for the record

[C.Edwards]

As much as I've seen some truly horrible things written about the McCanns, there have been many equally awful things written about Amaral (and his colleagues) and Tony Bennett among others.  This is because they have dared to vociferously question the story put forward by the McCanns.

I would have a lot more sympathy for the McCanns if they hadn't kept repeatedly thrusting themselves into the limelight.  They use the media as a platform for their campaign, which is all well and good, but in doing so they are making themselves public figures and they are, however their supporters wish to spin it, not cleared from suspicion of involvement.  It is perfectly valid to question their version of events as long as it doesn't descend into outright libel.  Yes it is perfectly possible to question them and remain non-libellous for the avoidance of doubt.

[gilet]

As much as I've seen some truly horrible things written about the McCanns, there have been many equally awful things written about Amaral (and his colleagues) and Tony Bennett among others.  This is because they have dared to vociferously question the story put forward by the McCanns.

I would have a lot more sympathy for the McCanns if they hadn't kept repeatedly thrusting themselves into the limelight.  They use the media as a platform for their campaign, which is all well and good, but in doing so they are making themselves public figures and they are, however their supporters wish to spin it, not cleared from suspicion of involvement.  It is perfectly valid to question their version of events as long as it doesn't descend into outright libel.  Yes it is perfectly possible to question them and remain non-libellous for the avoidance of doubt.

I agree that there have been awful things written on both sides but what I have seen written about Amaral and Bennett have almost always been awful but true, and have had relevant evidence to back them up.

Amaral wasn't thrown off the case for no reason at all. He even told us in his book what the reason was. Bennett wasn't convicted for nothing at all. Amaral wasn't convicted on a whim of someone. He was found guilty of a crime. He was convicted because he lied to the courts and continued to stalk the McCanns when having agreed not to do so.

To accuse the McCanns of "repeatedly thrusting themselves in the limelight" is in my view extremely disingenuous of you when you know that the reason for their publicity drive is not reputational at all, it is to keep the name of their missing daughter in the media, to ensure that she (and more recently other missing people) are kept at the forefront of people's minds.

However you wish to spin it the McCanns are entirely innocent of any crime. They have never been charged and are entitled (especially after having gone through a long investigation at the end of which there was no evidence of any crime by them) to be treated as any other person who has had no crime recorded against them.

Two police forces have investigated them fully and not a single piece of evidence found. If that does not satisfy you then what will?

The problem is not the fact that people ask questions but that they (as you well know) go way beyond that. They cast aspersions as you have done, they post outright lies as Bennett and Hideho have done. That is what makes the difference, the lies.

[stephen25000]

As much as I've seen some truly horrible things written about the McCanns, there have been many equally awful things written about Amaral (and his colleagues) and Tony Bennett among others.  This is because they have dared to vociferously question the story put forward by the McCanns.

I would have a lot more sympathy for the McCanns if they hadn't kept repeatedly thrusting themselves into the limelight.  They use the media as a platform for their campaign, which is all well and good, but in doing so they are making themselves public figures and they are, however their supporters wish to spin it, not cleared from suspicion of involvement.  It is perfectly valid to question their version of events as long as it doesn't descend into outright libel.  Yes it is perfectly possible to question them and remain non-libellous for the avoidance of doubt.

Quite right C. Edwards.

The 'publicity' trips all over the world had nothing to do with finding Madeleine, they were ego trips, especially for him, doing the 'big I am'.

[debunker]

As much as I've seen some truly horrible things written about the McCanns, there have been many equally awful things written about Amaral (and his colleagues) and Tony Bennett among others.  This is because they have dared to vociferously question the story put forward by the McCanns.

I would have a lot more sympathy for the McCanns if they hadn't kept repeatedly thrusting themselves into the limelight.  They use the media as a platform for their campaign, which is all well and good, but in doing so they are making themselves public figures and they are, however their supporters wish to spin it, not cleared from suspicion of involvement.  It is perfectly valid to question their version of events as long as it doesn't descend into outright libel.  Yes it is perfectly possible to question them and remain non-libellous for the avoidance of doubt.

Quite right C. Edwards.

The 'publicity' trips all over the world had nothing to do with finding Madeleine, they were ego trips, especially for him, doing the 'big I am'.

THis is the not very humble opinion of a McCann [ censored word ].

WHere is your evidence?

YOu have none other than gut feeling.

IT is my gut feeling that you post like this because you know your views are worthless IRL so you big yourself up on the internet.

[stephen25000]

As much as I've seen some truly horrible things written about the McCanns, there have been many equally awful things written about Amaral (and his colleagues) and Tony Bennett among others.  This is because they have dared to vociferously question the story put forward by the McCanns.

I would have a lot more sympathy for the McCanns if they hadn't kept repeatedly thrusting themselves into the limelight.  They use the media as a platform for their campaign, which is all well and good, but in doing so they are making themselves public figures and they are, however their supporters wish to spin it, not cleared from suspicion of involvement.  It is perfectly valid to question their version of events as long as it doesn't descend into outright libel.  Yes it is perfectly possible to question them and remain non-libellous for the avoidance of doubt.

Quite right C. Edwards.

The 'publicity' trips all over the world had nothing to do with finding Madeleine, they were ego trips, especially for him, doing the 'big I am'.

THis is the not very humble opinion of a McCann [ censored word ].

WHere is your evidence?

YOu have none other than gut feeling.

IT is my gut feeling that you post like this because you know your views are worthless IRL so you big yourself up on the internet.

Yet again the same type of language, '[ censored word ]'.

Speaks volumes of you and your pretense of neutrality.

[debunker]

As much as I've seen some truly horrible things written about the McCanns, there have been many equally awful things written about Amaral (and his colleagues) and Tony Bennett among others.  This is because they have dared to vociferously question the story put forward by the McCanns.

I would have a lot more sympathy for the McCanns if they hadn't kept repeatedly thrusting themselves into the limelight.  They use the media as a platform for their campaign, which is all well and good, but in doing so they are making themselves public figures and they are, however their supporters wish to spin it, not cleared from suspicion of involvement.  It is perfectly valid to question their version of events as long as it doesn't descend into outright libel.  Yes it is perfectly possible to question them and remain non-libellous for the avoidance
of doubt.

Quite right C. Edwards.

The 'publicity' trips all over the world had nothing to do with finding Madeleine, they were ego trips, especially for him, doing the 'big I am'.

THis is the not very humble opinion of a McCann [ censored word ].

WHere is your evidence?

YOu have none other than gut feeling.


IT is my gut feeling that you post like this because you know your views are worthless IRL so you big yourself up on the internet.

Yet again the same type of language, '[ censored word ]'.


Speaks volumes of you and your pretense of neutrality.

[ censored word] tend to base their myths on hatred of the McCanns
Pros tend to base their myths on silly misunderstandings.

THat is why I call [ censored word] [ censored word ]s and [ censored word ]s.

AS I have repeatedly said, I am neither Pro nor Anti McCann, but protective of their rights to live an unfettered life free from defamation and harassment.

I support no theory about what happened, and will be pleased if further evidence is found that allows someone (McCanns or others) to justice. But for the time being I stand with the judgements of two legal system that have not been able to build a case against anyone.

[C.Edwards]

[ censored word] tend to base their myths on hatred of the McCanns
Pros tend to base their myths on silly misunderstandings.

THat is why I call [ censored word] [ censored word ]s and [ censored word ]s.

AS I have repeatedly said, I am neither Pro nor Anti McCann, but protective of their rights to live an unfettered life free from defamation and harassment.

I support no theory about what happened, and will be pleased if further evidence is found that allows someone (McCanns or others) to justice. But for the time being I stand with the judgements of two legal system that have not been able to build a case against anyone.

What utter tosh.  You accuse others of sweeping generalisations and yet you say something as stupid as "[ censored word] tend to base their myths on hatred of the McCanns, Pros tend to base their myths on silly misunderstandings."

I don't hate the McCanns at all.  Having hate would mean I feel something about them and I don't. I utterly wouldn't care if I never heard another word from them.  What goads me into responding on sites like this is their repeated resurfacing in the media attempting to attach themselves to various campaigns, causes and other missing children cases as though they weren't the architects of their own downfall.  No, before you say it, I don't think they have suffered for what they've gone through with the disappearance of Madeleine - they appear to be enjoying the limelight and revelling in their minor celebrity status.

I also cannot stand the apologist stance that their supporters take with ridiculous sweeping statements like, "we've all done it" - No we bloody haven't you stupid woman, some of us treasure and look after our children and don't leave them in harm's way.

Every single person that supports the McCanns has to make excuses all along the way in order to excuse them leaving the children alone repeatedly, their odd behaviour, their ridiculous excuses and contradictions, treating deleted call records and text messages as normal behaviour... I could go on but it makes me angry and I tend to rant.

You supporters try and take the moral high ground and call us that question the McCanns "[ censored word ]s" as that makes you feel that you're rooting for the right team.  So far the only thing that can be said with certainty is that the McCanns were entirely responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine whether it was an abductor or something darker. They have never accepted that responsibility.

No, I don't hate them. I don't pity them either, I don't think they're worth any more of my time than any other vapid z-list celebrity that gets their kicks from appearing in hello magazine.  I feel sorry for Madeleine, the McCanns are just "f*cking tossers" if I may borrow a phrase from one of the lovely people you so idolise.

[debunker]

[ censored word] tend to base their myths on hatred of the McCanns
Pros tend to base their myths on silly misunderstandings.

THat is why I call [ censored word] [ censored word ]s and [ censored word ]s.

AS I have repeatedly said, I am neither Pro nor Anti McCann, but protective of their rights to live an unfettered life free from defamation and harassment.

I support no theory about what happened, and will be pleased if further evidence is found that allows someone (McCanns or others) to justice. But for the time being I stand with the judgements of two legal system that have not been able to build a case against anyone.

What utter tosh.  You accuse others of sweeping generalisations and yet you say something as stupid as "[ censored word] tend to base their myths on hatred of the McCanns, Pros tend to base their myths on silly misunderstandings."



I don't hate the McCanns at all.  Having hate would mean I feel something about them and I don't. I utterly wouldn't care if I never heard another word from them.  What goads me into responding on sites like this is their repeated resurfacing in the media attempting to attach themselves to various campaigns, causes and other missing children cases as though they weren't the architects of their own downfall.  No, before you say it, I don't think they have suffered for what they've gone through with the disappearance of Madeleine - they appear to be enjoying the limelight and revelling in their minor celebrity status.


I also cannot stand the apologist stance that their supporters take with ridiculous sweeping statements like, "we've all done it" - No we bloody haven't you stupid woman, some of us treasure and look after our children and don't leave them in harm's way.





Every single person that supports the McCanns has to make excuses all along the way in order to excuse them leaving the children alone repeatedly, their odd behaviour, their ridiculous excuses and contradictions, treating deleted call records and text messages as normal behaviour... I could go on but it makes me angry and I tend to rant.






You supporters try and take the moral high ground and call us that question the McCanns "[ censored word ]s" as that makes you feel that you're rooting for the right team.  So far the only thing that can be said with certainty is that the McCanns were entirely responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine whether it was an abductor or something darker. They have never accepted that responsibility.


No, I don't hate them. I don't pity them either, I don't think they're worth any more of my time than any other vapid z-list celebrity that gets their kicks from appearing in hello magazine.  I feel sorry for Madeleine, the McCanns are just "f*cking tossers" if I may borrow a phrase from one of the lovely people you so idolise.

YOur reply demonstrates what I was saying . Your dislike for the McCanns verges on hatred.

I am not a Pro, merely defensive of their righ t s and offended by n.........s who harass, abuse and defame on the internet (and in you case using a known handle to mislead)

[C.Edwards]

YOur reply demonstrates what I was saying . Your dislike for the McCanns verges on hatred.

I am not a Pro, merely defensive of their righ t s and offended by n.........s who harass, abuse and defame on the internet (and in you case using a known handle to mislead)

Eh? You need to do some research on hatred.  It's a whole lot different from loathing.  Call me a loather if you like.

Your position on them is crystal clear. I don't see why you wish to prolong this charade of neutrality.

What is your evidence that I'm misleading by using a known handle?  How do you know I'm not the same C.Edwards as appears elsewhere?  I state that I am. How do you know I'm not?  You could end up looking very foolish here.

[debunker]

YOur reply demonstrates what I was saying . Your dislike for the McCanns verges on hatred.

I am not a Pro, merely defensive of their righ t s and offended by n.........s who harass, abuse and defame on the internet (and in you case using a known handle to mislead)

Eh? You need to do some research on hatred.  It's a whole lot different from loathing.  Call me a loather if you like.

Your position on them is crystal clear. I don't see why you wish to prolong this charade of neutrality.



What is your evidence that I'm misleading by using a known handle?  How do you know I'm not the same C.Edwards as appears elsewhere?  I state that I am. How do you know I'm not?  You could end up looking very foolish here.

The real C. Edwards was calm, rational and polite.

Check your vocab

http://m.dictionary.com/t/?q=loathe