What is it? Persecution or Harassment

[Rachel Granada]

If I were involved in a case like this, yes I would. A crime was committed by somebody.

So you'd just brush off obsessed loony stalkers trying to get you sacked, have your children removed, posting nasty leaflets to your neighbours etc.  Well I sincerely hope that you are never put in that position, on top of having to cope with a child going missing.

Yes,  a crime has been committed but not by Kate or Gerry McCann.

[icabodcrane]

What you talking about icabod?!  It was a list of all the horrible things that Kate and Gerry McCann have had to put up with from obsessed loonies on top of their child going missing.

I took it from the op that any critisism or questioning of the McCann's version of events was unacceptable 

Was I wrong  ? 

IS it acceptable in the OP's opinion  (  and in yours  )   to critisise the McCanns in any way,  and to question their version of events sceptically  ?   

[TTSOFAFM]

Is it being suggested that the unsolved mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance should not be discussed on the UK Justice forum   ?

Have I said that?  No.  However, freedom of speech does not give you freedom to libel someone. 

One Tweet I did find enlightening was the one from CPS with regards to S.127 of the Communications Act 2003

Section 127 Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

So if by retweeting a libellous or menacing tweet you could be in breach of S.127 then it is obvious if someone accuses the McCanns of being involved in what happened to their daughter, that person is in breach of said act.

That point being even more valid, due to the fact of Lord Justice Tugendhat's decision, especially number 128 where he states this.

In the present case there can be no doubt that the Defendant had the required knowledge. In any event, I am sure that he intended to allege that the Claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter, and did in fact dispose of her body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done. I am sure that he intended his words to bear the other meanings which I have held they do bear. The words are too clear, and the repetitions too numerous, for any other interpretation to be put upon what he did. And while the Defendant has made frequent references to statements emanating from the Portuguese authorities during their investigations, he makes no mention of the Report of the District Attorney dated 21 July 2008, a copy of which is exhibited to the third affidavit of Ms Martorell. That includes the following (in translation):
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/283.html

The Judge has accepted the conclusions of the Archiving Dispatch and has therefore placed on record that the McCanns have not committed any crimes.

Just pointing out that people should be careful what they post.

[Lyall]

So you'd just brush off obsessed loony stalkers trying to get you sacked, have your children removed, posting nasty leaflets to your neighbours etc.  Well I sincerely hope that you are never put in that position, on top of having to cope with a child going missing.

Yes,  a crime has been committed but not by Kate or Gerry McCann.

You're grossly exaggerating. We're British - we shout a lot, but that's it mainly. You should see what happens in other countries in missing child cases. A child disappeared Rachel. It's no surprise people were passionate is it.

[carlymichelle]

Persecution or Harassment? Neither. Stupidity in the events you've listed, but most or all only happened once.

I wouldn't worry. You have the nation's finest lawyers, PR firms, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, a TV network and entire English press on your side.

Persecution and Harassment? Nah.

agree fully

[C.Edwards]

Point 1 - and it's a big one - The PJ's summary report left no-one in any doubt as to what the investigating force thought and even though the archiving summary reported there was not enough evidence of the McCanns having committed a crime to continue to constitute them arguidos it did quite clearly state that the McCanns and their friends failed to cooperate and did not effectively "eliminate themselves from the enquiry".  Furthermore it did not say that the PJ report that preceeded the archiving report was wrong, it merely archived the case and explained why.

Bearing point 1 in mind, while there is no clear evidence of either of the two binary possibilities (abduction or death & cover up) then either possibility is equally as likely (being kind to the McCanns really there).  This means it is theoretically possible that they ARE involved in what the investigating force thought - death and a cover up.  All the time that condition is true, the McCanns are absolutely, 100% fair game to be questioned.

You have highlighted a number of actions taken by a hard-core (and quite possibly lunatic) minority which are utterly unreasonable (stalking, threats) and some actions that are perfectly reasonable (leafleting - ONLY IF ACCURATE TO THE FACTS, questioning on the fund usage, questioning on their stories, questioning on their actions). 

The McCanns have no divine right to have their version of events go unquestioned. They do have a personal right to privacy and I condemn all those that flout that right.  However you and most of your fellow pros mistake the [ censored word] sticking up for themselves as personal attacks on the McCanns. If you're going to tar every single person that doesn't subscribe to "the truth according to St.s Gerry & Kate" as a <word I won't use beginning with h> and lump them in via guilt by association with those utter morons that do unreasonable things then you deserve all the abuse you're going to get.

I've said for years that the biggest failing of the Pro brigade is to realise and understand that they're not just dealing with a small hard core band of nutters and that, quite honestly, the number of sceptics at least matches the number of believers and that only very few of them are the lunatics that you seem to think we all are.  You are massively underestimating the strength and depth of suspicion there is towards the McCanns in the UK and immediately go into denial about this whenever it's brought up.

[TTSOFAFM]

Persecution or Harassment? Neither. Stupidity in the events you've listed, but most or all only happened once.

I wouldn't worry. You have the nation's finest lawyers, PR firms, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, a TV network and entire English press on your side.

Persecution and Harassment? Nah.

YOU???

Are you now stupidly trying to imply that I either Kate or Gerry McCann, by using the term 'you'?  How foolish if you are.

[Rachel Granada]

I took it from the op that any critisism or questioning of the McCann's version of events was unacceptable 

Was I wrong  ? 

IS it acceptable in the OP's opinion  (  and in yours  )   to critisise the McCanns in any way,  and to question their version of events sceptically  ?

I think you have the wrong end of the stick, icabod.  Speak your mind as long as you don't libel anyone or accuse people of crimes without evidence to back it up.

[Lyall]

YOU???

Are you now stupidly trying to imply that I either Kate or Gerry McCann, by using the term 'you'?  How foolish if you are.

You as in devoted supporters.

[C.Edwards]

YOU???

Are you now stupidly trying to imply that I either Kate or Gerry McCann, by using the term 'you'?  How foolish if you are.

It makes it very hard to hold conversations with some people if they fail to grasp the difference between "you" as in "hey, you're Kate McCann!" and "you" as in "all of you who support the McCanns", i.e. "your side" as opposed to "our side"...

[Rachel Granada]

Point 1 - and it's a big one - The PJ's summary report left no-one in any doubt as to what the investigating force thought and even though the archiving summary reported there was not enough evidence of the McCanns having committed a crime to continue to constitute them arguidos it did quite clearly state that the McCanns and their friends failed to cooperate and did not effectively "eliminate themselves from the enquiry".  Furthermore it did not say that the PJ report that preceeded the archiving report was wrong, it merely archived the case and explained why.

Bearing point 1 in mind, while there is no clear evidence of either of the two binary possibilities (abduction or death & cover up) then either possibility is equally as likely (being kind to the McCanns really there).  This means it is theoretically possible that they ARE involved in what the investigating force thought - death and a cover up.  All the time that condition is true, the McCanns are absolutely, 100% fair game to be questioned.

You have highlighted a number of actions taken by a hard-core (and quite possibly lunatic) minority which are utterly unreasonable (stalking, threats) and some actions that are perfectly reasonable (leafleting - ONLY IF ACCURATE TO THE FACTS, questioning on the fund usage, questioning on their stories, questioning on their actions). 

The McCanns have no divine right to have their version of events go unquestioned. They do have a personal right to privacy and I condemn all those that flout that right.  However you and most of your fellow pros mistake the [ censored word] sticking up for themselves as personal attacks on the McCanns. If you're going to tar every single person that doesn't subscribe to "the truth according to St.s Gerry & Kate" as a <word I won't use beginning with h> and lump them in via guilt by association with those utter morons that do unreasonable things then you deserve all the abuse you're going to get.

I've said for years that the biggest failing of the Pro brigade is to realise and understand that they're not just dealing with a small hard core band of nutters and that, quite honestly, the number of sceptics at least matches the number of believers and that only very few of them are the lunatics that you seem to think we all are.  You are massively underestimating the strength and depth of suspicion there is towards the McCanns in the UK and immediately go into denial about this whenever it's brought up.

Where have I indicated that I think all McCann sceptics are lunatics?  And the fact that you support leafleting of that kind, designed to cause distress and upset, speaks volumes.

I just hope no-one ever does it to your family. Then you may have a different view.

[Lyall]

It makes it very hard to hold conversations with some people if they fail to grasp the difference between "you" as in "hey, you're Kate McCann!" and "you" as in "all of you who support the McCanns", i.e. "your side" as opposed to "our side"...

TT is clearly C. I suspect whatever we say won't change that.

[carlymichelle]

Point 1 - and it's a big one - The PJ's summary report left no-one in any doubt as to what the investigating force thought and even though the archiving summary reported there was not enough evidence of the McCanns having committed a crime to continue to constitute them arguidos it did quite clearly state that the McCanns and their friends failed to cooperate and did not effectively "eliminate themselves from the enquiry".  Furthermore it did not say that the PJ report that preceeded the archiving report was wrong, it merely archived the case and explained why.

Bearing point 1 in mind, while there is no clear evidence of either of the two binary possibilities (abduction or death & cover up) then either possibility is equally as likely (being kind to the McCanns really there).  This means it is theoretically possible that they ARE involved in what the investigating force thought - death and a cover up.  All the time that condition is true, the McCanns are absolutely, 100% fair game to be questioned.

You have highlighted a number of actions taken by a hard-core (and quite possibly lunatic) minority which are utterly unreasonable (stalking, threats) and some actions that are perfectly reasonable (leafleting - ONLY IF ACCURATE TO THE FACTS, questioning on the fund usage, questioning on their stories, questioning on their actions). 

The McCanns have no divine right to have their version of events go unquestioned. They do have a personal right to privacy and I condemn all those that flout that right.  However you and most of your fellow pros mistake the [ censored word] sticking up for themselves as personal attacks on the McCanns. If you're going to tar every single person that doesn't subscribe to "the truth according to St.s Gerry & Kate" as a <word I won't use beginning with h> and lump them in via guilt by association with those utter morons that do unreasonable things then you deserve all the abuse you're going to get.

I've said for years that the biggest failing of the Pro brigade is to realise and understand that they're not just dealing with a small hard core band of nutters and that, quite honestly, the number of sceptics at least matches the number of believers and that only very few of them are the lunatics that you seem to think we all are.  You are massively underestimating the strength and depth of suspicion there is towards the McCanns in the UK and immediately go into denial about this whenever it's brought up.

its just not in the uk its globally  suspicious

[icabodcrane]

I've said for years that the biggest failing of the Pro brigade is to realise and understand that they're not just dealing with a small hard core band of nutters and that, quite honestly, the number of sceptics at least matches the number of believers and that only very few of them are the lunatics that you seem to think we all are.  You are massively underestimating the strength and depth of suspicion there is towards the McCanns in the UK and immediately go into denial about this whenever it's brought up.

Sorry to snip your post,  but I wanted to address this last point

It is a myth that has been encouraged and pertetuated by the McCanns themselves

In Kate's book there is a chapter entitled  :   THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE MAD

'The  'GOOD'  of course are  those people who accept without question the McCann's version of events,  whilst  ANYONE  who does not,  is designated as either  'BAD'   or  'MAD'   

As to your  calculation that there are as many sceptics as believers,  Kate thinks differently ...  she says that  (  using her own terminology  )   "for every baddy there are a thousand goodies; probably many more" 

[carlymichelle]

Sorry to snip your post,  but I wanted to address this last point

It is a myth that has been encouraged and pertetuated by the McCanns themselves

In Kate's book there is a chapter entitled  :   THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE MAD

'The  'GOOD'  of course are  those people who accept without question the McCann's version of events,  whilst  ANYONE  who does not,  is designated as either  'BAD'   or  'MAD'   

As to your  calculation that there are as many sceptics as believers,  Kate thinks differently ...  she says that  (  using her own terminology  )   "for every baddy there are a thousand goodies; probably many more"

in many  ways i kinda compare this  case to sciencetology in their belief/cult they are not allowed to  question anything  remmber   poor katie holmes?? im sorry but thats how i see things