The parents of a missing child don't matter.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I don't understand the type of person who with malice aforethought indulges in vicious attacks on Madeleine McCann's parents and who have kept up concerted campaigns intended for their detriment.
The fact that these onslaughts have continued for over eight years is beyond reason and belief.

                 What is the justification?  Who benefits?  Most certainly not Madeleine.

Well indeed, now would you please name and shame these people Brietta SO we can avoid them like the plague. and be a real dear and report those who do so on this forum.

Thanks in advance.

Oh just for clarification do you consider people who do not 'support' one favoured thesis,unproved by the family , that there was a stranger abduction who gained entry through a'jemmied'window and stole Maddie?

Or those who remind people ( who seem to forget or try to re write history),that the parents did facilitate Maddies fate( what ever that is/was) by their behaviour and lack of concern for their children on that and previous nights?

Again thank you in advance.

[mercury]

By his own admission he was talking to a journalist about the case.  If that isn't breaking the secrecy laws - then maybe you can explain why it isn't.

Stephen claimed that Amaral left because of  'interference'  - but by his own admission he had made a blunder so big that it could trigger a diplomatic incident and get him removed from the case.   No mention at all of 'interference' being the reason.

Don't be so silly, if everyone was guilty of the crime of breaking secrecy laws, so many would be in court. Get some perspective. Telling a journo who got his number (and splashed the convo the next day on the front page) who asked him what he thought of an email to prince Charles, that the UK police should ignore cranks and just work with the PJ is hardly crime if the century. It hasn't escaped my notice that you did not respond to my mention of Tanner telling the BBC about very particular aspects of the investigation. Also do not forget the Mccanns lawyer tried to get Mr Amaral on secrecy laws and was thrown out of court. it's all hogwash.

[Benice]

Don't be so silly, if everyone was guilty of the crime of breaking secrecy laws, so many would be in court. Get some perspective. Telling a journo who got his number (and splashed the convo the next day on the front page) who asked him what he thought of an email to prince Charles, that the UK police should ignore cranks and just work with the PJ is hardly crime if the century. It hasn't escaped my notice that you did not respond to my mention of Tanner telling the BBC about very particular aspects of the investigation. Also do not forget the Mccanns lawyer tried to get Mr Amaral on secrecy laws and was thrown out of court. it's all hogwash.

So IYO it's OK for the lead investigator to break the secrecy laws - but very serious if a witness does it.

If Amaral regarded the incident to be as trivial as you seem to - then why did he describe it as a blunder which could cause a diplomatic incident and lead to his being removed from his job?  That doesn't sound trivial to me.

[mercury]

So IYO it's OK for the lead investigator to break the secrecy laws - but very serious if a witness does it.

If Amaral regarded the incident to be as trivial as you seem to - then why did he describe it as a blunder which could cause a diplomatic incident and lead to his being removed from his job?  That doesn't sound trivial to me.

Firstly, my post explained why I thought he HADNT broken the secrecy laws as opposed to Tanner.
Secondly, even if he triggered a diplomatic incident, has nothing to do with secrecy laws

OK now?

[sadie]

Well indeed, now would you please name and shame these people Brietta SO we can avoid them like the plague. and be a real dear and report those who do so on this forum.

Thanks in advance.

Oh just for clarification do you consider people who do not 'support' one favoured thesis,unproved by the family , that there was a stranger abduction who gained entry through a'jemmied'window and stole Maddie?

Or those who remind people ( who seem to forget or try to re write history),that the parents did facilitate Maddies fate( what ever that is/was) by their behaviour and lack of concern for their children on that and previous nights?

Again thank you in advance.

Oh dear, what a pity we cant. 


What a pity that the forum would do nothing about these unkind, uncaring and quite often lying people, even if we could.


There would hardly be a soul on your side Mistaken, ... two or three maybe.

[G-Unit]

Well indeed, now would you please name and shame these people Brietta SO we can avoid them like the plague. and be a real dear and report those who do so on this forum.

Thanks in advance.

Oh just for clarification do you consider people who do not 'support' one favoured thesis,unproved by the family , that there was a stranger abduction who gained entry through a'jemmied'window and stole Maddie?

Or those who remind people ( who seem to forget or try to re write history),that the parents did facilitate Maddies fate( what ever that is/was) by their behaviour and lack of concern for their children on that and previous nights?

Again thank you in advance.

It seems quite clear that no-one on this forum is saying anything which is not allowed. If they were they wouldn't be here, they'd be banned. There are people elsewhere on the internet who overstep the mark, but I see no point in referring to them here, it serves no useful purpose.

[sadie]

It seems quite clear that no-one on this forum is saying anything which is not allowed. If they were they wouldn't be here, they'd be banned. There are people elsewhere on the internet who overstep the mark, but I see no point in referring to them here, it serves no useful purpose.

Quite.

[mercury]

Oh dear, what a pity we cant. 


What a pity that the forum would do nothing about these unkind, uncaring and quite often lying people, even if we could.


There would hardly be a soul on your side Mistaken, ... two or three maybe.

Lying  people exist on the other"side" as you put it, even if yiu stick your fingers in your ears about them
Don't polarise the debate anymore than it is please as you add to the negativity

[Brietta]

Don't be so silly, if everyone was guilty of the crime of breaking secrecy laws, so many would be in court. Get some perspective. Telling a journo who got his number (and splashed the convo the next day on the front page) who asked him what he thought of an email to prince Charles, that the UK police should ignore cranks and just work with the PJ is hardly crime if the century. It hasn't escaped my notice that you did not respond to my mention of Tanner telling the BBC about very particular aspects of the investigation. Also do not forget the Mccanns lawyer tried to get Mr Amaral on secrecy laws and was thrown out of court. it's all hogwash.

Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro seems to have given the matter of secrecy some serious consideration ... she also considered that Mr Amaral had denied Madeleine McCann's parents their right to innocence.
So ... what does she think she knows ... obviously it must all be hogwash if you say so.

[sadie]

Lying  people exist on the other"side" as you put it, even if yiu stick your fingers in your ears about them
Don't polarise the debate anymore than it is please as you add to the negativity

Absolute rubbish.  We have no need to lie. we use facts.

But your side often lies.  We have the added burden of having to deal with myths, twisting of facts and downright lies.

Plus the frequent accusations from certain posters on your side that our side is not being truthful, when it is.  Deliberate attempts to make us appear liars.

Such underhand tactics.

[slartibartfast]

Absolute rubbish.  We have no need to lie. we use facts.

But your side often lies.  We have the added burden of having to deal with myths, twisting of facts and downright lies.

Plus the frequent accusations from certain posters on your side that our side is not being truthful, when it is.  Deliberate attempts to make us appear liars.

Such underhand tactics.

Posting repeatedly that your own side is clearly winning the argument is a sign of desperation.

[Mr Gray]

Posting repeatedly that your own side is clearly winning the argument is a sign of desperation.

no it's a sign that the McCanns are not suspects and never will be.

[stephen25000]

Oh dear, what a pity we cant. 


What a pity that the forum would do nothing about these unkind, uncaring and quite often lying people, even if we could.


There would hardly be a soul on your side Mistaken, ... two or three maybe.

Here we go again.

Only mccann supporters are nice, caring people.

What a load of Goebbels.

[Brietta]

Here we go again.

Only mccann supporters are nice, caring people.

What a load of Goebbels.

    Godwin's Law finds you guilty, Stephen      ... you have just effortlessly lost yet another argument.

[sadie]

Posting repeatedly that your own side is clearly winning the argument is a sign of desperation.

Thanks for mentioning it.

How right you are. Slarti

Facts over Fiction.