Is there any context in which hateful and/or abusive tweets about the McCanns are acceptable?

[Mr Gray]

Some people find it 'hateful' and 'abusive' if others draw attention to what they see as less than adequate childcare practices. In my opinion that is neither 'hateful' nor driven by feelings of hate, it's a perfectly valid discussion point.

Hatred and abusiveness in that case is in the eye of the beholder imo.

I think you are totally wrong... and are just making excuses for hatred and abuse...
Saying they were wrong to leave the children is opinion and acceptable criticism

Calling them shit parents.. As Angelo did... Is abusive.. Imo

[slartibartfast]

I think you are totally wrong... and are just making excuses for hatred and abuse...
Saying they were wrong to leave the children is opinion and acceptable criticism

Calling them shit parents.. As Angelo did... Is abusive.. Imo

It is an opinion that can be backed up with facts.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Some people find it 'hateful' and 'abusive' if others draw attention to what they see as less than adequate childcare practices. In my opinion that is neither 'hateful' nor driven by feelings of hate, it's a perfectly valid discussion point.

Hatred and abusiveness in that case is in the eye of the beholder imo.

I think you misunderstand.  A perfectly reasonable conversation about the McCanns’ perceived neglect is possible by both sides when emotion is kept out of the discussion.  But online many are keen not for reasoned debate on the matter but to mouth off about “disgusting child neglectors” who “abandoned their babies to go on the piss” and who proclaim loudly  “if I ever saw Gerry in real life I’d kick him in the balls” and who think “they should have been locked up and throw away the key”.  It would be entirely disingenuous of any sceptic to claim that hateful language and abuse is not used against these parents online.

[Sunny]

I think you misunderstand.  A perfectly reasonable conversation about the McCanns’ perceived neglect is possible by both sides when emotion is kept out of the discussion.  But online many are keen not for reasoned debate on the matter but to mouth off about “disgusting child neglectors” who “abandoned their babies to go on the piss” and who proclaim loudly  “if I ever saw Gerry in real life I’d kick him in the balls” and who think “they should have been locked up and throw away the key”.  It would be entirely disingenuous of any sceptic to claim that hateful language and abuse is not used against these parents online.

You say "online many are keen not for reasoned debate on the matter but to mouth off" Vertigo Swirl. How many are keen do you have a percentage?

IMO at least for myself I have no interest in mouthing off and am actually keen on reasoned debate.  It is just about possible on this forum but IMO it could well be the only McCann forum where it is. Others are biased towards one way or the other and dissent is not allowed.  I speak of supporter and sceptic forums both in that comment.

Do you consider every critical tweet on twitter to be hateful/abusive to the McCanns or is there a bar set in your mind where a tweet stops being critical and becomes hateful/abusive?

More to the point do you consider posts on here made by sceptics to be hateful/abusive too and do you consider these posts to be possible fodder for another dossier?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You say "online many are keen not for reasoned debate on the matter but to mouth off" Vertigo Swirl. How many are keen do you have a percentage?

IMO at least for myself I have no interest in mouthing off and am actually keen on reasoned debate.  It is just about possible on this forum but IMO it could well be the only McCann forum where it is. Others are biased towards one way or the other and dissent is not allowed.  I speak of supporter and sceptic forums both in that comment.

Do you consider every critical tweet on twitter to be hateful/abusive to the McCanns or is there a bar set in your mind where a tweet stops being critical and becomes hateful/abusive?

More to the point do you consider posts on here made by sceptics to be hateful/abusive too and do you consider these posts to be possible fodder for another dossier?

This habit of asking for statistics and percentages for statements such as “many are not keen for reasoned debate” or “many people enjoy a mystery” is really very tedious indeed. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

You say "online many are keen not for reasoned debate on the matter but to mouth off" Vertigo Swirl. How many are keen do you have a percentage?

IMO at least for myself I have no interest in mouthing off and am actually keen on reasoned debate.  It is just about possible on this forum but IMO it could well be the only McCann forum where it is. Others are biased towards one way or the other and dissent is not allowed.  I speak of supporter and sceptic forums both in that comment.

Do you consider every critical tweet on twitter to be hateful/abusive to the McCanns or is there a bar set in your mind where a tweet stops being critical and becomes hateful/abusive?

More to the point do you consider posts on here made by sceptics to be hateful/abusive too and do you consider these posts to be possible fodder for another dossier?

As for your other questions, no I don’t consider every critical tweet on Twitter to be hateful or abusive, only those that ARE hateful and abusive.  When they become hateful and abusive is when negative emotion creeps into the criticism, as in the examples I have given.  There have certainly been some hateful and abusive posts made here, not only about the McCanns but directly about members here who are supporters, most have been deleted.  If someone wants to compile a dossier of them, that’s up to them, it certainly doesn’t interest me to do so.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Tweeted today by one of the most prolific "sceptics" on twitter, who really is on a mission of some sort and enjoys a large following of fellow sceptic tweeters - whilst not specifically abusive I find tweets like this mischievous at best, and downright sinister at worst.

What say you?  If this was your kids that were being messaged and tweeted about?

"I received a private message from someone who's children go to school with Kate #mccann children, I would never share as it would be insensitive but it was eye opening and very sad for Madeleine"

[G-Unit]

I think you misunderstand.  A perfectly reasonable conversation about the McCanns’ perceived neglect is possible by both sides when emotion is kept out of the discussion.  But online many are keen not for reasoned debate on the matter but to mouth off about “disgusting child neglectors” who “abandoned their babies to go on the piss” and who proclaim loudly  “if I ever saw Gerry in real life I’d kick him in the balls” and who think “they should have been locked up and throw away the key”.  It would be entirely disingenuous of any sceptic to claim that hateful language and abuse is not used against these parents online.

I have never posted anything like that, but I have found it very difficult in this forum to have a reasonable conversation about the group's childcare deficiencies. Emotional responses have been the norm, not the exception.

[barrier]

Tweeted today by one of the most prolific "sceptics" on twitter, who really is on a mission of some sort and enjoys a large following of fellow sceptic tweeters - whilst not specifically abusive I find tweets like this mischievous at best, and downright sinister at worst.

What say you?  If this was your kids that were being messaged and tweeted about?

"I received a private message from someone who's children go to school with Kate #mccann children, I would never share as it would be insensitive but it was eye opening and very sad for Madeleine"

Don't go on twitter then you'll have no need for to find its mischievous or sinister, unless of course you are doing so  purely on research ground's to keep the thread going.

[Eleanor]

I have never posted anything like that, but I have found it very difficult in this forum to have a reasonable conversation about the group's childcare deficiencies. Emotional responses have been the norm, not the exception.

A lot of us did it, so we find it difficult to criticise.

[Sunny]

Tweeted today by one of the most prolific "sceptics" on twitter, who really is on a mission of some sort and enjoys a large following of fellow sceptic tweeters - whilst not specifically abusive I find tweets like this mischievous at best, and downright sinister at worst.

What say you?  If this was your kids that were being messaged and tweeted about?

"I received a private message from someone who's children go to school with Kate #mccann children, I would never share as it would be insensitive but it was eye opening and very sad for Madeleine"

I have to agree that tweet is very worrying - or more so is the message by whoever sent the private message to that member of twitter.  I notice you put sceptic in inverted commas so I assume you are substituting another word with "sceptic" Vertigo Swirl.

As regards your other point

There have certainly been some hateful and abusive posts made here, not only about the McCanns but directly about members here who are supporters, most have been deleted.  If someone wants to compile a dossier of them, that’s up to them, it certainly doesn’t interest me to do so.


There have also been some hateful and abusive posts made about Goncalo Amaral and sceptics on here too.  Luckily most (if not all) have been deleted as they should be.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You say "online many are keen not for reasoned debate on the matter but to mouth off" Vertigo Swirl. How many are keen do you have a percentage?

IMO at least for myself I have no interest in mouthing off and am actually keen on reasoned debate.  It is just about possible on this forum but IMO it could well be the only McCann forum where it is. Others are biased towards one way or the other and dissent is not allowed.  I speak of supporter and sceptic forums both in that comment.

Do you consider every critical tweet on twitter to be hateful/abusive to the McCanns or is there a bar set in your mind where a tweet stops being critical and becomes hateful/abusive?

More to the point do you consider posts on here made by sceptics to be hateful/abusive too and do you consider these posts to be possible fodder for another dossier?

the Moderator in his infinite wisdom deleted my reply to this.  OK, it was somewhat facetious I admit but I was trying to make a serious point.  Is there now a forum requirement to back up every statement with percentages and statistics when making a broad generalisation on the course of a discussion.  For example, if I say "many people keep pets", is this to be questioned?  Do I instead have to say "Current statistics on pet ownership show that as many as 72% of households keep a pet, of which 23% have fish, 42% have cats and 51% have dogs?"

[faithlilly]

A lot of us did it, so we find it difficult to criticise.

That was very honest of you Eleanor. Thank you.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have to agree that tweet is very worrying - or more so is the message by whoever sent the private message to that member of twitter.  I notice you put sceptic in inverted commas so I assume you are substituting another word with "sceptic" Vertigo Swirl.

As regards your other point

There have certainly been some hateful and abusive posts made here, not only about the McCanns but directly about members here who are supporters, most have been deleted.  If someone wants to compile a dossier of them, that’s up to them, it certainly doesn’t interest me to do so.


There have also been some hateful and abusive posts made about Goncalo Amaral and sceptics on here too.  Luckily most (if not all) have been deleted as they should be.

Whataboutery.  Start a new thread about Amaral and his fans and the abuse they have suffered over the years.  This one is about the McCanns and the context in which abusive and hateful tweets are acceptable.   

[jassi]

Don't go on twitter then you'll have no need for to find its mischievous or sinister, unless of course you are doing so  purely on research ground's to keep the thread going.

Seems to me that some follow these #Mccann twits solely to be offended on behalf of someone else whom they probably don't know. I can see no other rational explanation

Me, I get by fine without ever going near Twitter or Facebook