Bad feelings, redundancies and defaced posters.

[Angelo222]

What would you suggest the appropriate  charge might be ?
Was this a private advert board set up on behalf of the McCanns or a police advert?
It's easy to get emotive, but was a criminal act involved?
Do police usually get involved in defacement of hoardings etc ?

Criminal damage is universally recognised in any language.

[Angelo222]

It would indeed add insult to injury if the parents were universally acknowledged as completely innocent, but they aren't. Hence the vandalism. It doesn't make the vandalism right, but it makes it understandable.

What is understandable is that there are mindless hooligans running around PdL damaging posters and daubing graffiti on traffic signs and the police have failed to stop it.

[stephen25000]

What is understandable is that there are mindless hooligans running around PdL damaging posters and daubing graffiti on traffic signs and the police have failed to stop it.

....and what happens all around the world Angelo.

Hardly unique to Portugal.

[Angelo222]

....and what happens all around the world Angelo.

Hardly unique to Portugal.

Can you cite any other missing child poster which has attracted such hate or is this case unique after all?

[ferryman]

What is understandable is that there are mindless hooligans running around PdL damaging posters and daubing graffiti on traffic signs and the police have failed to stop it.

Did you mean, what is understandable?

Or is not? (understandable!)

[Alice Purjorick]

What is understandable is that there are mindless hooligans running around PdL damaging posters and daubing graffiti on traffic signs and the police have failed to stop it.

This is true. In my younger days along with about 90% of the juvenile male population of the time we shot at signs and hoardings with catapults, air rifles and air pistols.
Not that long ago in SA along the road from Jo'burg to Pilanesburg the signs and hoardings were shot at with rifles and hand guns and if there was an animal slihouette on said sign or hoarding it looked it like a colander in short time.
A sign or hoarding is a target one way or another. The question here is the motivation. Prove it was due to malice against the McCanns .......... &%+((£

[Angelo222]

This is true. In my younger days along with about 90% of the juvenile male population of the time we shot at signs and hoardings with catapults, air rifles and air pistols.
Not that long ago in SA along the road from Jo'burg to Pilanesburg the signs and hoardings were shot at with rifles and hand guns and if there was an animal slihouette on said sign or hoarding it looked it like a colander in short time.
A sign or hoarding is a target one way or another. The question here is the motivation. Prove it was due to malice against the McCanns .......... &%+((£

Is daubing "mcann circus" on traffic signs not somewhat self evidencing?

[stephen25000]

Can you cite any other missing child poster which has attracted such hate or is this case unique after all?

It's not hatred of Madeleine.

More loathing and dislike for her parenylts Angelo

After all, their actions initiated this case.

Likewise the UK tabloid press which has frequently insulted the Portuguese bears responsibility as well.

[Brietta]

Here's a thought.

If a Portuguese child had gone missing in the UK on holiday, would :

1. The case still be in the news ?

2. Would posters still be up after nearly 10 years ?

3. Have posters on billboards never , ever been vandalized before ?

4. It isn't Madeleine, the people who did the vandalizing are angry with, it's her PARENTS.

Defacing posters publicising a missing child really is the lowest of the low. The defaced image of Madeleine John posted was from 2009.

In the hypothetical scenario you suggest, I doubt very much if it would have been necessary for the parents of the missing child to employ private detectives to pursue their own investigation into their missing child's case.

The police would have attended to each aspect of the child's disappearance in exactly the same manner in which all cases of missing children are dealt with, obviating the requirement for the victim's family to devise their own strategy.

On those occasions when police investigations are unsuccessful absolutely no-one faults the families for keeping the case alive.  In Keith Bennett's case all his mother wanted was for his body to be found so that she could bury him properly ... no-one castigated her for that, nor would they.
Why are the McCanns castigated for trying to find their daughter who may well be alive ... why are there campaigns to stop them from looking?

Weather-beaten memorial to Moors-murder victim Keith Bennett at Wessenden Head, West Yorkshire

[Alice Purjorick]

Is daubing "mcann circus" on traffic signs not somewhat self evidencing?

That much of it is.
But I would suggest all defacing of all signs isn't.
Most folk find what they are they looking for and bother not about looking further.

[Mr Gray]

It's not hatred of Madeleine.

More loathing and dislike for her parenylts Angelo

After all, their actions initiated this case.

Likewise the UK tabloid press which has frequently insulted the Portuguese bears responsibility as well.

So you justify the defacing of posters trying to find information about maddies disappearance
That just about sums up the morality of the sceptics

[ShiningInLuz]

One of the linked topics points to this story in the UK media http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-465825/Madeleine-cinema-advert-upsets-Shrek-audiences.html

In July 2007, Shrek 3 opened, deemed suitable for those aged 4 and over.  (Does such a film category exist?)

In front of it, there was a 90s advert, which stated that Madeleine had been snatched.

UK parents complained that this was upsetting for their children, making them fear they could be snatched too.

So the advert was removed from the front of Shrek 3, though it remained on other films.

What I find odd is the imbalance.  That UK children are to be protected from Madeleine, with no public outcry, yet it is OK to flood Luz with the same concept two years on, and all in Luz are supposed to accept it.

 

[Mr Gray]

One of the linked topics points to this story in the UK media http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-465825/Madeleine-cinema-advert-upsets-Shrek-audiences.html

In July 2007, Shrek 3 opened, deemed suitable for those aged 4 and over.  (Does such a film category exist?)

In front of it, there was a 90s advert, which stated that Madeleine had been snatched.

UK parents complained that this was upsetting for their children, making them fear they could be snatched too.

So the advert was removed from the front of Shrek 3, though it remained on other films.

What I find odd is the imbalance.  That UK children are to be protected from Madeleine, with no public outcry, yet it is OK to flood Luz with the same concept two years on, and all in Luz are supposed to accept it.

 

You find it odd because of your preconceived viewpoint

[Alice Purjorick]

Defacing posters publicising a missing child really is the lowest of the low. The defaced image of Madeleine John posted was from 2009.

In the hypothetical scenario you suggest, I doubt very much if it would have been necessary for the parents of the missing child to employ private detectives to pursue their own investigation into their missing child's case.

The police would have attended to each aspect of the child's disappearance in exactly the same manner in which all cases of missing children are dealt with, obviating the requirement for the victim's family to devise their own strategy.

On those occasions when police investigations are unsuccessful absolutely no-one faults the families for keeping the case alive.  In Keith Bennett's case all his mother wanted was for his body to be found so that she could bury him properly ... no-one castigated her for that, nor would they.
Why are the McCanns castigated for trying to find their daughter who may well be alive ... why are there campaigns to stop them from looking?

Weather-beaten memorial to Moors-murder victim Keith Bennett at Wessenden Head, West Yorkshire

Two, but not limited to two, possiblities here :
1.You don't see the difference.
2.You do see the difference but think everyone else is too kin thick to.
Faites vos jeux.

[misty]

One of the linked topics points to this story in the UK media http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-465825/Madeleine-cinema-advert-upsets-Shrek-audiences.html

In July 2007, Shrek 3 opened, deemed suitable for those aged 4 and over.  (Does such a film category exist?)

In front of it, there was a 90s advert, which stated that Madeleine had been snatched.

UK parents complained that this was upsetting for their children, making them fear they could be snatched too.

So the advert was removed from the front of Shrek 3, though it remained on other films.

What I find odd is the imbalance.  That UK children are to be protected from Madeleine, with no public outcry, yet it is OK to flood Luz with the same concept two years on, and all in Luz are supposed to accept it.

 

A picture of a child on a poster or billboard will barely attract the passing attention of those who can barely read the displayed words.
 An audio narrative shown in conjunction with pictures on a large cinema screen has a much greater impact.