The 'Hate' Question.

[Redblossom]

Sad and irrational response

But I'm afraid woefully predictable Redblossom 

Yes, sadly as especially the blanket black balling of sceptics is ginormous compared with the almost non existant blackballing of *believers* for wont of a better word

Personally I have challenged some rubbish on a certain forum or two, yea, forums from both camps, and got jumped on, derided, bullied and banned, you cant win for trying sometimes, just glad this forum exists where neither camps have any control, blessing really especially for on off fence sitters

Twitter is a whole different kettle of fish, irrelevant here IMO

Twitter may be irrelevant as far as your concerned but if you are the kids of one of the McCanns' friends and you google daddy's name, the first link that pops up is to someone on twitter impersonating him and accusing him of child sex abuse.  The person behind that twitter account also helps to run the Controversy Facebook page and recruiting new members.

If parents are going to let their young kids go online they have a reaponaibility for them, especially if they havebeen involved in a high profile case, and in this case in such an unfortunate way, in this case, Mr Payne should do something about it, I find it hardto believe he doesnt know about it, he has the option to get twitter to ban that ID as it impersonates his name and picture, get brit police involved and also the ability to sue,I agree that user name and tweets are decrepit as its all based on a friends interpretation of gestures and half heard conversations denoting in her mind paedophilia involving 2 year olds

Parents cannot shield their children from the all of the worst excesses of the internet forever.   Why should this poor man have to go through the unpleasant rigmarole of tracking down and stopping this vile troll?  Why don't the vile troll's friends (some of whom post on this very forum) search their own consciences and try to persuade him to delete that particular account?

Yes very fair point but it wont work if the person is hell bent,sad but true

fact is if you are on any forum  apart from here i might add its fixed in mentality so complaints WILL get drowned out

And you are still  out of order though saying that anyone who posts in a same place as him believes the same as him, that is nothing  but casting aspersions, on conrroversy forum when i was on there for a couple weeks i challenged him on something srupid he said  and he accused me of enabling rape and child abuse , well I knew he was a nutter but that was the last straw

[faithlilly]

Who is being compared to Harold Shipman exactly? Arul Gaspar or David Payne?

No one is being compared to anyone. I am pointing out that even the most evil  of people can hide their true character from strangers.

[Redblossom]

I don't think I said that actually redBlossom.  I think if you post alongside him and also highfive his offensive posts and tweets, retweet him and / or make him admin of your FB page then clearly you do support his sick stance.  I have no idea if any of this applies to you specifically as I don't know you outside of this forum.

i dont do twitter or partake of his view martha and tweets, is he admin of that controversy page then? Find that hard to believe

[Mrs. B]

Yes, odd that. While in others the evil is so transparent you can almost see it oozing out of their black souls.....  >@@(*&)

[AnneGuedes]

Anne it was only Mrs K Gaspar who imagined certain things, her husband just saw DP making  sexual gestures like she did
Mrs  K blended those gestures with the fact she thought he and Gm were talking about Madeleine in that way which I personally found hard to believe if she was sitting in between them or even if she wasnt

This is just MO but I think once Madeleine went missing and she found out he was part of the group, she made mental leaps from her fears and imaginings frombefore when she was on holiday with him and what had happened and felt she  had to report her feelings, nothing wrong with that, the Pj shouldnt have put it in the released files though

I agree this shouldn't have been put in the released files.
Whatever happened, I find it weird Mrs G not to have a serious talk with the protagonists to clarify her suspicions. Keeping them away from the bathroom when her kids are in is selfish imo.

[Redblossom]

Yes, odd that. While in others the evil is so transparent you can almost see it oozing out of their black souls.....  >@@(*&)

get over yourself and your drama queen religious  tactics here, eeewwww, shudder

[Mrs. B]

LOL Moi? Religious - you're having a laugh....

[faithlilly]

Who is being compared to Harold Shipman exactly? Arul Gaspar or David Payne?

No one is being compared to anyone. I am pointing out that even the most evil  of people can hide their true character from strangers.

Were David Payne and Gerry McCann strangers to Arul Gaspar?

David Payne certainly was before the holiday.

[Mrs. B]

You mean you've been harping on about that statement for ages but FAILED to notice that they spent a holiday together in Mallorca in 2005?

I did not know these two families until we went on holidays together. From memory, I think that it was David [Payne] who organised these holidays and we all stayed together in a big house in Majorca.

[Benice]

Anne it was only Mrs K Gaspar who imagined certain things, her husband just saw DP making  sexual gestures like she did
Mrs  K blended those gestures with the fact she thought he and Gm were talking about Madeleine in that way which I personally found hard to believe if she was sitting in between them or even if she wasnt

This is just MO but I think once Madeleine went missing and she found out he was part of the group, she made mental leaps from her fears and imaginings frombefore when she was on holiday with him and what had happened and felt she  had to report her feelings, nothing wrong with that, the Pj shouldnt have put it in the released files though

I agree this shouldn't have been put in the released files.
Whatever happened, I find it weird Mrs G not to have a serious talk with the protagonists to clarify her suspicions. Keeping them away from the bathroom when her kids are in is selfish imo.

I'm amazed that Mrs G did not say a word about it to her own husband!  Wouldn't that be the first thing you would do in such circumstances?  And wouldn't the words you had heard be burned into your memory - and yet she could not recall the conversation which accompanied the 'gestures' - she only 'thinks' it was about Madeleine.

Personally I think she was mistaken in her interpretation.  No paedaphile is going to casually chat in a way which would reveal his paedaphilia in the company of ANYONE at the dinner table.  They are intensely secretive.

Mr. G simply thought that what DP did was in ''poor taste' and unlike his wife he did not think it was about Madeleine.  IOW he wasn't outraged or shocked - and doesn't even remember the second occasion at all.

We know very little about Mrs G - and so can only speculate.  If English is not her first language - then maybe she misconstrued 'English humour' - or maybe she is a massive prude and was shocked at something that others would simply regard as 'crude'.   

Their statements should not have been released.  And I do believe that was a deliberate action.  However we do know that nothing was found by the police to substantiate Mrs. G's interpretations - and despite worldwide publicity not a single 'victim' has ever come forward.  As we know from other cases in the UK - that is what happens once it's made public.     So nothing - not a scrap of evidence against him except a half remembered conversation - and what she 'IMAGINED' he might be capable of from Mrs G  - which Mr G. did not agree with.

Finally I think if DP had made a paedaphilic remark about Madeleine to her own father, then Gerry would have probably 'decked' him there and then  - and that would have been the end of a wonderful friendship.

 

[AnneGuedes]

We know very little about Mrs G - and so can only speculate.  If English is not her first language - then maybe she misconstrued 'English humour' - or maybe she is a massive prude and was shocked at something that others would simply regard as 'crude'.   

Their statements should not have been released.  And I do believe that was a deliberate action.

That was likely humour, not sure about English, but a joke Mrs G didn't like for some personal reasons, perhaps. The fact to go to the police to state gives an idea of the relationships between acquaintances.
Can you please, Benice, explain why you believe the release was "a deliberate action" and who decided so ?

[Benice]

We know very little about Mrs G - and so can only speculate.  If English is not her first language - then maybe she misconstrued 'English humour' - or maybe she is a massive prude and was shocked at something that others would simply regard as 'crude'.   

Their statements should not have been released.  And I do believe that was a deliberate action.

That was likely humour, not sure about English, but a joke Mrs G didn't like for some personal reasons, perhaps. The fact to go to the police to state gives an idea of the relationships between acquaintances.
Can you please, Benice, explain why you believe the release was "a deliberate action" and who decided so ?

I thought the Pj were told not to release files about people where paedaphilia was the issue.

As far as I know, the Pj also made no effort to blank out people's private information before releasing their files i.e. private phone numbers, addresses and other private information were left for all and sundry to access - causing a lot of hassle to those who were forced to take action to avoid fraud etc.   As they were policemen and must have known they were putting people in that unacceptable position by making such info available to the public - then why choose to take such an irresponsible course of action in the first place?    Personally I can't think of any benign reasons.  Can you?

 



   

[AnneGuedes]

I thought the Pj were told not to release files about people where paedaphilia was the issue.

As far as I know, the Pj also made no effort to blank out people's private information before releasing their files i.e. private phone numbers, addresses and other private information were left for all and sundry to access - causing a lot of hassle to those who were forced to take action to avoid fraud etc.   As they were policemen and must have known they were putting people in that unacceptable position by making such info available to the public - then why choose to take such an irresponsible course of action in the first place?    Personally I can't think of any benign reasons.  Can you?

Well, Benice, I wouldn't jump from bad taste to paedophilia. A little vengeance because the testimony was only sent 6 months later and because also there was no requirement not to release it, the testimony judging more the G than DP and GMC ?
I think, I hope this spontaneous statement was properly investigated but there's no file attesting it. As Mr McCann learnt about what colleagues had judged useful to tell the police about him (not sufficient a deletion though to alert the GMC), he (imo) should have replied (off the record), for the benefit of clarity.
The presence of UK paedophiles in the Algarve without the police (not the people) being aware of it was really unfair. I was really shocked that this was divulged only when a British child disappeared. What about the other little girls and boys ?
Some phone nb have been kept by mistake.
Generally speaking as no crime could be determined, no suspect could be charged, this case is just history. Unless..

[ferryman]

We know very little about Mrs G - and so can only speculate.  If English is not her first language - then maybe she misconstrued 'English humour' - or maybe she is a massive prude and was shocked at something that others would simply regard as 'crude'.   

Their statements should not have been released.  And I do believe that was a deliberate action.

That was likely humour, not sure about English, but a joke Mrs G didn't like for some personal reasons, perhaps. The fact to go to the police to state gives an idea of the relationships between acquaintances.
Can you please, Benice, explain why you believe the release was "a deliberate action" and who decided so ?

I thought the Pj were told not to release files about people where paedaphilia was the issue.

As far as I know, the Pj also made no effort to blank out people's private information before releasing their files i.e. private phone numbers, addresses and other private information were left for all and sundry to access - causing a lot of hassle to those who were forced to take action to avoid fraud etc.   As they were policemen and must have known they were putting people in that unacceptable position by making such info available to the public - then why choose to take such an irresponsible course of action in the first place?    Personally I can't think of any benign reasons.  Can you?

 



   

Bernice, the Portuguese authorities trampled rough-shod over all (UK) procedures and protocols in the way that they released information about this investigation.  And while you might say that, as the lead force in the investigation, they had the prerogative to, that would be far from right.

The UK made it a strict condition of their part of the investigation that (specifically) their role in the investigation would be released into the public domain in accordance with UK procedures and protocols.

The Portuguese just trampled rough-shod over the lot. 

There was stuff they could have released, strictly on the Portuguese side, they could have released without objection from the British: the Interim report (heaven help us!); the PJ final report; PJ police interviews; other leads followed up by Portuguese police (and so on). 

But just about everything undertaken by the British was supposed to remain under wraps until after the crime had been solved, Madeleine's fate was definitely known, trials had been held, time had elapsed for appeals to be heard and so on.

All that was just ignored ...

[Chinagirl]

Indeed.  None of the witness statements should have been released.