The Sun claims Madeleine McCann was kidnapped during a botched burglary.

[G-Unit]

How would sceptics feel if the PJ announced it wanted to question the McCanns again but were blocked by the UK authorities on the basis that there was no new evidence?

Speaking purely for myself I would firstly take the story with a wagon load of salt if it was in The Sun. If it seemed to be true I would assume any request had failed to pass the tests such requests are subjected to. Having read in the files how it works, advice is given on how to make the requests more acceptable. They can then be changed and re-submitted.

[Alfie]

Speaking purely for myself I would firstly take the story with a wagon load of salt if it was in The Sun. If it seemed to be true I would assume any request had failed to pass the tests such requests are subjected to. Having read in the files how it works, advice is given on how to make the requests more acceptable. They can then be changed and re-submitted.

Who said anything about the Sun?  So you definitely wouldn't think the UK authorities were standing in the way of justice or protecting the McCanns then? 

[G-Unit]

Who said anything about the Sun?  So you definitely wouldn't think the UK authorities were standing in the way of justice or protecting the McCanns then?

-

I said something about The Sun because if the story was in that rag I probably wouldn't believe it. OK?

If the UK authorities refused a request to interview the McCanns I would accept that decision. That's because I accept the rule of law.

When the judge ruled in favour of the McCanns in the defamation trial I didn't criticise Portugal's defamation laws, I accepted the decision. I was puzzled by the grounds, (with good reason, it seems), but I didn't call for them to change their laws.

Some people seem to support the rule of law only if it's findings match their own opinions.

[Alfie]

-

I said something about The Sun because if the story was in that rag I probably wouldn't believe it. OK?

If the UK authorities refused a request to interview the McCanns I would accept that decision. That's because I accept the rule of law.

When the judge ruled in favour of the McCanns in the defamation trial I didn't criticise Portugal's defamation laws, I accepted the decision. I was puzzled by the grounds, (with good reason, it seems), but I didn't call for them to change their laws.

Some people seem to support the rule of law only if it's findings match their own opinions.

Then you were answering a question I didn't ask. 

So you'd be puzzled then, if the UK Authorities refused to grant the PJ permission to re-question the McCanns?  You'd think it odd and strange no doubt, well guess what?  That's how I feel about the PJ dragging their feet with regard to the Met's request to re-question the arguidos.  I have NEVER called for them to change their laws however. 

[Alice Purjorick]

How would sceptics feel if the PJ announced it wanted to question the McCanns again but were blocked by the UK authorities on the basis that there was no new evidence?

That depends on what was in the ILOR and whether the grounds stated were among those under which a legitimate refusal could be made. If the grounds for refusal were legitimate then no problem.

Questions for you. How do you know what the CPS put in the ILOR and how do you know what the grounds for refusal were if indeed such refusal were made by the Portuguese?

[G-Unit]

Then you were answering a question I didn't ask. 

So you'd be puzzled then, if the UK Authorities refused to grant the PJ permission to re-question the McCanns?  You'd think it odd and strange no doubt, well guess what?  That's how I feel about the PJ dragging their feet with regard to the Met's request to re-question the arguidos.  I have NEVER called for them to change their laws however.

Lucky you. If you decide to ask the question you don't need to bother because you have the answer. 

You're telling me how you feel but you don't even know if it's true that 'the PJ dragging their feet with regard to the Met's request to re-question the arguidos'. Not only is the source questionable, but we don't even know if any such request reached the PJ from the Portuguese authorities. It could have been refused by those who receive these requests.

You may not have suggested that the Portuguese change their laws, but some have. Before you tell me you object to being tarred with the same brush perhaps you could stop doing it to others.

[Alfie]

Lucky you. If you decide to ask the question you don't need to bother because you have the answer. 

You're telling me how you feel but you don't even know if it's true that 'the PJ dragging their feet with regard to the Met's request to re-question the arguidos'. Not only is the source questionable, but we don't even know if any such request reached the PJ from the Portuguese authorities. It could have been refused by those who receive these requests.

You may not have suggested that the Portuguese change their laws, but some have. Before you tell me you object to being tarred with the same brush perhaps you could stop doing it to others.

I feel like this is the Two Ronnies sketch with you answering questions before they've been asked.  Not that I would have dreamt of objecting to anything you write anymore, now that I know how very sensitive you are to any perceived criticism. 

[G-Unit]

I feel like this is the Two Ronnies sketch with you answering questions before they've been asked.  Not that I would have dreamt of objecting to anything you write anymore, now that I know how very sensitive you are to any perceived criticism.

Good! 

[mercury]

Seeing this story doesnt appear to be anywhere else, or endorsed by SY, maybe we should stop giving the Sun any serious time and energy and mental speculative gymnastics,just a thought

We know for a fact that the Sun's antics in this affair have gone from the bizarre  to the ridiculous, to the seemingly total fabrication of evidence and more. Not forgetting  their cartoonising of the missing child being dragged dwn the streets. What a bunch of utter muppets.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2875942/A-2000-page-file-provides-stark-evidence-of-shocking-Portuguese-failings-in-the-hunt-for-Madeleine-McCann.html#ixzz0h60UZNC7

[Alfie]

Seeing this story doesnt appear to be anywhere else, or endorsed by SY, maybe we should stop giving the Sun any serious time and energy and mental speculative gymnastics,just a thought

We know for a fact that the Sun's antics in this affair have gone from the bizarre  to the ridiculous, to the seemingly total fabrication of evidence and more. Not forgetting  their cartoonising of the missing child being dragged dwn the streets. What a bunch of utter muppets.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2875942/A-2000-page-file-provides-stark-evidence-of-shocking-Portuguese-failings-in-the-hunt-for-Madeleine-McCann.html#ixzz0h60UZNC7

Perhaps we're the muppets for expending 106 pages of posts on the article...

[G-Unit]

Perhaps we're the muppets for expending 106 pages of posts on the article...

Exactly. The only reason we have is because some muppets think The Sun tells the truth.

[Alfie]

Exactly. The only reason we have is because some muppets think The Sun tells the truth.

Who is that directed at?

[stephen25000]

Exactly. The only reason we have is because some muppets think The Sun tells the truth.

After all the 'sun' is the bastion of the truth, justice and having paid the mccanns serialization rights for a certain book.

Very nice.

[Lace]

After all the 'sun' is the bastion of the truth, justice and having paid the mccanns serialization rights for a certain book.

Very nice.

Well you love the comments section.

[stephen25000]

Well you love the comments section.

Evidently, you do.