for the record

[carlymichelle]

WE    so called anti mcanns are NOT    [ censored word ]s  we have  a diffrence ofa opinion and we  do not believe the mcanns  version of events the world would be boring if everybody agreed with  each other further more i thought the person who compared the mcanns suffering to the  nazi  victims in twitter was over the line and totally sick   on both  sides of this debate people are passionate but that is too far!!! and for those who know me i dont mispell because im stupid but bceause i was born with a disablity

[debunker]

WE    so called anti mcanns are NOT    [ censored word ]s  we have  a diffrence ofa opinion and we  do not believe the mcanns  version of events the world would be boring if everybody agreed with  each other further more i thought the person who compared the mcanns suffering to the  nazi  victims in twitter was over the line and totally sick   on both  sides of this debate people are passionate but that is too far!!! and for those who know me i dont mispell because im stupid but bceause i was born with a disablity

PLaying the pity card early?

[gilet]

WE    so called anti mcanns are NOT    [ censored word ]s  we have  a diffrence ofa opinion and we  do not believe the mcanns  version of events the world would be boring if everybody agreed with  each other further more i thought the person who compared the mcanns suffering to the  nazi  victims in twitter was over the line and totally sick   on both  sides of this debate people are passionate but that is too far!!! and for those who know me i dont mispell because im stupid but bceause i was born with a disablity

It can be easily demonstrated that there are people on various forums and other social media who do hate Madeleine McCann. There are examples of those who openly wish her to be dead, who make up disgusting pretend poetry purporting to be her from the grave etc.

That you choose to ignore such behaviour and presumably associate with these people tarnishes you with the same brush. That is your choice.

Do you not agree that hounding the McCann family with untruths as in the case of Tony Bennett for example is at least clear disrespect for their daughter and effective hate for the parents themselves or do you condone that kind of behaviour?  Do you think it perfectly reasonable to stalk and hound a family?

Personally I consider that kind of behaviour to be proof that the perpetrator hates those people especially when there is absolutely no proof they have ever committed any crime at all.  It is quite simply hateful behaviour.

[Rachel Granada]

WE    so called anti mcanns are NOT    [ censored word ]s  we have  a diffrence ofa opinion and we  do not believe the mcanns  version of events the world would be boring if everybody agreed with  each other further more i thought the person who compared the mcanns suffering to the  nazi  victims in twitter was over the line and totally sick   on both  sides of this debate people are passionate but that is too far!!! and for those who know me i dont mispell because im stupid but bceause i was born with a disablity

Hello carlymichelle.  Not [ censored word ]s? I beg to differ, unfortunately.  There is a post on the Facebook "Madeleine McCann Controversy" page, posted on Thursday evening, which refers to Kate McCann as a "nasty biatch" (sic). The post goes on to say "Hope ur very miserable and feeling fear, u utter biatch" (sic).  That post has not been removed, so what can we assume from that?  I will leave readers to make up their own minds...

[Chinagirl]

WE    so called anti mcanns are NOT    [ censored word ]s  we have  a diffrence ofa opinion and we  do not believe the mcanns  version of events the world would be boring if everybody agreed with  each other further more i thought the person who compared the mcanns suffering to the  nazi  victims in twitter was over the line and totally sick   on both  sides of this debate people are passionate but that is too far!!! and for those who know me i dont mispell because im stupid but bceause i was born with a disablity

Hello carlymichelle.  Not [ censored word ]s? I beg to differ, unfortunately.  There is a post on the Facebook "Madeleine McCann Controversy" page, posted on Thursday evening, which refers to Kate McCann as a "nasty biatch" (sic). The post goes on to say "Hope ur very miserable and feeling fear, u utter biatch" (sic).  That post has not been removed, so what can we assume from that?  I will leave readers to make up their own minds...

Sure sounds like a [ censored word ] to me!

[faithlilly]

Some of the people who doubt the McCanns story do indeed hate them because of their actions. Some who support the McCanns hate Amaral for the same reason. This however does not mean everyone who comments both for and against the abduction has that motivation and to suggest so is simply lazy.

[gilet]

Some of the people who doubt the McCanns story do indeed hate them because of their actions. Some who support the McCanns hate Amaral for the same reason. This however does not mean everyone who comments both for and against the abduction has that motivation and to suggest so is simply lazy.

If you are on a site such as that Facebook page and you simply accept the disgusting hate comments posted there without speaking out against them and you continue to post there, you are, in my opinion, either being lazy or even worse actually condoning such hate.

Whenever you see clear hate abuse such as that quoted from that Facebook site and you do nothing about it you demonstrate what kind of person you really are.

[debunker]

Some of the people who doubt the McCanns story do indeed hate them because of their actions. Some who support the McCanns hate Amaral for the same reason. This however does not mean everyone who comments both for and against the abduction has that motivation and to suggest so is simply lazy.

AMaral is a public servant and as such should be accountable in law for his action ( if a UK COP had done what he did, he would have been  charged with several crimes.)

The McCanns are private people in law (they would have had such a status even under most States libel laws.) And have a right to privacy and to not be harassed.

[Rachel Granada]

Some of the people who doubt the McCanns story do indeed hate them because of their actions. Some who support the McCanns hate Amaral for the same reason. This however does not mean everyone who comments both for and against the abduction has that motivation and to suggest so is simply lazy.

Hello Faithlilly and thanks for your input.  Carlymichelle made the statement: "WE    so called anti mcanns are NOT    [ censored word ]s" (sic) and my quote from the Facebook page has clearly challenged her statement.

I await Carlymichelle's response with interest.

[faithlilly]

Some of the people who doubt the McCanns story do indeed hate them because of their actions. Some who support the McCanns hate Amaral for the same reason. This however does not mean everyone who comments both for and against the abduction has that motivation and to suggest so is simply lazy.

AMaral is a public servant and as such should be accountable in law for his action ( if a UK COP had done what he did, he would have been  charged with several crimes.)

The McCanns are private people in law (they would have had such a status even under most States libel laws.) And have a right to privacy and to not be harassed.

While all you say above may be true it still does not mean that critical comments are motivated by hate. That really is the lazy man's argument.

[debunker]

Some of the people who doubt the McCanns story do indeed hate them because of their actions. Some who support the McCanns hate Amaral for the same reason. This however does not mean everyone who comments both for and against the abduction has that motivation and to suggest so is simply lazy.

AMaral is a public servant and as such should be accountable in law for his action ( if a UK COP had done what he did, he would have been  charged with several crimes.)



The McCanns are private people in law (they would have had such a status even under most States libel laws.) And have a right to privacy and to not be harassed.

While all you say above may be true it still does not mean that critical comments are motivated by hate. That really is the lazy man's argument.

AGreed, but public criticism of a public servant differs from public criticism of private persons.

[Rachel Granada]

Some of the people who doubt the McCanns story do indeed hate them because of their actions. Some who support the McCanns hate Amaral for the same reason. This however does not mean everyone who comments both for and against the abduction has that motivation and to suggest so is simply lazy.

If you are on a site such as that Facebook page and you simply accept the disgusting hate comments posted there without speaking out against them and you continue to post there, you are, in my opinion, either being lazy or even worse actually condoning such hate.

Whenever you see clear hate abuse such as that quoted from that Facebook site and you do nothing about it you demonstrate what kind of person you really are.

Hello, gilet I agree with what you have said.  Robust and respectful debate are one thing, downright vicious nastiness are something else completely.  For the record, the nasty post referring to Kate McCann as a "biatch" (sic) have stlll not been deleted from that Facebook page.

[John]

I agree, there is no need for such behaviour.  What do they expect to achieve by such nasty name calling...do they think Kate or Gerry even read a minuscule part of the nonsense that is written about them daily on some media sites?

[Rachel Granada]

I agree, there is no need for such behaviour.  What do they expect to achieve by such nasty name calling...do they think Kate or Gerry even read a minuscule part of the nonsense that is written about them daily on some media sites?

Good point John.... I am in favour of spirited debates, theories being explored etc on any subject.  Debate and differing opinions are all part of life's rich tapestry, as they say! Nasty personal insults against Kate and Gerry McCann and the promulgation of lies are not ok, in my opinion.

[John]

It doesn't achieve anything except to antagonise the recipient and to put everyone else's back up.