UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 07:02:30 PM
-
I am interested in the view of posters on the rights of citizens against other citizens and against the state. These concepts inform all the debate on this board.
What behaviour should be banned and what allowed.
What does social disapprobation mean. What are the limits to its expression.
What rights do ordinary citizens have.
69
-
So, what are the reasonable limits of human behaviour.
Is it justified to bully and harass people?
-
So, what are the reasonable limits of human behaviour.
Is it justified to bully and harass people?
It is never justified to bully and harass people no matter who they are or what they might have done. Society needs to operate to certain standards and ripping people to shreds whether in word or deed is unacceptable in a just society.
-
It depends what you define as bullying and harassing.
The Met say;
No matter how bad bullying can seem, many incidents of bullying are not actually crimes, and therefore might not be a matter for the police. The best people to deal with them are parents, teachers or other responsible adults.
But some types of bullying are illegal and should be reported to us. This includes bullying that involves:
harassment and intimidation over a period of time including calling someone names or threatening them, making abusive phone calls, and sending abusive emails or texts (one incident is not normally enough to get a conviction)
anything involving hate crimes (you can find out more about hate crimes here)
What is hate crime?
A hate crime is any incident that is perceived by the victim, or any other person to be:
racist
homophobic
transphobic (discrimination against transsexual or transgender people)
Or due to a person’s:
religion
beliefs
gender identity
disability
http://safe.met.police.uk/hate_crimes/get_the_facts.html
-
That is why I specified Morality and Criminality.
-
What are the moral and legal limits on discussing the personal lives in public of people with whom you have no relationship.
How would you feel if people were openly critical about you in public merely be a use they did not like you?
-
It depends what you define as bullying and harassing.
The Met say;
No matter how bad bullying can seem, many incidents of bullying are not actually crimes, and therefore might not be a matter for the police. The best people to deal with them are parents, teachers or other responsible adults.
But some types of bullying are illegal and should be reported to us. This includes bullying that involves:
harassment and intimidation over a period of time including calling someone names or threatening them, making abusive phone calls, and sending abusive emails or texts (one incident is not normally enough to get a conviction)
anything involving hate crimes (you can find out more about hate crimes here)
What is hate crime?
A hate crime is any incident that is perceived by the victim, or any other person to be:
racist
homophobic
transphobic (discrimination against transsexual or transgender people)
Or due to a person’s:
religion
beliefs
gender identity
disability
http://safe.met.police.uk/hate_crimes/get_the_facts.html
No one should require a definition to differentiate right from wrong; it is something which should be innate due to the conditioning of education and example.
On the first question asked ~ "What behaviour should be banned and what allowed."
Behaviour which considers the rights of others and is not injurious to others sounds OK to me.
-
What are the moral and legal limits on discussing the personal lives in public of people with whom you have no relationship.
How would you feel if people were openly critical about you in public merely be a use they did not like you?
Unfortunately society tolerates and seems to be fascinated by the 'reality show celebrities' and so many aspire to become one that all the normal boundaries have been pushed back.
'Celebrities' who court followings on twitter etc have also blurred the line between what is and what is not acceptable.
For those whose 'celebrity' is gained inadvertently the 'old' rules of empathy and decency should still apply.
-
No one should require a definition to differentiate right from wrong; it is something which should be innate due to the conditioning of education and example.
On the first question asked ~ "What behaviour should be banned and what allowed."
Behaviour which considers the rights of others and is not injurious to others sounds OK to me.
If it is innate it is not learned.
The interesting thing is the case of two siblings brought up with the same values but take different moral routes as young adults. Is that due to influence outside the family or merely genetic?
-
If it is innate it is not learned.
The interesting thing is the case of two siblings brought up with the same values but take different moral routes as young adults. Is that due to influence outside the family or merely genetic?
Thank you for the English lesson. As to nature or nurture I really have no opinion, in the example you have used who is to know what differing life experiences the siblings may have had. As individuals, they make their own choices based on instilled values which they may interpret in different ways.
-
Unfortunately society tolerates and seems to be fascinated by the 'reality show celebrities' and so many aspire to become one that all the normal boundaries have been pushed back.
'Celebrities' who court followings on twitter etc have also blurred the line between what is and what is not acceptable.
For those whose 'celebrity' is gained inadvertently the 'old' rules of empathy and decency should still apply.
Take more water with with it, whats that to do with you or i or the discussion...by the way, still awaiting your lnk on the fag ash you claimed portuguese police flicked all over 5a and destroyed evidence, in your own time though
-
I am interested in the view of posters on the rights of citizens against other citizens and against the state. These concepts inform all the debate on this board.
What behaviour should be banned and what allowed.
What does social disapprobation mean. What are the limits to its expression.
What rights do ordinary citizens have.
I will be short and simple and probably won't give you the answers youare looking for
..which are about criminality, lets cut to the chase
vast majority of people honestly commenting on this case are neither immoral or criminal for doing so...are you of the ed the expunger (thats one of the mccanns lawyers by the way) school that wants no one to have a single suspicious thought?
Are you for real?
Your beef is with the internet, take it out with them!! Its 2015, grow up
ps perhaps you should factor in that the mccanns also have responsibility about morality and behaviour....they make alot of people frightened to speak out...why are THEY bullies???..and are also connected to a woman committing suicide after being aoproached by sky about her conments online....we also have gerry mccann wanting many people to be prosecuted..,,you go to admit the mccanns stink in this regard, no sorrys either for brenda from them! not a single comment, says it all for me, good day
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/9226205/Madeleine-McCann-unanswered-questions.html
-
What are the moral and legal limits on discussing the personal lives in public of people with whom you have no relationship.
How would you feel if people were openly critical about you in public merely be a use they did not like you?
Who is discussing people's personal lives? Who doesn't like who?
-
I will be short and simple and probably won't give you the answers youare looking for
..which are about criminality, lets cut to the chase
vast majority of people honestly commenting on this case are neither immoral or criminal for doing so...are you of the ed the expunger (thats one of the mccanns lawyers by the way) school that wants no one to have a single suspicious thought?
Are you for real?
Your beef is with the internet, take it out with them!! Its 2015, grow up
ps perhaps you should factor in that the mccanns also have responsibility about morality and behaviour....they make alot of people frightened to speak out...why are THEY bullies???..and are also connected to a woman committing suicide after being aoproached by sky about her conments online....we also have gerry mccann wanting many people to be prosecuted..,,you go to admit the mccanns stink in this regard, no sorrys either for brenda from them! not a single comment, says it all for me, good day
Can you point me in the direction of any comments of any kind from either of the McCanns in connection with the "dossier" or Brenda Leyland?
-
Who is discussing people's personal lives? Who doesn't like who?
You must be joking. The McCanns have had their personal lives ripped apart in public by various groups of organised harassers for eight years.
-
I am copying a post I made on another thread that addresses my feelings about this subject:
I am biased in favour of justice, fairness and privacy.
People generally despised the tapping of the mobile phone of the girl who disappeared. This was because doing so was offensive to justice (interfering with the course of a case) , fairness (what are the limits of a free press) and privacy (what rights do we have to not be interfered with by the state or other citizens.
There is a right to free speech and this probably should apply to a book or press article more than it does in the UK currently. And people should certainly be free to hold an opinion.
But this has to be limited in many ways. For instance Mary Bell orders for various serious criminals at risk in the community, national security, safety, libel and so on.
Se have a new situation caused by the internet that approaches close to the basis for these limits on free speech. Gossip when limited to the pub was tolerable, but when has an organised rabble egging people on to speech and a ton on a public media it becomes a probable moral and possible legal question.
The law recognises that people may have an opinion but they may not for instance express that publicly by demonstrating outside an opponent's house or sending them direct communications. I would argue that similar actions by people on organised sites in public, accessible to all is as objectionable as demonstrating outside someone's house or telephoning or emailing them. I can see an argument to apply the same restrictions on internet behaviour as we do on behaviour in the real world and to make the targeting of individuals on message boards as a case of harassment. The simple answer is that such discussions should be private to the participants and not open to the public, nor gathered by Google bots.
At present we allow a group of angry frustrated and deluded people to meet in private to cast aspersions on individuals. We do not let these people demonstrate in the residential area where the target lives. I would have little objection if there were the same limits put on harassment by social media that we place on harassment in the real world.
Sites that allow groups to post harassment would be required to be unavailable to non-members and not searchable. Merely factual posting would be a defence but speculation and accusation would be unlawful.
As more and more cases like attacks on rape victims (the recent footballer case), Jon Venables, Cliff Richard, Sharon Shoesmith, and a whole variety of other victims.
The press would still be free, factual discussion would still be free, but joint behaviour amounting to harassment would not be protected.
-
Can you point me in the direction of any comments of any kind from either of the McCanns in connection with the "dossier" or Brenda Leyland?
No I cant, that was my point. But IIRC Gerry Mccann was asked about the death of Brenda Leyland at some interview and glossed over it, saying he wasnt there to takk about trolls. Disgraceful. Bye for now.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/9226205/Madeleine-McCann-unanswered-questions.html
Thank you JP, I hadn't read that article which certainly lays out the case in detail and is worth a read ... however the required link has already been posted although studiously ignored ... and I am sure had there been real concerns a quick Google would have resolved any doubts.
Just a bit of wumming being evidenced.
**snip
British detectives have expressed dismay over flaws in the Portuguese police’s investigation, in which dozens of people were allowed to trample over the crime scene and evidence was found to be contaminated with cigarette ash.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/9226205/Madeleine-McCann-unanswered-questions.html
-
No I cant, that was my point. But IIRC Gerry Mccann was asked about the death of Brenda Leyland at some interview and glossed over it, saying he wasnt there to takk about trolls. Disgraceful. Bye for now.
Brenda Leyland used the social media to abuse and denigrate the McCanns. She died of shame by her own hand. Gerry's response seems quite rational- why should he waste time on someone who abused him.
-
This is an example of crossing the line from legal comment to immoral comment to possibly criminally actionable as harassment.
Gerry's father is very ill. The Gerry and Kate are said to be with him and to have sent a message to the Rothley church to say that they cannot attend the eighth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-unable-attend-5632585
-
I'm sorry but the McCanns have used the media as well as spokesmen, friends and family to get out their story and to criticise anyone who questions them, including policemen, so they just have to take the good with the bad. Everyone has the right to disagree and express their opinions. There is no law that says we have like those people.
You seem to feel free to write nasty remarks about Gonçalo Amaral because you don't like him, but we,in your eyes, are not allowed to say anything against your beloved couple.
-
I'm sorry but the McCanns have used the media as well as spokesmen, friends and family to get out their story and to criticise anyone who questions them, including policemen, so they just have to take the good with the bad. Everyone has the right to disagree and express their opinions. There is no law that says we have like those people.
You seem to feel free to write nasty remarks about Gonçalo Amaral because you don't like him, but we,in your eyes, are not allowed to say anything against your beloved couple.
That is incorrect under English law. The rights of people regarding the press are different according to set criteria. Those who earn their living in the public eye have less protection than private citizens. Merely being the objects of interest (like the McCanns, Christopher Jeffries, the persons arrested in the missing woman case etc.) does not result in loss of private status. The McCanns have te same right to privacy as you and I.
The other exception to private privilege is people acting on behalf of the state. This even goes for application of libel laws where public servants have reduced rights to sue for libel if they were acting in their formal role- this is seen as necessary to hold state power to account.
I have written no personal insults about Amaral, but have merely pointed out the facts about him
-
Brenda Leyland used the social media to abuse and denigrate the McCanns. She died of shame by her own hand. Gerry's response seems quite rational- why should he waste time on someone who abused him.
She was the the target of a cheapskate reporter who plastered her face all over international media on the false premise that what she had done would attract criminal charges. Maybe Sky should have made Brunt their entertainment correspondent instead of crime?
-
She was the the target of a cheapskate reporter who plastered her face all over international media on the false premise that what she had done would attract criminal charges.
Thank you for your opinion.
More factually she was approached by a senior router totally within the guidelines for dealing with such questions. She was approached in a public place and asked questions. The press are not only interested in criminal behaviour, but also in behaviour of non-criminal nature. In addition to what we saw on camera, she agreed to a deeper interview with the reporter of her own free will.
The TV and press coverage was totally legal and lawful.
She apparently found it shameful a d seems to have died by her own band.
No reporter or media has been found to have acted contrary to their guidelines. No police investigation has been made into any crime. No criticism arose at the inquest.
Those are the facts.
-
I'm sorry but the McCanns have used the media as well as spokesmen, friends and family to get out their story and to criticise anyone who questions them, including policemen, so they just have to take the good with the bad. Everyone has the right to disagree and express their opinions. There is no law that says we have like those people.
You seem to feel free to write nasty remarks about Gonçalo Amaral because you don't like him, but we,in your eyes, are not allowed to say anything against your beloved couple.
The McCanns have used the media to publicise Madeleine McCann in that they have been phenomenally successful the downside has been the unleashing of unpleasantness such as the denial of the legitimate concerns regarding an aged parent who has been ill for many years.
-
The McCanns have used the media to publicise Madeleine McCann in that they have been phenomenally successful the downside has been the unleashing of unpleasantness such as the denial of the legitimate concerns regarding an aged parent who has been ill for many years.
Phonemically successful ???
In what respect exactly ?
Madeleine's fate remains unknown, as is the cause of her disappearance.
-
Phonemically successful ???
In what respect exactly ?
Madeleine's fate remains unknown, as is the cause of her disappearance.
It is there in simple English.
The McCanns have been phenomenally successful at utilising the media.
Unfortunately it has not found Madeleine but all the same gained publicity that may have helped.
-
It is there in simple English.
The McCanns have been phenomenally successful at utilising the media.
Unfortunately it has not found Madeleine but all the same gained publicity that may have helped.
In actuality it has been totally irrelevant.
What is apparent is that the majority of people are not interested, and the majority of those that do pay attention to the case are saying the investigation is a waste of tax payers money.
-
It is there in simple English.
The McCanns have been phenomenally successful at utilising the media.
Unfortunately it has not found Madeleine but all the same gained publicity that may have helped.
Yes, putting themselves in the public eye.
-
Yes, putting themselves in the public eye.
and .............................
-
It is there in simple English.
The McCanns have been phenomenally successful at utilising the media.
Unfortunately it has not found Madeleine but all the same gained publicity that may have helped.
If you were prepared to spend the same amount of money on employing PR companies and spin doctors you could be just as successful in utilising the media as the Mccanns. According to Lord Bell they paid Bell Pottinger half a million to keep them in the papers for a year. Hanover had £30.000 for two month's work.
-
and .............................
Negating
That is incorrect under English law. The rights of people regarding the press are different according to set criteria. Those who earn their living in the public eye have less protection than private citizens. Merely being the objects of interest (like the McCanns, Christopher Jeffries, the persons arrested in the missing woman case etc.) does not result in loss of private status. The McCanns have te same right to privacy as you and I.
-
and .............................
English law still guarantees their position as private citizens and they are not seen as public figures.
Only McCann [ censored word ]s say that they are public figures a d they are wrong.
Read the Chris Jeffries case- people charged with crimes do not become public figures if heir notoriety is purely to do with being charged.
To lose protection you must earn your living in the public arena and previously used news media to advance ones career.
-
That is incorrect under English law. The rights of people regarding the press are different according to set criteria. Those who earn their living in the public eye have less protection than private citizens. Merely being the objects of interest (like the McCanns, Christopher Jeffries, the persons arrested in the missing woman case etc.) does not result in loss of private status. The McCanns have te same right to privacy as you and I.
The other exception to private privilege is people acting on behalf of the state. This even goes for application of libel laws where public servants have reduced rights to sue for libel if they were acting in their formal role- this is seen as necessary to hold state power to account.
I have written no personal insults about Amaral, but have merely pointed out the facts about him
The McCanns have a right to privacy? After all those photoshoots with the twins faces not pixelled, Kate letting everyone know that she couldn't make love to Gerry, Madeleine's perfect genitals. And their documentary showing Kate and the children in the kitchen? Now we have an article on how the McCanns are with Kate's father because he is poorly from his Parkinsons. This is to gain sympathy, nothing more. The public didn't really need to know this.
The problem really isn't about protecting these people's private lives. What they want at all costs is to prevent any information about the investigation to get out in the UK.
When are you going to stop writing the lie that it was "his" investigation? He was not a lead detective, the investigation was under the authority of the Ministério Público and the judges.
How do you know that Gonçalo Amaral wrote the book to get rich? He states that he wrote the book to defend his honour and that of the PJ and the investigation.
Of course, his finances are not too good at the moment because the McCanns had his assets frozen so that he would not have the financial means to defend himself. It infuriates them that people are supporting him by donating to the defense fund.
-
Doesn't her role as some sort of ambassador put her in the public domain?
-
Phonemically successful ???
In what respect exactly ?
Madeleine's fate remains unknown, as is the cause of her disappearance.
Perhaps you could name a more internationally famous missing child?
-
The McCanns have a right to privacy? After all those photoshoots with the twins faces not pixelled, Kate letting everyone know that she couldn't make love to Gerry, Madeleine's perfect genitals. And their documentary showing Kate and the children in the kitchen? Now we have an article on how the McCanns are with Kate's father because he is poorly from his Parkinsons. This is to gain sympathy, nothing more. The public didn't really need to know this.
The problem really isn't about protecting these people's private lives. What they want at all costs is to prevent any information about the investigation to get out in the UK.
When are you going to stop writing the lie that it was "his" investigation? He was not a lead detective, the investigation was under the authority of the Ministério Público and the judges.
How do you know that Gonçalo Amaral wrote the book to get rich? He states that he wrote the book to defend his honour and that of the PJ and the investigation.
Of course, his finances are not too good at the moment because the McCanns had his assets frozen so that he would not have the financial means to defend himself. It infuriates them that people are supporting him by donating to the defense fund.
If Amaral had simply wanted to write a book to defend his honour, then he could have donated all proceeds to a charity. Instead of splashing out on the suits, the hat, the Jag, the parties, the earring (??!). He made a bit of money and started spending like a drunken sailor.
I understand his finances were none too good before the McCanns were even heard of - the unpiad mortgage, the tax bils, the family debts, the court cases. Hewas in a financial mess. And saw Madeleines plight as a way out. [ moderated ]
-
JK Rowling is clearly known worldwide, but has sought to keep her private life out of the media, particularly concerning her kids. The intrusion into private life was an issue in the Leveson Inquiry.
The Beckhams appear to have a different and presumably mutually lucrative press arrangement involving snapshots of "family life"...
-
Even that doesn't seem quite clear to me.
JK Rowling is clearly known worldwide, but has sought to keep her private life out of the media, particularly concerning her kids. The intrusion into private life was an issue in the Leveson Inquiry.
The Beckhams appear to have a different and presumably mutually lucrative press arrangement involving snapshots of "family life"...
It is decided on the level of use the celebrity has made of their family- the Beckham have been happy to display their children ads part of Team Beckham, whereas others have been careful to protectors of their personal life.
-
It is decided on the level of use the celebrity has made of their family- the Beckham have been happy to display their children ads part of Team Beckham, whereas others have been careful to protectors of their personal life.
Agreed. I don't see how one can lump all so-called "celebrities" or people who happen to be of media interest in the same basket.
Not all individuals are known to the public by choice.
Not all so-called "celebrities" (even if their work requires photo shoots or media appearances on occasion) want to parade their children in public in a sustained manner.
Some appear to be quite content to do so, but even they must have an arrangement for press down time.
-
Perhaps you could name a more internationally famous missing child?
and was has all that publicity achieved ?
Answer in the real world please.
-
and was has all that publicity achieved ?
Arrange into a well known phrase or saying?
-
and was has all that publicity achieved ?
Answer in the real world please.
In terms of reuniting them with their daughter, nothing. So do you think they were wrong to ensure that Madeleine has become the most recognisable missing child in the world then? If so, why do you think that?
-
In terms of reuniting them with their daughter, nothing. So do you think they were wrong to ensure that Madeleine has become the most recognisable missing child in the world then? If so, why do you think that?
and all the publicity has resulted in NOTHING.
Like I have said, with all this publicity not one trace of her has been found, and it doesn't take a genius to work out why.
-
and all the publicity has resulted in NOTHING.
Like I have said, with all this publicity not one trace of her has been found, and it doesn't take a genius to work out why.
Probably dead.
But we do not know that
Nor do we know by whose hand.
-
Yes, something we may never know.
-
AMAZING STATISTICS
Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.
The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. (TOTL)
-
Brenda Leyland used the social media to abuse and denigrate the McCanns. She died of shame by her own hand. Gerry's response seems quite rational- why should he waste time on someone who abused him.
Interesting that anyone can assume the guise of coroner and psychiatrist at will and know/state it as a fact as a stranger what someone died of, very curious indeed
The only way YOU can claim "she died of shame" is if you were there and she told you, shame on you
Interesting also you push the shame button on anyone that doesnt believe the mccanns.
-
Interesting that anyone can assume the guise of coroner and psychiatrist at will and know/state it as a fact as a stranger what someone died of, very curious indeed
The only way YOU can claim "she died of shame" is if you were there and she told you, shame on you
Interesting also you push the shame button on anyone that doesnt believe the mccanns.
Quite right Mercury.
Some peoples clear bias are very obvious, no matter how they may try to hide it.
-
AMAZING STATISTICS
Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.
The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. (TOTL)
Which has exactly zero value in determining the explanation for a single case. That js why it cannot be introduced as probative evidence in court.
Statistical probability does not provide a method of finding the truth in a single case.
-
Interesting that anyone can assume the guise of coroner and psychiatrist at will and know/state it as a fact as a stranger what someone died of, very curious indeed
The only way YOU can claim "she died of shame" is if you were there and she told you, shame on you
Interesting also you push the shame button on anyone that doesnt believe the mccanns.
Her son' testimony at the Coroners Court:
" court also heard evidence from her son Ben, who said he believed the confrontation had been the final straw.
In a statement, he said he believed she was "completely destroyed" by what had occurred.
He said he heard "panic and fear" in her voice when he spoke to her after the Sky interview."
-
Her son' testimony at the Coroners Court:
" court also heard evidence from her son Ben, who said he believed the confrontation had been the final straw.
In a statement, he said he believed she was "completely destroyed" by what had occurred.
He said he heard "panic and fear" in her voice when he spoke to her after the Sky interview."
Indeed, a woman who had committed NO CRIME, but a clear victim of sky news and brunt.
-
Indeed, a woman who had committed NO CRIME, but a clear victim of sky news and brunt.
she was abusing the mccanns who also had committed no crime and according to the Portuguese judge were entitled to the presumption of innocence
-
Her son' testimony at the Coroners Court:
" court also heard evidence from her son Ben, who said he believed the confrontation had been the final straw.
In a statement, he said he believed she was "completely destroyed" by what had occurred.
He said he heard "panic and fear" in her voice when he spoke to her after the Sky interview."
So not shame then.
-
she was abusing the mccanns who also had committed no crime and according to the Portuguese judge were entitled to the presumption of innocence
Wrong dave. She was not communicating with the mccanns.
Try to tell the truth.
It really does help.
-
So not shame then.
I am happy to see 'totally destroyed' as synonymous with 'shamed'.
You may differ but it is mere semantics.
-
I am happy to see 'totally destroyed' as synonymous with 'shamed'.
You may differ but it is mere semantics.
Rubbish. Just your spin.
-
Rubbish. Just your spin.
Precisely.
-
Rubbish. Just your spin.
What aspect of being outed by the media totally destroyed her then? We've seen other McCann trolls outed who seem quite proud of their antics and of their infamy, why not Brenda?
-
Which has exactly zero value in determining the explanation for a single case. That js why it cannot be introduced as probative evidence in court.
Statistical probability does not provide a method of finding the truth in a single case.
It clearly tells me who can't be eliminated from cases like these without proof where there's potential evidence of death. Family or friends are involved in 96% of cases. A staggering statistic.
-
It clearly tells me who can't be eliminated from cases like these without proof where there's potential evidence of death. Family or friends are involved in 96% of cases. A staggering statistic.
And which has no probative value legally or scientifically because each new case will have a possibility of four in a hundred of being a case of stranger involvement and without further evidence it is not possible to decide whether each new case is one section or another.
The rule is that statistical prediction is useful for multiple cases but has nothing to say about a single case.
It is true to say that the next hundred cases of child abduction, only about four will be stranger abduction.
But it has nothing at all to say about the next single case because it has only one truth value and that might be either way.
-
And which has no probative value legally or scientifically because each new case will have a possibility of four in a hundred of being a case of stranger involvement and without further evidence it is not possible to decide whether each new case is one section or another.
The rule is that statistical prediction is useful for multiple cases but has nothing to say about a single case.
It is true to say that the next hundred cases of child abduction, only about four will be stranger abduction.
But it has nothing at all to say about the next single case because it has only one truth value and that might be either way.
So what qualitative or quantitative evidence exists of abduction exists in this case ?
-
And which has no probative value legally or scientifically because each new case will have a possibility of four in a hundred of being a case of stranger involvement and without further evidence it is not possible to decide whether each new case is one section or another.
The rule is that statistical prediction is useful for multiple cases but has nothing to say about a single case.
It is true to say that the next hundred cases of child abduction, only about four will be stranger abduction.
But it has nothing at all to say about the next single case because it has only one truth value and that might be either way.
What stranger? There is no evidence of a stranger. The open window had no stranger fingerprints or glove marks. Dogs alerted not to strangers but clothes worn by occupants of that apartment and inside and out and their car was the only vehicle alerted. These were alerts by the best English crime dogs not evil Amaral/PJ.
The only other credible lead is of the man seen by the Smiths heading towards the sea carrying a Maddy lookalike. He has still not been identified so a very credible lead.
-
The problem is that for an investigation to be successful, elimination is not enough, proof of inclusion is necessary.
There is no proof statistically or otherwise.
-
What aspect of being outed by the media totally destroyed her then? We've seen other McCann trolls outed who seem quite proud of their antics and of their infamy, why not Brenda?
One in particular who was convicted of defrauding her elderly parents to live the high life in Spain for a bit leaving them living in filth, apparently feels no shame as she twitters on against the McCanns in the same vein she has for eight years. No shame there.
-
Everyone has a right to a presumption of innocence under the Law regardless of the jurisdiction. That is the case even if someone is caught red-handed carrying out a crime. So in reality the perpetrator of a crime prior to being judged by a Court will be technically innocent but in truth guilty all at the same time.
-
There is NO evidence that I know of !
No evidence at all. Just speculation and twisted thoughts expressed.
-
There is NO evidence that I know of !
No evidence at all. Just speculation and twisted thoughts expressed.
If there is no evidence at all, then all opinions are valid, surely?
-
There is NO evidence that I know of !
No evidence at all. Just speculation and twisted thoughts expressed.
I believe you are confusing evidence with proof.
-
There is NO evidence that I know of !
No evidence at all. Just speculation and twisted thoughts expressed.
There is plenty of evidence. Evidence is the sum of all facts about the case. The McCanns were there. They were the last recorded people to see Madeleine. They had the opportunity. All of that is evidence. It proves nothing.
-
There is plenty of evidence. Evidence is the sum of all facts about the case. The McCanns were there. They were the last recorded people to see Madeleine. They had the opportunity. All of that is evidence. It proves nothing.
Evidence can be both supportive or dismissive of guilt or innocence. What is not in doubt in this case is that there is a lot of it, unfortunately however, proof is something else and there is precious little of that even now.
-
I would say there is enough evidence to prove...on the balance of probabilities... that maddie was abducted..
When we talk about proof we should define what level of proof we expect..
-
It clearly tells me who can't be eliminated from cases like these without proof where there's potential evidence of death. Family or friends are involved in 96% of cases. A staggering statistic.
you will find that there is some sort of dysfunctionality in the families where children are deliberately harmed...family can include moms new drug addict boyfriend. It would be interesting to know the figure where parents are involved how many of the parents are both the biological parents
-
I would say there is enough evidence to prove...on the balance of probabilities... that maddie was abducted..
When we talk about proof we should define what level of proof we expect..
What evidence points to an abduction?
-
If there is no evidence at all, then all opinions are valid, surely?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion; as far as Madeleine McCann's case is concerned neither your opinion nor my opinion can be considered valid since we do not have access to all the available facts.
If we had, we have neither the expertise or training to interpret them properly.
-
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I disagree that all opinions are equally valid.For example there are some people who believe Madeleine was deliberately killed by her family before the 3rd of May, and some who believe she never actually existed. These are not valid opinions, they are the examples of conspiralunacy at its worst.
-
What evidence points to an abduction?
Good luck.
-
What evidence points to an abduction?
What evidence would you expect?
-
What evidence would you expect?
It was a simple request.
Davel posted..
I would say there is enough evidence to prove...on the balance of probabilities... that maddie was abducted..
Can he share with us what this evidence is which proves on the balance of probabilities that Maddie was abducted?
Was there for example any sign of an intruder, signs of a struggle, scuff marks on walls or sills, unexplained dust or dirt on the bedroom carpet, evidence of shouting or calls for help, theft of property etc...
-
What evidence would you expect?
Well, anything remotely convincing?
-
It was a simple request.
Davel posted..
Can he share with us what this evidence is which proves on the balance of probabilities that Maddie was abducted?
Was there for example any sign of an intruder, signs of a struggle, scuff marks on walls or sills, unexplained dust or dirt on the bedroom carpet, evidence of shouting or calls for help, theft of property etc...
I posted on another thread if my car disappears from outside my house overnight. I am interviewed by the insurance company who rule out any fraud on my behalf. All other possibilities are ruled out...finance company repossession etc....there is no explanation. On the balance of probabilities the car has been stolen.
Based on these facts the insurance company would pay out on the basis of theft.
-
I posted on another thread if my car disappears from outside my house overnight. I am interviewed by the insurance company who rule out any fraud on my behalf. All other possibilities are ruled out...finance company repossession etc....there is no explanation. On the balance of probabilities the car has been stolen.
Based on these facts the insurance company would pay out on the basis of theft.
Just don't leave it unlocked.
-
I posted on another thread if my car disappears from outside my house overnight. I am interviewed by the insurance company who rule out any fraud on my behalf. All other possibilities are ruled out...finance company repossession etc....there is no explanation. On the balance of probabilities the car has been stolen.
Based on these facts the insurance company would pay out on the basis of theft.
Have all other possibilities been ruled out?
-
Have all other possibilities been ruled out?
so you accept that if all the other possibilities have been ruled out then theft is proven.
-
Have all other possibilities been ruled out?
In the McCann case all the police statements and activites of both forces strongly suggest that parental involvement and woke-and-wandered have been ruled out.
-
so you accept that if all the other possibilities have been ruled out then theft is proven.
We've been here before. Equating a car missing from your drive with a child missing from her bed is quite distasteful imo. The two things are quite different and the reaction of an insurance company, which works on a balance of probabilities, and a Police investigation which needs evidence is quite different. As other possibilities have not been ruled out, so your conclusion is invalid.
-
In the McCann case all the police statements and activites of both forces strongly suggest that parental involvement and woke-and-wandered have been ruled out.
Clever people then, when they don't even know what crime took place.
Mind you they are BELIEVERS in abduction. 8((()*/
-
We've been here before. Equating a car missing from your drive with a child missing from her bed is quite distasteful imo. The two things are quite different and the reaction of an insurance company, which works on a balance of probabilities, and a Police investigation which needs evidence is quite different. As other possibilities have not been ruled out, so your conclusion is invalid.
surprise surprise you don't agree. My conclusion is valid and the reason why SY are looking for an abductor...they have followed the same logic as I have. A police investigation will regularly operate on a balance of probabilities until stronger evidence is available.
-
Clever people then, when they don't even know what crime took place.
Mind you they are BELIEVERS in abduction. 8((()*/
In your humble opinion.
-
In your humble opinion.
Hardly dear boy.
Are you a BELIEVER ? 8)--))
-
Hardly dear boy.
Are you a BELIEVER ? 8)--))
I am a disbeliever.
Your opinions seem strong but unsupported.
-
In the McCann case all the police statements and activites of both forces strongly suggest that parental involvement and woke-and-wandered have been ruled out.
Nothing can be ruled out in an unsolved case. This is a process of elimination and it's on-going. Things can quickly change in this case.
-
Nothing can be ruled out in an unsolved case. This is a process of elimination and it's on-going. Things can quickly change in this case.
Is there anything the police have said or done that leads you to think they are investigating parental involvement or woke-and-wandered scenarios?
-
I am a disbeliever.
Your opinions seem strong but unsupported.
Unsupported. &%+((£
The police claim to believe in abduction.
Without a shred of real evidence to back it up.
-
Unsupported. &%+((£
The police claim to believe in abduction.
Without a shred of real evidence to back it up.
It is a requirement of a good investigation that no possibility is excluded.
-
It is a requirement of a good investigation that no possibility is excluded.
Indeed it should.
However, they appear to have disregarded parental involvement, not knowing the nature of the crime.
So what kind of investigation is it ?
-
Indeed it should.
However, they appear to have disregarded parental involvement, not knowing the nature of the crime.
So what kind of investigation is it ?
In your humble opinion. You do not have access to the investigation.
You are merely guessing.
-
Indeed it should.
However, they appear to have disregarded parental involvement, not knowing the nature of the crime.
So what kind of investigation is it ?
One without a satisfactory ending, I imagine.
-
One without a satisfactory ending, I believe.
Indeed.
I wonder how long after the election it is shelved.
-
Indeed.
I wonder how long after the election it is shelved.
this was being said 6 or so yrs ago.........yawn
-
this was being said 6 or so yrs ago.........yawn
6 years dave ???
The investigation, for want of a better term, isn't 6 years old.
Do keep up.
-
One without a satisfactory ending, I imagine.
It depends on what one terms a "satisfactory ending" ... there are those who obviously want Madeleine McCann found or at the least what happened to her discovered ... there are those who support neither of those aspirations?
-
It depends on what one terms a "satisfactory ending" ... there are those who obviously want Madeleine McCann found or at the least what happened to her discovered ... there are those who support neither of those aspirations?
What a strange thing to say. Why wouldn't anyone want either of those things?
-
What a strange thing to say. Why wouldn't anyone want either of those things?
if finding Madeleine alive or finding out what happened to her proved definitively that her parents had nothing to do with her disappearance, it would be a devastating blow to many. Can you imagine how sick and ashamed Amaral would (should) feel if Madeleine turned out not to have been accidentally killed and hidden by her parents?
-
There is No Unfair Moderating going on around here.
Back On Topic now. If You Please.