Well, does it or not, in your view?
Well, does it or not, in your view?
Gerry and Kate McCann bear the responsibility for this case.What is your understanding of the term "McCann Family"? Is it limited solely to Kate and Gerry, in your view? Are there perhaps any other members of this family that might deserve a little sympathy and compassion and who are perhaps sometimes distressed by some of the activities of the so-called "doubters"?
Why do they deserve sympathy ?
It is Madeleine who deserves sympathy.
You give them too much importance, which suits them very nicely I'm sure.I don't give them any importance whatsoever, it is a question that has arisen out of a discussion about the sensitivities of Brenda Leyland's family at this sad time, and how it is incumbent on us not to add to their suffering. Don't you think it cuts both ways? If you are sensitive to the distress caused by unkind words to one party, then why not sensitivities towards the other?
But - as has been said countless times before - you'll never stop people discussing the case while it remains unsolved. That is mission impossible.
You give them too much importance, which suits them very nicely I'm sure.
But - as has been said countless times before - you'll never stop people discussing the case while it remains unsolved. That is mission impossible.
Well, even asking the question encourages the extremists you doubtless abhor.Could you explain how?
I don't give them any importance whatsoever, it is a question that has arisen out of a discussion about the sensitivities of Brenda Leyland's family at this sad time, and how it is incumbent on us not to add to their suffering. Don't you think it cuts both ways? If you are sensitive to the distress caused by unkind words to one party, then why not sensitivities towards the other?
Could you explain how?
Of course it cuts both ways, but if you look at it logically there is next to no public doubting (there has been no doubting at all in press or other mass media for nearly seven years now).I'm not trying to stop anyone or anything, I am simply asking the question. If people who publicly doubt wish to carry on doing so then that is up to them, I would like to understand though why some people can apparently care so deeply about the fate of one child (to the point of swearing quasi-religious oaths of allegiance to her), and seem to care not a jot about the child's younger siblings, or other members of her family.
The discussion by those without any power or influence however you can never stop, though you can of course keep reminding them they risk action being taken against them.
Because some of them (though nobody here I'm sure) want to cause that family distress, and if you state you believe they are they'll be encouraged to keep on with their current tactics.
Because some of them (though nobody here I'm sure) want to cause that family distress, and if you state you believe they are they'll be encouraged to keep on with their current tactics.So basically you're saying I'm encouraging people to keep on hurting the McCann family? Wow. Let's extend that a little further then. Would you not say that this entire sub-forum encourages people to doubt (question, if doubt is too strong a word) the McCanns' version of events and therefore cause potential distress to family members?
so you think no one here would wish to cause the family distress...I think some posters here do not care how much distress they causeAnyone who posts links to Blacksmith's blog is out to hurt the McCann family - it is full of invective and bile towards Kate and Gerry, and ceaselessly accuses them of being liars. We also know now that a member of this very forum has personally hounded Kate McCann (or believes she has) into answering some dumb question that she (the interlocutor) has then plastered all over the internet in an attempt to further besmirch her (Kate's) character.
I'm not trying to stop anyone or anything, I am simply asking the question. If people who publicly doubt wish to carry on doing so then that is up to them, I would like to understand though why some people can apparently care so deeply about the fate of one child (to the point of swearing quasi-religious oaths of allegiance to her), and seem to care not a jot about the child's younger siblings, or other members of her family.
So basically you're saying I'm encouraging people to keep on hurting the McCann family? Wow. Let's extend that a little further then. Would you not say that this entire sub-forum encourages people to doubt (question, if doubt is too strong a word) the McCanns' version of events and therefore cause potential distress to family members?
Anyone who posts links to Blacksmith's blog is out to hurt the McCann family - it is full of invective and bile towards Kate and Gerry, and ceaselessly accuses them of being liars. We also know now that a member of this very forum has personally hounded Kate McCann (or believes she has) into answering some dumb question that she (the interlocutor) has then plastered all over the internet in an attempt to further besmirch her (Kate's) character.
Anyone who posts links to Blacksmith's blog is out to hurt the McCann family - it is full of invective and bile towards Kate and Gerry, and ceaselessly accuses them of being liars. We also know now that a member of this very forum has personally hounded Kate McCann (or believes she has) into answering some dumb question that she (the interlocutor) has then plastered all over the internet in an attempt to further besmirch her (Kate's) character.
People need to know when to stop. Posting to Blacksmiths blog, which I agree with you just seems needlessly horrible imo is there ultimately their free right. Why Blacksmith would get that incensed I do not understand considering he does not know what happened. I support others rights to be able to post what ever they like though I don't support libel.Thank you for your views LP, always quite refreshing. 8((()*/
Regarding the question asking. Why why why? Go find another cause imo. Global warming or government corruption to just name a couple. Really out of line and insensitive to approach them. There's a big wide world out there and more fun and good feeling to be had then offending the parents of a possible child abduction. I would question yourself and try and be more self aware if I was you forum poster.
Some people have become more polarised since Brenda's death (unfortunately in my opinion). You can thank Sky News and their allies for that, due to their in my view very idiotic action.It's the same with all extremists isnt' it? It's tempting to think that by ignoring extremists (of whatever flavour) that they will simply slink away and stop their extremist activities once deprived of the oxygen of publicity. I don't actually see any evidence of that being true however. Online "doubting" of the McCanns hasn't got noticeably any worse since Sky shined a light on it, it was pretty much always that bad!
Sky News (and allies) only succeeded in making the extremists think they are indeed very important (otherwise why do it?)
It's the same with all extremists isnt' it? It's tempting to think that by ignoring extremists (of whatever flavour) that they will simply slink away and stop their extremist activities once deprived of the oxygen of publicity. I don't actually see any evidence of that being true however. Online "doubting" of the McCanns hasn't got noticeably any worse since Sky shined a light on it, it was pretty much always that bad!
I have to disagree with you there %£&)**#Which bit?
Which bit?
What is your understanding of the term "McCann Family"? Is it limited solely to Kate and Gerry, in your view? Are there perhaps any other members of this family that might deserve a little sympathy and compassion and who are perhaps sometimes distressed by some of the activities of the so-called "doubters"?
I don't of course expect any sort of on-topic response from you Stephen, so treat these as rhetorical questions, best ignored by yourself or at best only worthy of your ridicule and contempt.
I'm not trying to stop anyone or anything, I am simply asking the question. If people who publicly doubt wish to carry on doing so then that is up to them, I would like to understand though why some people can apparently care so deeply about the fate of one child (to the point of swearing quasi-religious oaths of allegiance to her), and seem to care not a jot about the child's younger siblings, or other members of her family.
The last bit.Have you been following the online activities and antics of the McCann doubters since 2007?
The only discernible 'sympathy' you offer is for Gerry and Kate McCann.I prefer not to drag the children's names into these discussions. But thanks for the predictable response which does not address one single point raised in my post.
For a plight of their own making.
So why didn't you mention Madeleine in your reply to me ?
Of course it adds to the distress of the McCanns family...particularly the grandparents, but many posters on here don't care as we have seen. As I have said before...I wonder what has happened in their lives that has made them such bitter nasty people.
Please try to adhere to the topic of thread. Thank you
I wondered about that myself when reading some of your posts on the Brenda thread earlier.
Who appointed you as policeman of the other mans morals?
I prefer not to drag the children's names into these discussions. But thanks for the predictable response which does not address one single point raised in my post.
I wondered about that myself when reading some of your posts on the Brenda thread earlier.
Who appointed you as policeman of the other mans morals?
Have you been following the online activities and antics of the McCann doubters since 2007?
Of course it adds to the distress of the McCanns family...particularly the grandparents, but many posters on here don't care as we have seen. As I have said before...I wonder what has happened in their lives that has made them such bitter nasty p eople.
If I were a member of the family the opinions of people on the internet would matter not one jot. I have seen no posts on here abusing or insulting any member of the family. I have seen posts expressing doubts about certain aspects of their story. That doesn't mean the posters are bitter or nasty. The police forces of two countries also doubted their story of what happened on 3rd May 2007. Does that make them bitter and nasty?
Your post doesn't make any sense...where am I acting as a policeman re moralsAnything you say Walter
Anything you say Walter
You really should stop trying desperately to score points against me...you are looking foolish
Really?
I'm not talking about doubting...and I'm not talking about abusing the family ...I'm talking about abusive posts against Kate and Gerry that would therefore upset their immediate family...there certainly have been abusive posts on here.
Gerald and Kate McCann are a part of this family and they have made it abundantly clear in my opinion that doubting their story is not allowed. This thread is about doubting not abusing unless you equate the two? I haven't seen any abusive posts, but I haven't been here all that long.
Really
I'm not talking about doubting...and I'm not talking about abusing the family ...I'm talking about abusive posts against Kate and Gerry that would therefore upset their immediate family...there certainly have been abusive posts on here.
if it upset them so badly why would they search google for forums about maddie or the mcanns use some logic people like you though run to them over everything i would imagine
Gerald and Kate McCann are a part of this family and they have made it abundantly clear in my opinion that doubting their story is not allowed. This thread is about doubting not abusing unless you equate the two? I haven't seen any abusive posts, but I haven't been here all that long.
Good
What is the point of it all?
It does nothing to help Madeleine McCann; in fact some of the campaigns have actively tried to derail Operation Grange from its inception.
How does the immediate family feel about constant referral to the costs. How does the immediate family feel about "What about all the other children?"
In days gone by it was done with green ink and capital letters and always had a stamp on the envelope, and the perpetrators were always despised. Now the internet serves the purpose and it is truly amazing the number of dedicated poison pen writers it has uncovered.
At least the green ink brigade perhaps had the excuse of actually having personal knowledge and perhaps a personal grudge or personal envy of the subject of their vitriol. I think to keep an internet campaign or rather a variety of campaigns going for an eight year period to attack a family you do not know and have never met could be considered a really weird thing to do.
I don't know what kind of family these folk come from but in my family if you injure one of us you have injured us all and I imagine that the McCanns and the Healeys might be cut from much the same cloth.
if it makes you happy ..seems like you need something
They must have had an overinflated sense of their own capabilities. Is that result really likely?
Is your name Sackett? [Google Louis L'Amour if you don't get it 8(0(*]
Would you care to make a suggestion?
They must have had an overinflated sense of their own capabilities. Is that result really likely?
Is your name Sackett? [Google Louis L'Amour if you don't get it 8(0(*]
no..they are just nice, decent people...you might find that a little hard to understand
What is the point of it all?
It does nothing to help Madeleine McCann; in fact some of the campaigns have actively tried to derail Operation Grange from its inception.
How does the immediate family feel about constant referral to the costs. How does the immediate family feel about "What about all the other children?"
In days gone by it was done with green ink and capital letters and always had a stamp on the envelope, and the perpetrators were always despised. Now the internet serves the purpose and it is truly amazing the number of dedicated poison pen writers it has uncovered.
At least the green ink brigade perhaps had the excuse of actually having personal knowledge and perhaps a personal grudge or personal envy of the subject of their vitriol. I think to keep an internet campaign or rather a variety of campaigns going for an eight year period to attack a family you do not know and have never met could be considered a really weird thing to do.
I don't know what kind of family these folk come from but in my family if you injure one of us you have injured us all and I imagine that the McCanns and the Healeys might be cut from much the same cloth.
and you know this how how do you know if they are nice or decent? are you a family friend??
No, I haven't, but there's a contradiction in your analysis: if things were going in the right direction in October 2014, why did Sky News do what they did?What gave you the impression that I believed online discussion isnt't as bad now? It's as bad as it's always been!
Why are you so concerned if you think online discussion isn't as bad now as it was and it's reducing?
What gave you the impression that I believed online discussion isnt't as bad now? It's as bad as it's always been!
so why do you read it if it upsets you so badly??
Gerald and Kate McCann are a part of this family and they have made it abundantly clear in my opinion that doubting their story is not allowed. This thread is about doubting not abusing unless you equate the two? I haven't seen any abusive posts, but I haven't been here all that long.Tell me, if you encountered Kate McCann's mother or Gerry's sister at a social function would you feel perfectly comfortable expressing your doubts about their relatives' honesty to them face to face? if your kids encountered their kids at a birthday party would you be happy if your kids told them they believed their parents knew where Madeleine was?
Very good point Carlymichelle.
you must be the only person in the world who thinks that was a good point @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Tell me, if you encountered Kate McCann's mother or Gerry's sister at a social function would you feel perfectly comfortable expressing your doubts about their relatives' honesty to them face to face? if your kids encountered their kids at a birthday party would you be happy if your kids told them they believed their parents knew where Madeleine was?
faithlily the thing is the internet scares mcann supporters they know that people are free to say what they like not all country internet laws are the same and imo the mcanns and supporters have been terrifed of that this whole time . With 24 hour news now too child neglect is always in the news too and it isnt tolerated
without the internet gerry and kate wouldnt of got any judging about their terrible parenting and thats how the mcann supporters would have loved it to be
How on earth can a disorganised relatively small bunch of online folk possibly "derail Operation Grange"? Explain, please.
And when there is complete, total, 100% anti-doubting in the mass media, why is that not enough?
faithlily the thing is the internet scares mcann supporters they know that people are free to say what they like not all country internet laws are the same and imo the mcanns and supporters have been terrifed of that this whole time . With 24 hour news now too child neglect is always in the news too and it isnt toleratedWhat good has "internet judging" of the McCanns achieved?
without the internet gerry and kate wouldnt of got any judging about their terrible parenting and thats how the mcann supporters would have loved it to be but social media has made the anti social behaviour of the mcanns accountable
However pathetic you may think their action are you suggesting they did not make the attempt?
What do you mean there is 100% anti doubting in the mass media ... in the country where it matters, where Madeleine disappeared and the active investigation continues ... examples of press and television coverage have been less than edifying.
faithlily the thing is the internet scares mcann supporters they know that people are free to say what they like not all country internet laws are the same and imo the mcanns and supporters have been terrifed of that this whole time . With 24 hour news now too child neglect is always in the news too and it isnt tolerated
without the internet gerry and kate wouldnt of got any judging about their terrible parenting and thats how the mcann supporters would have loved it to be but social media has made the anti social behaviour of the mcanns accountable
But you can't blame what may happen in Portugal on online folk over here can you?
I genuinely have no idea what you mean by people trying to derail the review/investigation. All I saw was people wondering aloud just what it's aims were/are - there have been numerous FOI requests, but what else?
How on earth can a disorganised relatively small bunch of online folk possibly "derail Operation Grange"? Explain, please.
And when there is complete, total, 100% anti-doubting in the mass media, why is that not enough?
I responded to your reference to press coverage ... and media coverage in Portugal is pertinent to that.
As a matter of interest ... why do you think there have been "numerous FOI requests" directed at Operation Grange?
It is a rather grand claim I have to say. In most cases police conclusions can only be questioned after the event. The McCann case is very different because people have access to the initial case files. So when Operation Grange cleared 'Tannerman' people were able to point out that he was going the wrong way if he was a dad taking his child home from the creche. When they kind of hinted that the Smith family helped to create the efits shown on Crimewatch the files said different. I see this as a good thing as it may keep the police on their toes and ensure they get their facts right. In fact these two examples suggest to me that the Met. police may have an entirely undeserved reputation as an excellent force! We would know nothing if it wasn't for the internet as the McCanns silenced any doubts expressed by the mainstream media .You may view it as cowardly not to inform perfectly innocent people of your suspicious views regarding their nearest and dearest, I however regard it as a) good manners not to b) none of my business in the first place and c) preferable not to cause distress to others simply for the sake of airing my "doubts" publicly.
Yes Alfred. I'm a lot of things but a coward isn't one of them. I would be perfectly comfortable informing the McCann's relatives that I have doubts about their story, but I probably wouldn't be crass enough to do it at a social function unless they raised the matter first, then I would reply.
I would not discuss this case with children except in the simplest of terms. If my children found out details from others I would discuss it with them and make sure they had a balanced view. Hopefully they would be brought up well enough not to bait others at a party and if they did so they would be in trouble with me. (I do have some, the youngest is 46)
It is a rather grand claim I have to say. In most cases police conclusions can only be questioned after the event. The McCann case is very different because people have access to the initial case files. So when Operation Grange cleared 'Tannerman' people were able to point out that he was going the wrong way if he was a dad taking his child home from the creche. When they kind of hinted that the Smith family helped to create the efits shown on Crimewatch the files said different. I see this as a good thing as it may keep the police on their toes and ensure they get their facts right. In fact these two examples suggest to me that the Met. police may have an entirely undeserved reputation as an excellent force! We would know nothing if it wasn't for the internet as the McCanns silenced any doubts expressed by the mainstream media .
Yes Alfred. I'm a lot of things but a coward isn't one of them. I would be perfectly comfortable informing the McCann's relatives that I have doubts about their story, but I probably wouldn't be crass enough to do it at a social function unless they raised the matter first, then I would reply.
I would not discuss this case with children except in the simplest of terms. If my children found out details from others I would discuss it with them and make sure they had a balanced view. Hopefully they would be brought up well enough not to bait others at a party and if they did so they would be in trouble with me. (I do have some, the youngest is 46)
They definitely do have that sense of entitlement however unlikely the result, or else why do they continue to do it?
I think your first paragraph epitomises exactly the flaws in the investigation into Madeleine McCann's case.
for example ... witness statements given in what should have been confidence have been broadcast to all and sundry ... do you have any idea of the risk that represents to clearly identified individuals?
That is something I find quite baffling. Maybe they are Laputans.
I think your first paragraph epitomises exactly the flaws in the investigation into Madeleine McCann's case.
for example ... witness statements given in what should have been confidence have been broadcast to all and sundry ... do you have any idea of the risk that represents to clearly identified individuals?
Do you think the UK system of secrecy is superior then? It allows no rebuttal of nonsense claims by the police, certainly. Many witnesses in many different cases in the UK have had no qualms about speaking to the press and being identified. Many witnesses in this case have spoken to the press but not to the police. I have seen no reports of harm being done to any of the witnesses in this case. Have you?
Do you think it is Portuguese practice to publish case files on the internet?
Do you think breaching the confidentiality of witnesses who had no choice in the matter is acceptable?
They didn't publish them on the internet, they merely provided information for selected journalists?
The persons responsible for putting them on the internet were in breach of the strict Portuguese laws ... it appears these laws have been somewhat brought into disrepute by the fact no-one has been prosecuted for the breach of protocol.
I believe it is the norm for legal personnel and accredited journalists to be shown case files ... can you give another instance involving the publication of such files anywhere?
The persons responsible for putting them on the internet were in breach of the strict Portuguese laws ... it appears these laws have been somewhat brought into disrepute by the fact no-one has been prosecuted for the breach of protocol.
I believe it is the norm for legal personnel and accredited journalists to be shown case files ... can you give another instance involving the publication of such files anywhere?
I didn't know that, and all I can find is a reference to them being released to the public. Do you have a link to anything on the actual law which has been breached?
You may view it as cowardly not to inform perfectly innocent people of your suspicious views regarding their nearest and dearest, I however regard it as a) good manners not to b) none of my business in the first place and c) preferable not to cause distress to others simply for the sake of airing my "doubts" publicly.
The Judicial Secrecy law ??? which subsection it may be I have no idea ... I am sure the information about it will be out there somewhere or perhaps another poster can direct you to it.
From reading, information in case files is given out to interested parties at the discretion of a judge ... if you can provide cites for other instances where case files have ended up on the internet I would be interested, I can find none and can only presume this to be another unique factor in Madeleine McCann's case.
The Judicial Secrecy law ??? which subsection it may be I have no idea ... I am sure the information about it will be out there somewhere or perhaps another poster can direct you to it.
From reading, information in case files is given out to interested parties at the discretion of a judge ... if you can provide cites for other instances where case files have ended up on the internet I would be interested, I can find none and can only presume this to be another unique factor in Madeleine McCann's case.
Some useful info here=
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3835.msg144149#msg144149
You have no idea? Perhaps someone else can direct me to it? You are the one who said;
"The persons responsible for putting them on the internet were in breach of the strict Portuguese laws ... it appears these laws have been somewhat brought into disrepute by the fact no-one has been prosecuted for the breach of protocol"
Surely the one making a statement about a breach of Portugese law is the one who should be directing others to the information upon which they based their declaration?
Thanks is due to Anna for saving the day.
However I am not a jurist and know little of British law as it is applied to the various countries which make up our nation, let alone be capable of citing Portuguese law chapter and verse.
This is surely a discussion forum where one can make a statement which doesn't necessarily have to include studying for a PhD in International Law before hitting a keyboard.
Perhaps we should be grateful that we have both learned something from our own forum tonight.
Old News, but an idea of Kates thoughts about the children a while ago................
Madeleine McCann News: Mother Kate Reveals Internet Abuse As She Prepares To Run Virgin London Marathon
Huffington Post UK | By Sara C Nelson
Posted: 18/04/2013 13:31 BST Updated: 18/04/2013 13:39 BST
Kate McCann has revealed she has been the target of internet trolls as she prepares to take part in Sunday’s London Marathon.
The 45-year-old, who will run to raise funds for the charity Missing People, appeared on ITV’s Daybreak on Thursday.
She said: "We [her and husband Gerry] have obviously had a lot of abuse over the last six years, so in some ways it's nothing new. I think we tend to get a little bit blasé, which is wrong because you shouldn't do because it's bad.
Kate McCann appearing on Thursday's ITV Daybreak
"It is internet abuse and we both feel really strongly that more should be done about internet abuse. People wouldn't get away with behaving like that in the street and yet they feel like they can hide behind a computer at home."
Kate, whose daughter Madeleine vanished from a holiday resort in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007, added that she believes more needs to be done to tackle online abuse.
She continued: "We do have children. Even sometimes when I do think they're cowards and I'm not even going to go there, then I think about my children and I think it's not right that they should come across stuff like that as well."
While Kate did not specify the type of abuse she had been receiving, she may well be reassured to know convictions for internet abuse have more than doubled in the space of five years alongside the enormous growth in popularity of social media sites.
Madeleine McCann has been missing since 2007
Official figures show the number of people found guilty under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 has grown each year from 498 in 2007 to 1,286 in 2011.
Kate, who is also mother to eight-year-old twins Sean and Amelie, also revealed she plans to go ahead with the race despite some recent health issues.
She explained: "It's been quite a slog and I think anybody who attempts a marathon knows there's a lot of training involved.
“And it's gone well really until the last five weeks. I've got a couple of problems, I've had a recurrent Achilles tendon problems…and I’ve also got a problem with the joint in my left foot."
Earlier this week the mother-of-three revealed Speaking to the Telegraph, she said: ““I think I could probably forgive Madeleine’s abductor whatever the circumstances… I can’t change anything and I don’t want to be eaten up by hatred and bitterness.”
She added: “There are moments when you despair, but they are infrequent now. As someone said: It’s not that your burden gets any lighter. It’s just that your legs get stronger. That really sums it up.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/18/madeleine-mccann-news-mother-kate-internet-abuse-virgin-london-marathon_n_3108175.html
The Judicial Secrecy law ??? which subsection it may be I have no idea ... I am sure the information about it will be out there somewhere or perhaps another poster can direct you to it.
From reading, information in case files is given out to interested parties at the discretion of a judge ... if you can provide cites for other instances where case files have ended up on the internet I would be interested, I can find none and can only presume this to be another unique factor in Madeleine McCann's case.
Can't see the problem with releasing the case files myself, considering the fact that the McCanns are 100% innocent, neither persons of interest or suspects & there being not a shred of evidence against them since they had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in Madeleine's disappearance.
Infact, releasing the case files is in Madeleine's best interests.
The innocent abducted child who was taken in a criminal act by a stranger has a better chance of being found if more people are analysing the files....
'Often police do say the name is in the files, it was always there, but you just need other bits of information to come in to highlight the name'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRQQWmpiO3s&t=207
(It was Smithman....... and it's obvious who he was)
I agree. Some people however, have cast doubt on the provenance of the files. If you follow Anna's link there is a long series of posts suggesting tha a dastardly character who was a friend of Goncalo Amaral illegally released the files and may have tampered with them.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3835.msg144149#msg144149
I can't find any reference by the poster to any source which confirms his/her allegations so I have to assume there is none and that the allegations about the files are the poster's opinion only.
Joana Morais is quoted as exposing the dastardly person, as indeed she did. She also said;
The rogatory interviews done with the Tapas 7 in the UK, in April 2008, are legitimate. The DVD process is authentic. The book written by the former coordinator to the case is based on facts pertaining to the investigation - it is there that we should look for the Truth.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id71.html
@Lace
The thread is about 'doubt' not abuse.
I agree...so is calling the mccanns liars.. is accusing them of perjury and fraud......doubt or abuse
You asked if I would be comfortable telling them of my doubts and I said I would, although not at the venue you suggested unless they raised it first. In fact, my good manners would prevent me from raising the subject at all. It would be cowardly of me if they raised the subject and I agreed with whatever they said, but I would probably only speak up if the alternative was to mislead them.So G-Unit, in what sort of venue would you be happy to express your doubts about the McCanns to their nearest and dearest? In the queue at the supermarket perhaps? I see that "good manners would prevent me (ie you) from raising the subject at all", apart that is from on the internet where your manners take a back seat to your "doubts" which you air very publicly and permanently for anyone in the world to see, including perhaps the family of Madeleine McCann. What a strange double standard.
If it's none of your business why are you here?
I'm pleased that you're so concerned about others, but you are involved in the continuing discussion of the case on the internet. That must, by keeping the discussion going, contribute to any distress caused surely? Perhaps you think your support is noticed and appreciated by the McCann family? I would guess they lump us all in together myself.
So G-Unit, in what sort of venue would you be happy to express your doubts about the McCanns to their nearest and dearest? In the queue at the supermarket perhaps? I see that "good manners would prevent me (ie you) from raising the subject at all", apart that is from on the internet where your manners take a back seat to your "doubts" which you air very publicly and permanently for anyone in the world to see, including perhaps the family of Madeleine McCann. What a strange double standard.
What happened to Madeleine McCann isn't really my business, though I am interested to know. I don't however make it my business to point fingers at those I think may be guilty, or to cast aspersions on the honesty of those involved in the case. I do not like seeing people who I perceive to be victims of crime further victimised by internet "doubters" ("bullies" is a better word in my view) and that is why I have challenged such behaviour when I have encountered it. I don't limit my interest to the McCann case in that respect either. I am certainly not labouring under any misapprehension that anything I say or do is given the thumbs up by the McCanns themselves, but nor do I believe that my actions cause them distress. If I were to discover that in fact I was wrong and that my actions WERE a source of distress to the family of Madeleine McCann then I would stop straight away. "Doubters" already KNOW that their actions cause the McCann family distress but they continue anyway. What does that tell you about these people?
Doubt;Yes - doubt is a feeling, expressing your doubt in words day in day out over the course of many years strays very far into the realms of abuse IMO.
A feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction:
some doubt has been cast upon the authenticity of this account
Abuse;
Speak to (someone) in an insulting and offensive way:
the referee was abused by players from both teams
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abuse
that they are not sheep and were taught to think for themselves??So, causing distress to the family of a missing child is a price worth paying for demonstrating (what you perceive to be) your independence of thought, is it?
Yes - doubt is a feeling, expressing your doubt in words day in day out over the course of many years strays very far into the realms of abuse IMO.
For example if I were to write "G-Unit, I doubt that you are a very honest or decent person, and I think you know where the body is hidden" every day on this forum (may be several times a day) for nearly 8 years, would that just be l'il ol' me doubting, or would you feel under attack?
I think I would stop reading the forum. Simple.
Yes - doubt is a feeling, expressing your doubt in words day in day out over the course of many years strays very far into the realms of abuse IMO.
For example if I were to write "G-Unit, I doubt that you are a very honest or decent person, and I think you know where the body is hidden" every day on this forum (may be several times a day) for nearly 8 years, would that just be l'il ol' me doubting, or would you feel under attack?
Yes, they could just not read doubter forums, if it's so upsetting for them.
They could use their time going out & searching instead.
I agree. Some people however, have cast doubt on the provenance of the files. If you follow Anna's link there is a long series of posts suggesting tha a dastardly character who was a friend of Goncalo Amaral illegally released the files and may have tampered with them.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3835.msg144149#msg144149
I can't find any reference by the poster to any source which confirms his/her allegations so I have to assume there is none and that the allegations about the files are the poster's opinion only.
Joana Morais is quoted as exposing the dastardly person, as indeed she did. She also said;
The rogatory interviews done with the Tapas 7 in the UK, in April 2008, are legitimate. The DVD process is authentic. The book written by the former coordinator to the case is based on facts pertaining to the investigation - it is there that we should look for the Truth.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id71.html
@Lace
The thread is about 'doubt' not abuse.
One wonders why, considering the McCanns are in possession of accurate translations, why they don't make them public & dispel the suspicions(which were spawned by the tampered version) of the vicious trolls who attack the family.
It's probably because the inconsistencies are there in both versions really.
So G-Unit, in what sort of venue would you be happy to express your doubts about the McCanns to their nearest and dearest? In the queue at the supermarket perhaps? I see that "good manners would prevent me (ie you) from raising the subject at all", apart that is from on the internet where your manners take a back seat to your "doubts" which you air very publicly and permanently for anyone in the world to see, including perhaps the family of Madeleine McCann. What a strange double standard.
What happened to Madeleine McCann isn't really my business, though I am interested to know. I don't however make it my business to point fingers at those I think may be guilty, or to cast aspersions on the honesty of those involved in the case. I do not like seeing people who I perceive to be victims of crime further victimised by internet "doubters" ("bullies" is a better word in my view) and that is why I have challenged such behaviour when I have encountered it. I don't limit my interest to the McCann case in that respect either. I am certainly not labouring under any misapprehension that anything I say or do is given the thumbs up by the McCanns themselves, but nor do I believe that my actions cause them distress. If I were to discover that in fact I was wrong and that my actions WERE a source of distress to the family of Madeleine McCann then I would stop straight away. "Doubters" already KNOW that their actions cause the McCann family distress but they continue anyway. What does that tell you about these people?
'appeasing loonies.'.
Now I'm sure you know certain websites where the inhabitants are precisely that.
..........and you know who they back. 8(0(*
Off course they could read supporter forums WS but they seem just to be a place to repost sceptic's opinions and sneer so no getting away from posters who doubt there either.
Quite a few as it happens, but I've been away for a few days so the mods have had a break.
They haven't been out searching recently, for the reasons I've given, you could just admit that's the truth, because it is.
I am excusing your ignorance as I think you are winding people up.
They can only follow up sightings or anything that is reported to the call centre or police WS, as in case it has slipped your mind THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE MADELEINE IS.
No, it hasn't slipped my mind, it never entered my mind in the first place, because they do.
I am entitled to an opinion as are you. I can write and write replies to your accusations but I will never convince you of anything, I suspect, because you're RIGHT and I'm WRONG. I would be happy to debate the evidence with you, but you prefer to attack my motives and conclusions instead. I know nothing about what the McCann family feel about doubts being raised concerning the truth of their relatives' story, but I do my utmost to ensure that anything i say is based on evidence (not the mainstream media if possible because, believe it or not, they don't always tell the truth 8(>(().
@Brietta
the files which are alleged to be unreliable.
The files translated by 'volunteers' which we know are not only unreliable but which are incomplete.
However if you prefer to rely on Levy's competence and honour, that is entirely a matter for you, neither the Madeleine fund nor Operation Grange found them fit for purpose.
Rather like the difference between a red top and a sworn affidavit.
Really? Perhaps you could remind me who I was publicly accusing of being a liar who knows where the body is hidden, often and repeatedly - was I accusing a named person or an anonymous internet ID? Perhaps you could stop pissing yourself for a moment to answer... 8)--))
PMSL. I seem to remember you doing just that to a poster on here Alf. Well not for 8 years granted but enough time for you to get a warning @)(++(*
The files translated by 'volunteers' which we know are not only unreliable but which are incomplete.
I am entitled to an opinion as are you. I can write and write replies to your accusations but I will never convince you of anything, I suspect, because you're RIGHT and I'm WRONG. I would be happy to debate the evidence with you, but you prefer to attack my motives and conclusions instead. I know nothing about what the McCann family feel about doubts being raised concerning the truth of their relatives' story, but I do my utmost to ensure that anything i say is based on evidence (not the mainstream media if possible because, believe it or not, they don't always tell the truth 8(>(()."I am entitled" - yes, where have we heard that before?? It is your human right apparently to potentially cause distress to the family of a missing child by your actions and so you shall exercise that supposed right as you see fit - well, bully for you.
@Brietta
the files which are alleged to be unreliable.
&%+((£ But Summers and Swan say they are "quite accurate"?
They are entitled to their opinion.
Quoting opinion as fact again? Cites please.
Are you alleging translations were done mischievously?
Quoting opinion as fact again? Cites please.
Really? Perhaps you could remind me who I was publicly accusing of being a liar who knows where the body is hidden, often and repeatedly - was I accusing a named person or an anonymous internet ID? Perhaps you could stop pissing yourself for a moment to answer... 8)--))
Slippery as ever. By your definition of abuse you abused another poster; does it cease to be abuse because it is with made up names? I rather think not.Firstly - spell out the abuse I am supposed to have meted out. Who was it to, and what did it consist of? Did I libel this individual? Did I accuse them of a heinous crime which had the potential to destroy their real-life reputation? How many times did I abuse this individual? When was this? I have not received a sanction from the Mods for some time, and even then I don't believe it was for being abusive.
So what are your rules then Alf? Lay them out and we will play by them. Or do you just like to make them up as you go along?
Alfred R Jones,
You have received a warning for using inappropriate offensive language in some of your recent posts.
Please moderate your comments in future.
Regards,
The UK Justice Forum - Happy New Year! Team.
The Judicial Secrecy law ??? which subsection it may be I have no idea ... I am sure the information about it will be out there somewhere or perhaps another poster can direct you to it.
From reading, information in case files is given out to interested parties at the discretion of a judge ... if you can provide cites for other instances where case files have ended up on the internet I would be interested, I can find none and can only presume this to be another unique factor in Madeleine McCann's case.
I think we can be sure Stuart Prior wrote a report.
But we don't see it, so the files are incomplete.
Inaccurate?
The prosecutor's report.
Did they say (about the possibility of Madeleine being dead) that that is more likely?
Or did they ask which was more likely?
How does this thread, which is about the distress caused to the McCann family (not just Kate and Gerry) by internet "doubters", demonstrate that Kate and Gerry are MORE distressed by people like you and Amaral, than they are about the fate of their child? Is it not possible that "doubting" activites adds to the distress of losing a child, and can cause further distress to Madeleine's siblings and grandparents, etc?
why would mcann family search online for mcann stuff if they know it would distress them?? use logicHave you ever been the victim of online bullying Carlymichelle?
Have you ever been the victim of online bullying Carlymichelle?
yes i have actully by mcann supporters but i dont read their stuff anymore or i dont let it upset meIt has upset you though hasn't it? It has caused you distress. If you knew there was a facebook page with over 20,000 members slagging you off and mocking you every day you wouldn't have to read it to be upset knowing it even existed. You would feel under attack just knowing it was there, and please don't pretend otherwise.
It has upset you though hasn't it? It has caused you distress. If you knew there was a facebook page with over 20,000 members slagging you off and mocking you every day you wouldn't have to read it to be upset knowing it even existed. You would feel under attack just knowing it was there, and please don't pretend otherwise.
ETA: And how would your parents feel if they knew there was such a page dedicated to ripping your looks and character apart on facebook?
If there is a facebook page with all you say, It should be pulled down! simples!Have you never heard of the Controversy FB page?
Have you never heard of the Controversy FB page?
It has upset you though hasn't it? It has caused you distress. If you knew there was a facebook page with over 20,000 members slagging you off and mocking you every day you wouldn't have to read it to be upset knowing it even existed. You would feel under attack just knowing it was there, and please don't pretend otherwise.
ETA: And how would your parents feel if they knew there was such a page dedicated to ripping your looks and character apart on facebook?
Did Carlymichelle leave three children to go out boozing and eating with their associates and place children in danger ?
For which the tax payer is now paying the bill for ?
So what exactly did Madeleine do??
So what exactly did Madeleine do??
What the hell are you on about ?
My last warning on the forum was received on 1st Jan as follows:
So, I said some rude words in my post-NYE hungover state, but was it directed at an individual? I think not. In any case calling you a f.....g tw.. is not likely to cause you very much distress unless you are an extremely sensitive flower indeed.
Alf, try looking back to October ish last year give or take 4 weeks.You are accusing me of being a hypocrite and an abuser without providing any evidence to back up your claim. Those are rather serious accusations, I suggest you provide the evidence as to who I abused, what I said, how often I abused them etc in order for you to draw any parallels with the sort of abuse I refer to re: the McCanns, or withdraw your accusation and apologise. Is that too intellectual for you?
Call me what you like old son. I was merely pointing out your propensity for doing that which you purportedly abhor. I am sure you will "intellectualise" your way of it however.
Imagine you are one of the McCann children. Imagine one of their classmates comes to school having come across the Controversy Facebook page and confronts you about it. Now use your imagination (and even your logic too, if you possess any) and take the scenario further. Any opportunities for distress to be caused there, in your view?
&%+((£ fancy her blaming little maddie
Do you think they won't have seen the lurid newspaper front pages in the past years? Not many this year but in the past two there have been numerous.The lurid headlines mostly came out before the twins could read. But really, that's besides the point. Distress is not a one off experience. They could have been distressed reading headlines and distressed by the activities of online "doubters".
Are you and allies doing anything about them?
Personally I'd be cheering as much as you if every facebook page disappeared, but you're only telling part of the story (the part that suits your narrative - and you ignore the parts that don't).
There is public interest in this case, and therefore discussion and publication is perfectly valid (assuming it isn't libelous). Like you I'd prefer those discussing didn't include the extremists, but you really can't blame us for them anyway.
Do you think they won't have seen the lurid newspaper front pages in the past years? Not many this year but in the past two there have been numerous.
Are you and allies doing anything about them?
Personally I'd be cheering as much as you if every facebook page disappeared, but you're only telling part of the story (the part that suits your narrative - and you ignore the parts that don't).
There is public interest in this case, and therefore discussion and publication is perfectly valid (assuming it isn't libelous). Like you I'd prefer those discussing didn't include the extremists, but you really can't blame us for them anyway.
8@??)( Well said.No it's not the HiDeHo page - it was one set up after some almighty ruckus on the original doubter page -the one I am referring to has 25,000 members and its members relentlessy criticise and smear the McCanns day in, day out.
@ Alfred. Is the FB page you are referring to the HiDeHo page?
@Brietta
If people thought an efit resembled someone why should they not call CW?
8@??)( Well said.
@ Alfred. Is the FB page you are referring to the HiDeHo page?
@Brietta
If people thought an efit resembled someone why should they not call CW?
The lurid headlines mostly came out before the twins could read. But really, that's besides the point. Distress is not a one off experience. They could have been distressed reading headlines and distressed by the activities of online "doubters".
Attempts have definitely been made to flag up sites like Controversy, both to FB and the MSM (as well you know) - it hasn't made a blind bit of difference. Obviously the only hope is that 20,000 plus people have a collective Damascene moment of realisation that what they're doing does cause distress to innocent people like the twins and their grandparents but I'm definitely not holding my breath over that one.
What part of the story am I not telling by the way?
No, I meant what are you doing about the lurid newspaper front pages. You say Madeleine's brother and sister may see what the nuts on facebook say, but they will already have seen some terrifying front pages (front pages of the Mirror particularly) - why aren't you as concerned about them?Who is this "us" you keep talking about?
That's the part of the story you overlook: the newspapers and other sources the other members of the McCann family will undoubtedly see, which are nothing to do with those on this 'side'.
There is public interest in the case - your appeal for people to cease discussing it is as absurd as it was for those saying nobody should discuss the circumstances of Diana's death (and other high-profile cases).
And you can't blame us for what people may be saying on facebook. It was just about possible to communicate with the more extreme people before last October (some of them at least), but not now. You can blame Sky News and their allies for that, not us.
Who is this "us" you keep talking about?
This thread is about distress caused by publicly "doubting" the McCanns, by anyone in any medium, newspapers included. It is undoubtedly true that the media has been responsible for a huge amount of distress, but does that mean that no distress is caused and perpetuated by online "doubters" too? At least newspapers have some codes of practise they have to abide by and can be sued for damages caused, the same cannot be said for thousands of anonymous "doubters" on a facebook page, and lets face it, much of what they are posting is infinitely nastier and more threatening / intimidating than anything that has ever appeared in any newspaper.
You say that but some of the Mirror frontpages in the past couple of years terrified me, so goodness knows what they'd do to someone closely involved in this matter.
You keep mentioning what they're saying on facebook - what do you think we can do about it?
'Us' is the collective 'sceptics'.
You say that but some of the Mirror frontpages in the past couple of years terrified me, so goodness knows what they'd do to someone closely involved in this matter.
You keep mentioning what they're saying on facebook - what do you think we can do about it?
'Us' is the collective 'sceptics'.
You say that but some of the Mirror frontpages in the past couple of years terrified me, so goodness knows what they'd do to someone closely involved in this matter.Which Mirror front pages have terrified you? We can't do anything about facebook, I thought I'd made that clear several times, nor am I demanding that something is done, what makes you think otherwise?
You keep mentioning what they're saying on facebook - what do you think we can do about it?
'Us' is the collective 'sceptics'.
I think one of the main emotions missing from people who so unthinkingly cause distress is empathy.
But there are also those who put a great deal of thought into it indeed.
I know, and what Sky News and their allies did gave those people a big boost.
You can't blame us.
what they did to brenda caused many distress except mcann supporters who said she deserved what she got
Which Mirror front pages have terrified you? We can't do anything about facebook, I thought I'd made that clear several times, nor am I demanding that something is done, what makes you think otherwise?
I know, and what Sky News and their allies did gave those people a big boost.
You can't blame us.
Lyall, you seem like a reasonably sensible chap and that makes you one of a minuscule minority in my opinion. Were I you I would not be so keen to align myself with a lumpen herd by including myself in the we and us to whom you refer.
You run the risk of being jointly and severally tarred with the same stick.
Lyall, you seem like a reasonably sensible chap and that makes you one of a minuscule minority in my opinion. Were I you I would not be so keen to align myself with a lumpen herd by including myself in the we and us to whom you refer.
You run the risk of being jointly and severally tarred with the same stick.
This one for instance.that headline does not cast doubt on the McCanns version of events. This thread is about publicly doubting the McCanns and does it cause distress. I'm not ofering solutions to this issue, simply asking questions, I hope that's OK with you?
(http://s14.postimg.org/n3nodw4y9/Mirror_fp5.jpg)
I'm wondering why you keep mentioning facebook chat when we all agree there's nothing we can do about extremists there and elsewhere?
that headline does not cast doubt on the McCanns version of events. This thread is about publicly doubting the McCanns and does it cause distress. I'm not ofering solutions to this issue, simply asking questions, I hope that's OK with you?
One..because they have given us no reason not to believe them...Gerry scratching his ear doesn't count but it seems to be some kind of proof to you
Why should you believe the mccanns ?
How do you know they told the truth?
One..because they have given us no reason not to believe them...Gerry scratching his ear doesn't count but it seems to be some kind of proof to you
'align myself with a lumpen herd'
You already have.
A very small band who support the mccanns with abject devotion.
Lumpens are apparently large bovine creatures, similar to Yaks, which inhabit the plains of Silesia.
Later
Oxford Dictionaries
Definition of lumpen in English:
adjective
Example
The lumpen s..m whose abuse made him flip the finger last Monday night, at the end of the England game, know exactly what Becks is about.
Glad to have raised some speculation about the meaning and use of a word in our language ... above is an example of exactly what I intended ... I would never, never insult a bovine creature with comparison to the herd I have in mind.
I was thinking more along the lines of people who are content to post bile on the internet, organise themselves into like minded groups which take pleasure in abusing the family of a missing child for eight years ... and think it is appropriate behaviour to which they are entitled.
Lumpens are apparently large bovine creatures, similar to Yaks, which inhabit the plains of Silesia.
Later
Couldn't find that definition but given the context how about this;
used to describe people who are not clever or well educated, and who are not interested in changing or improving their situation:
the lumpen proletariat (= unskilled working people)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/lumpen
Not that any of them apply to me, I am clever and well-educated and I can prove it. At the age of 40 I returned to education and got 2 A Levels and one O Level in one year (All 'A's) and then a 2-1 from the University of Warwick, which is in the top 10 of UK universities. This improved my situation quite well. 8((()*/
Oxford Dictionaries
Definition of lumpen in English:
adjective
Example
The lumpen s..m whose abuse made him flip the finger last Monday night, at the end of the England game, know exactly what Becks is about.
Glad to have raised some speculation about the meaning and use of a word in our language ... above is an example of exactly what I intended ... I would never, never insult a bovine creature with comparison to the herd I have in mind.
I was thinking more along the lines of people who are content to post bile on the internet, organise themselves into like minded groups which take pleasure in abusing the family of a missing child for eight years ... and think it is appropriate behaviour to which they are entitled.
Couldn't find that definition but given the context how about this;
used to describe people who are not clever or well educated, and who are not interested in changing or improving their situation:
the lumpen proletariat (= unskilled working people)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/lumpen
Not that any of them apply to me, I am clever and well-educated and I can prove it. At the age of 40 I returned to education and got 2 A Levels and one O Level in one year (All 'A's) and then a 2-1 from the University of Warwick, which is in the top 10 of UK universities. This improved my situation quite well. 8((()*/
'align myself with a lumpen herd'
You already have.
A very small band who support the mccanns with abject devotion.
In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. We are curious but cautious.
Michael Shermer
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/closed-minded.html#tXc0sLc7K12Vy6zZ.99
You liked that one Stephen?
*&(+(+
@ Brietta. Is that what you were suggesting Lyall was in danger of becoming? I have seen no bile or abuse being posted by Lyall or anyone else on here.
You and Alfie keep mentioning these group when I think we all agree none of them are here, so what is the aim if it isn't to smear us with their behaviour?
You'll note that nobody keeps posting that one of the two forums supporting Madeleine's parents was shut down and erased because of its behaviour.
We don't mention it because it's not relevant to discussion here. Neither is your mentioning of facebook.
No doubt you are including Sarah Payne's mum, April Jones' mum and Ben Needham's mum in that 'very small band of abject devotees' - as they also support the McCanns.
But hey what do they know compared to you?
Lyall, you seem like a reasonably sensible chap and that makes you one of a minuscule minority in my opinion. Were I you I would not be so keen to align myself with a lumpen herd by including myself in the we and us to whom you refer.
You run the risk of being jointly and severally tarred with the same stick.
Dear commrade,
'Tis you Aflie and davel who have caused the great divide. You call people who are curious,interested but not taking Team McCanns every word as gospel- skeptics, you also imply mental illness regarding posters, using words like stupid etc and now we are a 'lumpen herd' who spew bile and do all other 'terrible things'. You get to decide the 'terrible things' due to your great self believe and own PR that what you say counts, and your opinion matters, which it doesn't. Your self appointed diety on this forum causes much amusement in my house.
Now then about this stick you tarr us with...can we have size, width, and length...
Could I just mention at this point, how would you feel if, say, someone took a stick and tarred the McCanns with other 'low life' drunken, child neglectors?..
It's your stick you can 'tarr' whom you chose... We laugh! We really do!
Dear commrade,
'Tis you Aflie and davel who have caused the great divide. You call people who are curious,interested but not taking Team McCanns every word as gospel- skeptics, you also imply mental illness regarding posters, using words like stupid etc and now we are a 'lumpen herd' who spew bile and do all other 'terrible things'. You get to decide the 'terrible things' due to your great self believe and own PR that what you say counts, and your opinion matters, which it doesn't. Your self appointed diety on this forum causes much amusement in my house.
Now then about this stick you tarr us with...can we have size, width, and length...
Could I just mention at this point, how would you feel if, say, someone took a stick and tarred the McCanns with other 'low life' drunken, child neglectors?..
It's your stick you can 'tarr' whom you chose... We laugh! We really do!
Funny you should raise the subject ...
The Facebook group responsible for the threat to shoot Kate McCann organised twitter attacks on the McCanns linking them to the Philpotts ... who, if you remember burned their house down with their children in it.
Here are one or two examples ...
Viv
@anotherviv
#Philpott was not bothered his kids were dead,inspired by the likes of cashgrabbers #McCann he figured they could make him even more £££ now
https://twitter.com/anotherviv/status/321040108730068992
Rothley Pillowcase™
@RothleyPillow
@GILLYSPOT Tragic Knowing #McCann s had CASH sent willy nilly through the post, addressed to 'K8 & Gerry' > is how #Philpott s were inspired
MOM OF TWO @GILLYSPOT 7 Apr 2013
@RothleyPillow Nor did Karen #Matthews care about #Shannon -whilst the poor child was lying drugged under a bed in her friends house #McCann
1 retweet 2 favourites
https://twitter.com/RothleyPillow/status/321031416618029060
Must have been some reason or other to organise themselves like that ... wonder if it might have been to add as much distress to Madeleine McCann's family as they were capable of.
Tut, tut, Brietta. Smearing us with the Pillowcase brush &%&£(+
So easy to do it's meaningless
The shooting 'threat' was some fool posting late at night/early in the morning likely under the influence of something, and you know it.
Some of the twitter folk are more concerning, I'll agree.
But they're not here 8**8:/:
You don't think there have been copycat cases to benefit from sympathy/cash then?
I know the shooting threat was discussed on the Facebook page I have mentioned ... as well as running alongside Dr Kate McCann dressed as spaniels ... which was the best part of the route to jump out on her with Madeleine masks on etc. etc.
Disgracefully action was only taken against Sheila Bashar by the police because Dr McCann refused to withdraw from the Marathon in the way she has been forced to withdraw from book signing appearances ... couldn't run the risk of having the Marathon disrupted could we?
I expect that publicly doubting the McCanns does add to the distress of the McCann family. For almost eight years the McCann couple have steadfastly denied playing any part in the disappearance of their daughter. They have acted to silence anyone who suggested they may have been involved.
It must be distressing for the couple and their families that despite all their efforts people still doubt their story. These people don't work in the media and a lot of them post about their doubts on the internet for all to see. Lots of them do it under pseudonyms. There are some who attack the couple personally, but there are others who discuss the evidence in an impersonal manner. These are ordinary people and are very difficult to silence. There are also bloggers writing fairly hard hitting blogs but they don't seem to be breaking any laws as they are still there.
Should all these people keep their opinions to themselves because airing them in public is likely to cause distress? The media have never considered this to be a reason not to print a story. So long as it breaks no laws and is not libelous they have 'printed and be damned'. Why should this not apply to ordinary people who now have a platform where they can express their opinions? Is it disliked because it's anonymous? Those who abuse the online doubters are also anonymous. Perhaps both sides should 'come out of the closet and use their own names?
Perhaps the question we should be asking is why people began to have doubts and why they still have them almost eight years on?
IMO it's simply not true to claim the McCanns silence anyone who suggest they were involved in their daughter's disappearance. There are people making that very claim - unchecked - on a daily basis and have done for years.
IMO many of the doubts began because of the massive lies printed in the press in 2007. Even 8 years on - there are still people who believe them. Many many more lies and myths have been added since then - also firmly believed by some as being the truth.
A quick read round other fora shows that to be the case.
Not true Brietta but of course it was all before your * cough* time so perhaps you're a bout sketchy on the details.
The police did not take action against Sheila Bashier. Mrs Bashier had a friendly chat with a policeman over the phone, apologised for her inappropriate comment, the police saw she was no threat and that was that. Kate McCann was asked to and AFIIAAW didn't consider withdrawing from the race.
In fact the twins accompanied Kate to London and stood at the finishing line to greet her as she finished. Do you think she would have done this if she thought there was any risk ?
I know the shooting threat was discussed on the Facebook page I have mentioned ... as well as running alongside Dr Kate McCann dressed as spaniels ... which was the best part of the route to jump out on her with Madeleine masks on etc. etc.
Disgracefully action was only taken against Sheila Bashar by the police because Dr McCann refused to withdraw from the Marathon in the way she has been forced to withdraw from book signing appearances ... couldn't run the risk of having the Marathon disrupted could we?
Given KM's marathon time is < 4 hours - good luck with that.
It means that a couple of poor sceptics were going to have to finish their KFC breakfast, drag themselves off the daytime TV sofa, put on their lycra onesies and run a marathon in less than 4 hours. I would pay good money to see that.
Sigh ... never thought of that JP ... silly me!! No excuses for that oversight either ... because I have seen some of their photographs.
Do they even make lycra onesies in those sizes?
Indeed Benice but that is true on both sides of the divide.
So what lies and long discredited myths about this case have 'supporters' been trotting out on a daily basis for the last 8 years?
Maybe the whitewash brush is more in style for you, Lyall, but in my book people who deliberately plot to cause distress to the family of a missing child have lost the plot somewhere down the line.
I am afraid they were and are far more in your camp than in mine; obviously they don't think it is "meaningless" or why do it and continue to do it by sending alerts to comment on particular newspaper articles and Crime Watch programmes? ... and that is not quite the point anyway, it is the fact they do it at all - have been doing it for nearly eight years now - have consistently attacked one family.
IMO you demean yourself by attempting to defend such activities.
Defend them?
She is a true mccann supporter.
Only thinking about the parents
You will have to be more concise in your definition of trolling before accusing me of it, Lyall ... not that I'm impressed by your gratuitous insult, it doesn't take away from your defence of the indefensible.
There are people who seem to have no better aim in life than using the internet to cause as much distress as they possibly can to the family of a missing child.
As far as I can see they justify their attacks by using long disproved lies leaked from someone in the original botched investigation ... and delight in newspaper articles such as the one from which my cites are taken advocating criticism of the 'expense' of investigating the case of a missing child at what is probably the 11th hour and made necessary through the incompetence of the initial investigation.
**snip
"First we had a series of Portuguese police investigations, the ineptitude of which is well documented."
"Occupying a large office at New Scotland Yard, the Met’s ‘Madeleine Squad’ have spent four years painstakingly re-examining the botched Portuguese investigation."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008479/Yes-s-time-stopped-looking-Maddie-police-boss-says-10m-hunt-end-DAVID-JONES-s-reported-case-eight-years-explains-heavy-heart-agrees.html#ixzz3VJH5rJyN
Yes, we know this, Brietta. But what do you expect us here to do about idiots there, there and there? Repeatedly mentioning them here can only have one aim since we're as powerless to do owt about it as you are.
Your opinion, however mean and nasty I may consider it, is irrelevant.
It is my experience that you make inflammatory personal comment which you cannot substantiate ... still waiting for the pejorative cite from yesterday about Dr McCann's mental health, remember.
How many times have you used your mantra blaming the McCann parenting for her disappearance in the past few years ... is that ...
(a) to remind yourself
(b) to remind others
(c) because you can't think of anything else even verging on the truth to criticise them for
(d) in the hope of continuing to heap distress on the family of a missing child
(e) or to demonstrate your concern for Madeleine ??
I have not aligned myself with 'them' ... from what I have read and seen 'they' are characters who I would cross the street to avoid if I saw them coming.
I am not an apologist for 'them' ... and 'they' are vigorously defended.
Apart from that it is out with my understanding to deliberately add distress to anyone, particularly the family of a missing child and keep up a vitriolic campaign exercising my right to express my 'doubts' on every public forum I have access to, based on nothing better than deliberately false information which I know to be false.
Ostracising 'them' completely might be a step towards making 'them' think about what 'they' are doing ...
Do you really think 'their' excesses should not be highlighted and scrutinised?
Marathon gun nut’s threat to kill Kate
Cops probe vile web death threat to mum of missing Madeleine
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4845647/Marathon-gun-nuts-threat-to-kill-Kate-McCann.html
Delighted to hear it was all sorted after a friendly little phone call.
You have other locations available where you can let off steam and/or track what those groups are up to.
It's really not relevant here.
You have other locations available where you can let off steam and/or track what those groups are up to.
It's really not relevant here.
Me too Brietta. Unfortunately we know from bitter experience how these things can get out of hand ( btw loving your use of the Sun article as a 'reliable source'. You were being ironic, weren't you ? )
Stud Muffin?
Sorry?
Am I reading that correctly?
Surely you ... as a true believer in "freedom of speech" ... are not suggesting that I pack up my keyboard and wander off?
Sometimes the mask slips, Lyall: the subject of this thread refers to those whose "doubting" is adding distress to the McCann family ... so which of my posts do you think irrelevant to that?
Or may it be that you are uncomfortable with what I am saying which is why you seem to be suggesting this is not the place to be saying it.
IMO it's simply not true to claim the McCanns silence anyone who suggest they were involved in their daughter's disappearance. There are people making that very claim - unchecked - on a daily basis and have done for years.
IMO many of the doubts began because of the massive lies printed in the press in 2007. Even 8 years on - there are still people who believe them. Many many more lies and myths have been added since then - also firmly believed by some as being the truth.
A quick read round other fora shows that to be the case.
I love the way you pick one statement from a post. OK. The McCanns silenced the UK Media and are coming to the end of an attempt to silence people in Portugal. As I said, they can't silence opinions expressed online quite so easily. Anyone who believes everything the press say is an unthinking sheep, in my opinion. I don't know what the many many lies and myths are, so can't comment. No-one, not even you, knows the truth of what happened in PdL. Some people believe the McCann's version of events, others doubt it.
I started this thread simply to ask the question does publicly doubting the McCanns add to their distress and to the distress of their nearest and dearest. Most people who have commented on this thread seem to be of the opinion that it probably does, but for some, knowing that their actions may cause distress to csiblngs and grandparents, aunts and uncles of Madeleine McCann, this is not incentive enough to stop their online activities (which are not in many cases limited to this forum). And there we have it. Draw your own conclusions....
Conclusions have already been drawn about your unmitigated one sided support of the mccanns.
You are perpetuating a myth...the mccanns have silenced no one...it is the law of the land which has silenced some....do you want us to suspend the law of libel just so that it does not apply..Who do you imagine believes EVERYTHING the press say...most of us read the press critically. As far as I am concerned it is the unthinking sheep who have believed what they have raed in the press who are on here criticising the McCanns. The archiving report in the files...says that there is no evidence of criminal behaviour..or words to that effect by the MCCanns...do you believe that
The law never concluded that the media had libelled the McCanns, it never reached court. It did in Portugal and very few of their claims were proved. I never said people believe everything the press say, Brietta did, and so have you! The report said that the result of the refusal by the McCann's friends to return for a reconstruction had this effect;
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
I started this thread simply to ask the question does publicly doubting the McCanns add to their distress and to the distress of their nearest and dearest. Most people who have commented on this thread seem to be of the opinion that it probably does, but for some, knowing that their actions may cause distress to csiblngs and grandparents, aunts and uncles of Madeleine McCann, this is not incentive enough to stop their online activities (which are not in many cases limited to this forum). And there we have it. Draw your own conclusions....
IMO it's simply not true to claim the McCanns silence anyone who suggest they were involved in their daughter's disappearance. There are people making that very claim - unchecked - on a daily basis and have done for years.
IMO many of the doubts began because of the massive lies printed in the press in 2007. Even 8 years on - there are still people who believe them. Many many more lies and myths have been added since then - also firmly believed by some as being the truth.
A quick read round other fora shows that to be the case.
It will never stop entirely, whatever the future holds event-wise. But why would they read any of it? The case is discussed on Icke's forum but I'll bet very few of us bother reading it. Those involved in the case will surely just treat all discussion like we treat that in Ickeland, and ignore it. Why would they read facebook groups? Do you? I don't. Why would they?I have already explained that it doesn't require for those family members to actively seek out and read that shit themselves for it to potentially cause distress. The aim of groups such as the facebook page Controversy and twitter is to recruit new "sceptics" and to spread their hateful agenda as far and as wide as possible. These people actively latch onto other public interest stories in order to advertise their "doubts" about the McCanns. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that at school and at university (as an example) the twins will encounter people who have come across these fanatical posts and take great delight in using them to taunt, bully and mock two perfectly innocent young people. I'm not for one second suggesting that there is anything that can be done about it mind you, I just think it's another facet of this tragedy worth considering. Sorry if you do not.
I have already explained that it doesn't require for those family members to actively seek out and read that shit themselves for it to potentially cause distress. The aim of groups such as the facebook page Controversy and twitter is to recruit new "sceptics" and to spread their hateful agenda as far and as wide as possible. These people actively latch onto other public interest stories in order to advertise their "doubts" about the McCanns. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that at school and at university (as an example) the twins will encounter people who have come across these fanatical posts and take great delight in using them to taunt, bully and mock two perfectly innocent young people. I'm not for one second suggesting that there is anything that can be done about it mind you, I just think it's another facet of this tragedy worth considering. Sorry if you do not.
Give over, you're just using the thread to come out with gems like "some of the campaigns have actively tried to derail Operation Grange from its inception".
It's agenda-driven nonsense.
I have already explained that it doesn't require for those family members to actively seek out and read that shit themselves for it to potentially cause distress. The aim of groups such as the facebook page Controversy and twitter is to recruit new "sceptics" and to spread their hateful agenda as far and as wide as possible. These people actively latch onto other public interest stories in order to advertise their "doubts" about the McCanns. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that at school and at university (as an example) the twins will encounter people who have come across these fanatical posts and take great delight in using them to taunt, bully and mock two perfectly innocent young people. I'm not for one second suggesting that there is anything that can be done about it mind you, I just think it's another facet of this tragedy worth considering. Sorry if you do not.
There is no doubt I will have provenance for any "agenda driven nonsense" I have posted .
Rather than showing yourself up in what I believe are your true colours by demanding my silence, why don't you make a counter argument to refute?
If you have any case at all, what I say should be easy enough to contest
It's nonsense not because you're wrong about what some people may have done (you may be right, I don't know) but because they never had the slightest chance of ever having the slightest influence on Home Office or the Met. Your rhetoric gives these people/groups too much importance, something they'll thank you for actually.
Will you kindly explain why my posts are such that alone of all the members of the forum you have suggested I go away?
Why do you think you have licence to behave like that?
I have as much right to highlight abuse which leads to distress for the targets of that abuse as you have to downplay the actions of the perpetrators.
If you disagree with the aims of this forum why don't you consider applying what you advised for me to yourself?
@)(++(* @ Downplay. It's you - as I said to Alfie - who are encouraging those people by making them sound more substantial than they are. But that's your business.we discuss many groups and individuals associated with this case who are not represented here, so why not these groups? In any case, who is to say that members of some of the groups we are discussing do not also post here (though they may prefer not to admit it)?
Those groups are not represented here, so why discuss them here. That's all I said.
we discuss many groups and individuals associated with this case who are not represented here, so why not these groups? In any case, who is to say that members of some of the groups we are discussing do not also post here (though they may prefer not to admit it)?
@)(++(* @ Downplay. It's you - as I said to Alfie - who are encouraging those people by making them sound more substantial than they are. But that's your business.
Those groups are not represented here, so why discuss them here. That's all I said.
This is my last post on the subject ... this happens to be a discussion forum ... which I think is probably unique in allowing all points of view to be aired ... and should be treasured as such.
You may not have noticed ... 'those people' need absolutely no encouragement from me or any one else to spout their bile ... they have been doing it for many years and they will continue to do it for many years more under various cheerleaders and against whoever takes their fancy at the time ... unless the law curbs the ringleaders.
I think the most valuable lesson for anyone reading this exchange today may be the exposure you have given to yourself.
we discuss many groups and individuals associated with this case who are not represented here, so why not these groups? In any case, who is to say that members of some of the groups we are discussing do not also post here (though they may prefer not to admit it)?
Because if the position was reversed and I or others started talking about the activity of other groups (who are represented here, but never mentioned) the posts/threads would be deleted.Then your beef is with the forum owner, not me. What sort of activities are you wanting to discuss that you are not allowed to anyway? Can you give me a "for instance"?* As this thread is about publicly doubting the McCanns then it's probably not all that relevant to the thread. Why not try and start a thread to discuss the activities of these other groups that you feel are worthy of discussion.
why do you care what other groups people belong too peoples online actives are none of your buissness either are other peoples opinions the mcanns put themselves in the spotlight with ther child neglect that is everybodys buisness
Then your beef is with the forum owner, not me. What sort of activities are you wanting to discuss that you are not allowed to anyway? Can you give me a "for instance"?* As this thread is about publicly doubting the McCanns then it's probably not all that relevant to the thread. Why not try and start a thread to discuss the activities of these other groups that you feel are worthy of discussion.
*Do you mean stuff like "paid keyboard chimps and shills", that kind of thing? @)(++(*
why do you care what other groups people belong too peoples online actives are none of your buissness either are other peoples opinions the mcanns put themselves in the spotlight with ther child neglect that is everybodys buisness
Anyone who believes everything the press say is an unthinking sheep is what you said..
The archiving report never requested the McCAnns to PROVE their innocence...they didn't use the word provar they used the word comprovar...which means to demonstrate...it's a bad transaltion which I picked up...wonder how many more there are
I have already explained that it doesn't require for those family members to actively seek out and read that shit themselves for it to potentially cause distress. The aim of groups such as the facebook page Controversy and twitter is to recruit new "sceptics" and to spread their hateful agenda as far and as wide as possible. These people actively latch onto other public interest stories in order to advertise their "doubts" about the McCanns. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that at school and at university (as an example) the twins will encounter people who have come across these fanatical posts and take great delight in using them to taunt, bully and mock two perfectly innocent young people. I'm not for one second suggesting that there is anything that can be done about it mind you, I just think it's another facet of this tragedy worth considering. Sorry if you do not.
It's a bit like when Princess Diana died. Some of the rumours at the time must have upset her sons and their family.
Wonder how many sites were set up to 'doubt bomb' members of the Royal family, the Fayeds,or even the Princess herself. How many FOI requests have there been or petitions started for public inquiries for whatever hobby horse someone may be on at the time?
The conspiracy theories were legion at the time and are still to be found on the internet but do we still have ongoing blogs etc 'updating' themselves constantly on the events of 1997 dedicated to denigrating and making the most horrid accusations about the families of the victims?
Is there a # on twitter where 'truth seekers' and 'doubters' keep in touch to discuss their targets of choice and arrange campaigns against them?
The organised campaigns to cause distress against the McCann family, with their sometime designated obstruction to aspects of the investigation into Madeleine's case itself, are an aberration ... but when one takes a look at some of the main players who include in their ranks an axe murderer and an abuser of the elderly, one has to step back in amazement and realise just why it is such a nasty, pitiless gathering together of negativity.
Well you obviously care as most of your posts are slagging of supporters. Why don't you ignore them - if IYO it's nobody's business what other people think. Your accusation of child neglect is libellous. If you don't think the hundreds of thousands of other parents who have adopted the same child checking arrangements as the McCanns (i.e. they leave their children alone and asleep in their apartments while they go off to dinner) are also child neglectors - then IMO you need to explain why not - or stop making such libellous claims.
The Portuguese authorities stated that for an offence of neglect to have been committed an 'intent to abandon' would need to be proved. The regular checking ruled that out.
Steady! Take a pause for breath Brietta. You seem to think everyone who has a different opinion on this case than yours are members of some cohesive 'group' who all agree. Do you, as a 'pro' agree with everything other '[ censored word ]' do and say then?
You made the comparison ... however you are unable to indicate a comparable h*te campaign directed at any member of Princess Diana's family ... doesn't that tell you something? (rhetorical question)
You made the comparison ... however you are unable to indicate a comparable h*te campaign directed at any member of Princess Diana's family ... doesn't that tell you something? (rhetorical question)
Not at members of Diana's family, no.
Charles's family though is another matter entirely.
But the two cases are different and particularly in one very obvious way: Diana wasn't 3 yrs old.
Diana wasn't, obviously, but the princes were - and the twins are still - children and quite likely to be distressed by unsubstantiated headlines and social media, although quite probably to a lesser extent during the princes' childhood than that of the twins.
Diana wasn't, obviously, but the princes were - and the twins are still - children and quite likely to be distressed by unsubstantiated headlines and social media, although quite probably to a lesser extent during the princes' childhood than that of the twins.
Not at members of Diana's family, no.
Charles's family though is another matter entirely.
But the two cases are different and particularly in one very obvious way: Diana wasn't 3 yrs old.
In the cases of Diana's children they lived through a long period when speculation was open and not restricted in the media - particularly in one unapologetic, very determined newspaper (but not restricted to that one paper).
That's not true in the McCann case, not since 2008.
I disagree with that statement in it's entirety. We do not know the full facts about the young princes lives. The twins mother were not hounded to death by the press.(levinson was a tester) AND they did not have to be pulled from the comfort of royal privacy protection to grieve, as they had to have a public show to put on. Which to this day disgusts me!
Sadly, the twins will,if not already, grief for their sister.
I did not make the comparison ... but Diana did leave two boys behind who were exposed to the coverage of her death complete with conspiracy theories involving their nearest and dearest.
Quite obviously the cases are entirely different ... unless you know of h*te sites and twitter # which were still playing ground hog day eight years after the event.
I agree that the princes may have suffered from relentless media speculation for longer (assuming that they weren't entirely protected from seeing anything in the media) - and, of course, were older than the twins were over the period of the UK anti-McCann media blitz.
However, access to online MSM and SM has changed enormously since then (both in terms of platforms and accessibility), and that affects even relatively young children.
Sorry, I'm not sure I've understood what you're saying.
It is not libel it is fact.[/color] It isn't a nice terminology, but it would be argued they did abandon their children-even for brief periods.
Maddie was abandoned, left to her own defence- proved
The 'checking' was listening, not physically checking, even though they claimed they were going into the apartment to'check'- The timescales being changed, and forgotten very quickly, suggests the checks were not as regular as is suggested.
It certainly is libellous to state the McCanns are guilty of child neglect as a fact - unless of course you can provide the evidence of them being arrested, charged and found guilty of that crime?
'Child neglect' is an opinion not a fact, and certainly not one that will be shared by any those parents who have also left their children asleep in their rooms and gone off to have their evening meal when on holiday - knowing they will be checked. Parents whose existence sceptics always studiously ignore.
Fortunately SY - being professional experienced policemen - will not expect the McCanns or anyone else to remember every move they made - or the exact time they did everything - or how long it took them - down to the last second. Neither will they expect people to have identical memories of the same events. In fact if there were no discrepancies between so many people - that would be suspicious as it would suggest collusion. But what do they know - they are only the experts.
It certainly is libellous to state the McCanns are guilty of child neglect as a fact - unless of course you can provide the evidence of them being arrested, charged and found guilty of that crime?
'Child neglect' is an opinion not a fact, and certainly not one that will be shared by any those parents who have also left their children asleep in their rooms and gone off to have their evening meal when on holiday - knowing they will be checked. Parents whose existence sceptics always studiously ignore.
Fortunately SY - being professional experienced policemen - will not expect the McCanns or anyone else to remember every move they made - or the exact time they did everything - or how long it took them - down to the last second. Neither will they expect people to have identical memories of the same events. In fact if there were no discrepancies between so many people - that would be suspicious as it would suggest collusion. But what do they know - they are only the experts.
The parents left Maddie to fend for herself against many dangers in a strange country DESPITE Maddie letting her parents know they woke up and there was crying and asked where they were. Kate n Gerry ignored this warning. and left those children alone. Just because they were not charged, found guilty in a court of law neither were they charged and found INNOCENT.
The parents said the made a bad error, now why do you try and white wash it when they have admitted it themselves!
It was neglect of duty as parents.
I can tell you this for nothing- if they in their capacity as Doctors ina NHS clinic were to fail their duty of care, which resulted in harm to a patient, they would be struck off and on one instance has happened, that I know of, be charged and jailed for man slaughter.
So spare us the 'they did nothing wrong song' it doesn't sit well with many people I know.
The law doesn’t say an age when you can leave a child on their own, but it’s an offence to leave a child alone if it places them at risk.
Use your judgement on how mature your child is before you decide to leave them alone.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) says:
children under 12 are rarely mature enough to be left alone for a long period of time
children under 16 shouldn’t be left alone overnight
babies, toddlers and very young children should never be left alone
https://www.gov.uk/law-on-leaving-your-child-home-alone
Seems clear enough to me, regardless of how many do it.
what are you trying to prove...this has been gone over endless times...
There was No Intent to Neglect. I believe that this is what The Final Report said.
So who was supposed to have been crying? Madeleine? The Twins? Madeleine and The Twins. Madeleine and one of The Twins?
Only Madeleine on the Tue according to Pamela Fenn. On Wed none according to Rachel who stayed in that night next door to the children's room.
So who was supposed to have been crying? Madeleine? The Twins? Madeleine and The Twins. Madeleine and one of The Twins?
So who was Madeleine talking about? And when?
Does it matter? The point is that leaving the children alone and possibly crying is important to the thread because it led to the first doubts and criticisms of the parents. In my opinion an unequivocal admission that they had done wrong may have ended the criticism. The punishment for leaving the children alone was obviously out of proportion, but it's certain that nothing could have happened to Madeleine between 8.30pm and 10pm that evening had her parents or a baby sitter been in the apartment with her.
Does it matter? The point is that leaving the children alone and possibly crying is important to the thread because it led to the first doubts and criticisms of the parents. In my opinion an unequivocal admission that they had done wrong may have ended the criticism. The punishment for leaving the children alone was obviously out of proportion, but it's certain that nothing could have happened to Madeleine between 8.30pm and 10pm that evening had her parents or a baby sitter been in the apartment with her.
exactly and people condone what the mcanns did i will never understand it
The rest of the group have had some criticism but not as much as their apartments were secured. It's hard for me to believe that those who seem to be the fittest members of the group were also too lazy to go round the corner to their locked front door like everyone else. The other two couples would have saved time too if they had left their patio doors unlocked but they didn't do it.
Actually it could...children have been abducted even when parents have been in the house
Yes, they shouldn't have left the doors unlocked or left the children at all in my opinion. They have said it is something they will have to live with for the rest of their lives, does that not sound as though they are sorry for what they did? Can you honestly believe that they are not full of guilt for doing what they did and are trying to put it right by campaigning to have the investigation opened so that Madeleine hopefully can be found? How can anyone not see parents who are suffering because of what they did?
I don't see how keeping on having a go at them for what they did is going to change anything, apart from hurting them even more which I think is what a lot want to do.
They "keep on having a go at them" because they have absolutely nothing else to 'justify' their relentless animus.
And she may not have been in the apartment before dinner that night when the last sighting was at 5:30. Why do you think they asked David Payne about whether Gerry owned a tennis bag?
"There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything'' (DP)
Well yes. To be abducted a child has to be present.
@Brietta. In the context of the thread the leaving of the children was what started it.
So who was supposed to have been crying? Madeleine? The Twins? Madeleine and The Twins. Madeleine and one of The Twins?
There's at least one thread about that. I'm not convinced that Mrs Fenn heard only one child from a single apartment that evening. Unfortunately, as the PJ took so long to interview her and didn't verify it by cross-referencing or conducting sound tests, no one will ever know.
She clearly said one child in her statement.
"She also said that she never told the McCann's that she had heard their daughter crying previously on 1st May because she thought it would just increase their suffering."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
we have another witness clearly stating that the alarm was raised at 9.20....how accurate do you think MrsFenns recall is
Very accurate. Kate made a series of 5 phone calls just prior to the crying started. They were probably deleted along with other ones. They couldn't function they said but could delete phone calls and stop supermarket deliveries back home.What are you on about?
What are you on about?
Very accurate. Kate made a series of 5 phone calls just prior to the crying started. They were probably deleted along with other ones. They couldn't function they said but could delete phone calls and stop supermarket deliveries back home.
I know you can delete a message ... how do you delete phone calls?
Kate made a series of phone calls in the apartment and probably woke Madeleine up. Is that too hard for you to connect?Why wouldn't she have been functioning at that point?
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ping/phonemapKate1mei.jpg)
I know you can delete a message ... how do you delete phone calls?
Why wouldn't she have been functioning at that point?
What are you on about? This was Tue 1st May phone records.your words:
22:16
22:23
22:24
22:25
22:27
Madeleine reported to have started crying at around 22:30 by Pamela Fenn in the apartment above.
your words:
" They couldn't function they said but could delete phone calls and stop supermarket deliveries back home". They couldn't function in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, but you seem to be suggesting they were phoning the supermarket during this period. So, what are you on about?
Kate cancelled the supermarket delivery back home on 4 May according to Mrs Kennedy. Phone log records were found to be deleted including phone calls on the night Maddy disappeared. I delete texts but never log records.Kate did not call the supermarket did she? It was something she asked Mrs Kennedy to do for her, perhaps in response to her offer to help in any way she could. As for the deleted phone calls, yawn - how many times is this going to be discussed? Did these deleted calls make it into the Final Report as evidence of any wrong doing?
Kate did not call the supermarket did she? It was something she asked Mrs Kennedy to do for her, perhaps in response to her offer to help in any way she could. As for the deleted phone calls, yawn - how many times is this going to be discussed? Did these deleted calls make it into the Final Report as evidence of any wrong doing?
I think this is the usual "I would not have done it, so anyone who does must be dodgy"
I have had a mobile phone for 30 years and only ever delete messages when I run out of space.
Whilst 'er indoors' deletes everything as soon as she read it.
Different strokes
We're not talking about text messages.
text messages, incoming and outgoing call records, email - what difference does it make. Some people are meticulous about deleting, some are not.
And with telepcommunications, everything leaves a trace anyway.
I also remeber a lotof discussion about the apparent lack of credit / debit cards, which fed another frenzy of suspicion - based on lack of ability to read a credit report.
Ill bet your wife wouldn't spend time deleting those things while the rest of your village looks for your first born.
text messages, incoming and outgoing call records, email - what difference does it make. Some people are meticulous about deleting, some are not.
And with telepcommunications, everything leaves a trace anyway.
I also remeber a lotof discussion about the apparent lack of credit / debit cards, which fed another frenzy of suspicion - based on lack of ability to read a credit report.
Many people would question why phone records were deleted after your child went missing because the police would want to investigate your phone records. Parents are first suspects in these cases. But they were tampering with the crime scene after the fact so it doesn't surprise many. They would definitely be investigating other mobiles they received after this discovery.
Many people would question why phone records were deleted after your child went missing because the police would want to investigate your phone records. Parents are first suspects in these cases. But they were tampering with the crime scene after the fact so it doesn't surprise many. They would definitely be investigating other mobiles they received after this discovery.
Have you wondered that maybe they were clearing their phones ready for incoming related to Madeleine?
You are using hindsight again PF. It wasn't a crime scene until AFTER it had been established that Madeleine was not in 5A. - and that could not be done without searching it first. That's not 'tampering'- it's doing what any normal people would do in those circumstances.
Ill bet your wife wouldn't spend time deleting those things while the rest of your village looks for your first born.Is this the Faithlilly who said only the other day it's not possible to know how anyone would act or react in any given set of circumstances?
Many people would question why phone records were deleted after your child went missing because the police would want to investigate your phone records. Parents are first suspects in these cases. But they were tampering with the crime scene after the fact so it doesn't surprise many. They would definitely be investigating other mobiles they received after this discovery.
You are using hindsight again PF. It wasn't a crime scene until AFTER it had been established that Madeleine was not in 5A. - and that could not be done without searching it first. That's not 'tampering'- it's doing what any normal people would do in those circumstances.
And Gerry tampering with the shutter ?
That's part of the same thing. Expecting people to behave like policemen in those circumstances is preposterous.
However, expecting policemen to behave like policemen is another thing altogether - and IMO they failed dismally to do that.
Gerry has admitted himself ( in the Panorama documentary in 2007 ) that he was aware of the importance of not contaminating the crime scene and therefore was trying to keep everyone out of the children's bedroom.
Gerry has admitted himself ( in the Panorama documentary in 2007 ) that he was aware of the importance of not contaminating the crime scene and therefore was trying to keep everyone out of the children's bedroom.
Yes - that would be something which would occur to him at some stage after it had been established that Madeleine was neither in 5a or in the vicinity. But it's not something which which would occur to anyone in the first 5/10 mins - when they were all in a state of shock and disbelief - and still hoping she would be found.
Gerry didn't tamper with the shutters within the first 5/10 mins.
You are using hindsight again PF. It wasn't a crime scene until AFTER it had been established that Madeleine was not in 5A. - and that could not be done without searching it first. That's not 'tampering'- it's doing what any normal people would do in those circumstances.
Kate knew straight away it was a crime when she said she found the window open and the shutters raised and her daughter gone. Pity the police didn't see them in that same state. The shutters were down and the window was shut. They had tampered with the crime scene.
Ah, so you agree that the abductor raised the shutters and opened the window. You can't have it both ways.
Ah, so you agree that the abductor raised the shutters and opened the window. You can't have it both ways.
That doesn't follow. None of us know who opened the shutters, we only know what Kate says about the shutters.
In fact no-one knows if the shutters and window were ever open. That has not been established.
The puzzlement is why would Dr Kate McCann say she found the window open and the shutter raised if she had not?
What was the advantage?
I really want an answer to that one ... should be easy enough for those who assert she was lying to come up with a valid reason why she would.
That's a simple one if you are sceptical in the slightest - staging.
They are obviously not unintelligent people if they had been 'staging' anything I really think they would have made a better fist of it. Don't you?
This is one of my major problems with sceptic logic. One minute we are being asked to believe the McCanns are the worlds best actors/criminal masterminds - and are so incredibly clever they have pulled off the crime of the century - and the next minute we are being told they did things which only people with the the intellect of simpletons would do - and also we are told that the fact they are huge liars is obvious to anybody who ever watched them being interviewed - IOW they are worlds worst actors. How bizarre is that?
The true is same of the supporters viewpoint.Explain?
Honestly, I don't know. Hard to cover all the bases or devise a perfect plan. Everyone makes mistakes. Anyway, I just thought i'd answer your question and staging is one theoretical answer. Theoretically speaking what would be a better plan? I agree when let's say believers highlight the ridiculousness or implausibility of hiding a body, moving it several times whilst also having dinner and acting normal and then transporting it 23 days later... And to do all this their plan would have to be very complicated, which is a credibility stretcher...
This is one of my major problems with sceptic logic. One minute we are being asked to believe the McCanns are the worlds best actors/criminal masterminds - and are so incredibly clever they have pulled off the crime of the century - and the next minute we are being told they did things which only people with the the intellect of simpletons would do - and also we are told that the fact they are huge liars is obvious to anybody who ever watched them being interviewed - IOW they are worlds worst actors. How bizarre is that?
Thanks for your response.
The belief is utterly preposterous that for a brief period on May 3rd normal loving, family orientated parents morphed into criminal masterminds capable of disposing of the remains of their dearly beloved daughter with less thought than putting the garbage out and doing it so well that no trace was found either then or to this day.
All to avoid the accusation of bad parenting?? I think not.
I think you have hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. The more complicated a 'plan' is the more likelihood it has of coming unstuck.
Any scenario the 'doubters' come up with of necessity involves hindsight ... there is no plausible explanation of how they could have achieved what they say they did.
So why keep on saying it nearly eight years on ... in the full knowledge it causes distress?
A lot of assumptions there. How do you know they were normal loving and family orientated? Why do you assume they wouldn't harm their child? Parents do, and hide the remains. We don't know if there was a motive other than being accused of bad parenting. Police investigators work with hindsight too - their jobs would be a lot easier if they were there at the time. Do you think they would have assumed any of the above had they been called to the same scenario in England? I think all options would have been open myself. Please note I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just saying that nothing can be assumed.
Explain?
A lot of assumptions there. How do you know they were normal loving and family orientated? Why do you assume they wouldn't harm their child? Parents do, and hide the remains. We don't know if there was a motive other than being accused of bad parenting. Police investigators work with hindsight too - their jobs would be a lot easier if they were there at the time. Do you think they would have assumed any of the above had they been called to the same scenario in England? I think all options would have been open myself. Please note I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just saying that nothing can be assumed.
All in pieces, praying like mullahs, clearing phone history, cancelling shopping delivery.
Would someone kindly explain to me the significance of the cancellation of the shopping delivery?
Good Manners?
Although I seem to remember that Kate arranged for a relative to take it in.
All in pieces, praying like mullahs, clearing phone history, cancelling shopping delivery.
All in pieces, praying like mullahs, clearing phone history, cancelling shopping delivery.This all happened at the same time did it?
In the absence of any firm evidence to the contrary ... I think that the fact that the Drs McCann are loving, caring parents is a safe assumption to make.
Given the same scenario in England I am certain the case would have been handled differently for the simple reason the British police would have initiated procedure.
The evidence that the Portuguese investigating team hadn't a clue lies in the literature the Brits found it necessary to give to them to enable an understanding of the procedures they should have undertaken from the start.
Well, it depends what you call loving and caring, and what you call firm evidence. By my standards that assumption is questionable, but we all have different standards. You see I wouldn't have taken my three children on holiday and spent the bare minimum of time with them. I wouldn't have gone out five nights on the trot and left them alone. I had three children under five and didn't need relatives to come hundreds of miles to help me if I was alone with them at the weekends. As an army wife I was alone with my children for weeks, not weekends. If one of my children had disappeared no-one would have separated me from the others the following day. If my friends came to help I wouldn't have complained that I had to pick my children up from nursery because my friends had gone out searching for my missing child. I wouldn't have asked them to stop searching and come back and look after my children for me. If I took a camera on holiday with me I would have had lots of lovely photos in my camera by the sixth day of my holiday, I wouldn't have had to use a six month old picture to give to the police. You and others may think this is how loving and caring parents behave, but I don't. Different standards.
Well, it depends what you call loving and caring, and what you call firm evidence. By my standards that assumption is questionable, but we all have different standards. You see I wouldn't have taken my three children on holiday and spent the bare minimum of time with them. I wouldn't have gone out five nights on the trot and left them alone. I had three children under five and didn't need relatives to come hundreds of miles to help me if I was alone with them at the weekends. As an army wife I was alone with my children for weeks, not weekends. If one of my children had disappeared no-one would have separated me from the others the following day. If my friends came to help I wouldn't have complained that I had to pick my children up from nursery because my friends had gone out searching for my missing child. I wouldn't have asked them to stop searching and come back and look after my children for me. If I took a camera on holiday with me I would have had lots of lovely photos in my camera by the sixth day of my holiday, I wouldn't have had to use a six month old picture to give to the police. You and others may think this is how loving and caring parents behave, but I don't. Different standards.So, because you consider yourself to be loving and caring by your standards does that mean by your standards at least, that the McCanns are neither loving nor caring parents?
Well, it depends what you call loving and caring, and what you call firm evidence. By my standards that assumption is questionable, but we all have different standards. You see I wouldn't have taken my three children on holiday and spent the bare minimum of time with them. I wouldn't have gone out five nights on the trot and left them alone. I had three children under five and didn't need relatives to come hundreds of miles to help me if I was alone with them at the weekends. As an army wife I was alone with my children for weeks, not weekends. If one of my children had disappeared no-one would have separated me from the others the following day. If my friends came to help I wouldn't have complained that I had to pick my children up from nursery because my friends had gone out searching for my missing child. I wouldn't have asked them to stop searching and come back and look after my children for me. If I took a camera on holiday with me I would have had lots of lovely photos in my camera by the sixth day of my holiday, I wouldn't have had to use a six month old picture to give to the police. You and others may think this is how loving and caring parents behave, but I don't. Different standards.
Fine ... you deplore the Drs McCann parenting skills ... your privilege.
In what way do the "doubting" campaigns assist Madeleine McCann?
For example who was the likely loser in the attempt to derail the CW information switchboard carried out by "doubters" ... sure, it would distress Madeleine's family, that goes without saying ... but who knows the potential implication it might have held for Madeleine?
Excellent bit of common sense there G-Unit.
I have given examples of why I don't see them as particularly loving and caring. It's just my opinion based on my ideas of what is loving and caring obviously. Have you no examples to support your opinion?
Why are you asking me how the 'doubting' campaigns assist Madeleine McCann? I have doubts about the McCanns, true, but that doesn't make me a campaigner or a supporter of any campaigns. Go ask the campaigners.
I could ask you how the unquestioning belief of some people in the parent's complete innocence helps Madeleine? At the very least she would be less likely to be in the position she is in if they had behaved differently. I accuse them of nothing because I don't know what happened, but some of the things they have done and said make me wonder.
I have no interest in analysing the Mccann's parenting skills nor anyone else's for that matter ... suffice to say I take as dim a view of drunken driving while a child is in the car as people take of the McCann's dining out ... but I don't see that being held up as an example of 'bad' parenting.
Madeleine McCann's parents have been fully investigated by the lawful authorities who have seen fit to charge them with what??
An internet lynch mob who have set themselves up as judge - jury - and hangman is contemptible ... and the fact that they have made it their business of choice to torture the McCann family in every which way they can for nearly eight years now.
I don't have to wonder at the types involved in those particular groupings ... I have become very aware of some of the ringleaders and can only judge their following by that.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Well put. My feelings exactly
And I have to wonder why some of them are so determined to put out such lies and disinformation.
Propaganda .... WHY?
I have no interest in analysing the Mccann's parenting skills nor anyone else's for that matter ... suffice to say I take as dim a view of drunken driving while a child is in the car as people take of the McCann's dining out ... but I don't see that being held up as an example of 'bad' parenting.
Madeleine McCann's parents have been fully investigated by the lawful authorities who have seen fit to charge them with what??
An internet lynch mob who have set themselves up as judge - jury - and hangman is contemptible ... and the fact that they have made it their business of choice to torture the McCann family in every which way they can for nearly eight years now.
I don't have to wonder at the types involved in those particular groupings ... I have become very aware of some of the ringleaders and can only judge their following by that.
No, don't analyse - assume, assert, state as fact. When your 'fact' is questioned - divert, attack, accuse. Don't produce anything to support the fact you have stated.Just because the McCanns don't meet YOUR criteria as loving and caring parents doesn't mean they AREN'T loving and caring parents, would you not agree? If they were neither loving nor caring would the twins still be in their care?
Just because the McCanns don't meet YOUR criteria as loving and caring parents doesn't mean they AREN'T loving and caring parents, would you not agree? If they were neither loving nor caring would the twins still be in their care?
Surely someone has some evidence of the loving and caring, it shouldn't be that difficult.
I have given examples of why I don't see them as particularly loving and caring. It's just my opinion based on my ideas of what is loving and caring obviously. Have you no examples to support your opinion?
Why are you asking me how the 'doubting' campaigns assist Madeleine McCann? I have doubts about the McCanns, true, but that doesn't make me a campaigner or a supporter of any campaigns. Go ask the campaigners.
I could ask you how the unquestioning belief of some people in the parent's complete innocence helps Madeleine? At the very least she would be less likely to be in the position she is in if they had behaved differently. I accuse them of nothing because I don't know what happened, but some of the things they have done and said make me wonder.
Well, it depends what you call loving and caring, and what you call firm evidence. By my standards that assumption is questionable, but we all have different standards. You see I wouldn't have taken my three children on holiday and spent the bare minimum of time with them. I wouldn't have gone out five nights on the trot and left them alone. I had three children under five and didn't need relatives to come hundreds of miles to help me if I was alone with them at the weekends. As an army wife I was alone with my children for weeks, not weekends. If one of my children had disappeared no-one would have separated me from the others the following day. If my friends came to help I wouldn't have complained that I had to pick my children up from nursery because my friends had gone out searching for my missing child. I wouldn't have asked them to stop searching and come back and look after my children for me. If I took a camera on holiday with me I would have had lots of lovely photos in my camera by the sixth day of my holiday, I wouldn't have had to use a six month old picture to give to the police. You and others may think this is how loving and caring parents behave, but I don't. Different standards.
Madeleine and the twins had been on holiday before they went to Portugal, they had played on the beach and done all that small children love to do.
Although I haven't used crèche facilities myself I have been away with friends who have. The children WANTED to go, they played with other children of the same age and did things that maybe their parents wouldn't have done with them.
As the McCann children had already had a holiday before they went to Portugal I can't see how letting them have fun in a crèche whilst they had fun learning to play tennis is not 'loving and caring'. The weather wasn't exactly brilliant and Madeleine enjoyed interacting with other children, they went to the beach and went on a boat, would she have gone on a boat if she hadn't been going to the crèche? I really can't see how the McCann's can be called mean for having a week where they got to have a break too. Who knows they may have been planning another family holiday for later on in the year.
Yes they left them alone something they shouldn't have done. They thought they would be safe asleep in their beds, they checked on them regularly. That doesn't mean they were not loving and caring, they believed them to be safe.
As for family coming hundreds of miles at the week-end to help with the children. How do you know they were asked to do this? Have you had twins? Maybe the family WANTED to help out.
You say you wouldn't have been separated from your other children if one of them disappeared. You really can't say what you would do in those circumstances, no one could say what they would do.
I would like to think though that I would be thinking how Kate was, she wanted life to go on as normal for the twins so they went as usual to the crèche. What would have been better? Letting them stay among a strained atmosphere with their parents crying, not knowing why they were crying, watching confused? Not only their parents crying but their Grandparents, Kate said it was awful to watch her Dad who suffers from Parkinson disease, sobbing his heart out, how do you think children of two years would cope with that? The McCann's had to go to the police station anyway so they would hardly have been able to spend a lot of time with them.
Though Kate says this in her book - Gerry and I saw much less of them than would normally have been the case. When we did, we tried to make it up to them by giving them proper quality time with lots of cuddles.
They did have photo's, the police wanted one that showed a clear picture of Madeleine's face. There were numerous photo's but they were of Madeleine with other children, or Madeleine not looking straight at the camera
I would really read all the police files and think hard before you label parents as not being 'loving'. The McCann's have shown what loving parents are they are parents who will never give up the search for their daughter.
Seems I hit a nerve. I only challenged someone for stating an opinion as a fact. No-one knows as a fact what kind of parents the McCanns were. Not me and not anyone else. I have read the evidence and some of their behaviour raised my doubts. Others have read the evidence and decided their behaviour was fine. Different opinions, but mine is as valid as anyone else's.
The biggest problem for the apologists is the leaving of three small children alone in an unlocked apartment for five nights. It felt safe? Safe from what? Fire? Accident? Abduction? Leaving small children alone is never safe. Never.
I can imagine younger parents taking that risk, but older parents with knowledge gained in their careers of how swiftly accidents can happen? Particularly with children they went to such lengths to have.
Seems I hit a nerve. I only challenged someone for stating an opinion as a fact. No-one knows as a fact what kind of parents the McCanns were. Not me and not anyone else. I have read the evidence and some of their behaviour raised my doubts. Others have read the evidence and decided their behaviour was fine. Different opinions, but mine is as valid as anyone else's.
The biggest problem for the apologists is the leaving of three small children alone in an unlocked apartment for five nights. It felt safe? Safe from what? Fire? Accident? Abduction? Leaving small children alone is never safe. Never.
I can imagine younger parents taking that risk, but older parents with knowledge gained in their careers of how swiftly accidents can happen? Particularly with children they went to such lengths to have.
We have statements from people who have spent time with the McCanns..Jim Gamble for one who have said the McCanns are loving parents and he cannot see that they are involved. If you look at parents who have harmed their children you will see without exception they are dysfunctional families involving drugs etc and not two biological parents. In fact the home office statistics class mom's new boyfriend as a parent. As for safety...children have been left like this for 50 years with no real problems...stranger abduction is so rare the mccanns did not consider it
Well, it depends what you call loving and caring, and what you call firm evidence. By my standards that assumption is questionable, but we all have different standards. You see I wouldn't have taken my three children on holiday and spent the bare minimum of time with them. I wouldn't have gone out five nights on the trot and left them alone. I had three children under five and didn't need relatives to come hundreds of miles to help me if I was alone with them at the weekends. As an army wife I was alone with my children for weeks, not weekends. If one of my children had disappeared no-one would have separated me from the others the following day. If my friends came to help I wouldn't have complained that I had to pick my children up from nursery because my friends had gone out searching for my missing child. I wouldn't have asked them to stop searching and come back and look after my children for me. If I took a camera on holiday with me I would have had lots of lovely photos in my camera by the sixth day of my holiday, I wouldn't have had to use a six month old picture to give to the police. You and others may think this is how loving and caring parents behave, but I don't. Different standards.
I think it is entirely feasible that the Drs McCann will live with that regret every single day of their lives whether Madeleine is returned or not. That is their unwanted inheritance.
Why people take it upon themselves to do their utmost to add to that burden by twittering and facebooking heinous lies and in some instances just plain filth about them and Madeleine on the pretext of "doubting" them is outwith my sphere of understanding.
I am delighted you are an exemplary parent ... me ... I'm still discovering little pearls from the childhood of mine which I knew nothing about at the time and it is interesting.
The puzzlement I have is your need to keep stating the obvious eight years after the event as if the Drs McCann are in some sort of denial when we know they are not and never have been.
I stated the obvious because you stated something which is not obvious to me. There are no perfect parents, all parents make mistakes. Some make mistakes that others are puzzled by because they are such obvious ones. I'm not actually convinced that those children were left in an unlocked apartment, believe it or not.
I was a Naval Wife, and alone for months if not years. Two years on two occasions. Which was precisely the reason for leaving my children unattended briefly. Going next door or across the road for a cup of coffee in the evening was the only social interaction I got. And sometimes friends would come to me. But we were all ever aware of the children. And we took it in turns to check on them.
It was a different time though. People are much more aware of danger these days don't you think? The big story when my children were young was the Moors Murders, but it never stopped me letting my children out to play. It seemed almost unbelievable and a one-off to me. Did you lock your doors Eleanor? Did you live on a base or elsewhere? I did it occasionally on a secure base also, but I locked the doors. I never did it if I went out for the evening drinking with my husband. Then a babysitter was used so we could relax and enjoy ourselves.
Well, it depends what you call loving and caring, and what you call firm evidence. By my standards that assumption is questionable, but we all have different standards. You see I wouldn't have taken my three children on holiday and spent the bare minimum of time with them. I wouldn't have gone out five nights on the trot and left them alone. I had three children under five and didn't need relatives to come hundreds of miles to help me if I was alone with them at the weekends. As an army wife I was alone with my children for weeks, not weekends. If one of my children had disappeared no-one would have separated me from the others the following day. If my friends came to help I wouldn't have complained that I had to pick my children up from nursery because my friends had gone out searching for my missing child. I wouldn't have asked them to stop searching and come back and look after my children for me. If I took a camera on holiday with me I would have had lots of lovely photos in my camera by the sixth day of my holiday, I wouldn't have had to use a six month old picture to give to the police. You and others may think this is how loving and caring parents behave, but I don't. Different standards.
It was a different time though. People are much more aware of danger these days don't you think? The big story when my children were young was the Moors Murders, but it never stopped me letting my children out to play. It seemed almost unbelievable and a one-off to me. Did you lock your doors Eleanor? Did you live on a base or elsewhere? I did it occasionally on a secure base also, but I locked the doors. I never did it if I went out for the evening drinking with my husband. Then a babysitter was used so we could relax and enjoy ourselves.
I think it is entirely feasible that the Drs McCann will live with that regret every single day of their lives whether Madeleine is returned or not. That is their unwanted inheritance.
Why people take it upon themselves to do their utmost to add to that burden by twittering and facebooking heinous lies and in some instances just plain filth about them and Madeleine on the pretext of "doubting" them is outwith my sphere of understanding.
I am delighted you are an exemplary parent ... me ... I'm still discovering little pearls from the childhood of mine which I knew nothing about at the time and it is interesting.
The puzzlement I have is your need to keep stating the obvious eight years after the event as if the Drs McCann are in some sort of denial when we know they are not and never have been.
didnt the mcanns havea nanny at home why didn tthey take her and why isnt that nanny in any of the mcanns photos etc on other holidays?
I have no interest in analysing the Mccann's parenting skills nor anyone else's for that matter ... suffice to say I take as dim a view of drunken driving while a child is in the car as people take of the McCann's dining out ... but I don't see that being held up as an example of 'bad' parenting.
Madeleine McCann's parents have been fully investigated by the lawful authorities who have seen fit to charge them with what??
An internet lynch mob who have set themselves up as judge - jury - and hangman is contemptible ... and the fact that they have made it their business of choice to torture the McCann family in every which way they can for nearly eight years now.
I don't have to wonder at the types involved in those particular groupings ... I have become very aware of some of the ringleaders and can only judge their following by that.
My response in blue:
who ,and where in this forum is this lynch mob? ( you supporters constanly mention them even when they are not on this forum). so Have I missed this? Or are you just lobbing all who do not love the McCanns in the same group....
Speaking of which. You don't like the mob judging, yet you feel free to judge those who you see fit? Oh ok
then...
Now then how about you show us evidence of this torture being thrust upon the McCanns on this forum?
I will contact Admin incase they missed those posts as well.
Madeleine and the twins had been on holiday before they went to Portugal, they had played on the beach and done all that small children love to do.
Although I haven't used crèche facilities myself I have been away with friends who have. The children WANTED to go, they played with other children of the same age and did things that maybe their parents wouldn't have done with them.
As the McCann children had already had a holiday before they went to Portugal I can't see how letting them have fun in a crèche whilst they had fun learning to play tennis is not 'loving and caring'. The weather wasn't exactly brilliant and Madeleine enjoyed interacting with other children, they went to the beach and went on a boat, would she have gone on a boat if she hadn't been going to the crèche? I really can't see how the McCann's can be called mean for having a week where they got to have a break too. Who knows they may have been planning another family holiday for later on in the year.
Yes they left them alone something they shouldn't have done. They thought they would be safe asleep in their beds, they checked on them regularly. That doesn't mean they were not loving and caring, they believed them to be safe.
As for family coming hundreds of miles at the week-end to help with the children. How do you know they were asked to do this? Have you had twins? Maybe the family WANTED to help out.
You say you wouldn't have been separated from your other children if one of them disappeared. You really can't say what you would do in those circumstances, no one could say what they would do.
I would like to think though that I would be thinking how Kate was, she wanted life to go on as normal for the twins so they went as usual to the crèche. What would have been better? Letting them stay among a strained atmosphere with their parents crying, not knowing why they were crying, watching confused? Not only their parents crying but their Grandparents, Kate said it was awful to watch her Dad who suffers from Parkinson disease, sobbing his heart out, how do you think children of two years would cope with that? The McCann's had to go to the police station anyway so they would hardly have been able to spend a lot of time with them.
Though Kate says this in her book - Gerry and I saw much less of them than would normally have been the case. When we did, we tried to make it up to them by giving them proper quality time with lots of cuddles.
They did have photo's, the police wanted one that showed a clear picture of Madeleine's face. There were numerous photo's but they were of Madeleine with other children, or Madeleine not looking straight at the camera
I would really read all the police files and think hard before you label parents as not being 'loving'. The McCann's have shown what loving parents are they are parents who will never give up the search for their daughter.
I didn't just decide to unquestionably believe the McCanns's innocence. I read the evidence and came to the same conclusion as the authorities have -i.e. no credible motive, no means, no time, no car, no knowledge of the area and no evidence to show otherwise. Plus the fact that they obviously loved and adored their children - all of whom they wanted so badly that IVF was utilised.I went thru exactly the same process Benice and after much thought came to the same conclusion as you. 8((()*/
Since then - the fact that they have NOT attempted to disappear into obscurity but have made every effort to keep attention on Madeleine's disappearance (which was impossible to do without also calling attention to themselves) is the most overwhelming proof IMO that they are innocent.
No guilty person would behave as they have behaved since May 2007 - unless they were both insane or both criminal masterminds of the century. I don't believe they are either - and there is not a scrap of evidence to suggest they are.
The fact that they didn't spend this particular holiday in the way other people would - is not evidence of lack of parental love and care. If it was - then everyone who ever booked one of these type of holidays - which are specifically designed to cater for both parents and children - and are there because there is a demand for them are also guilty of lack of love and care. That's millions of guilty parents!
Sorry - doesn't work for me.