Is sectarianism a factor in the McCann case?

[G-Unit]

I believe I am one of the two posters whom you are referring to.
Fortunately I have never experienced sectarianism, possibly because I have spent my entire working life in Catholic education.
However my husband was not so fortunate.
He experienced abuse because of his religion.
Usually being referred to as "a bead rattler" or" s h I t e" doesn't burn.

Happily that kind of outlook and the associated behaviour is restricted to certain areas of the United Kingdom. I suspect that there are people in those areas of both denominations who disbelieve them. Therefore it isn't correct in my opinion to suggest that those who disbelieve the McCanns do so because they are on the opposite side of a religious divide.

[Erngath]

Happily that kind of outlook and the associated behaviour is restricted to certain areas of the United Kingdom. I suspect that there are people in those areas of both denominations who disbelieve them. Therefore it isn't correct in my opinion to suggest that those who disbelieve the McCanns do so because they are on the opposite side of a religious divide.

I have never suggested that for many it is, but for some it is!

[Brietta]

There are two posters here that have mentioned sectarianism and both appear to live in Scotland. I have never had any experience of this and my reactions on things therefore aren't tainted by it. Perhaps theirs are.

The thread title asks: "Is sectarianism a factor in the McCann case?" so you appear to be under the misapprehension that only two posters are posting on topic which is entirely in error.

Your posts have indicated to me traits in your opinions of which you appear to be in ignorance but which leap out of the page to me.

In one of your earlier posts regarding Kate and Gerry's religion you suggested - and I paraphrase here - that the remedy for MSM reference to their 'devout' Catholicism might be that rather than taking part in religious ceremonies for Madeleine publicly in the street they could better take their devotions into the privacy of a church service.

In my opinion the gatherings held in Madeleine's home town were a spin off and continuation from vigils held by friends and neighbours and in the early days as a vehicle to keep Madeleine alive in public consciousness when there was no official investigation happening in her case.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Kate and Gerry's religion or where and how they chose to worship.

In Rothley this year on the eleventh anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance "Prayers were led by parish vicar the Rev. Rob Gladstone" https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/700374/madeleine-mccann-anniversary-news-missing-vigil-parents-gerry-kate-rothley-leicestershire who is vicar of Rothley Parish Church a vibrant Anglican Evangelical community in the village http://www.rothleychurch.org.uk/about-us/about-our-church/ and is now an opportunity to take advantage  to publicise other missing people;
Snip
"Gerry, 49, dressed casually in jeans and grey sweater, joined locals placing name tags of symbolic missing and lost people on a vine tree of hope temporarily placed at the heart of the village.
Among 28 selected names read out as they were attached to the branches were Claudia Lawrence and April Jones, and Madeleine McCann."
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/700374/madeleine-mccann-anniversary-news-missing-vigil-parents-gerry-kate-rothley-leicestershire

You also appear in this post to make assumptions about the people of Scotland as a whole based on the anecdotal evidence of two which is hardly scientific especially for the resident? (I presume) of a state with inbuilt bias against Catholics at its root as typified by the Act of Settlement which restricts the monarchy to protestants.

I have identified sectarian bias against the McCann family in very many  insidious ways not because I am a Scot and the subject of a British State with religious bias at the heart of it (ie the head of state by statute must be protestant), but because I am capable of analysing what I read.

[G-Unit]

As a white English person from a Protestant background the only 'isms' I've suffered from are paternalism and sexism. When I studied the Northern Ireland situation I was horrified by the way the Catholic population had been treated. I was equally disgusted by the 'No Irish' signs in England outside boarding houses years ago. I can't imagine how hard it is to be treated badly because of religion or nationality. I once met an Irish lady who'd eliminated her accent as she felt it held her back.

Having acknowledged all that I think it's possible that those who've experienced sectarianism may see it where it doesn't exist. The McCann's backgrounds and religion are irrelevant to me. I expect they are to others too. Despite that, we have been tarred with that brush in my opinion. I've been denying for years that I'm part of some organised group who 'spew hatred' and subject them to 'vile abuse' because it's true.

I think people need to consider the possibility that people criticise and question the McCanns  for other reasons than blind hatred of Catholics. If sectarianism was a significant factor then Scottish Catholics wouldn't be sceptical.
 

[Eleanor]

As a white English person from a Protestant background the only 'isms' I've suffered from are paternalism and sexism. When I studied the Northern Ireland situation I was horrified by the way the Catholic population had been treated. I was equally disgusted by the 'No Irish' signs in England outside boarding houses years ago. I can't imagine how hard it is to be treated badly because of religion or nationality. I once met an Irish lady who'd eliminated her accent as she felt it held her back.

Having acknowledged all that I think it's possible that those who've experienced sectarianism may see it where it doesn't exist. The McCann's backgrounds and religion are irrelevant to me. I expect they are to others too. Despite that, we have been tarred with that brush in my opinion. I've been denying for years that I'm part of some organised group who 'spew hatred' and subject them to 'vile abuse' because it's true.

I think people need to consider the possibility that people criticise and question the McCanns  for other reasons than blind hatred of Catholics. If sectarianism was a significant factor then Scottish Catholics wouldn't be sceptical.

Raised as a Protestant I too was appalled by the treatment of Irish Catholics.  I still am.  My paternal grandfather was from Southern Ireland, Mitchellstown actually, so he was quite likely raised as a Catholic.  But I never saw anything of Catholiscism during my childhood, possibly because he was driven by shame to hide it.  I minded quite a lot about that in days when it mattered to me.
Tis probably a good job that I wasn't raised in Tipperary.  Heaven knows where I might have finished up.

[Erngath]

As a white English person from a Protestant background the only 'isms' I've suffered from are paternalism and sexism. When I studied the Northern Ireland situation I was horrified by the way the Catholic population had been treated. I was equally disgusted by the 'No Irish' signs in England outside boarding houses years ago. I can't imagine how hard it is to be treated badly because of religion or nationality. I once met an Irish lady who'd eliminated her accent as she felt it held her back.

Having acknowledged all that I think it's possible that those who've experienced sectarianism may see it where it doesn't exist. The McCann's backgrounds and religion are irrelevant to me. I expect they are to others too. Despite that, we have been tarred with that brush in my opinion. I've been denying for years that I'm part of some organised group who 'spew hatred' and subject them to 'vile abuse' because it's true.

I think people need to consider the possibility that people criticise and question the McCanns  for other reasons than blind hatred of Catholics. If sectarianism was a significant factor then Scottish Catholics wouldn't be sceptical.

I have certainly never intimated that anyone here is "being tarred with that brush"
Nor do I suggest that you or anyone here is part of some organised group .
To make such accusations is in my opinion over-egging the pudding and rather unfair.

Nor do I suggest that the only reason why the McCanns have been the subject of abuse is because of sectarian attitudes.

I think there are some who post rationally, discuss/debate without resorting to abuse.

I have read  some abusive posts which in my opinion have the taint  of sectarianism.
I've read  some abusive posts which do not have the taint of sectarianism.
I'm sure there are other reasons which engender such abuse.

[Sunny]

The thread title asks: "Is sectarianism a factor in the McCann case?" so you appear to be under the misapprehension that only two posters are posting on topic which is entirely in error.

Your posts have indicated to me traits in your opinions of which you appear to be in ignorance but which leap out of the page to me.

In one of your earlier posts regarding Kate and Gerry's religion you suggested - and I paraphrase here - that the remedy for MSM reference to their 'devout' Catholicism might be that rather than taking part in religious ceremonies for Madeleine publicly in the street they could better take their devotions into the privacy of a church service.

In my opinion the gatherings held in Madeleine's home town were a spin off and continuation from vigils held by friends and neighbours and in the early days as a vehicle to keep Madeleine alive in public consciousness when there was no official investigation happening in her case.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Kate and Gerry's religion or where and how they chose to worship.

In Rothley this year on the eleventh anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance "Prayers were led by parish vicar the Rev. Rob Gladstone" https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/700374/madeleine-mccann-anniversary-news-missing-vigil-parents-gerry-kate-rothley-leicestershire who is vicar of Rothley Parish Church a vibrant Anglican Evangelical community in the village http://www.rothleychurch.org.uk/about-us/about-our-church/ and is now an opportunity to take advantage  to publicise other missing people;
Snip
"Gerry, 49, dressed casually in jeans and grey sweater, joined locals placing name tags of symbolic missing and lost people on a vine tree of hope temporarily placed at the heart of the village.
Among 28 selected names read out as they were attached to the branches were Claudia Lawrence and April Jones, and Madeleine McCann."
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/700374/madeleine-mccann-anniversary-news-missing-vigil-parents-gerry-kate-rothley-leicestershire

You also appear in this post to make assumptions about the people of Scotland as a whole based on the anecdotal evidence of two which is hardly scientific especially for the resident? (I presume) of a state with inbuilt bias against Catholics at its root as typified by the Act of Settlement which restricts the monarchy to protestants.

I have identified sectarian bias against the McCann family in very many  insidious ways not because I am a Scot and the subject of a British State with religious bias at the heart of it (ie the head of state by statute must be protestant), but because I am capable of analysing what I read.

I disagree with much of your post Brietta.

At the start you say "The thread title asks: "Is sectarianism a factor in the McCann case?" so you appear to be under the misapprehension that only two posters are posting on topic which is entirely in error."

No I said two posters had mentioned sectarianism and both lived in Scotland. On reading it I didn't mean they were the only two who mentioned it but the only two who had experienced it.  I did not make assumptions about the whole people of Scotland I simply pointed out that we have 2 posters with experience and they both live in Scotland.

"Your posts have indicated to me traits in your opinions of which you appear to be in ignorance but which leap out of the page to me."

Could you explain what a trait in my opinion is please and could you also answer my posts about why you were tickled elsewhere that I found a link on a forum please?

Lastly about the vigils in the square.   Because the vigils were held for prayers for Madeleine regardless of who organised the whole thing it would surely be up to the couple to agree the venue.  Do we know whether the McCanns were active in organising them.

My grammar and English are clearly not up to your exacting standard Brietta.

[G-Unit]

I have certainly never intimated that anyone here is "being tarred with that brush"
Nor do I suggest that you or anyone here is part of some organised group .
To make such accusations is in my opinion over-egging the pudding and rather unfair.

Nor do I suggest that the only reason why the McCanns have been the subject of abuse is because of sectarian attitudes.

I think there are some who post rationally, discuss/debate without resorting to abuse.

I have read  some abusive posts which in my opinion have the taint  of sectarianism.
I've read  some abusive posts which do not have the taint of sectarianism.
I'm sure there are other reasons which engender such abuse.

There have been repeated references to 'organised groups' spreading 'propaganda' 'spewing hate' and 'vile abuse'. When challenged those 'outraged' by that behaviour have admitted that it happens elsewhere, not here. If so, why does it get mentioned so often? What is said elsewhere has nothing to do with this forum.

I said there were reasons other than sectarianism for people criticising and questioning the McCanns. You seem to have changed that to other reasons which 'engender abuse'. In my opinion you need to accept that 'criticising and questioning' are not the same thing as 'abusing'.

Discussing the childcare arrangements, the statement discrepancies, the 'jemmied shutters' and the abduction story isn't abusive. Abuse is abusive.


 

[Erngath]

There have been repeated references to 'organised groups' spreading 'propaganda' 'spewing hate' and 'vile abuse'. When challenged those 'outraged' by that behaviour have admitted that it happens elsewhere, not here. If so, why does it get mentioned so often? What is said elsewhere has nothing to do with this forum.

I said there were reasons other than sectarianism for people criticising and questioning the McCanns. You seem to have changed that to other reasons which 'engender abuse'. In my opinion you need to accept that 'criticising and questioning' are not the same thing as 'abusing'.

Discussing the childcare arrangements, the statement discrepancies, the 'jemmied shutters' and the abduction story isn't abusive. Abuse is abusive.

I don't understand your post at all.
I have stated several times that discussion and debate of some aspects of this case are not abusive.
I don't know how often I have to say that.
So really you have no need to point this out to me.
If what is said elsewhere should not be discussed here then why is there a thread of 123 pages long which has nothing to do with this forum?

[Vertigo Swirl]

There have been repeated references to 'organised groups' spreading 'propaganda' 'spewing hate' and 'vile abuse'. When challenged those 'outraged' by that behaviour have admitted that it happens elsewhere, not here. If so, why does it get mentioned so often? What is said elsewhere has nothing to do with this forum.

I said there were reasons other than sectarianism for people criticising and questioning the McCanns. You seem to have changed that to other reasons which 'engender abuse'. In my opinion you need to accept that 'criticising and questioning' are not the same thing as 'abusing'.

Discussing the childcare arrangements, the statement discrepancies, the 'jemmied shutters' and the abduction story isn't abusive. Abuse is abusive.

Undoubtedly there are groups elsewhere on the net who do this and it is a feature of this case, as acknowledged by Angelo on the thread started yesterday.  Why shouldn’t it be discussed here and why does doing so seem to upset you so much?

[G-Unit]

I don't understand your post at all.
I have stated several times that discussion and debate of some aspects of this case are not abusive.
I don't know how often I have to say that.
So really you have no need to point this out to me.
If what is said elsewhere should not be discussed here then why is there a thread of 123 pages long which has nothing to do with this forum?

Thank you. I look forward to debate taking place without the use of words such as 'hate' and 'abuse' being used in the future. I don't have a problem with discussing what is said elsewhere, I have a problem when the inference is that posters on here are associated with, agree with or approve of some of the things said elsewhere.

[Erngath]

Thank you. I look forward to debate taking place without the use of words such as 'hate' and 'abuse' being used in the future. I don't have a problem with discussing what is said elsewhere, I have a problem when the inference is that posters on here are associated with, agree with or approve of some of the things said elsewhere.

Indeed.
Much as I had problems with some posters here inferring or trying to imply that I was associated with the production of the dossier.

[G-Unit]

Undoubtedly there are groups elsewhere on the net who do this and it is a feature of this case, as acknowledged by Angelo on the thread started yesterday.  Why shouldn’t it be discussed here and why does doing so seem to upset you so much?

It doesn't upset me it irritates me because it's deflection in my opinion. Attempts to discuss facts are difficult because some people prefer to speculate about the reasons for the discussion instead.

[G-Unit]

Indeed.
Much as I had problems with some posters here inferring or trying to imply that I was associated with the production of the dossier.

You understand how counter-productive and unjust such inferences are then.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There is nothing more galling than being censored for speaking the truth.