Does publicly "doubting" the McCanns add to the distress of the McCann family?

[Alfred R Jones]

Well, does it or not, in your view?

[stephen25000]

Gerry and Kate McCann bear the responsibility for this case.

Why do they deserve sympathy ?

It is Madeleine who deserves sympathy.

[Anna]

Well, does it or not, in your view?

Of course, it must Alfred, as it would any family in the same position as they are. However after all this time, I think they have had to learn to live with it. I do worry for the twins though.

[Lyall]

Well, does it or not, in your view?

Well, even asking the question encourages the extremists you doubtless abhor.

[Lyall]

You give them too much importance, which suits them very nicely I'm sure.

But - as has been said countless times before - you'll never stop people discussing the case while it remains unsolved. That is mission impossible.

[Alfred R Jones]

Gerry and Kate McCann bear the responsibility for this case.

Why do they deserve sympathy ?

It is Madeleine who deserves sympathy.

What is your understanding of the term "McCann Family"?  Is it limited solely to Kate and Gerry, in your view?  Are there perhaps any other members of this family that might deserve a little sympathy and compassion and who are perhaps sometimes distressed by some of the activities of the so-called "doubters"? 

I don't of course expect any sort of on-topic response from you Stephen, so treat these as rhetorical questions, best ignored by yourself or at best only worthy of your ridicule and contempt.

[Alfred R Jones]

You give them too much importance, which suits them very nicely I'm sure.

But - as has been said countless times before - you'll never stop people discussing the case while it remains unsolved. That is mission impossible.

I don't give them any importance whatsoever, it is a question that has arisen out of a discussion about the sensitivities of Brenda Leyland's family at this sad time, and how it is incumbent on us not to add to their suffering.  Don't you think it cuts both ways?  If you are sensitive to the distress caused by unkind words to one party, then why not sensitivities towards the other? 

[Anna]

You give them too much importance, which suits them very nicely I'm sure.

But - as has been said countless times before - you'll never stop people discussing the case while it remains unsolved. That is mission impossible.

If they are of so little importance, why do so many people spend so many hours, on here telling us how unimportant  they are, amongst other things.
their family's distress is indeed a very important detail that some have forgotten, or is it that they just don't care.
Why are some so compassionate towards Madeleine, but not the twins? I will never understand such logic.

[Alfred R Jones]

Well, even asking the question encourages the extremists you doubtless abhor.

Could you explain how?

[Lyall]

I don't give them any importance whatsoever, it is a question that has arisen out of a discussion about the sensitivities of Brenda Leyland's family at this sad time, and how it is incumbent on us not to add to their suffering.  Don't you think it cuts both ways?  If you are sensitive to the distress caused by unkind words to one party, then why not sensitivities towards the other?

Of course it cuts both ways, but if you look at it logically there is next to no public doubting (there has been no doubting at all in press or other mass media for nearly seven years now).

The discussion by those without any power or influence however you can never stop, though you can of course keep reminding them they risk action being taken against them.

[Lyall]

Could you explain how?

Because some of them (though nobody here I'm sure) want to cause that family distress, and if you state you believe they are they'll be encouraged to keep on with their current tactics.

[Alfred R Jones]

Of course it cuts both ways, but if you look at it logically there is next to no public doubting (there has been no doubting at all in press or other mass media for nearly seven years now).

The discussion by those without any power or influence however you can never stop, though you can of course keep reminding them they risk action being taken against them.

I'm not trying to stop anyone or anything, I am simply asking the question.  If people who publicly doubt wish to carry on doing so then that is up to them, I would  like to understand though why some people can apparently care so deeply about the fate of one child (to the point of swearing quasi-religious oaths of allegiance to her), and seem to care not a jot about the child's younger siblings, or other members of her family.

[Mr Gray]

Because some of them (though nobody here I'm sure) want to cause that family distress, and if you state you believe they are they'll be encouraged to keep on with their current tactics.

so you think no one here would wish to cause the family distress...I think some posters here do not care how much distress they cause

[Alfred R Jones]

Because some of them (though nobody here I'm sure) want to cause that family distress, and if you state you believe they are they'll be encouraged to keep on with their current tactics.

So basically you're saying I'm encouraging people to keep on hurting the McCann family?  Wow.  Let's extend that a little further then.  Would you not say that this entire sub-forum encourages people to doubt (question, if doubt is too strong a word) the McCanns' version of events and therefore cause potential distress to family members?

[Alfred R Jones]

so you think no one here would wish to cause the family distress...I think some posters here do not care how much distress they cause

Anyone who posts links to Blacksmith's blog is out to hurt the McCann family - it is full of invective and bile towards Kate and Gerry, and ceaselessly accuses them of being liars.  We also know now that a member of this very forum has personally hounded Kate McCann (or believes she has) into answering some dumb question that she (the interlocutor) has then plastered all over the internet in an attempt to further besmirch her (Kate's) character.