The breathtaking hypocrisy of those that support the McCanns

[gilet]

Yes... you're the main one I was aiming at. I find your attitude towards this and obvious moral stance questionable to say the least. And yet I bet it wouldn't take me long to find posts by you criticising Amaral's morals somehow...

I am absolutely certain you will find posts from me criticising Amaral's morals. Why should I not do so when I find them abhorrent?

The man is a convicted person. Clearly I am not the only one who finds his behaviour wrong.

And there are other proven instances of his appalling behaviour. Are you suggesting I should not criticise immorality or actions which I find wrong?

There is nothing in my previous post which contradicts this standpoint that I can see. I wonder if you could enlighten the reader (and me) as to what you are going on about?

[C.Edwards]

I am absolutely certain you will find posts from me criticising Amaral's morals. Why should I not do so when I find them abhorrent?

The man is a convicted person. Clearly I am not the only one who finds his behaviour wrong.

And there are other proven instances of his appalling behaviour. Are you suggesting I should not criticise immorality or actions which I find wrong?

There is nothing in my previous post which contradicts this standpoint that I can see. I wonder if you could enlighten the reader (and me) as to what you are going on about?

Take a look through the previous posts and find the other threads I referenced. You feature HEAVILY... 

[gilet]

Take a look through the previous posts and find the other threads I referenced. You feature HEAVILY... 

I have asked a question on this thread. You have demonstrably failed to answer it.

Please answer the question I posed in response to your personal criticism of me.

Mods might like to note that you have not dealt with the post I have made but twice now have simply been critical of me as a person. Perhaps you should learn the rules of good forum etiquette and deal with the content of the post rather than just posting comments about the poster?

On another thread, you called me (among other posters) feeble-minded so I responded in kind. Why are you going through these threads disrupting with this kind of personal attack?

[C.Edwards]

I am absolutely certain you will find posts from me criticising Amaral's morals. Why should I not do so when I find them abhorrent?

Not a problem as long as you afford the same privilege to those of us that feel the same way about the McCanns. And many of their fervent followers.

The man is a convicted person. Clearly I am not the only one who finds his behaviour wrong.

Just because someone is "convicted" does not mean they automatically become bad at their job.  It's this smear campaign attitude of the McCann supporters desperate to reduce credibility that I, and many others, find abhorrent.  The oft-repeated prefix to Amaral's name in the pro pits is "disgraced convicted perjurer" when the reality of his conviction is a long way from what you lot try and portray it as, but I understand what you and your colleagues are trying to achieve in your campaign against him.  And yet even though many find the behaviour of the McCanns wrong and even Amaral, you seem unwilling to allow us to voice our opinions about them for some reason.

And there are other proven instances of his appalling behaviour. Are you suggesting I should not criticise immorality or actions which I find wrong?

No, you go for it. It would be less hypocritical, however, if you didn't just limit that criticism to Amaral and instead took an objective view of the McCanns and their team.

There is nothing in my previous post which contradicts this standpoint that I can see. I wonder if you could enlighten the reader (and me) as to what you are going on about?

You are being disingenuous. Your clear standpoint on this (and another thread I linked you to) is that as long as the McCanns abided by the laws of the country they were in, they are above criticism for what they did. I find this hugely hypocritical even though the same actions in this country would have led to a charge of child neglect and the loss of their other children in all likelihood. This isn't my opinion, this is the personal off-the-record (not professional) opinion of a serving child protection officer in the local police force I know socially. I don't know about you but I feel that their opinion carries a bit more weight than yours but I accept that others may not as they have no reason to believe I know such a person.  I am absolutely comfortable with this and people can make their own minds up. Fortunately I'm in a position whereby I do know that I know such a person, hence I can quite happily speak from a position of strength on this thanks.

[stephen25000]

Not a problem as long as you afford the same privilege to those of us that feel the same way about the McCanns. And many of their fervent followers.
Just because someone is "convicted" does not mean they automatically become bad at their job.  It's this smear campaign attitude of the McCann supporters desperate to reduce credibility that I, and many others, find abhorrent.  The oft-repeated prefix to Amaral's name in the pro pits is "disgraced convicted perjurer" when the reality of his conviction is a long way from what you lot try and portray it as, but I understand what you and your colleagues are trying to achieve in your campaign against him.  And yet even though many find the behaviour of the McCanns wrong and even Amaral, you seem unwilling to allow us to voice our opinions about them for some reason.
No, you go for it. It would be less hypocritical, however, if you didn't just limit that criticism to Amaral and instead took an objective view of the McCanns and their team.
You are being disingenuous. Your clear standpoint on this (and another thread I linked you to) is that as long as the McCanns abided by the laws of the country they were in, they are above criticism for what they did. I find this hugely hypocritical even though the same actions in this country would have led to a charge of child neglect and the loss of their other children in all likelihood. This isn't my opinion, this is the personal off-the-record (not professional) opinion of a serving child protection officer in the local police force I know socially. I don't know about you but I feel that their opinion carries a bit more weight than yours but I accept that others may not as they have no reason to believe I know such a person.  I am absolutely comfortable with this and people can make their own minds up. Fortunately I'm in a position whereby I do know that I know such a person, hence I can quite happily speak from a position of strength on this thanks.

 

[C.Edwards]

I have asked a question on this thread. You have demonstrably failed to answer it.

Please answer the question I posed in response to your personal criticism of me.

Mods might like to note that you have not dealt with the post I have made but twice now have simply been critical of me as a person. Perhaps you should learn the rules of good forum etiquette and deal with the content of the post rather than just posting comments about the poster?

On another thread, you called me (among other posters) feeble-minded so I responded in kind. Why are you going through these threads disrupting with this kind of personal attack?

I am of the opinion that you and your fellow McCann supporters are feeble minded. I can't believe that anyone who isn't would believe the utter rubbish that passes for accepted truth on your side of the fence.  Furthermore the belief that most of you seem to hold that a) everyone who disagrees with the McCanns is a [ censored word ] or [ censored word ] and b) that only rampant lunatics (and a small minority at that) stand on the side of those who criticise the McCanns is denial or more feeble-mindedness.  Yes, I accept there are hardcore lunatics who are unable to string many sentences together and they tarnish the whole forum battleground with their presence, but they exist on both sides, not just ours as you seem to want to believe.  However from the reading of fora, blogs, article comment sections and most of the internet, sadly for the Pro side the reality is that the more intelligent and articulate posters are not coming down on your side of the fence.  It is, in fact, the pro side that is a small minority and it's pretty obvious that this is the case to all who are looking on.

I'm unaware of any rules that forbid me from holding such opinions and it's not really a personal attack on you, it's simply a statement of how I see things.  You are welcome to keep drawing attention to it of course, I'm sure that a moderator will put me right if needs be. 

[LagosBen]

  EDWARDS - "I am of the opinion that you and your fellow McCann supporters are feeble minded."

Charming -Does that include the Portuguese G.A., Redwood & Scotland Yard, FSS Services, Theresa May, David Cameron. Various other people ,more qualified than internet bunnies.

Oh and not forgetting the almost 70,000 people who signed the Petition for a review?

[gilet]

My reply in blue.
 

Not a problem as long as you afford the same privilege to those of us that feel the same way about the McCanns. And many of their fervent followers.

There is a major difference though. The basis for my considering Amaral’s actions to be abhorrent are proven facts. There are no proven facts relating to the McCanns other than the one which they fully acknowledge (that they should not have considered the checking system they had in place to be safe). Those who find the McCanns abhorrent are doing so without proven facts to base their opinions on.

Just because someone is "convicted" does not mean they automatically become bad at their job.  It's this smear campaign attitude of the McCann supporters desperate to reduce credibility that I, and many others, find abhorrent.  The oft-repeated prefix to Amaral's name in the pro pits is "disgraced convicted perjurer" when the reality of his conviction is a long way from what you lot try and portray it as, but I understand what you and your colleagues are trying to achieve in your campaign against him.  And yet even though many find the behaviour of the McCanns wrong and even Amaral, you seem unwilling to allow us to voice our opinions about them for some reason.

So you claim not to find a cop who deliberately falsifies documentation to cover up horrendous incidents of violence against a witness in a case he is working on/responsible for as bad at his job.  You don’t consider a cop who got thrown off the case of a missing child because he could not stop blabbing to the press against all the rules of his job as bad? Well, I do and I suspect that the vast proportion of the population do so as well. Your pathetic attempt to make him sound like a great cop is just that, pathetic. Your desperation to have this man seen as a good guy simply does not wash with people who have followed his proven actions and seen him receive his just deserts for those actions. Dismissal from the case, a criminal conviction and ostracisation by cops in his own station (according to his wife) on his last day there.

No, you go for it. It would be less hypocritical, however, if you didn't just limit that criticism to Amaral and instead took an objective view of the McCanns and their team.

As I said, my criticism is based on proven facts and the man’s criminal conviction. My view of the McCanns and their team is entirely objective. There is no proven crime against any of them. There is not even an allegation of a crime against them except among online internet numpties. I don’t follow the lead of convicted criminals and nutty ex-solicitors, I still maintain some level of trust in the police and judicial authorities of both Portugal and the UK who are not seeking the McCanns for any crime.

You are being disingenuous. Your clear standpoint on this (and another thread I linked you to) is that as long as the McCanns abided by the laws of the country they were in, they are above criticism for what they did. I find this hugely hypocritical even though the same actions in this country would have led to a charge of child neglect and the loss of their other children in all likelihood. This isn't my opinion, this is the personal off-the-record (not professional) opinion of a serving child protection officer in the local police force I know socially. I don't know about you but I feel that their opinion carries a bit more weight than yours but I accept that others may not as they have no reason to believe I know such a person.  I am absolutely comfortable with this and people can make their own minds up. Fortunately I'm in a position whereby I do know that I know such a person, hence I can quite happily speak from a position of strength on this thanks.

If you don’t think abiding by the laws of the country you visit is the proper approach I am sorry, but I will retain that stance and feel quite justified in doing so. Your blasé claim that the actions of the McCanns would have led to a charge of child neglect is not supported by any evidence. Its and opinion. Not one I happen to agree with. It’s a guess from you and this serving officer. Such friends of friends have been quoted online for years but oddly these people themselves never come forward to post. I do find that very interesting but I suspect that they would not be able to provide any evidence on which to base such an opinion. People have been using checking systems in Butlins and other places for decades in the UK, and no charges were brought.

[gilet]

  EDWARDS - "I am of the opinion that you and your fellow McCann supporters are feeble minded."

Charming -Does that include the Portuguese G.A., Redwood & Scotland Yard, FSS Services, Theresa May, David Cameron. Various other people ,more qualified than internet bunnies.

Oh and not forgetting the almost 70,000 people who signed the Petition for a review?

Quite!
The disgraced ex-cop convicted of falsifying records relating to violent behaviour in a case he was responsible for.

The criminal profiler who has no real qualification or experience in actual paid criminal profiling and who was given the heave-ho from TV by Nancy Grace, of all people, for extreme views.

The lunatic who travelled half way across the planet having trained for a week or two in a graveyard, to find a tiny discrepancy on a geophysical survey and then actually claimed he had "solved the McCann case".

The numpty who was disgraced as a solicitor for some kind of fraud and who when he got his big day in court regarding the McCann case was shown to be a fool who did not have a clue as to what might constitute evidence in his own defence and was sentenced accordingly for his disgusting hounding of the parents of a missing child.

These are the leading lights in the anti McCann campaign, the people who supposedly show up the Pros as being feeble minded.

I am afraid that anyone who follows the route these numpties and bumblers have taken and ignore the words of the AG of Portugal, senior officers of Scotland Yard etc are simply delusional or so immersed in conspiracy theory that they cannot see their own descent into the cloud of befuddlement.

[LagosBen]

And Edwards has the cheek to call us feeble minded  8-)(--)

[AnneGuedes]

The judge, who appears to know quite well the PJ files, had to remind a witness (who doesn't hesitate to call "investigation" the crookeries of Metodo3 and Halligen) that a criminal investigation was conducted in Portugal. She had also to clarify we do not know what happened.
On the other side, irrationally opposing that reasonable statement, there's a couple who, in spite of not having been there when their child vanished, knows that what happened was an abduction.
How marvellous !

[drummer]

The judge, who appears to know quite well the PJ files, had to remind a witness (who doesn't hesitate to call "investigation" the crookeries of Metodo3 and Halligen) that a criminal investigation was conducted in Portugal. She had also to clarify we do not know what happened.
On the other side, irrationally opposing that reasonable statement, there's a couple who, in spite of not having been there when their child vanished, knows that what happened was an abduction.
How marvellous !

She had also to clarify that we don't know what happened.

Amaral did.

[sadie]

The judge, who appears to know quite well the PJ files, had to remind a witness (who doesn't hesitate to call "investigation" the crookeries of Metodo3 and Halligen) that a criminal investigation was conducted in Portugal. She had also to clarify we do not know what happened.
On the other side, irrationally opposing that reasonable statement, there's a couple who, in spite of not having been there when their child vanished, knows that what happened was an abduction.
How marvellous !

Of course they know.

They didn't do anything criminally wrong .... so it had to be an abduction ... simple logic

Come on Anne, use those brain cells ... we all know you have got them ... but sometimes it seems you get them in a muddle, like saying what you did above.

[C.Edwards]

And Edwards has the cheek to call us feeble minded  8-)(--)

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who has any time for or even interest in most of the people on your list.  I find the pro side's attempts to rubbish Amaral (to save you the time in your response, I'll just assume that you're about to launch into another diatribe about "disgraced ex-cop prisoner beating perjurer etc.") are almost comical in their desperation. I find it particularly confusing how you seem to find any of this relevant to his policing abilities. But, of course, I'm probably failing to appreciate that the entire portuguese system is corrupt or something, aren't I?

[Benita]

If I was to say, "the McCanns should have been locked up for child neglect for leaving their kids in danger," then we all know what answer we will get from the McCann fanclub, "they didn't break any laws as the Portuguese system requires INTENT to harm so there!"

Pardon me, but isn't this breathtaking hypocrisy?  It's saying it's ok that they did something that WOULD have had them prosecuted in this country because they did it in a country where they didn't break the law.

How do you live with yourselves using that kind of "logic"?  Let alone then trying to take the moral high ground in saying anyone doubting the word according to the McCanns is a "[ censored word ]", "p......", "unempathetic" or worse.

hmm so lets lock up all the parents who use baby listening services no different to what the mcanns and other friends done ...