which just listed the effects of the few online.
You can see the point. 8(0(*
It wasn't "online" though was it? It was taken out into the community - to Rothley, to the Glenfied, the GMC, Social Services, the Committee.
-
It wasn't "online" though was it? It was taken out into the community - to Rothley, to the Glenfied, the GMC, Social Services, the Committee.
You can see right on cue TT does exactly what I say happens, and happens often - emotions from the past being used against completely unconnected posters in the present.
-
But why mention that at all when I think we can see from K McCann's book they faced far more serious problems - why not start a thread listing those? Or an thread listing both? Instead a thread was started which just listed the effects of the few online.
You can see the point. 8(0(*
I did. I mentioned the person jumping over the fence.
From Kate's book
On the Saturday I was bothered by a persistent caller (dubbed by Sean and Amelie ‘the man with the poorly head’), whose initially erratic behaviour ultimately became terrifying when he jumped over the fence into our back garden and tried to get into the house through the patio doors. His last act before being carted off by the local constabulary was to throw one of my large ceramic plant pots through the windscreen of my cousin Anne-Marie’s car, parked in our drive.
McCann, Kate (2011-05-12). Madeleine (p. 332). Random House UK. Kindle Edition.
-
You can see right on cue TT does exactly what I say happens, and happens often - emotions from the past being used against completely unconnected posters in the present.
Could you address my point rather than having a go at TT, please.
-
If I were involved in a case like this, yes I would. A crime was committed by somebody.
However it were a crime against you and your child, and you hadn't committed it, I doubt you would. I highly doubt a bunch of nutters threatening your family and posting leaflets at you neighbours houses and place of work would be in any way acceptable.
-
I did. I mentioned the person jumping over the fence.
From Kate's book
Fair enough. I thought that was supposed to also be 'one of us' 8(8-))
-
Could you address my point rather than having a go at TT, please.
I addressed it earlier. That kind of activity and that group is history.
-
However it were a crime against you and your child, and you hadn't committed it, I doubt you would. I highly doubt a bunch of nutters threatening your family and posting leaflets at you neighbours houses and place of work would be in any way acceptable.
Exactly 8@??)( 8@??)(
How many posts are there on this thread, actually condemning the actions I listed. I have read posts where people think the McCanns should have privacy and that people don't support Mr Bennett and the Foundation. But what about the actions taken by the Foundation members, do they agree with leafleting neighbours, people's places of work? Not one comment about the plot to kidnap the twins.
No condemnation about the letters written by not just supporters of Mr Bennett and the Madeleine Foundation, but other members of other forums with regards to trying to get Gerry McCann struck off, or the twins taken away because they felt the twins were not safe around the Kate and Gerry.
-
8)-))) It's history. Move on.
I suspect the other things K McCann writes about in the book probably aren't, they probably still go on. That's what you should be concerned with.
You're obsessed with the past 8(0(*
-
You can see right on cue TT does exactly what I say happens, and happens often - emotions from the past being used against completely unconnected posters in the present.
You are attempting to defend what is truly indefensible. No wonder you are failing.
Hounding, stalking, online abuse, libel, threats. They are simply wrong.
No arguments. No defence.
-
You are attempting to defend what is truly indefensible. No wonder you are failing.
Hounding, stalking, online abuse, libel, threats. They are simply wrong.
No arguments. No defence.
It's in the past ?>)()< Move on.
And no I'm not defending it.
-
It's in the past ?>)()< Move on.
And no I'm not defending it.
It maybe in the past. But it should never have happened in the first place.
-
It maybe in the past. But it should never have happened in the first place.
... and no-one on this forum is saying it should have ... so why are you labouring the point here ?
-
It's in the past ?>)()< Move on.
And no I'm not defending it.
It is not in the past. Posting such statements destroys any credibility you may have.
No-one reading #McCann on Twitter would believe you for a start.
-
I addressed it earlier. That kind of activity and that group is history.
So is the Holocaust, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting.
-
... and no-one on this forum is saying it should have ... so why are you labouring the point here ?
The point is that this section of the forum is about the whole history of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and whether you acknowledge it or not, the fact is that the persistent hounding of the parents of Madeleine McCann by sick or evil people has become entrenched within that history.
It is very clear that you and Lyall are simply trying to brush this aspect of the case off and pretend it is irrelevant. It is not.
It is at least in part a demonstration of the influence that certain particular individuals including Amaral have had on those who are easily swayed by theses pretending to be facts.
-
So is the Holocaust, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting.
There are about 2200 or so days since they returned from Portugal, and you're obsessed by what happened on about a dozen of them.
That's not rational.
-
There are about 2200 or so days since they returned from Portugal, and you're obsessed by what happened on about a dozen of them.
That's not rational.
dont forget either pro mcanns have harrased bullied slandered etc those of us who dont believe the mcanns all over the internet that makes pros just as bad if not worse imo also posted private data and databases
-
The point is that this section of the forum is about the whole history of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and whether you acknowledge it or not, the fact is that the persistent hounding of the parents of Madeleine McCann by sick or evil people has become entrenched within that history.
It is very clear that you and Lyall are simply trying to brush this aspect of the case off and pretend it is irrelevant. It is not.
It is at least in part a demonstration of the influence that certain particular individuals including Amaral have had on those who are easily swayed by theses pretending to be facts.
Well then I misunderstood
I took it to be an inference that those people ( any people ) who doubt and question the McCann's version of events are somehow 'tarred with the same brush' as the obsessed individuals who's activities are highlighted in the OP
Given that there is no-one here on Justice who does not condemn those activities, I really do not see the need to labour the point, or, indeed to lecture us on it
-
Thank you. A few. So how can a few be the cause of harassment or persecution? 8-)(--)
Posts such as these show what little grasp of the law you have.
Section 7 of the act which relates to Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997 states that:
'A “course of conduct” must involve conduct on at least two occasions.'
And for your information it only takes one person to harass another, or a group of others.
So a few is plenty.
-
And carlymichelle you are right, Mccann supporters or whatever they were, hacked forums and other databases and stole personal information,
I am a McCann supporter, are you saying I hacked forums, stole databases and stole personal information? Because I can assure you, I have never been involved in this kind of activity. Your comment in respect to me is libellous and defamatory.
-
I am a McCann supporter, are you saying I hacked forums, stole databases and stole personal information? Because I can assure you, I have never been involved in this kind of activity. Your comment in respect to me is libellous and defamatory.
Are you paranoid or something? Did I accuse you? No!
Thats the second time today youhave misunderstood or pulled that stunt!
Anyway my personal though out balanced opinion is that you did though start this thread to create ill feeling, to spread negativity, to spread toxin on this forum, to tar people who dont believe the Mccann official sotry with the same brush as a few nutters, theres no getting away from that, and that I find peurile and despicable
Kate Mccann has described these things in her book, the print media have reported on it, the tv had stories on it, various forums had the stories, why the need to dig up old miseries?
>@@(*&)
-
Well then I misunderstood
I took it to be an inference that those people ( any people ) who doubt and question the McCann's version of events are somehow 'tarred with the same brush' as the obsessed individuals who's activities are highlighted in the OP
Given that there is no-one here on Justice who does not condemn those activities, I really do not see the need to labour the point, or, indeed to lecture us on it
This forum is not simply read by the posters on the forum though, is it?
-
as i said in a earlier post/thread its very cult like behaviour isnt it
It is
It is a FACT that the so called pro mccanns are cultish as opposed to the fencers and anti mccanns who have varying ideas, but then there are a few who are willing to debate nicely
-
You may despair, but I suspect that is simply because you do not like the public who read here being reminded of the history of the anti McCann campaign.
If you think it irrelevant, that is your choice.
But others are not as familiar with the horrific hounding of the McCanns as you are and to try to cover up history as you are attempting is not a way of achieving real and full truth about anything.
Oh dont be so ridiculous, no one is tryng to cover up anythng that has been on the media and tv and on forums, and in kates book now as well, youre losing it gilet
@)(++(*
What is it youwant? People to go self flagellate? The people that did those things and anyne else who posted on same forums they were on?? Even though they thought their actions were bad????
@)(++(*
-
Oh dont be so ridiculous, no one is tryng to cover up anythng that has been on the media and tv and on forums, and in kates book now as well, youre losing it gilet
@)(++(*
What is it youwant? People to go self flagellate? The people that did those things and anyne else who posted on same forums they were on?? Even though they thought their actions were bad????
@)(++(*
the pros also have to remmeber it was not us who left maddie to her fate it as the mcanns so no use trying to blame us for the mcanns lack of childcare
-
Oh dont be so ridiculous, no one is tryng to cover up anythng that has been on the media and tv and on forums, and in kates book now as well, youre losing it gilet
@)(++(*
What is it youwant? People to go self flagellate? The people that did those things and anyne else who posted on same forums they were on?? Even though they thought their actions were bad????
@)(++(*
So what is your problem with these issues being aired here?
Why are you simply trying to close down discussion?
Don't you realise how bad that looks for anti McCanns?
What is most evident is the tip-toeing by anti McCanns around the issue of actually stating that the hounders and stalkers (and that includes those posting vicious and nasty abuse online and those who associate with the hounders and stalkers) by the terms most suitable for them. Horrid, grubby little people with no morals.
-
@)(++(*
Are you paranoid or something? Did I accuse you? No!
Thats the second time today youhave misunderstood or pulled that stunt!
Paranoid. Definitely not. Just don't like being grouped with people who are supposed to have also committed despicable acts. Actually your post proved one thing. During this thread people who don't support the McCanns did not like being lumped together with those people who carried out those atrocious acts against the family of a missing child. And here you are doing exactly the same thing.
Lumping McCann supporters with people who have also committed acts that many don't approve of.
This thread is really getting to people. Is it simply because reading what ordeal the McCanns have had to endure from people who don't believe Madeleine McCann was abducted, makes disgusting reading?
-
So what is your problem with these issues being aired here?
Why are you simply trying to close down discussion?
Don't you realise how bad that looks for anti McCanns?
pffft
answering questions with questions..a politicians answer
-
pffft
No answer again. Shame.
-
@)(++(*Paranoid. Definitely not. Just don't like being grouped with people who are supposed to have also committed despicable acts. Actually your post proved one thing. During this thread people who don't support the McCanns did not like being lumped together with those people who carried out those atrocious acts against the family of a missing child. And here you are doing exactly the same thing.
Lumping McCann supporters with people who have also committed acts that many don't approve of.
This thread is really getting to people. Is it simply because reading what ordeal the McCanns have had to endure from people who don't believe Madeleine McCann was abducted, makes disgusting reading?
Youre still being silly because i never said YOU did any of those thngs get over it
the reason people dont like this thread is as i said before, go read it again, sl o w l y
-
So what is your problem with these issues being aired here?
Why are you simply trying to close down discussion?
Don't you realise how bad that looks for anti McCanns?
What is most evident is the tip-toeing by anti McCanns around the issue of actually stating that the hounders and stalkers (and that includes those posting vicious and nasty abuse online and those who associate with the hounders and stalkers) by the terms most suitable for them. Horrid, grubby little people with no morals.
There IS no 'discussion' to close down
The OP made a point that has been universally agreed !
Why go on and on making it in that case ? ... what is the point ?
-
There IS no 'discussion' to close down
The OP made a point that has been universally agreed !
Why go on and on making it in that case ? ... what is the point ?
because pros like to punish us for choices their heros made leaving the children alone was not maddie or the twins choice it was a sefish act by adults wanting me time with their friends whatever did happen to maddie it was by their lack of responsibility and nothing will ever take that away
-
Well then I misunderstood
I took it to be an inference that those people ( any people ) who doubt and question the McCann's version of events are somehow 'tarred with the same brush' as the obsessed individuals who's activities are highlighted in the OP
Given that there is no-one here on Justice who does not condemn those activities, I really do not see the need to labour the point, or, indeed to lecture us on it
100% agree
Everyone who has followed this case knows of these stupid horrible events....they are history....only a handful of people were involved in this *direct action* for their own beliefs and reasons, very few applauded them, unless the OP wants to *educate* members of this forum who have not followed the case, then I dont see the point of this wholly negative thread at all, IMO it shouldbe locked as it just poisons the atmosphere and does nothng constructive whatsoever...and theOP asking pathetic questions on other threads such as do you CONDONE these actions is pathetic, peurile or very misguided....OR just troublemaking
So what exactly IS the point of this thread?
And carlymichelle you are right, Mccann supporters or whatever they were, hacked forums and other databases and stole personal information, The late Debunker on here apparently boasted about it and gave exact details of what was done somewhere, and posted peoples real life names on blogs and fora....
one of them being promoted hereby one absent lately member! and thanked for the info by another member on here! Thats intimidation and stalking too! as well as rank hypocrisy. For what? Holding opinions?
I despair.
Despair is the right word. Can't vociferations be discharged in the proper sites that deserve them ? There are no [ censored word] here, just sceptics.
-
Despair is the right word. Can't vociferations be discharged in the proper sites that deserve them ? There are no [ censored word] here, just sceptics.
anti is a term pros use to intimidate
-
Despair is the right word. Can't vociferations be discharged in the proper sites that deserve them ? There are no [ censored word] here, just sceptics.
there is an agenda afoot since the trial began..its so obvious and lame...and is polluting this board
-
You need to provide an answer to MY questions before asking more
...
Having answered all your questions, I see you are now struggling to come up with valid responses to my questions.
Incidentally, I removed your pathetic abuse and reported it.
-
anti is a term pros use to intimidate
And pros is a word [ censored word] use to intimidate.
Such ridiculous desperation.
-
Having answered all your questions, I see you are now struggling to come up with valid responses to my questions.
Incidentally, I removed your pathetic abuse and reported it.
Do I look bothered?
You did NOT answer my question put to you in my post number 119
Look forward to it!
-
there is an agenda afoot since the trial began..its so obvious and lame...and is polluting this board
That agenda does seem to be very counterproductive for the McCanns. Their popularity needs a subtle brushing, not that.
-
Do I look bothered?
You did NOT answer my question put to you in my post number 119
Look forward to it!
i cant believe how rude some of the pros have been to anne all she did was translate court they would have bitched if nobody did
-
That agenda does seem to be very counterproductive for the McCanns. Their popularity needs a subtle brushing, not that.
I know its called shooting yourself in the foot.....I cant see anything but vindictiveness in this libel trial oh and wanting a million pounds, unearned.....
>@@(*&)
-
So is the Holocaust, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting.
Please don't mix up the Holocaust with the McCann saga, this is indecent.
-
Please don't mix up the Holocaust with the McCann saga, this is indecent.
agree i hate the way pros think the world revolves around the mcanns it doesnt and that isa low thing to compare their case too
-
i cant believe how rude some of the pros have been to anne all she did was translate court they would have bitched if nobody did
whats that to do with this thread carly but yes, if the libel trial reports were favouring the mccann side you would have NO complaints on the reporting,and asking to see the notes, people saying their biased etc etc, guaranteed
@)(++(*
-
A whole page from two [ censored word] completely disrupting the topic.
And they try to pretend that they are not attempting to close down the debate.
-
A whole page from two [ censored word] completely disrupting the topic.
And they try to pretend that they are not attempting to close down the debate.
Whats a WHOLE page on ten of *alledged disruption*
@)(++(*
Still waiting for your answer to my question on post 119
-
A whole page from two [ censored word] completely disrupting the topic.
And they try to pretend that they are not attempting to close down the debate.
What debate gilet ?
Where an opening statement is made, and all contributors are in agreement, there IS no debate
This thread was an excercise in trouble-making, nothing more
It's happening more and more since the influx of new members the trial has brought
-
What debate gilet ?
Where an opening statement is made, and all contributors are in agreement, there IS no debate
This thread was an excercise in trouble-making, nothing more
It's happening more and more since the influx of new members the trial has brought
8@??)(
well said
@Lizz I would have no reason to think anyone was FALSIFYING COURT PROCEEDINGS!!!!!
pro anti middle neutrons protons electrons or any alien whether yellow green or blue or mushrooms for a stir fry
Simples as that i would just trust they reported, and wouldnt go accusing of bias unless there was any proof after the events aka a court transcript
-
and I should believe you because ?
no one is asking u to believe me you asked a question i answered, end of, the rest is your problem alone
-
what a cop out ..didn't expect anything else tbh ..but hay ho
What cop out? i answered your question' and then you asked why you should believe me, well its up to you to believe people or not, im not JESUS,who you just should believe if thats your penchance LOL im giving a personal opinion/answer
@)(++(*
Youre being obtuse
Sigh hay ho whatever etc
-
What debate gilet ?
Where an opening statement is made, and all contributors are in agreement, there IS no debate
This thread was an excercise in trouble-making, nothing more
It's happening more and more since the influx of new members the trial has brought
Clearly you have not read the whole thread or you would not post such an incorrect summation.
-
Clearly you have not read the whole thread or you would not post such an incorrect summation.
Well would you be kind enough to remind me ... what point in the 'debate' had we reached before it was interrupted ?
and just for clarity what was the opposing point of view posed to the opening post ?
-
Oh dont be so ridiculous, no one is tryng to cover up anythng that has been on the media and tv and on forums, and in kates book now as well, youre losing it gilet
@)(++(*
What is it youwant? People to go self flagellate? The people that did those things and anyne else who posted on same forums they were on?? Even though they thought their actions were bad????
@)(++(*
I rarely, if ever saw anyone posting on those forums congratulating those who behaved in the way described stand up and say they thought "their actions were bad".
-
I rarely, if ever saw anyone posting on those forums congratulating those who behaved in the way described stand up and say they thought "their actions were bad".
Did you mean to post that? How silly.
Go take it up on those forums then instead of polluting this one with ancient gripes that have nothing to do with this forum or its members.
-
]"NEITHER HER PARENTS OR ANY MEMBER OF THE GROUP THAT WERE WITH HER ARE EITHER PERSONS OF INTEREST OR SUSPECTS." -DCI REDWOOD
8((()*/
-
]"NEITHER HER PARENTS OR ANY MEMBER OF THE GROUP THAT WERE WITH HER ARE EITHER PERSONS OF INTEREST OR SUSPECTS." -DCI REDWOOD
8((()*/
Just wondering something out loud here. If - hypothetically, of course - the parents and/or other members of the group WERE, in fact persons of interest or suspects, what would Redwood have said? Would he have announced that to the world's media and had the associated furore blow up? Would he have kept quiet altogether and had the suspicion/innuendo gathering pace (as it would, inevitably, have done) or... and this is just a wild stab here... would he have just said "they're not persons of interest" as he knows that they will be largely left alone for now and SY can get on with whatever they're doing.
If, and again this is entirely hypothetical, they were actually persons of interest and subsequently were investigated/charged/whatever then what are they going to do...? Sue SY for misinformation?
Just sayin'
-
Did you mean to post that? How silly.
Go take it up on those forums then instead of polluting this one with ancient gripes that have nothing to do with this forum or its members.
It was you who raised the point, if you can't answer the reply, there really is no need to resort to insults.