Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine

[Mr Gray]

IYO.

Which IYO is meaningless.

 *&*%£

It will be interesting to see if the moderators class your post as an ad hom, given that it is about me as a person, is derogatory, and is fact-free.

Not at all you obviously didn't understand my post

[G-Unit]

Genuine question:  did it ever occur to you that Richard Bilton actually does wholeheartedly believe the parents to be completely innocent,  or is that beyond the realms of possibility in your view?

I think you're homing in on the bit which is the least significant. The significant bit is that there is obviously media monitoring going on and warnings are issued to anyone who offends in some way.

[Alfie]

I think you're homing in on the bit which is the least significant. The significant bit is that there is obviously media monitoring going on and warnings are issued to anyone who offends in some way

That's not strictly true now is it?  But if you think it is then by all means provide a cite - lots of people have offended the McCanns in recent months, including some high profile Z-lister clebs - perhaps you could tell us which ones got slapped with a Carter Ruck letter for causing offence.

[G-Unit]

That's not strictly true now is it?  But if you think it is then by all means provide a cite - lots of people have offended the McCanns in recent months, including some high profile Z-lister clebs - perhaps you could tell us which ones got slapped with a Carter Ruck letter for causing offence.

It explains the timid reporting which has been obvious for years. It explains why Katie Hopkins wasn't allowed to say what she thought. No, I can't tell you who's been Carter Rucked, but if BBC Journalists have I would guess that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Alfie]

It explains the timid reporting which has been obvious for years. It explains why Katie Hopkins wasn't allowed to say what she thought. No, I can't tell you who's been Carter Rucked, but if BBC Journalists have I would guess that's just the tip of the iceberg.

When was Katie Hopkins not allowed to say what she thought?!  You do understand that responsible reporting means you can't publish unevidenced accusations about people don't you?

[Mr Gray]

It explains the timid reporting which has been obvious for years. It explains why Katie Hopkins wasn't allowed to say what she thought. No, I can't tell you who's been Carter Rucked, but if BBC Journalists have I would guess that's just the tip of the iceberg.

You want to pretend that the McCanns enjoy some special type of protection where anyone who disagrees with them is silenced
That is of course absolute rubbish and detracts from your credibility and judgement
the McCanns are protected by law from defamation the same as everybody else is....there are no special rules that only apply to them

[Robittybob1]

I have done it as far as it can go and posted it at least three times.
It does not meet with approval except from one possibly two others. It does meet with a lot of jeering and sneering from the usual suspects which then tells us all we need to know....

Would you care to try again?

[G-Unit]

You want to pretend that the McCanns enjoy some special type of protection where anyone who disagrees with them is silenced
That is of course absolute rubbish and detracts from your credibility and judgement
the McCanns are protected by law from defamation the same as everybody else is....there are no special rules that only apply to them

The McCanns have had no special protection, just the kind you can buy. If that becomes too expensive we might see some more interesting reporting.

[Mr Gray]

The McCanns have had no special protection, just the kind you can buy. If that becomes too expensive we might see some more interesting reporting.

So your claim that they silence anyone who disagrees with them is not true
You support amaral with a book and video which uses lies to discredit the McCanns but resent the McCanns getting the protection of the law they are entitled to in the uk
Bias showing again

[G-Unit]

So your claim that they silence anyone who disagrees with them is not true
You support amaral with a book and video which uses lies to discredit the McCanns but resent the McCanns getting the protection of the law they are entitled to in the uk
Bias showing again

I don't think you can prove what you say either. I see nothing wrong in Amaral giving his opinion and neither do the Portuguese Courts.

Everyone is entitled to the protection of the law but not everyone is entitled to the protection of highly paid lawyers; only those who can pay for it. Are lawyers always right? Clearly not, because for every case a lawyer wins another one loses.

[Alfie]

The McCanns have had no special protection, just the kind you can buy. If that becomes too expensive we might see some more interesting reporting.

What is it you'd like the MSM to be reporting that according to you they are too intimidated to report?  What's stopping the Portuguese or American press from reporting it?

[G-Unit]

What is it you'd like the MSM to be reporting that according to you they are too intimidated to report?  What's stopping the Portuguese or American press from reporting it?

I thought the two documentaries were more balanced than previous reports. Evidence was quoted and there was less emphasis on how the parents feel.

[Mr Gray]

I don't think you can prove what you say either. I see nothing wrong in Amaral giving his opinion and neither do the Portuguese Courts.

Everyone is entitled to the protection of the law but not everyone is entitled to the protection of highly paid lawyers; only those who can pay for it. Are lawyers always right? Clearly not, because for every case a lawyer wins another one lose

I have quoted instances where amaral has lied in order to support his opinion
So you support that which  again shows your bias and you resent the McCanns having the protection of the law which again shows your bias
Your claim that the McCanns can silence anyone who disagrees with them is obviously rubbish and you have posted something which is patently untrue
The Portuguese court has supported amaral but whether they have acted within the law has yet to be established

[Mr Gray]

I thought the two documentaries were more balanced than previous reports. Evidence was quoted and there was less emphasis on how the parents feel.

the evidence does not point to the involvement of the parents

[Brietta]

The McCanns have had no special protection, just the kind you can buy. If that becomes too expensive we might see some more interesting reporting.

You accuse the McCanns of 'buying' protection and when they run out of money for it ... reporting on Madeleine's case will perhaps become more "interesting". 

"The McCanns have had no special protection, just the kind you can buy. If that becomes too expensive we might see some more interesting reporting."

Please elucidate.