Was Kate McCanns "f.....g tosser" comment directed at Ricardo Paiva offensive?

[G-Unit]

Where did that enormous reward originate? NotW was involved - it may have been done with good intentions (and a guaranteed increase in sales), but wasn't necessarily helpful.

Why was the reward unhelpful? No PI's got that. I know where it went after the NoW closed, and it wasn't that enormous as most of it was pledges.

[faithlilly]

Very much doubt that, Stephen, had Madeleine vanished in the UK the first people to be 'in the frame' or eliminated from the inquiry would have been those closest to her.  The police would have followed the evidence, not decided what had happened then tried to make the evidence fit.

Not one of the British liaison officers found anything to be suspicious about during their assignment to the family ...
and I have never heard of the senior British officer in a missing child case he had botched writing a book of spite to implicate the parents.

In the circumstances the words ~ "f.....g tosser" ~ which it should be remembered were not actually said aloud seem to me to be quite appropriate and far less offensive than the lies and accusations levelled at the Drs Mccann.

The British liaison officers may have found nothing suspicious in the McCann's behaviour but the Portuguese liaison officer, who it could be argued spent much more time with them, certainly did.

[Carana]

Even then rumour said some of the investigators (Oakley) criticised the parents! Fancy paying to be criticised. 

If you mean the Sunday Times' article, the ST ended up paying £55k to children's charities. Methinks the journos working on that article hadn't done much homework.

And that's a problem - once the smear is out there, an apology on page 2000 tends to get ignored.

[stephen25000]

Stephen you may not be aware that there is a fundamental difference between what can braodly be termed collaborative and what can broadly be termed combative systems.  In the former, the police and legal teams (in theory at least) work together to discover the truth.  This means that the police heading off on a vague fishing expedition can damage the process.

Gut instinct?  Do me a favour.  It is police and prosecutors heading off a path divergent from the evidence that leads to nonsenses like the Kercher case.

So you are saying 100% that a police officer's gut instinct is always wrong.

As you are well aware JP, some cases offer little in the way of useful evidence.

[Jean-Pierre]

So you are saying 100% that a police officer's gut instinct is always wrong.

As you are well aware JP, some cases offer little in the way of useful evidence.

If a case offers little by way of useful evidence, then the sensible course of action is to look harder or in different place for useful evidence to take the case forward. 

And clearly not 100% always wrong - but a police officer's gut instinct unsupported by, or even against the evidence, stands too high a chance of being wrong.  Criminal law is not a computer game or a reality TV show.  There are real consequences for real live people.   

[Anna]

Can we get Back on the topic of the thread please
Re: Was Kate McCanns "f.....g tosser" comment directed at Ricardo Paiva offensive?.

 Off topic posts will be deleted Thank you.

[John]

There is no doubt that Paiva was rather foolish in succumbing to temptation but has it ever been discovered who was behind it?  The Sun undoubtedly has this information since they revealed the story but just how involved were they bearing in mind the recent criminal prosecutions of journalists at their former sister publication.

When police take the parents of a missing infant in for interview it goes without saying that they expect said parents to answer every question and provide their full cooperation.  If this does not happen police are entitled to consider other possibilities including parental involvement.

Ricardo Paiva was not sent in to Praia da Luz to nursemaid the McCanns, he was sent in to watch, listen, learn and report back.  This was his job and this was what he did. 

[stephen25000]

There is no doubt that Paiva was rather foolish in succumbing to temptation but has it ever been discovered who was behind it?  The Sun undoubtedly has this information since they revealed the story but just how involved were they bearing in mind the recent criminal prosecutions of journalists at their former sister publication.

When police take the parents of a missing infant in for interview it goes without saying that they expect said parents to answer ever question and provide their full cooperation.  If this does not happen police are entitled to   consider other possibilities including parental involvement.

Ricardo Paiva was not sent in to Praia da Luz to nursemaid the McCanns, he was sent in to watch, listen, learn and report back.  This was his job and this was what he did.

Indeed, he was doing his job, and was undoubtedly following standard procedure.


Now as to who sent him up, now that is an interesting question.

Clearly someone(s) with a vested interest in attacking and discrediting him.

[sadie]

If a case offers little by way of useful evidence, then the sensible course of action is to look harder or in different place for useful evidence to take the case forward. 

And clearly not 100% always wrong - but a police officer's gut instinct unsupported by, or even against the evidence, stands too high a chance of being wrong.  Criminal law is not a computer game or a reality TV show.  There are real consequences for real live people.

a police officer's gut instinct unsupported by, or even against the evidence, stands too high a chance of being wrong.  Criminal law is not a computer game or a reality TV show.  There are real consequences for real live people.

There are real consequences for real people

 

[Alfred R Jones]

If Kate McCann thought Paiva was an FT, and actually expressed this sentiment under her breath at the time, then isn't she entitled to report this in her book?  What woudl have happened if she hadn't written it and subsequently Paiva decided to write a book in which he wrote "I could hear Kate was swearing at me under her breath"?  then all the "sceptics would be jumping up and down about her lying by omission.  Kate gains nothing significant telling us she thought and said these words, we gain some understanding in how she felt in that situation, Paiva might possibly feel somewhat insulted to read this passage (if he has bothered to read her book in the first place) and a few buttoned up old dears might have decide dto take offence at the naughty words.  Big f.....g deal - is this really worthy of such intense debate?  Isn't it time we moved on to the " torn genitals" again, which really give some people a fit of the vapours?  Then you can all spend Easter Monday slagging off Kate with renewed vigour!

[stephen25000]

a police officer's gut instinct unsupported by, or even against the evidence, stands too high a chance of being wrong.  Criminal law is not a computer game or a reality TV show.  There are real consequences for real live people.

There are real consequences for real people

 

Indeed there are Sadie.

The consequences of the mccanns actions are the ones pertinent for Madeleine.

[stephen25000]

If Kate McCann thought Paiva was an FT, and actually expressed this sentiment under her breath at the time, then isn't she entitled to report this in her book?  What woudl have happened if she hadn't written it and subsequently Paiva decided to write a book in which he wrote "I could hear Kate was swearing at me under her breath"?  then all the "sceptics would be jumping up and down about her lying by omission.  Kate gains nothing significant telling us she thought and said these words, we gain some understanding in how she felt in that situation, Paiva might possibly feel somewhat insulted to read this passage (if he has bothered to read her book in the first place) and a few buttoned up old dears might have decide dto take offence at the naughty words.  Big f.....g deal - is this really worthy of such intense debate?  Isn't it time we moved on to the " torn genitals" again, which really give some people a fit of the vapours?  Then you can all spend Easter Monday slagging off Kate with renewed vigour!

Kate was quite deliberately trying to gain the sympathy of the readers of the book, by the words chosen.

Unfortunately, she and her husband never thought through the consequences of their actions in the first place.

[Alfred R Jones]

Kate was quite deliberately trying to gain the sympathy of the readers of the book, by the words chosen.

Unfortunately, she and her husband never thought through the consequences of their actions in the first place.

How does her admitting to muttering "f..king tossers" gain sympathy?  If she'd claimed that she'd burst into tears and got down on her knees to plead with Paiva that she didn't do it then maybe I could see your point.

[stephen25000]

How does her admitting to muttering "f.....g tossers" gain sympathy?  If she'd claimed that she'd burst into tears and got down on her knees to plead with Paiva that she didn't do it then maybe I could see your point.

Quite simple really.

She was trying to play the victim of standard police procedure in 'how dare they possibly accuse me'.

All the mccanns have tried to do throughout this case, is deflect the attention from themselves.

[sadie]

Indeed there are Sadie.

The consequences of the mccanns actions are the ones pertinent for Madeleine.

The consequences of Amarals lack of action in the right direction ARE THE ONES PERTINENT TO poor Madeleine. 

The PJ force in general were really hard working.  Seems that it was a set of Officers under Amarals direction that messed up