What is it? Persecution or Harassment

[Lyall]

Can't blame that lot on us 'anonymous lowlife' TT.

[TTSOFAFM]

Have I blamed you?  I am pointing out that people have hounded and persecuted the parents of a missing child. I have highlighted what the McCanns have had to endure during the last 6 years. That is all. 

[Lyall]

Have I blamed you?  I am pointing out that people have hounded and persecuted the parents of a missing child. I have highlighted what the McCanns have had to endure during the last 6 years. That is all.

You are blaming us in your OP.

That's why I say you should tell the whole story, and not just the small part that suits an agenda.

[AnneGuedes]

Those lies leaked by the PJ, and Amaral's book are to this day fuelling some absolutely disgusting hate on FB, Lyall.

Aren't these leaked PJ lies obsessive allegations precisely feeding hatred ?
The PJ files are available since Summer 2008. Old story.

[Rachel Granada]

You are blaming us in your OP.

That's why I say you should tell the whole story, and not just the small part that suits an agenda.

TTS is not blaming all McCann sceptics, Lyall,  TTS is just bringing home the harassment that Kate and Gerry McCann have had to suffer, a lot of it at the hands of the foundation.  In no way is this saying that all McCann sceptics are nasty loony stalkers like the foundation members are.

[gilet]

My response in blue.

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.

You may claim it is a big one but the PJ's summary report (June 2008) is a summation of diligences.

You may claim it "left no-one in any doubt as to what the investigating force thought" but you offer not one single piece of evidence to back up this statement. That report dated 20 June 2008 in my view is simply the listing of diligences and the reasons for those diligences. Please provide some indication of the sections of the report which do as you claim and lead everyone to, as you imply, suspect the McCanns.

That summary report from the PJ will have played a major part in the development of the conclusions which the AG came to a few weeks later. I wonder how your description of the report could possibly be accurate considering the conclusions made that there was no evidence of any crime by the McCanns.

Till you explain what is in the PJ Summative report which leads you to your ideas about it, it is really impossible to judge whether there is any credibility in your description of it.

My own view is as I have explained that the report is a listing of diligences with reason for those diligences. I do not see anything which leads me to believe what you believe and therefore would appreciate your direction to what it is that led you to write that description.

I do however believe that there is an underlying theme to the report. I believe that it is written in a way which is designed to respond to the media criticism of the PJ and to demonstrate how much effort was put into the search.

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.

This paragraph will also rely on the accuracy of your description of the summary report. Till we see the basis for your description then it is difficult to judge what you are saying.

I would ask you to explain why you believe it is being kind to the McCanns to suggest that either possibility, abduction or death and cover-up are possible as you state that both are equally likely.

If both are equally likely why are you implying that it is a kindness on your part to consider the abduction as such?

If both scenarios are equally likely as you state then do you not see that it is also theoretically and just as logically possible that theoretically it is possible that anyone in PDL that night was involved in what the investigating force thought - abduction. All the time that condition is true then all the people who were in PDL that night are absolutely 100% fair game to be questioned.

One fundamental problem with your one-sided conclusion though, is that the people who have been questioned by the professionals (not just by internet cranks and busybodies) are the McCanns and Murat and the conclusion after that questioning and investigation is that there is NO EVIDENCE of any crime committed by them.

However, all those people the PJ failed to investigate and question...

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). 

I am glad that you agree that stalking (as in turning up at the McCann house) and threats are beyond the pale and possibly the work of lunatics. I would describe them in more graphic terms but will remain polite in this post.

The question of leafleting is an interesting one. You place great importance on the need for accuracy.

Unfortunately those who have undertaken such leafleting have not been troubled regarding accuracy. No leaflet I have seen has been accurate and I believe Bennett brought problems on himself (for example) by his inability to be accurate.

You suggest leaflets would be OK if they merely questioned various aspects of the McCanns' behaviour.

But you don't caution that leaflets which simply infer criminal action through the use of questions would also be illegal. If a person was simply to leaflet on the subject using questions about the case which left the reader with the impression that the McCanns were guilty of a crime that would quite clearly be libelous and illegal. That was also highlighted by the Judge in the Bennett case if your remember?

The McCanns are not guilty of any crime and to suggest otherwise by open accusation or by inference is illegal. There is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in this country (and I believe Portugal) and anyone who fails to respect that is committing an offence of one kind or another.

There is a very important difference between fair questioning and questioning which leaves the reader/listener with an unfair view of the subject.

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 am interested in your acknowledgement of the McCanns' right to privacy. I do wonder how that right is being played out by the online [ censored word] who actually demand the right to see such things as photographs, medical reports etc. Those people are showing no respect for privacy are they?

As for tarring people with the 'h' word I would have some respect for your point of view if those more "reasonable" anti McCanns ever spoke out against the online lies, innacurate statements, abuse, threats and nastiness poured out daily by the lunatic fringe such as certain of the #McCann fraternity. Instead the "reasonable" posters either just accept it and associate with those lunatics or sit idly by and watch it happen. Anyone who retweets or befriends the sicker elements of anti-McCann behaviour and comment and does nothing about it deserves in my opinion to be tarred with whatever brush/name which is appropriate.

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.

You make an interesting point that you believe that the number of anti McCanns possibly is greater in your view than that of Pros. I would love to know on what you base that belief. I really hope you are not relying on the comments on various news articles because only the most naive person would not be aware of the massive coordinated attacks which are organised by [ censored word] every time an opportunity to post occurs. I am most certainly not in denial that there is a proportion of the population who suspect the McCanns but I await some indication from you that it may actually be a majority of the population. 

[Rachel Granada]

Aren't these leaked PJ lies obsessive allegations precisely feeding hatred ?
The PJ files are available since Summer 2008. Old story.

I don't understand your post, Anne?

[Lyall]

TTS is not blaming all McCann sceptics, Lyall,  TTS is just bringing home the harassment that Kate and Gerry McCann have had to suffer, a lot of it at the hands of the foundation.  In no way is this saying that all McCann sceptics are nasty loony stalkers like the foundation members are.

Their activities are history too, just like the papers. Maybe you should stop disturbing old ground? >@@(*&)

People may get the idea it's being brought up again to use against current posters.

[TTSOFAFM]

You are blaming us in your OP.

That's why I say you should tell the whole story, and not just the small part that suits an agenda.

My opening remarks for that post is

Kate and Gerry McCann are vilified, condemned and armchair detectives have become judge, jury and executioner as to whether the McCanns played a part in what happened to their daughter.

That is the truth. 

I have NOT blamed this forum.  I have not said Kate and Gerry McCann have been vilified and condemned by members of this forum.  Have I?

I have laid the blame squarely at the feet of those who carry out this abysmal behaviour of hounding and persecuting the family of a missing child.  If you have hounded or persecuted the McCanns then all I can say is, if the cap fits wear it. 

If you haven't then your conscience is clear and you should not feel  at all threatened by a truthful post. 

All what I have stated with regards to the incidents relating to the what the McCanns have had to endure is the truth.

[AnneGuedes]

I don't understand your post, Anne?

I just mean hatred feeds hatred. This is a poison, Rachel.

[Lyall]

My opening remarks for that post is

That is the truth. 

I have NOT blamed this forum.  I have not said Kate and Gerry McCann have been vilified and condemned by members of this forum.  Have I?

I have laid the blame squarely at the feet of those who carry out this abysmal behaviour of hounding and persecuting the family of a missing child.  If you have hounded or persecuted the McCanns then all I can say is, if the cap fits wear it. 

If you haven't then your conscience is clear and you should not feel  at all threatened by a truthful post. 

All what I have stated with regards to the incidents relating to the what the McCanns have had to endure is the truth.

Emotion is frequently used as a weapon. I don't say by you TT, because I haven't discussed topics with you before today I think - but it's definitely used by others. Emotions from the past used to try and shame or embarrass or silence current posters, here and elsewhere. You can forgive us for being wary.

[AnneGuedes]

My opening remarks for that post is

That is the truth. 

I have NOT blamed this forum.  I have not said Kate and Gerry McCann have been vilified and condemned by members of this forum.  Have I?

I have laid the blame squarely at the feet of those who carry out this abysmal behaviour of hounding and persecuting the family of a missing child.  If you have hounded or persecuted the McCanns then all I can say is, if the cap fits wear it. 

If you haven't then your conscience is clear and you should not feel  at all threatened by a truthful post. 

All what I have stated with regards to the incidents relating to the what the McCanns have had to endure is the truth.

The trouble is that sceptics are subliminally suspected to work against the McCanns. This is tiring. We should be allowed to doubt the abduction theory without being accused of blaspheme.

[Rachel Granada]

Their activities are history too, just like the papers. Maybe you should stop disturbing old ground? >@@(*&)

People may get the idea it's being brought up again to use against current posters.

The title of this thread is the harassment/persecution suffered by Kate and Gerry McCann - which I have been discussing, as have others.

Your second point is frankly preposterous, Lyall.  Again, I have just been discussing matters concerning the thread topic.

[Lyall]

The title of this thread is the harassment/persecution suffered by Kate and Gerry McCann - which I have been discussing, as have others.

Your second point is frankly preposterous, Lyall.  Again, I have just been discussing matters concerning the thread topic.

It's not prepostorous Rachel. You won't have had it used against you, being on the other 'side' of the debate - I can tell you from much experience it is used often. In other media no distinction is made between the extremists and other posters - we're all lumped it together, and their crimes are used against us.

[Rachel Granada]

It's not prepostorous Rachel. You won't have had it used against you, being on the other 'side' of the debate - I can tell you from much experience it is used often. In other media no distinction is made between the extremists and other posters - we're all lumped it together, and their crimes are used against us.

It is *not* being put across like that in TT's OP, Lyall.  TT is not lumping all sceptics together and blaming them for the stalking and harassment of Kate and Gerry McCann, the bulk of which was orchestrated by the floundation.