Along with that she will no longer be a ward of court, just what that means who knows.
What does it mean for OG, the girl is/will no longer the responsibility of the state, what would/ will her nationality be , although the Germans seemed to have taken on the mantle of finding out what happened to her.
What does it mean for OG, the girl is/will no longer the responsibility of the state, what would/ will her nationality be , although the Germans seemed to have taken on the mantle of finding out what happened to her.
As of 12th May, Madeleine will cease to be a ward of court. Her parents will still be her parents, but will have no right to make decisions about her future, those decisions will be hers.
The decision will lie with the Home Office and the politicians that control it. As a missing adult, Madeleine will not engender the same level of sympathy as she did as a missing child, particularly one who was for ever portrayed as a 4 year old, so that it would seem reasonable for OG to be run down further (if that's possible), or even officially downgraded to cold case status in the near future.
Not at all sure about the German motivation. I believe that they are more interested in nailing Brueckner for any crime they can and Madeleine is a means to an end, rather than their primary interest.
Time will tell.
Dies that have legal implications for the fund?
I wouldn't imagine so. The fund can continue to pursue it's aims, but the McCanns can no longer claim parental rights. That means that they have no right to information about Madeleine's health, finances or whereabouts without her agreement.
They're caught between a rock and a hard place, it should have been her 18th, yet the Germans say she is dead ,how do they make any kind of appeal.
Neither the Met nor the McCanns appear to have accepted the German police's opinion, so I suppose they can continue to promote Madeleine as a missing person and to appeal for information about her whereabouts if they wish. Unless the German evidence is shared it doesn't change anything.
It would have been up to the court to declare her dead, once the wardship ends, will OG declare it's no longer a missing child/persons case.
In the very unlikely (imo) event that Madeleine is alive, there is one fact that stands out. Had her parents made sure that she was protected she would never have been separated from them. Kate McCann said;In your opinion then all children who go missing have not been properly protected by their parents?
Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl. [madeleine, introduction]
Had protecting their little girl been their priority there would have been no need to find her.
In your opinion then all children who go missing have not been properly protected by their parents?
Those are your words (again) not mine.It was a question. You could just say “no”, or agree with it if you do.
It was a question. You could just say “no”, or agree with it if you do.
Grammatically it isn't a question. It's a declaration by you of what my opinion is, with a question mark tagged onto the end of it.Now you’re just deflecting by coming over all grammar Nazi-ish. In my most humble worthless opinion of course.
Now you’re just deflecting by coming over all grammar Nazi-ish. In my most humble worthless opinion of course.
I have no need to deflect, no question was asked, despite your claim that it was. What was the question you think you were asking?Are you seriously unable to work it out yourself? I thought you were bright. Obviously I was mistaken, so here is my question again, written grammatically correctly to enable you (hopefully) to fully comprehend it:
Are you seriously unable to work it out yourself? I thought you were bright. Obviously I was mistaken, so here is my question again, written grammatically correctly to enable you (hopefully) to fully comprehend it:
“In your opinion then have all children who go missing not been properly protected by their parents?”
I misplaced one word in the original and you made a pedantic issue of it. Utterly pathetic IMO.
I'm bright enough to recognise a question when I see one. The answer is no, imo not all children who go missing have not been properly protected by their parents. I was referring to one case and for some reason you chose to suggest I was referring to every case of missing children.FYI sentences with a question mark at the end are questions, no matter what order thr words are in before it. Hope that’s clear now.
Obviously I don't know the circumstances surrounding every case involving a missing child. I do know that some are never returned to a parent's custody, being kept away by their other parent, so the parent with custody isn't to blame. Other children run away, which makes it difficult for parents to prevent. So all cases are different, as I'm sure you know if you think about it.
"Misplacing" a word can change the meaning of a sentence.
I'm bright enough to recognise a question when I see one. The answer is no, imo not all children who go missing have not been properly protected by their parents. I was referring to one case and for some reason you chose to suggest I was referring to every case of missing children.once maddie turns 18 even if she is dead people on this forum wont be able to use words like the parents of a missing child etc because 18 isnt a child going back to my OP do you think if maddie is alive and knows english and knows who she is she would want to contact the mcanns now??
Obviously I don't know the circumstances surrounding every case involving a missing child. I do know that some are never returned to a parent's custody, being kept away by their other parent, so the parent with custody isn't to blame. Other children run away, which makes it difficult for parents to prevent. So all cases are different, as I'm sure you know if you think about it.
"Misplacing" a word can change the meaning of a sentence.
FYI sentences with a question mark at the end are questions, no matter what order thr words are in before it. Hope that’s clear now.
once maddie turns 18 even if she is dead people on this forum wont be able to use words like the parents of a missing child etc because 18 isnt a child
No doubt it will now be 'parents of missing teenager' That'll have a couple of year's mileage in it.
here in australia 18 is a legal adult
IMO it could be argued that each and every small child who has an accident or wanders off never to be seen again has not been “properly protected” by their parents. Yet we make allowances for most other fsmous cases of disappeared or murdered small children and choose not to continue to heapblame and fury on their parents. It appears that the McCanns are a special case, still being criticised and accused 14 years after the event. Can someone explain why these two are so utterly despised when others are not?
I see you've added the word 'small' now. Is there a reason for restricting your previous definition? Perhaps it dawned on you that protecting a 12 year old is quite different from protecting a 3 year old?
My original point was that being left home alone in an unlocked apartment would be something that Madeleine McCann, if found, would have to assimilate and come to terms with. It was that which allegedly allowed her to be taken from her family.
IMO it could be argued that each and every small child who has an accident or wanders off never to be seen again has not been “properly protected” by their parents. Yet we make allowances for most other fsmous cases of disappeared or murdered small children and choose not to continue to heapblame and fury on their parents. It appears that the McCanns are a special case, still being criticised and accused 14 years after the event. Can someone explain why these two are so utterly despised when others are not?
I don't.You're a very special case.
I see you've added the word 'small' now. Is there a reason for restricting your previous definition? Perhaps it dawned on you that protecting a 12 year old is quite different from protecting a 3 year old?And children (of any age) who are taken from or interfered with from houses and apartments that are not left unattended, what is it exactly that "allows" them to come to harm?
My original point was that being left home alone in an unlocked apartment would be something that Madeleine McCann, if found, would have to assimilate and come to terms with. It was that which allegedly allowed her to be taken from her family.
And children (of any age) who are taken from or interfered with from houses and apartments that are not left unattended, what is it exactly that "allows" them to come to harm?
whats you guys opinion on if the very low chance maddie is alive if found do you thinks she would want to contact her parents??
Each case is unique, there are no generalisations possible.Fudge. The fact is - you have absolutely no proof that Madeleine would not have come to harm even if she'd been locked into the apartment with both parents in the bedroom next door. The McCanns did not allow her to be abducted, nor IMO did they deliberately put her in harm's way as some people are keen to insist. If Madeleine was abducted (which it seems is by far the most likely explanation IMO) then the ONLY person to blame is the one who took her, this is backed up by the legal system which has never sought to prosecute the McCanns for neglect, nor as far as I'm aware has any child's parents anywhere ever been prosecuted because they "allowed" their child to be abducted, either for allowing them to play out past bedtime in the dark, or by losing sight of them in a shopping centre, or by leaving them alone in the bath while they went upstairs to fetch something.
Fudge. The fact is - you have absolutely no proof that Madeleine would not have come to harm even if she'd been locked into the apartment with both parents in the bedroom next door. The McCanns did not allow her to be abducted, nor IMO did they deliberately put her in harm's way as some people are keen to insist. If Madeleine was abducted (which it seems is by far the most likely explanation IMO) then the ONLY person to blame is the one who took her, this is backed up by the legal system which has never sought to prosecute the McCanns for neglect, nor as far as I'm aware has any child's parents anywhere ever been prosecuted because they "allowed" their child to be abducted, either for allowing them to play out past bedtime in the dark, or by losing sight of them in a shopping centre, or by leaving them alone in the bath while they went upstairs to fetch something.
All I know is that leaving young children alone in an unlocked apartment isn't recommended by anyone at all who's involved in child protection. It's not a hidden fact either; most parents are fully aware that it's not acceptable.No one has hidden anything. The parents owned up to it instantly and have beaten themselves up about it ever since, they don't need metaphorically being beaten up for a further 14 years in order to get the point across, but it seems some people think they do.
No one has hidden anything. The parents owned up to it instantly and have beaten themselves up about it ever since, they don't need metaphorically being beaten up for a further 14 years in order to get the point across, but it seems some people think they do.
No one has hidden anything. The parents owned up to it instantly and have beaten themselves up about it ever since, they don't need metaphorically being beaten up for a further 14 years in order to get the point across, but it seems some people think they do.
In the highly unlikely event that their daughter is found alive and well it's something that they will most likely have to justify to her.And that's entirely their business and eff all to do with you.
No they haven't.You are also entirely at liberty to believe that the world is flat and was created 6000 years ago by an Almighty God, it doesn't actually mean everyone else shares your views however. It also doesn't make you right, or even very clever.
They blame an imaginary child abductor.
Even as recently as Crime Watch Kate was saying "we're not the one's that have done something wrong here, it's the person who's gone into the apartment & taken a girl away from her family"
She presents no evidence of an abductor & neither have 3 police forces, so I'm quite at liberty & so is everyone else to believe there never was an abductor & the McCanns are entirely to blame.
You are also entirely at liberty to believe that the world is flat and was created 6000 years ago by an Almighty God, it doesn't actually mean everyone else shares your views however. It also doesn't make you right, or even very clever.
The McCanns are presumed innocent, but so must everyone else be, so Maddie was never abducted.You what? You clearly have little understanding of the law. It's legal to presume someone has been abducted or murdered without presuming a named individual is guilty of that crime.
So who does that leave? Well, the McCanns again, but they must be presumed innocent, so who does that leave?
Nobody, because everyone must be presumed innocent.
Ipsofacto, there was never an abduction.
Maddie left of her own accord to pursue a life in isolation.
That is the only legally acceptable inference that can be drawn when constrained by the rule of innocence presumed.
You what? You clearly have little understanding of the law. It's legal to presume someone has been abducted or murdered without presuming a named individual is guilty of that crime.
Well I'm sorry but I refuse to presume a person of whom there's no evidence even exists is guilty of a crime that isn't proven to have occurred. It's a ridiculous concept.I see. So unless an abductor leaves behind a calling card, then it's safe to say that when someone disappears without trace they almost certainly weren't abducted. Thanks for the clarification. We can now assume Claudia Lawrence went off of her own accord to lead a new life somewhere else. mystery solved.
I see. So unless an abductor leaves behind a calling card, then it's safe to say that when someone disappears without trace they almost certainly weren't abducted. Thanks for the clarification. We can now assume Claudia Lawrence went off of her own accord to lead a new life somewhere else. mystery solved.
I knew you'd mention Claudia Lawrence, it's wrong to presume her dead without evidence, people might stop looking for her.Absolutely. Anyone who says she's been abducted and murdered is clearly a fantasist. It's so obvious when you put it through the Spam Logic Machine.
There's no good reason to believe she hadn't just grown tired of sleeping with married men & opted to start a new life somewhere else with a totally new identity.
Absolutely. Anyone who says she's been abducted and murdered is clearly a fantasist. It's so obvious when you put it through the Spam Logic Machine.
The abduction logic applies to Lord Lucan imoHas anyone ever claimed Lord Lucan was abducted? This is a first as far as I'm aware. Who would abduct him and why? Aliens perhaps? Or more likely the Secret Service, to spy on the Russians. Another mystery solved - you're on fire today Spam!
There's no evidence he was abducted, but he did disappear, so it's not unreasonable to presume him abducted.
I really hope he's found safe & well soon &%54%
Has anyone ever claimed Lord Lucan was abducted? This is a first as far as I'm aware. Who would abduct him and why? Aliens perhaps? Or more likely the Secret Service, to spy on the Russians. Another mystery solved - you're on fire today Spam!
I did just then, he disappeared. It's not unrealistic therefore to presume him abducted.Just a wee thought but do you think individual circumstances are in any way relevant to each case we've been discussing, or is it just a case of making the most ludicrous suggestions simply for effect and because you're a bit bored?
I don't know who would want to abduct him & why, but paedos get accused of abducting Maddie with no evidence that's the case, so maybe Lord Lucan was abducted by gay rapists.
Just a wee thought but do you think individual circumstances are in any way relevant to each case we've been discussing, or is it just a case of making the most ludicrous suggestions simply for effect and because you're a bit bored?
There's nothing else for me to talk about until the next white cop shoots a black person so just humour me for the time being, please.There's an article in today's Times by Lionel Shriver which you would undoubtedly enjoy, about the BLM movement. If you havent' already read it and would like to, just ask nicely I will post it on the relevant thread.
As of 12th May, Madeleine will cease to be a ward of court. Her parents will still be her parents, but will have no right to make decisions about her future, those decisions will be hers.
What has led you to believe that?
Wardship will expire when the child reaches the age of 18.you seem to entertaining the possibility that she is still alive? That’s a question btw.
https://www.johnsonastills.com/site/blog/ejablog/my-child-has-been-made-a-ward-of-court-what-does-this-mean#:~:text=Wardship%20is%20the%20name%20that,ensure%20their%20safety%20and%20protection.&text=A%20child%20cannot%20be%20removed,the%20permission%20of%20the%20Court.
Parental responsibility only lasts as a legal concept until the child is 18
https://www.google.com/search?q=end+of+parental+rights+uk&safe=strict&rlz=1CAPKUQ_enGB867GB867&sxsrf=ALeKk03RbKVrZLyYJ5d1l1ewx-dQ6i2yaA%3A1619524797325&ei=vfyHYNCrE4mZsAeBnoqQCg&oq=end+of+parental+rights+uk&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeOgcIABBHELADUPW5AVjWwAFg98UBaAFwAngAgAGUAogB3AWSAQUwLjIuMpgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrIAQjAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwiQ_v6BsJ7wAhWJDOwKHQGPAqIQ4dUDCA4&uact=5
If you have parental responsibility, your most important roles are to:
provide a home for the child
protect and maintain the child
You’re also responsible for:
disciplining the child
choosing and providing for the child’s education
agreeing to the child’s medical treatment
naming the child and agreeing to any change of name
looking after the child’s property
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities
As from 12th May Madeleine's parents will not be able to make the above decisions on her behalf without her agreement, she will be able make her own decisions.
you seem to entertaining the possibility that she is still alive? That’s a question btw.
I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I don't know what happened to Madeleine. I don't think she's alive and findable, but some people do. I'm just pointing out that she will shortly be an adult and how that changes her parent's rights and responsibilities.only one of her parents?
IMO it could be argued that each and every small child who has an accident or wanders off never to be seen again has not been “properly protected” by their parents. Yet we make allowances for most other fsmous cases of disappeared or murdered small children and choose not to continue to heapblame and fury on their parents. It appears that the McCanns are a special case, still being criticised and accused 14 years after the event. Can someone explain why these two are so utterly despised when others are not?
Wardship will expire when the child reaches the age of 18.
https://www.johnsonastills.com/site/blog/ejablog/my-child-has-been-made-a-ward-of-court-what-does-this-mean#:~:text=Wardship%20is%20the%20name%20that,ensure%20their%20safety%20and%20protection.&text=A%20child%20cannot%20be%20removed,the%20permission%20of%20the%20Court.
Parental responsibility only lasts as a legal concept until the child is 18
https://www.google.com/search?q=end+of+parental+rights+uk&safe=strict&rlz=1CAPKUQ_enGB867GB867&sxsrf=ALeKk03RbKVrZLyYJ5d1l1ewx-dQ6i2yaA%3A1619524797325&ei=vfyHYNCrE4mZsAeBnoqQCg&oq=end+of+parental+rights+uk&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeOgcIABBHELADUPW5AVjWwAFg98UBaAFwAngAgAGUAogB3AWSAQUwLjIuMpgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrIAQjAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwiQ_v6BsJ7wAhWJDOwKHQGPAqIQ4dUDCA4&uact=5
If you have parental responsibility, your most important roles are to:
provide a home for the child
protect and maintain the child
You’re also responsible for:
disciplining the child
choosing and providing for the child’s education
agreeing to the child’s medical treatment
naming the child and agreeing to any change of name
looking after the child’s property
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities
As from 12th May Madeleine's parents will not be able to make the above decisions on her behalf without her agreement, she will be able make her own decisions.
Yes, just look at Britney Spears.
The situation of Claudia Lawrence's father was different, as she was an adult when she disappeared and Claudia's Law only seems applicable to the person's affairs concerning property and finances.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/103897
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/27/enacted
Even so, people can be guardians of vulnerable adults, though, can't they?
whats you guys opinion on if the very low chance maddie is alive if found do you thinks she would want to contact her parents??
Yes, just look at Britney Spears.
It appears that the McCanns are a special case, still being criticised and accused 14 years after the event. Can someone explain why these two are so utterly despised when others are not?
Well Obvs...it would be off topic... this is the
Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found.
Oh so are we having a vote as to whether Madeleine would want to see her parents? How sickening.Almost certainly, IMO. It's a typical McCann basher angle: "Even if Madeleine wasn't dumped in a bin by her parents and was abducted by a paedo she STILL wouldn't want to go back to those evil child neglector parents because they allowed her to be raped and tortured for years". I have pointed out on more than one occasion that my parents left me in far dodgier circumstances for much longer whilst on holiday and while I recognise that they behaved wholly irresponsibly I certainly do not hate them for it, nor would I even had I come to harm as a result. The capacity for the wronged to forgive and show empathy and understanding seems to be overlooked by some people who imagine instead that the world is completely black and white and that if you do something foolish or irresponsible then you will be hated forever and never forgiven, even by your nearest and dearest.
Madeleine has loving parents who have searched for 14 years to find her, when she hears this there is no doubt in my mind she will want to meet them. Madeleine also has a brother and a sister they will fill her in with what has happened in all the years she has been missing. they will show her how they have had a wonderful upbringing and that their parents have been tortured with the horror of her being abducted. It's the abductor who is at fault not the parents. They thought it was safe it wasn't and a monster took advantage of that.
I wonder if you started this thread so that you could have a hate fest?
Oh so are we having a vote as to whether Madeleine would want to see her parents? How sickening.
Madeleine has loving parents who have searched for 14 years to find her, when she hears this there is no doubt in my mind she will want to meet them. Madeleine also has a brother and a sister they will fill her in with what has happened in all the years she has been missing. they will show her how they have had a wonderful upbringing and that their parents have been tortured with the horror of her being abducted. It's the abductor who is at fault not the parents. They thought it was safe it wasn't and a monster took advantage of that.
I wonder if you started this thread so that you could have a hate fest?
Almost certainly, IMO. It's a typical McCann basher angle: "Even if Madeleine wasn't dumped in a bin by her parents and was abducted by a paedo she STILL wouldn't want to go back to those evil child neglector parents because they allowed her to be raped and tortured for years". I have pointed out on more than one occasion that my parents left me in far dodgier circumstances for much longer whilst on holiday and while I recognise that they behaved wholly irresponsibly I certainly do not hate them for it, nor would I even had I come to harm as a result. The capacity for the wronged to forgive and show empathy and understanding seems to be overlooked by some people who imagine instead that the world is completely black and white and that if you do something foolish or irresponsible then you will be hated forever and never forgiven, even by your nearest and dearest.
Oh so are we having a vote as to whether Madeleine would want to see her parents? How sickening.
Madeleine has loving parents who have searched for 14 years to find her, when she hears this there is no doubt in my mind she will want to meet them. Madeleine also has a brother and a sister they will fill her in with what has happened in all the years she has been missing. they will show her how they have had a wonderful upbringing and that their parents have been tortured with the horror of her being abducted. It's the abductor who is at fault not the parents. They thought it was safe it wasn't and a monster took advantage of that.
I wonder if you started this thread so that you could have a hate fest?
Almost certainly, IMO. It's a typical McCann basher angle: "Even if Madeleine wasn't dumped in a bin by her parents and was abducted by a paedo she STILL wouldn't want to go back to those evil child neglector parents because they allowed her to be raped and tortured for years". I have pointed out on more than one occasion that my parents left me in far dodgier circumstances for much longer whilst on holiday and while I recognise that they behaved wholly irresponsibly I certainly do not hate them for it, nor would I even had I come to harm as a result. The capacity for the wronged to forgive and show empathy and understanding seems to be overlooked by some people who imagine instead that the world is completely black and white and that if you do something foolish or irresponsible then you will be hated forever and never forgiven, even by your nearest and dearest.
She may well have consented when she reached 16.OK, what does it say about us? Elucidate clearly and concisely.
There's no evidence Maddie was abducted by paedos, or that she's ever been raped.
But if you & Lace want to fantasise that she was raped, based on zero evidence, that say's a lot about you.
OK, what does it say about us? Elucidate clearly and concisely.
I eventually forgave my mother for my miserable childhood as I came to understand her nature. I did my duty and included her in my life until her death. I didn't hate her, but I didn't love her either. I see no reason why a child separated from her birth family for 14 years should feel anything for them. So it would be up to the child to decide on the nature of any future relationship with that family.And there is precisely nothing to be gained from trying to guess how Madeleine might react to being reunited with her parents apart from it gives people like Spam an opportunity to post more negative sentiments about her parents with comments like "her captors are looking after her better than her parents ever did". Lovely, really lovely.
You presume abduction, when there's no real evidence.Did you actually read what I wrote? Clearly not.
You presume rape, when there's no evidence at all.
You presume paedophiles, when there's no evidence.
You're fantasists, prejudiced fantasists.
And there is precisely nothing to be gained from trying to guess how Madeleine might react to being reunited with her parents apart from it gives people like Spam an opportunity to post more negative sentiments about her parents with comments like "her captors are looking after her better than her parents ever did". Lovely, really lovely.
It's true, if she's alive they'd have been feeding, watering her & providing shelter for a full 10 years longer than her parents ever did.Thanks for continuing to more than amply prove my point. This is the real reason for this thread ^^^ It's just another excuse for more hate. Well done.
Thanks for continuing to more than amply prove my point. This is the real reason for this thread ^^^ It's just another excuse for more hate. Well done.
You're right, someone should make a thread where we can list all the great things we love about the McCanns.Considering you believe they are child murderers it must be a mystery to you how the twins survived. How do you account for it?
I'll start..
They've managed not to lose any more children.
There would be no guarantees that a found Madeleine would have the same opinions as you do. Her personality and outlook would have been shaped by others for 14 years.
Allegedly abducted.
If Maddie is still alive then her captors are taking better care of her than her parents did.
I don't think a person, who finds out that she was abducted [yes she was] that her parents have searched for 14 years and never given up on her, would ever not want to meet them, even if she has been brought up differently to how the McCann's would have brought her up. Even if she has been abused for 14 years, if the person has any compassion at all she will want to meet them and her siblings. She will have hatred towards the abductor.
You're right, someone should make a thread where we can list all the great things we love about the McCanns.
I'll start..
They've managed not to lose any more children.
What abductor?
And why do you insist on fantasizing child abuse?
You say 'no abduction' then go on to mention 'her captors'. make up your mind. Madeleine by the looks of it had a lovely childhood up until she was taken, it you would like to show how she didn't up to the age of almost four, feel free to do so.
Who is fantasising child abuse? You don't know what has happened to Madeleine neither do I, so everything you and I say has to be 'maybe' it's not fantasising that is a weird way of putting it.
You know she was abducted, you've stated it as fact twice today already.And what's your stance? Do you now admit that she may still be alive, living the life of Riley with her captors?
And what's your stance? Do you now admit that she may still be alive, living the life of Riley with her captors?
And she may well be having an even better time with her new family.
You just presume she's had it rough when a top, top psychic who solves cases knows she's quite happy pursuing a career in music & dance.
I hope she is just to spite the McCanns.
It would be hilarious if she was found alive & wanted nothing to do with them, then wrote a bestseller about her new life & how grateful she was that old couple heard her crying in the apartment & took her so she'd be better cared for.
You know she was abducted, you've stated it as fact twice today already.
I hope she is just to spite the McCanns.You think this would spite the McCanns? That they were proved right all along, and that Madeleine had been abducted? I think it would thoroughly vindicate them and make those on the internet who had spent the last 14 years plus accusing them of murdering their child look like the hateful twerps they truly are. And you talk about me being the fantasist incidentally, your fantasy is that Madeleine hates her parents and is simply vindictive and nasty, with zero evidence to support it.
It would be hilarious if she was found alive & wanted nothing to do with them, then wrote a bestseller about her new life & how grateful she was that old couple heard her crying in the apartment & took her so she'd be better cared for.
They can't find a single thing which suggests that the McCann's didn't love and take care of Madeleine. They made a bad decision to leave the children, though they checked on them, an abductor took the opportunity to take Madeleine. It was supposed to be a quiet friendly family site. The McCann's have had to bear the consequences of that night and will regret leaving the children until their dying day.
They can't find a single thing which suggests that the McCann's didn't love and take care of Madeleine. They made a bad decision to leave the children, though they checked on them, an abductor took the opportunity to take Madeleine. It was supposed to be a quiet friendly family site. The McCann's have had to bear the consequences of that night and will regret leaving the children until their dying day.To be fair some sceptics do acknowledge that Madeleine was loved and cared for, yet those self same sceptics have no problem whatsoever imagining that Gerry was so easily and callously able to dispose of his daughter and then resume his dinner without an apparent care in the world which also doesn't make much sense IMO. IMO the only way that would have been possible was if the McCanns genuinely didn't care for or love their kids and saw them as a terrible obstacle to their own happiness and enjoyment of life and were quite relieved to be able to chuck one in the bin. This would make both parents psychopathic or suffering from some pathological personality disorder and certainly an absolute danger to their two remaining children, however as Spam has pointed out, neither of these has come to harm, nor have their parents been ostracised by their circle of friends, family, colleagues etc, which suggests either that these too are all suffering from similar personality disorders, or they are all collectively not very observant, or that the McCanns are simply masters of covering up their callous disregard for their own children and presenting a loving caring front. Whichever way you look at it, it doesn't really make any sense but people (fantasists) really want to believe the the McCanns were able to chuck their daughter away as if she was a bag of rubbish and then pretend to care enough about her to lobby not one, not two but three home secretaries to have their own crimes reviewed by the British police. Curly Wurly Cuckoo!
Are you their official spokes person ? None the less, I'm glad to hear that
putting myself in maddies shoes since she will be 18 and the low chance she is alive which i dont think she is i think maddie would be angry at the mcanns for whatever she went though if what is alleged that she was abucted which i dont believe but what if she has been kept trapped in some horrible place all these 14 yearsLOL.
What is the point of this thread apart from to speculate on how a person (who y'all think was chucked in a bin 14 years ago by her parent) would feel on being reunited with her parents?
You think this would spite the McCanns? That they were proved right all along, and that Madeleine had been abducted? I think it would thoroughly vindicate them and make those on the internet who had spent the last 14 years plus accusing them of murdering their child look like the hateful twerps they truly are. And you talk about me being the fantasist incidentally, your fantasy is that Madeleine hates her parents and is simply vindictive and nasty, with zero evidence to support it.
There's a thread here speculating the existence of evidence so I don't see any issue with speculating how much Maddie might hate her parents myself.Or, embracing and loving them. See the case of Zephany Nurse.
putting myself in maddies shoes since she will be 18 and the low chance she is alive which i dont think she is i think maddie would be angry at the mcanns for whatever she went though if what is alleged that she was abucted which i dont believe but what if she has been kept trapped in some horrible place all these 14 years
Are you their official spokes person ? None the less, I'm glad to hear that
No I'm not are you Amaral's? That last sentence says a lot abut you.
The word Amaral seldom passes my lips - unlike some.
You seem so certain in your conviction about McCann feelings, I felt you must have the inside track.
I never said she did.What are you talking about? You are fantasising about Madeleine hating her parents and writing a book putting the boot into them. Yes you are a prejudiced fantasist (your insult for me earlier today, btw).
But she'd have plenty good reason to.
This is what I don't get.sorry, who you are referring to making assumptions about Madeleine being wonderful and sweet, or are you talking more bollix as per usual?
Everyone seems to assume Maddie is wonderful & loving & sweet, when she may well have grown up to be a total bitch.
What are you talking about? You are fantasising about Madeleine hating her parents and writing a book putting the boot into them. Yes you are a prejudiced fantasist (your insult for me earlier today, btw).
This is what I don't get.
Everyone seems to assume Maddie is wonderful & loving & sweet, when she may well have grown up to be a total bitch.
You started, so I don't see why I can't join in.I started what? Are we back at school?
Indeed, she could turn out to be the sister from hell.I'm 100% certain that if Madeleine did turn up by some miracle it wouldn't be long before McCann bashers turned their hatred on her too - looks like some have started preparing the ground already, just in case...
I'm 100% certain that if Madeleine did by some miracle it wouldn't be long before McCann bashers turned their hatred on her too - looks like some have started preparing the ground already, just in case...
I reserve the right to hate whomever I damn please.Hate away, it's obviously a very important part of what you're all about.
14 years ago tonight began the absolute torment that these parents and their family have had to endure ever since, as their daughter Madeleine was cruelly taken from them never to be seen again:
“3rd May 2021
Every May is tough – a reminder of years passed, of years together lost, or stolen. This year it is particularly poignant as we should be celebrating Madeleine’s 18th birthday. Enough said.
The Covid pandemic has made this year even more difficult for many reasons but thankfully the investigation to find Madeleine and her abductor has continued. We hang on to the hope, however small, that we will see Madeleine again. As we have said repeatedly, we need to know what has happened to our lovely daughter, no matter what. We are very grateful to the police for their continued efforts.
We still receive so many positive words and good wishes despite the years that have gone by. It all helps and for that we are truly grateful – thank you.
~Kate and Gerry”
14 years ago tonight began the absolute torment that these parents and their family have had to endure ever since, as their daughter Madeleine *was cruelly taken from them never to be seen again:
“3rd May 2021
Every May is tough – a reminder of years passed, of years together lost, or stolen. This year it is particularly poignant as we should be celebrating Madeleine’s 18th birthday. Enough said.
The Covid pandemic has made this year even more difficult for many reasons but thankfully the investigation to find Madeleine and her abductor has continued. We hang on to the hope, however small, that we will see Madeleine again. As we have said repeatedly, we need to know what has happened to our lovely daughter, no matter what. We are very grateful to the police for their continued efforts.
We still receive so many positive words and good wishes despite the years that have gone by. It all helps and for that we are truly grateful – thank you.
~Kate and Gerry”
*Allegedly.Thanks Jim, now how about fixing yourself?
There, I fixed it.
“3rd May 2021
Every May is tough – a reminder of years passed, of years together lost, or stolen. This year it is particularly poignant as we should be celebrating Madeleine’s 18th birthday. Enough said.
The Covid pandemic has made this year even more difficult for many reasons but thankfully the investigation to find Madeleine and her abductor has continued. We hang on to the hope, however small, that we will see Madeleine again. As we have said repeatedly, we need to know what has happened to our lovely daughter, no matter what. We are very grateful to the police for their continued efforts.
We still receive so many positive words and good wishes despite the years that have gone by. It all helps and for that we are truly grateful – thank you.
~Kate and Gerry”
Seriously, year after year the McCanns remind us of the anniversary of their daughter's disappearance and write such heartfelt words - does anyone actually, seriously in their heart of hearts believe that these are the words of individuals who callously disposed of their daughter's corpse that night? Is there a precedent for suspects to continually draw attention to their alleged crimes in such a manner year in, year out for 14 years, or are the McCanns trendsetters in this respect?
Yes.Why? What's the slam dunk piece of incontrovertible proof that leads you to no other possible conclusion?
Thanks Jim, now how about fixing yourself?
Why? What's the slam dunk piece of incontrovertible proof that leads you to no other possible conclusion?
Seriously, year after year the McCanns remind us of the anniversary of their daughter's disappearance and write such heartfelt words - does anyone actually, seriously in their heart of hearts believe that these are the words of individuals who callously disposed of their daughter's corpse that night? Is there a precedent for suspects to continually draw attention to their alleged crimes in such a manner year in, year out for 14 years, or are the McCanns trendsetters in this respect?
The total absence of abduction evidence.
It's a bit sad that you appear to be incapable of anything beyond tunnel vision.
Nobody knows how much support the McCanns have from the general public, but they seem to think there's enough interest for them to need to respond by issuing bulletins at certain times. Imo a dual purpose is served; it comforts those who do support them as they see it as a sign of their devotion to their daughter, and it keeps the interest of the media.
Oh, I'm sorry.
What evidence am I missing?
Probably none at all. And what would we all do without your twisted stance on life?
Fourteen Years and some of us still care enough to hope. You don't appear to have any hope. That is what is so sad.
I have plenty of hope thankyou.
Every day I hope I win the lottery so I can live on my own private island in the Caribbean, fulfilling & existence of sin & debauchery at my very own private brothel, full of scantily clad young women tending to my every wish & command.
The total absence of abduction evidence.Is that it? Really?? Wow.
Nobody knows how much support the McCanns have from the general public, but they seem to think there's enough interest for them to need to respond by issuing bulletins at certain times. Imo a dual purpose is served; it comforts those who do support them as they see it as a sign of their devotion to their daughter, and it keeps the interest of the media.Why would two individuals who had disposed of their daughter's body want the media to keep focused on their crime year in year out?
Oh, I'm sorry.You are using the (in your opinion) absence of evidence of one crime as proof that a different crime has been committed. That's a poor bit of logic IMO.
What evidence am I missing?
I have plenty of hope thankyou.The Caribbean? Are you sure??!
Every day I hope I win the lottery so I can live on my own private island in the Caribbean, fulfilling & existence of sin & debauchery at my very own private brothel, full of scantily clad young women tending to my every wish & command.
Is that it? Really?? Wow.
The Caribbean? Are you sure??!
Probably none at all. And what would we all do without your twisted stance on life?
Fourteen Years and some of us still care enough to hope. You don't appear to have any hope. That is what is so sad.
You'd have nothing to be goody two shoes about.
You'd have nothing to be goody two shoes about.
Epstein Island, it looks nice there, but I'd need about 100 million.I guess we all have to have dreams. BTW I don't think the underage girls are there anymore.
Spammy doesn't mean it you know. He spends endless hours on here trying to wind us all up, so he must have some deep seated emotional problems.I certainly get the sense of a very frustrated individual. Maybe one of those Incel types?
I sometimes want to give him a hug. But I doubt that he would understand that.
I certainly get the sense of a very frustrated individual. Maybe one of those Incel types?
Why would two individuals who had disposed of their daughter's body want the media to keep focused on their crime year in year out?
Given that some people firmly believe that the McCanns wish to keep media attention firmly fixed on a crime that they themselves committed, it would be interesting to see other examples of criminals who openly spent years taunting the public and police by promoting their crime in similar ways, eg: making public statements appealing for support and information, appearing in documentaries, petitioning government to get their crimes reviewed etc. I'm sure the McCanns can't be the only ones, unless they really are something unique and special?
What's "goody two shoes" about wishing people well and getting on with one's life while seeing the best in people and doing no-one harm.
I think the media is now well trained to focus on their innocence, their suffering, their bravery and their devoutness as well as publicising any rumour whatsover that suggests that someone else committed a crime. Quite useful for them imo.
I don't see much of that on here. I see a lot of nastiness aimed at anyone who doesn't accept the Tapas 9's version of events.
I certainly get the sense of a very frustrated individual. Maybe one of those Incel types?
I have plans to exterminate all the Chads & Staceys.Thought so.
I think the media is now well trained to focus on their innocence, their suffering, their bravery and their devoutness as well as publicising any rumour whatsover that suggests that someone else committed a crime. Quite useful for them imo.Ah, the McCanns are pulling the media's strings, I get you. Bloody brilliant these McCanns.
Ah, the McCanns are pulling the media's strings, I get you. Bloody brilliant these McCanns.
Their power is ... ehm ... unbelievable
Ah, the McCanns are pulling the media's strings, I get you. Bloody brilliant these McCanns.
I think the media got the message long ago, with the help of Carter Ruck.Right, so the McCanns control the media in a way that not even politicians and royalty are able to - such AMAZING power!
I did start a thread quite some time ago which was possibly not worded as precisely as I intended.
The gist of the thread was what keeps the sceptics/doubters so convinced in their doubts/scepticism for so many years.
We don't work to a script.
i wont sugarcoat it i think maddie is dead but on the other hand if she is somehow alive and one day discovers who she is she has no obligation to get in contact with her birth parents imo i doubt she remembers them she owes the mccans nothing imo
I think the media got the message long ago, with the help of Carter Ruck.
Carter Ruck are libel lawyers and if the McCanns had so desired they could have sued many many many more publications who had printed the most terrible lies about them than they did.
Exactly what is it that you object to about the McCanns taking steps to stop being traduced by the gutter press?
I did start a thread quite some time ago which was possibly not worded as precisely as I intended.
The gist of the thread was what keeps the sceptics/doubters so convinced in their doubts/scepticism for so many years.
Never thought you were working to a script.I don't have a commited conviction to the involvement of the parents, if you can find one in any of my previous posts good luck with that.Smitman is the key always has been imo.
But what keeps you in such a committed conviction that Madeleines parents are involved in her disappearance in spite of so many years of varied police investigations?
When the case was archived by the Portuguese in 2008 there wasn't enough evidence for them to decide what happened on 3rd May 2007. I've seen no evidence which changes that, so imo the situation remains as it was in 2008.Well us supporters have always said you sceptics were stuck in 2007/2008 and your post proves it. Just like the Japanese soldiers in the jungle who can’t come to terms with the fact that the war is over. IMO.
Well us supporters have always said you sceptics were stuck in 2007/2008 and your post proves it. Just like the Japanese soldiers in the jungle who can’t come to terms with the fact that the war is over. IMO.
The difference being that there was evidence that WW2 was over. I've seen no evidence that makes stranger abuction the definitive answer to the events of May 3rd.
The difference being that there was evidence that WW2 was over. I've seen no evidence that makes stranger abuction the definitive answer to the events of May 3rd.
The difference being that there was evidence that WW2 was over. I've seen no evidence that makes stranger abuction the definitive answer to the events of May 3rd.It’s the only plausible, logical answer, now prove me wrong.
The difference being that there was evidence that WW2 was over. I've seen no evidence that makes stranger abuction the definitive answer to the events of May 3rd.PS: as far as the Japanese soldiers were concerned there was no evidence WWII was over and that’s kind of the point.
When the case was archived by the Portuguese in 2008 there wasn't enough evidence for them to decide what happened on 3rd May 2007. I've seen no evidence which changes that, so imo the situation remains as it was in 2008.
I don't have a commited conviction to the involvement of the parents, if you can find one in any of my previous posts good luck with that.Smitman is the key always has been imo.
Definitive evidence would be absolute proof.
Imo there is evidence that abduction is most likely and the current investigation seems to agree with me.
Justice ogyen doesn't rely on definitive evidence.... There is no definitive evidence that Cipriano... Stone... Bamber are guilty. You srem to want definitive evidence before you will accept anything... Basef on your principles many if not most guilty people would walk free....
I don't think abduction is 'most likely' what happened to Madeleine, but others are free to believe what they wish. I have no desire to convince others that I'm right, and no intention of berating them for what they choose to believe.How about proving your completely open-minded credentials by correcting mistaken assumptions, unsupported claims and the complete lack of any evidence justifying the direction taken by the PJ in 2007?
I will, however, continue to point out what I see as mistaken assumptions, unsupported claims and the complete lack of any evidence justifying the direction taken by Operation Grange.
How about proving your completely open-minded credentials by correcting mistaken assumptions, unsupported claims and the complete lack of any evidence justifying the direction taken by the PJ in 2007?
I understand why the PJ took the direction they did. I don't understand why those nine 'completely innocent' people shrank from taking the opportunity they were offered to demonstrate during a reconstitution exactly what each of them did on 3rd May.
Do you understand why the original request for reconstitution was refuse, right at the start when there might have been some point?
I understand why the PJ took the direction they did. I don't understand why those nine 'completely innocent' people shrank from taking the opportunity they were offered to demonstrate during a reconstitution exactly what each of them did on 3rd May.
No. Can you tell me ? Please
Do you understand why the original request for reconstitution was refuse, right at the start when there might have been some point?
I understand why the PJ took the direction they did. I don't understand why those nine 'completely innocent' people shrank from taking the opportunity they were offered to demonstrate during a reconstitution exactly what each of them did on 3rd May.10 actually. I think Jez Wilkins was the first to refuse. Maybe it would help you to understand if you accepted that the sole purpose of the reconstitution was to self incriminate, not to finde Madeleine (which was the only thing those 10 innocent people were interested in, IMO).
10 actually. I think Jez Wilkins was the first to refuse. Maybe it would help you to understand if you accepted that the sole purpose of the reconstitution was to self incriminate, not to finde Madeleine (which was the only thing those 10 innocent people were interested in, IMO).
I understand why the PJ took the direction they did. I don't understand why those nine 'completely innocent' people shrank from taking the opportunity they were offered to demonstrate during a reconstitution exactly what each of them did on 3rd May.Tell us why the PJ spent only one week physically looking for Madeleine. Tell us why the police allegedly visited local paedos at their homes and when they were not in never followed it up. Tell us why a sighting of a man and woman with a child at Lagos Marina in the early hours of 4 th May was never identified but also marked “of no relevance” to the investigation. Tell us why the Pj failed to secure all and any CCTV footage in the area. Now tell me why you understand why the PJ took the direction they did. Based on what (to use your words) “definitive evidence”?
Based on exactly what evidence?Redwood, the child described as being close to that of Madeline, the only one being carried around that fitted that description.Join the dots, it all fits.
Redwood, the child described as being close to that of Madeline, the only one being carried around that fitted that description.Join the dots, it all fits.
Redwood, the child described as being close to that of Madeline, the only one being carried around that fitted that description.Join the dots, it all fits.It all fits what? Certainly not the theory that Gerry disposed of his daughter’s body, unless you believe in a conspiracy to protect him perpetrated by all his holiday group?
It all fits what? Certainly not the theory that Gerry disposed of his daughter’s body, unless you believe in a conspiracy to protect him perpetrated by all his holiday group?
Nope, they wouldn't all have to know.Yes they would.
Yes they would.
Of course they would.
Why not just one or two to be 'in the know', with the others just following along ?
10 actually. I think Jez Wilkins was the first to refuse. Maybe it would help you to understand if you accepted that the sole purpose of the reconstitution was to self incriminate, not to finde Madeleine (which was the only thing those 10 innocent people were interested in, IMO).
Would you?
Why not if I didn't suspect anything ? Friends can be very persuasive
But what if you did suspect or even know something?
That wasn't what was being discussed , which was - would they all have to know.
As to your question, well that would depend on what an individual suspected & whether they were willing to give the culprit the benefit of the doubt -
For example, if your best-est, best-est friend ever was involved, a person might be willing to turn a blind eye.
All IMO
It all fits what? Certainly not the theory that Gerry disposed of his daughter’s body, unless you believe in a conspiracy to protect him perpetrated by all his holiday group?
So you want to ignore all the other sightings as being false...the fact is taht all these sightings...including smithman...are unrelable
Redwood's words, he obviously believed M Smith, you don't which is your prerogative but he was the DCI at the time not you.
I wonder what he believes now... That is more important
Smith it was reported doesn't recognise CB as the man he saw, Redwood is long retired.
Smithman didn't have to be Brueckner if someone else was involved.
Smith it was reported doesn't recognise CB as the man he saw, Redwood is long retired.
Smith told the Judicial Police he was unable to identify anyone. Then Mr McCluskey thought he recognised the child carrier as Madeleine's father - which was impossible as the man Mr McCluskey saw had already been identified by the Judicial Police.
Followed later by Mr Smith also identifying the child carrier as Madeleine's father although no-one else from his party agreed with him.
So I think both sightings were busted flushes.
All that happened way back in 2007. Are you sticking with that legend or are you going to join the grownups fourteen years down the line.
Smith told the Judicial Police he was unable to identify anyone. Then Mr McCluskey thought he recognised the child carrier as Madeleine's father - which was impossible as the man Mr McCluskey saw had already been identified by the Judicial Police.
Followed later by Mr Smith also identifying the child carrier as Madeleine's father although no-one else from his party agreed with him.
So I think both sightings were busted flushes.
All that happened way back in 2007. Are you sticking with that legend or are you going to join the grownups fourteen years down the line.
You still seem to be trying to give the impression that the two sightings were similar, when they were quite different. The main difference being that the couple seen by the McCluskeys were identified. Fourteen years later the man and child seen by the Smiths have still not been found. Whoever he was he remains an unsolved mystery and should be kept in mind as long as the case continues.
Jes Wilkins would have attended if the others had. Some may believe that the PJ wanted to see the group self incriminate, but that's not what the PJ said. It seems that speculating about the PJ's motives is seen as acceptable, but speculating about the group's motives is seen as nasty and hateful.If you can’t tell the difference between on the one hand speculating that the police were trying to stitch up the McCanns and on the other hand speculating that the parents hid their child’s body and the crime was covered up by their friends then there really is no hope of you understanding very much IMO. Do you have a cite for Jez Wilkins pulling out of the reconstitution on the basis that no one else would take part?
That wasn't what was being discussed , which was - would they all have to know.If Gerry was busy disposing of a body at a time when they said they were all together having dinner how do you think they would not have known something was seriously amiss?
As to your question, well that would depend on what an individual suspected & whether they were willing to give the culprit the benefit of the doubt -
For example, if your best-est, best-est friend ever was involved, a person might be willing to turn a blind eye.
All IMO
You keep on about Gerry disposing of the girls body, that is your default position.What is the significance of Smithman to you then, if not that? Do you believe he could have been Madeleine’s abductor?
Who ruled smithman out of the equation ?
You still seem to be trying to give the impression that the two sightings were similar, when they were quite different. The main difference being that the couple seen by the McCluskeys were identified. Fourteen years later the man and child seen by the Smiths have still not been found. Whoever he was he remains an unsolved mystery and should be kept in mind as long as the case continues.
If you can’t tell the difference between on the one hand speculating that the police were trying to stitch up the McCanns and on the other hand speculating that the parents hid their child’s body and the crime was covered up by their friends then there really is no hope of you understanding very much IMO. Do you have a cite for Jez Wilkins pulling out of the reconstitution on the basis that no one else would take part?
Speculation is speculation, regardless of the subject. I said Jes would have attended if the others did. (not what you say I said)
As you mentioned in your message last night if everyone else is on board and I am the only outstanding person saying no I would be more likely to reconsider.
Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss it further.
Best
Jes
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
Speculation is speculation, regardless of the subject. I said Jes would have attended if the others did. (not what you say I said)So he rejected the idea first off with no prompting, thanks for confirming that what I said earlier was correct.
As you mentioned in your message last night if everyone else is on board and I am the only outstanding person saying no I would be more likely to reconsider.
Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss it further.
Best
Jes
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
Speculation is speculation, regardless of the subject. I said Jes would have attended if the others did. (not what you say I said)speculation can be nasty ansd spiteful. When it’s about an institution like a police force speculating on their methods of policing that’s one thing, when it’s directed at specific named individuals speculating on their morals and behaviour and alleged misconduct then that’s quite another IMO.
As you mentioned in your message last night if everyone else is on board and I am the only outstanding person saying no I would be more likely to reconsider.
Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss it further.
Best
Jes
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
speculation can be nasty ansd spiteful. When it’s about an institution like a police force speculating on their methods of policing that’s one thing, when it’s directed at specific named individuals speculating on their morals and behaviour and alleged misconduct then that’s quite another IMO.
You weren't speculating about methods of policing though, you were speculating about the motives of the officers.
You weren't speculating about methods of policing though, you were speculating about the motives of the officers.Same difference - the method was the reconstitution, the motive was to “provide the McCanns with an opportunity to prove their innocence”, or in other words to get them to self incriminate. If that wasn’t the motive what was it? To find Madeleine? To establish who took her?
Same difference - the method was the reconstitution, the motive was to “provide the McCanns with an opportunity to prove their innocence”, or in other words to get them to self incriminate. If that wasn’t the motive what was it? To find Madeleine? To establish who took her?
It was a face saving exercise in my opinion. And given the attitude of Robello, I don't think he expected them to agree and probably didn't want them to. What would have been the point at that late stage?IMO the police wanted to try and prove that the various accounts and timelines couldn’t mesh seamlessly together which IMo they would have taken as evidence of deception rather than the perfectly natural joint product of 10 separate recollections, all slightly at variance with each other.
IMO the police wanted to try and prove that the various accounts and timelines couldn’t mesh seamlessly together which IMo they would have taken as evidence of deception rather than the perfectly natural joint product of 10 separate recollections, all slightly at variance with each other.
This sketch is not official. It is from a recent YouTube source. If (hopefully) alive, could Madeleine look like this at the age of 18? I would appreciate if Sadie will share her expertise.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PmkCuD4g9P8&feature=share
Could you give me the YT link again, please?https://youtube.com/watch?v=PmkCuD4g9P8&feature=share
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PmkCuD4g9P8&feature=shareOK it worked this time. Thanks.
This sketch is not official. It is from a recent YouTube source. If (hopefully) alive, could Madeleine look like this at the age of 18? I would appreciate if Sadie will share her expertise.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PmkCuD4g9P8&feature=share
That's one hell of a nose she's sporting.That was going to be my criticism as well. IMO the nose is too long.
Poor girl, who did she inherit that from, I don't recall Gerry or Kate being particularly beaky?
That was going to be my criticism as well. IMO the nose is too long.
This sketch is not official. It is from a recent YouTube source. If (hopefully) alive, could Madeleine look like this at the age of 18? I would appreciate if Sadie will share her expertise.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PmkCuD4g9P8&feature=share
That was going to be my criticism as well. IMO the nose is too long.I don’t know, Rob. To me, Gerry has a prominent nose.
I don’t know, Rob. To me, Gerry has a prominent nose.
Likely to be longer than that now. Think Pinocchio . 8(0(*Can you please elaborate on what he is lying about.
Can you please elaborate on what he is lying about.
So if anyone on here walked passed that girl today in a high street near you, you'd think yep thats Madeleine. *&^^&Who knows?🤔
Who knows?🤔
Exactly, so a age progression sketch would achieve what ?
Zilch, as at best, she is a pile of bones. IMO
As you will be one day. It is really sad that you should see Madeleine like this when you don't actually know.
As you will be one day. It is really sad that you should see Madeleine like this when you don't actually know.
Zilch, as at best, she is a pile of bones. IMOMadeleine’s fate is unknown. “At best, she is a pile of bones”. Such an inhuman remark.😔
Unless I get eaten by a shark or similar
Madeleine’s fate is unknown. “At best, she is a pile of bones”. Such an inhuman remark.😔
Wolters say's her fate is known.I did not realise that you are supporting the BKA’s views.
Madeleine’s fate is unknown. “At best, she is a pile of bones”. Such an inhuman remark.😔
Madeleine’s fate is unknown. “At best, she is a pile of bones”. Such an inhuman remark.😔
She's dead. What else is she going to be - unless ashes.
I did not realise that you are supporting the BKA’s views.
She's dead. What else is she going to be - unless ashes.How do you validate your statement that Madeleine is dead?
How do you validate your statement that Madeleine is dead?
How do you validate your statement that Madeleine is dead?
Don't even try, Love. Some of these persons are really sick.It seems Madeleine, the girl who disappeared 14 years ago, is no longer the focal point of this discussion. Vilification comes to mind.
It seems Madeleine, the girl who disappeared 14 years ago, is no longer the focal point of this discussion. Vilification comes to mind.
I don't need to validate it .As a member of the Forum, the least you can do is offer some explanation of your words.
If you can't accept it, then that's your problem.
She was 3, coming up for 4 when she disappeared, never to be seen again.I don’t know. You don’t know.
What else is there to say about her ?
I'm just saying a prosecutor for the BKA say's her fate is known, is CB the culprit, seems little or no evidence he is.🙄
It seems Madeleine, the girl who disappeared 14 years ago, is no longer the focal point of this discussion. Vilification comes to mind.
I don't need to validate it .Do you comprehend that your comment is a reflection upon yourself?
If you can't accept it, then that's your problem.
Do you comprehend that your comment is a reflection upon yourself?
She hasn't been for a very long time. But this is no longer of any importance beyond what it means to The McCanns.
This Forum is now just a hate fest while fools like you and me try for some inexplicable reason to keep hope alive. But this is really not important. The outcome won't matter in the grand scheme of things. We will either be happy or sad, but it won't actually affect our lives in the long term.
I am just pleased that I haven't spent 14 years without any hope at all.
She hasn't been for a very long time. But this is no longer of any importance beyond what it means to The McCanns.
This Forum is now just a hate fest while fools like you and me try for some inexplicable reason to keep hope alive. But this is really not important. The outcome won't matter in the grand scheme of things. We will either be happy or sad, but it won't actually affect our lives in the long term.
I am just pleased that I haven't spent 14 years without any hope at all.
I am just pleased that I haven't spent 14 years without any hope at all.
I think we all have hope...its just we are hoping for different things.
The only difference is our beliefs are different.
in th tiny chance maddie is alive she will be 18 if she ever realises who she is she will owe the mcanns nothing
She might sue them for neglect though.
also for whatever trauma she went thoughSee, you guys have hope after all! You hope Madeleine is alive and will seek vengeance on her parents. How sweet.
See, you guys have hope after all! You hope Madeleine is alive and will seek vengeance on her parents. How sweet.
See, you guys have hope after all! You hope Madeleine is alive and will seek vengeance on her parents. How sweet.
It would be pretty funny so I hope it happens too.Yeah, I hope so too, because at least it would prove you and a lot of other folk were completely wrong for 14 + years.
how sweet to be left to the elements at 3 year old ....in your reckoning then.Explain the logic of your deduction thanks.
Yeah, I hope so too, because at least it would prove you and a lot of other folk were completely wrong for 14 + years.
in th tiny chance maddie is alive she will be 18 if she ever realises who she is she will owe the mcanns nothing
I wouldn't care.
The amusement gained from Maddie's hatred of her parents would easily outweigh my disappointment in being proven wrong.
Is it really? How very perceptive of you to identify this from an anonymous poster on a niche website.In order for you to insult me, I would first have to value your opinion.
Might do better going back to playing with your pictures.
I am just pleased that I haven't spent 14 years without any hope at all.
I think we all have hope...its just we are hoping for different things.
The only difference is our beliefs are different.
In order for you to insult me, I would first have to value your opinion.
Sad person.
Well I think you're boring.I reckon I have more chance of winning the lottery than that happening and I don't even buy a ticket.
You want Maddie to be found alive & well & live happily ever after following a joyful reunion with her family.
It just sounds totally boring to me. Not nearly enough drama for my liking, No. Boring, boring, boring.
I would day the difference is in our understanding of the evidence... Amaral is a prime example. I don't see him as a nasty person... He actually believes the rubbish he says
Not at all.. I know what amaral believed and can prove it's rubbish. Theres no evidence what I believe is rubbish
Just the same as you then really D
Well I think you're boring.
You want Maddie to be found alive & well & live happily ever after following a joyful reunion with her family.
It just sounds totally boring to me. Not nearly enough drama for my liking, No. Boring, boring, boring.
in th tiny chance maddie is alive she will be 18 if she ever realises who she is she will owe the mcanns nothingOn the flipside, she may be able to position herself within the contextual and evidential framework of her disappearance. In which case, she may embrace her parents and siblings and want to see justice for whoever took her from the vicinity of 5A, PdL.
On the flipside, she may be able to position herself within the contextual and evidential framework of her disappearance. In which case, she may embrace her parents and siblings and want to see justice for whoever took her from the vicinity of 5A, PdL.
Madeleine will always be the McCanns’ child and sadly she is still missing.
Yes, she will always be a child, because she's brown bread.Regardless of whether she is living or dead she will always be the McCanns' child, but thanks for your delightful contribution.
well maddie is now a legal adult dead or alive no one can post on the forum with such posts as the parents of a missing child maddie is a legal adult now not a child but stilll happy birthday maddie i wish things could have been better for you and know that people on both sides care about you xx
she is now not a ward of the court is she
Madeleine's legal status seems to be of profound importance to you. You tend to post about it regularly.I may be mistaken but there seems to be some glee amongst some sceptics that in their perception Madeleine is no longer under the control of the McCanns, which is kind of odd as they all to a man (and woman) believe her dad chucked her dead body in a bin years ago.
I may be mistaken but there seems to be some glee amongst some sceptics that in their perception Madeleine is no longer under the control of the McCanns, which is kind of odd as they all to a man (and woman) believe her dad chucked her dead body in a bin years ago.
Perhaps you would like to give us some evidence that the McCann are in it for the money.
You could start with an explanation as to why when money began to be donated - they chose not to put it into their own private bank accounts and say 'thank you very much' - but instead arranged for it to be put into a fund.
Then perhaps you could explain why these money grabbers IYO - have donated so much of the other money which they could have also put into their own private accounts into the fund - the £500,000 compensation for libel for instance.
Then perhaps you could explain why money grabbing Kate would decide to put all the profits from her book into the fund and not into her private bank account.
Then perhaps you could explain why they decided to give the £55,000 compensation for libel to two charities and not put it into their own private bank accounts.
Then perhaps you could explain why they would agree to hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds to private investigators - when all they had to do was say No - we prefer to carry out investigations ourselves.
Then perhaps you could provide us with some evidence of a lavish lifestyle now enjoyed by the McCanns? Any yachts or Jags on the drive, a new mansion, exotic holidays, private schools for the the twins, designer clothes, expensive jewellery etc etc?
I await your evidence with interest.
I may be mistaken but there seems to be some glee amongst some sceptics that in their perception Madeleine is no longer under the control of the McCanns, which is kind of odd as they all to a man (and woman) believe her dad chucked her dead body in a bin years ago.
How odd, to say that the McCanns controlled Madeleine. Imo it isn't true either. They controlled an image of Madeleine which they constructed, controlled and publicised. Although they retained parental responsibilty, it was shared with the High Court, so had she been found they wouldn't have had complete control over her even then.You need to learn to read my posts carefully. I did not say that the McCanns controlled Madeleine, now or ever. Perhaps you could explain the acute interest by some in the fact that Madeleine (if she is alive) has turned 18 and is therefore no longer a ward of court - you yourself appear to have found this quite significant.
Furthermore, in what way was Madeleine's image constructed?
How was it controlled - did the McCanns exercise copyright on her image?
Yes, they publicised her image - of course they did, she was missing and they wanted her found fgs.
Furthermore, in what way was Madeleine's image constructed?
How was it controlled - did the McCanns exercise copyright on her image?
Yes, they publicised her image - of course they did, she was missing and they wanted her found fgs.
*AllegedlyOh right. They didn’t want her found - that’s why they distributed pictures of another girl that they constructed and controlled, one that looked nothing like their daughter. OK.
I wasn't referring to photographs, but to the picture they provided of Madeleine's character and traits.Wow! Shameful detailed and misleading construction of an image there, and to such advantage to the parents too!
Madeleine has always been confident and independent. Like ‘shy’ and ‘Gerry’, ‘shy’ and‘Madeleine’ are not words you would readily associate with one another.
[madeleine page 47]
When questioned about Madeleine's behaviour, the witness says that she is a shy girl
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
the informant describes Madeleine McCann as being an intelligent child, shy at first
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
Oh right. They didn’t want her found - that’s why they distributed pictures of another girl that they constructed and controlled, one that looked nothing like their daughter. OK.
They might claim they want her found, but if they already know she rests peacefully amongst the landfill then it's merely a bluff.one they’re still maintaining completely pointlessly 14 years later then.
one they’re still maintaining completely pointlessly 14 years later then.
People still believe them.People would have forgotten all about them years ago if they’d stopped banging on so about the child they “pretended” they were looking for. But yes you’re probably right - it’s quite common for child murderers to constantly draw attention to their crimes and demand governments review all the evidence against them, it’s because they enjoy living on a knife-edge of being found out for years and years, they simply adore the stress of it all.
People would have forgotten all about them years ago if they’d stopped banging on so about the child they “pretended” they were looking for. But yes you’re probably right - it’s quite common for child murderers to constantly draw attention to their crimes and demand governments review all the evidence against them, it’s because they enjoy living on a knife-edge of being found out for years and years, they simply adore the stress of it all.
What? Their family, friends, neighbours, everyone would just forget a kid is missing & never question why the child's parents aren't making a song & dance about searching for her? OK.I wasn’t talking about their immediate circle as I’m sure you were aware. It would have been quite acceptable and understandable if the McCanns had decided after two or three years of intense songing and dancing, that they announced to the public that they would continue to look for Madeleine privately, using Fund money and private detectives. The spotlight would be off them going forward, they could have told friends and family after a while that the investigation had dried up, gone nowhere and they could have happily spent the balance of the fund on new earrings and a new car and got on with the rest of their lives in peace.
Is this supposed to be of some significance ?
This picture features on social media today.
This picture features on social media today.Certainly similar, but the coloboma iris defect in the wrong position. Not Madeleine McCann IMO.
Certainly similar, but the coloboma iris defect in the wrong position. Not Madeleine McCann IMO.
i dont think childrens pictures or any pictures from social media should be allowed to be posted on here without permisson
I agree and any such images posted here in future will be removed.
This picture features on social media today.Nothing from SY which would carry more significance.
Nothing from SY which would carry more significance.
im glad g unit is going to make sure that random teen and young adults pictures wont be posted on here i dont agree with random strangers having their pics posted on here the internet is foreverMM is an adult now.
MM is an adult now.
For attention: carlymichelle, gunit. I have modified my original post. I thought it was quite obvious that the image was computer-generated.
Well it wasn't obvious to me.🤦🏻♀️
This is another AI-generated image. Read: not a real person. (image credit: Gevanny). Please remove if this is considered a true identity.
OK, but what's the point ?I don’t need/want to make a point. I’m sharing what is currently on different platforms.
I don’t need/want to make a point. I’m sharing what is currently on different platforms.
You must visit some strange places in that case.😂Not. What ‘strange places’ are you referring to?
Not. What ‘strange places’ are you referring to?
The places that produce fantasy images of a long dead Madeleine as if she was alive today.‘A long dead Madeleine’, if I understand you correctly, is based on Mr Wolters’ claim? Which you seem to agree with? If you consider Google as search engine ‘weird’, perhaps take advantage of their elementary navigation, at no cost.
Weird is what I call it.
‘A long dead Madeleine’, if I understand you correctly, is based on Mr Wolters’ claim? Which you seem to agree with? If you consider Google as search engine ‘weird’, perhaps take advantage of their elementary navigation, at no cost.
As a search engine, Google only picks up what already exists on websites. It is the websites that are weird.
As Davel would say - "Wolters agrees with me", as I've believed Madeleine was dead since 2007, whereas Wolters only came to that conclusion sometime after 2017
As a search engine, Google only picks up what already exists on websites. It is the websites that are weird.What websites are you referring to?
As Davel would say - "Wolters agrees with me", as I've believed Madeleine was dead since 2007, whereas Wolters only came to that conclusion sometime after 2017
What websites are you referring to?
No idea as you omitted to name them when lifting the images.Jassi, you are clearly not adequately educated re. using the ‘internet’ to gather and collate information. A note on Davel: please don’t involve him in this discussion without his consent.
Jassi, you are clearly not adequately educated re. using the ‘internet’ to gather and collate information. A note on Davel: please don’t involve him in this discussion without his consent.
@)(++(*
Not in the best of taste perhaps, but certainly far more realistic than the the fantasy stuff put up so far .
IMO
I believe in balance, for every ounce of nice in the world there should be an equal amount of nasty.I’m sure you can use your sick imagination and come up with something equally as or more offensive because let’s face it all dead children deserve to be ridiculed and made fun of, eh Spam?
Just today I read that someone made a "horrific, nasty & appalling" comment about the little boy who got struck by lightning.
Only, the media have decided the comment is too offensive/inappropriate to repeat.
I'm very much against this kind of censorship because it is up to me & nobody else to decide what's offensive & what isn't.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1435651/Charity-worker-Facebook-comment-boy-dead-lightning-Blackpool
I’m sure you can use your sick imagination and come up with something equally as or more offensive because let’s face it all dead children deserve to be ridiculed and made fun of, eh Spam?
I can only imagine he said something about the child not needing a cremation.No one’s telling you you can’t have an opinion you silly sausage. Making sick and offensive troll posts is not posting an opinion it’s simply posting to cause upset, and people removing those posts because they are upsetting to them are simply exercising their right to an opinion so why would you object to that?
Not exactly side splitting but I didn't know the dead child so I don't care & it really isn't my problem.
It doesn't offend me in the slightest.
People die every second & I don't see why that should be excluded from ridicule.
I simply will not be told what opinions I can have.
No one’s telling you you can’t have an opinion you silly sausage. Making sick and offensive troll posts is not posting an opinion it’s simply posting to cause upset, and people removing those posts because they are upsetting to them are simply exercising their right to an opinion so why would you object to that?
I notice Carly liked your post - perhaps you could make some posts ridiculing her personal problems and she how she likes it?
I've no doubt Carly has had her fair share of comments about being disabled.That’s fine, quite affectionate even (Ironside and Professor SH both being admirable disabled role models),
Incidentally, my friends son has cerebral palsy, he's 25 & is totally crippled & rides around in an electric wheelchair.
We call him Ironside, or Professor Stephen Hawkins, much to the horror of other people, but he himself doesn't actually mind at all & enjoys the banter we have with him. He say's it makes him feel normal.
I've no doubt Carly has had her fair share of comments about being disabled.
Incidentally, my friends son has cerebral palsy, he's 25 & is totally crippled & rides around in an electric wheelchair.
We call him Ironside, or Professor Stephen Hawkins, much to the horror of other people, but he himself doesn't actually mind at all & enjoys the banter we have with him. He say's it makes him feel normal.
IMO, anyone who thinks it is their right to be deliberately offensive and upsetting towards the families of children r to who have died or to ridicule those children has some serious mental health issues for which they should seek help. Is it OK for me to voice this opinion I wonder?
We don't know the full extent of the mans comment, and far as I can tell he didn't direct his comment to the boys family. But we won't know because someone else decided it's too offensive to be repeated by anyone.
yes sometimes from sources you wouldnt believe someone on here among us even but my real life family and friends treat me as normal which i love too
the thing is some people would like the internet censored a bit like china does but in the western world the internet has barley any laws people rightly are allowed to have opinons and some people dont like that but thats their issue no one elses the mcanns brought maddie into the public domain and the world is allowed to talk about her and what may have happned to her not everybody thinks the mcanns did anything to maddie except the neglect of her 3 year old self and her baby twin siblings
You may have some physical challenges, Carly, but you clearly don't let them affect who you are, and it's who you are that your family and friends appreciate imo. Anything else is immaterial to me and using your situation to make a point in a discussion is not acceptable imo.I raised them because Carly appeared to approve the right to anyone voicing an opinion or making sick jokes about dead children.
We don't know the full extent of the mans comment, and far as I can tell he didn't direct his comment to the boys family. But we won't know because someone else decided it's too offensive to be repeated by anyone.So your problem is with the Daily Express for not repeating the joke? Do you think the paper has a duty to report unexpurgated all the filth and obsenities on the internet so that you can decide whether or not you find it offensive?
the thing is some people would like the internet censored a bit like china does but in the western world the internet has barley any laws people rightly are allowed to have opinons and some people dont like that but thats their issue no one elses the mcanns brought maddie into the public domain and the world is allowed to talk about her and what may have happned to her not everybody thinks the mcanns did anything to maddie except the neglect of her 3 year old self and her baby twin siblingsSo you have no problem with others who choose to ridicule dead children and make a mockery of their deaths online? Just so we're clear - that is what you appear to be defending here today.
So your problem is with the Daily Express for not repeating the joke? Do you think the paper has a duty to report unexpurgated all the filth and obsenities on the internet so that you can decide whether or not you find it offensive?
So you have no problem with others who choose to ridicule dead children and make a mockery of their deaths online? Just so we're clear - that is what you appear to be defending here today.
Defending the rights of others to express their opinions is not the same as approving of those opinions. You appear to have a problem understanding that distinction imo.
I think you and other sceptics have a problem understanding that free speech has limits... Enshrined in law
Exactly. The law decides, not random posters on an internet forum. I get the impression that some people (particularly McCann supporters) have a problem understanding that they are not the judges of what should and should not be said.
I think you and other sceptics have a problem understanding that free speech has limits... Enshrined in law
You must visit some strange places in that case.
Posters have the right to express their opinion within the law... That included posters who find posts offensive.
You should defend the right of posters to do that
Posters can express their opinions, but they cannot seek to impose those opinions on others or berate those whose opinions differ. Those are the rules of this forum.
It's reasonable to comment on opinion... It's just another opinion. If I say I find someones posts offensive... Then I don't see anything wrong with that
Defending the rights of others to express their opinions is not the same as approving of those opinions. You appear to have a problem understanding that distinction imo.
Defending the rights of others to express their opinions is not the same as approving of those opinions. You appear to have a problem understanding that distinction imo.You think making sick jokes about dead children killed in tragic circumstances and posting pictures of Madeleine McCann as a pile of bones is something that needs to be defended? I don't view those as opinions, I view that as trolling pure and simple and I don't see how you as a moderator or anyone with a shred of decency can in good conscience defend it as "free speech" - it's bollocks that's what it is. That's my opinion, hope it doesn't cause offence.
Exactly. The law decides, not random posters on an internet forum. I get the impression that some people (particularly McCann supporters) have a problem understanding that they are not the judges of what should and should not be said.Criticism of a number of forum members here implying they are stupid n'est ce pas?
You think making sick jokes about dead children killed in tragic circumstances and posting pictures of Madeleine McCann as a pile of bones is something that needs to be defended? I don't view those as opinions, I view that as trolling pure and simple and I don't see how you as a moderator or anyone with a shred of decency can in good conscience defend it as "free speech" - it's bollocks that's what it is. That's my opinion, hope it doesn't cause offence.
You think making sick jokes about dead children killed in tragic circumstances and posting pictures of Madeleine McCann as a pile of bones is something that needs to be defended? I don't view those as opinions, I view that as trolling pure and simple and I don't see how you as a moderator or anyone with a shred of decency can in good conscience defend it as "free speech" - it's bollocks that's what it is. That's my opinion, hope it doesn't cause offence.
I can't comment on 'sick jokes about dead children killed in tragic circumstances' as I haven't seen them.So you don't see anything indecent with posting a picture of Madeleine as a pile of skeletal remains on a thread that was started to mark her 18th Birthday? Why am I not remotely surprised? I wonder how it would be if I posted a picture of a pile of human remains on the anniversary of Brenda Leyland's death? Would that be permitted?
Those who post random pictures of what Madeleine McCann might look like now do it, I assume, because they share the belief that she may be alive. Those who post pictures of her as a pile of bones do it, I assume, because they share the German authority's belief that she died many years ago.
I assume both see their pictures as a realistic demonstration of their opinions. Disliking what they post is a matter of opinion, not of decency imo.
So you don't see anything indecent with posting a picture of Madeleine as a pile of skeletal remains on a thread that was started to mark her 18th Birthday? Why am I not remotely surprised? I wonder how it would be if I posted a picture of a pile of human remains on the anniversary of Brenda Leyland's death? Would that be permitted?
The thing that gets me about the child killed by lightning story.
The comment, whatever it was, was posted in a closed facebook group, then hastily deleted by the author.
But, so offensive, inappropriate & appalling was this comment that people who saw it decided to screenshot the comment & make it more widely available, even after it's deletion, so everyone else could be offended by it.
It's fashionable to be offended and share your offendedness with others these days.
The thing that gets me about the child killed by lightning story.Did they? Then you must have seen it, despite protesting that you were unable to.
The comment, whatever it was, was posted in a closed facebook group, then hastily deleted by the author.
But, so offensive, inappropriate & appalling was this comment that people who saw it decided to screenshot the comment & make it more widely available, even after it's deletion, so everyone else could be offended by it.
Outrage Culture, stomping down the street wailing because your feelings were hurt.It's not outrage culture to find your post about Madeleine offensive or to say so. I haven't screen shot your post and sent it to the Daily Express, but if someone had and they managed to track you down I have absolutely no doubt you'd be a contrite quivering sack of sorry when they confronted you. That's the thing about the internet - you think you can be as offensive and vile as you like without any consequences, but sometimes you are careless and it backfires and you are found out and suddenly you find yourself on the wrong end of the vicious attacks, you lose your job and all your friends and then suddenly it doesn't seem like it was such a good idea to be so offensive and vile and you find you can't live with the shame of it all and you end up topping yourself.
Complaining to Ofcom because you didn't see a black face in that programme you watched or needing content warnings on Fawlty Towers because John Cleese made a joke about Nazis back in 1970.
What precious flowers some people have become.
I'll be sure to post a picture of a large pile of cremains on her Death Day Anniversary then, seeing as how that's deemed fair comment on this forum, or at least so it would seem as far as one of its moderators is concerned. When I do, I expect not one murmur of dissent from all you unshockable sceptics though.
Well she's definitely dead, so it wouldn't be an opinion that's what she looked like.
Unless she was cremated, in which case a picture of dust might be more accurate.
I'll be sure to post a picture of a large pile of cremains on her Death Day Anniversary then, seeing as how that's deemed fair comment on this forum, or at least so it would seem as far as one of its moderators is concerned. When I do, I expect not one murmur of dissent from all you unshockable sceptics though.
I know you won't VS. In the name of decency ~ I would delete it 😢Of course I wouldn't, not only because I'm not that sort of person but also because a) I wouldn't know where to find a picture of human cremains (and certainly wouldn't want to try and find one) and b) I wouldn't know how to post it on here even if I did @)(++(*
So you don't see anything indecent with posting a picture of Madeleine as a pile of skeletal remains on a thread that was started to mark her 18th Birthday? Why am I not remotely surprised? I wonder how it would be if I posted a picture of a pile of human remains on the anniversary of Brenda Leyland's death? Would that be permitted?"maddie will be 18 this year" it must be remembered that this is a tough time for folk. Madeleine's family are bereft that she remains missing and they have missed every single landmark in her life from her fourth birthday until this year when she reached her majority.
Did they? Then you must have seen it, despite protesting that you were unable to.
"maddie will be 18 this year" it must be remembered that this is a tough time for folk. Madeleine's family are bereft that she remains missing and they have missed every single landmark in her life from her fourth birthday until this year when she reached her majority.
Then we have the other side of the coin with folk too experiencing probably the worse time in their lives because their 'opinion' is apparently not shared by the investigating authorities of three nations who have dismissed any notion of parental involvement in the crime of her abduction.
Instead they are taking the common sense approach of investigating a beast which was domicile in Luz when Madeleine was taken.
I think it is painful for some that fourteen years invested in hatred is being proved wrong and they are really hurting
Let me know when that happens.
"maddie will be 18 this year" it must be remembered that this is a tough time for folk. Madeleine's family are bereft that she remains missing and they have missed every single landmark in her life from her fourth birthday until this year when she reached her majority.
Then we have the other side of the coin with folk too experiencing probably the worse time in their lives because their 'opinion' is apparently not shared by the investigating authorities of three nations who have dismissed any notion of parental involvement in the crime of her abduction.
Instead they are taking the common sense approach of investigating a beast which was domicile in Luz when Madeleine was taken.
I think it is painful for some that fourteen years invested in hatred is being proved wrong and they are really hurting
It's not outrage culture to find your post about Madeleine offensive or to say so. I haven't screen shot your post and sent it to the Daily Express, but if someone had and they managed to track you down I have absolutely no doubt you'd be a contrite quivering sack of sorry when they confronted you. That's the thing about the internet - you think you can be as offensive and vile as you like without any consequences, but sometimes you are careless and it backfires and you are found out and suddenly you find yourself on the wrong end of the vicious attacks, you lose your job and all your friends and then suddenly it doesn't seem like it was such a good idea to be so offensive and vile and you find you can't live with the shame of it all and you end up topping yourself.
Please do try to keep up with the rest of the world 🙄
I can't comment on 'sick jokes about dead children killed in tragic circumstances' as I haven't seen them.Your assumption is presumptuous and prejudiced. My opinion.
Those who post random pictures of what Madeleine McCann might look like now do it, I assume, because they share the belief that she may be alive. Those who post pictures of her as a pile of bones do it, I assume, because they share the German authority's belief that she died many years ago.
I assume both see their pictures as a realistic demonstration of their opinions. Disliking what they post is a matter of opinion, not of decency imo.
I notice it's still all about them and what they have missed, not what Madeleine has missed.
No charges, no prosecution, no sign of the child, no abduction evidence disclosed by police.
Is it usual wherever it is you come from that police disclose evidence on a working case to Joe Public?
I still haven't worked out where the offensive part is.Tell you what, take your post and show it to your mother / father /sister / wife/ girlfriend/ daughter /employer. Tell them you made the post on a social media site and ask them what they think of it and what they think it says about you. Then report back (truthfully) what they say. Can you do that? Even Jassi commented that your post was in poor taste (though she seemed to find it hilarious as well), but let’s get a greater consensus. Why not start a thread using that post and we can put it to the vote. Offensive or fair comment? It obviously matters alot to you to get more feedback so off you go.
Is it me saying I believe Maddie is bones, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make, or me adding a picture of bones demonstrating that very belief?
Are each one alone offensive or is it the combination of both?
My opinion is Maddie is deceased& therefore quite likely a pile of bones.
Is it that ,that is particularly offensive or the picture of how I opine she may look?
If I hadn't added the picture would you be offended?
So you don't see anything indecent with posting a picture of Madeleine as a pile of skeletal remains on a thread that was started to mark her 18th Birthday? Why am I not remotely surprised? I wonder how it would be if I posted a picture of a pile of human remains on the anniversary of Brenda Leyland's death? Would that be permitted?
Tell you what, take your post and show it to your mother / father /sister / wife/ girlfriend/ daughter /employer. Tell them you made the post on a social media site and ask them what they think of it and what they think it says about you. Then report back (truthfully) what they say. Can you do that? Even Jassi commented that your post was in poor taste (though she seemed to find it hilarious as well), but let’s get a greater consensus. Why not start a thread using that post and we can put it to the vote. Offensive or fair comment? It obviously matters alot to you to get more feedback so off you go.
So you don't see anything indecent with posting a picture of Madeleine as a pile of skeletal remains on a thread that was started to mark her 18th Birthday? Why am I not remotely surprised? I wonder how it would be if I posted a picture of a pile of human remains on the anniversary of Brenda Leyland's death? Would that be permitted?
The picture reflects Madeleine's likeness if, as the German prosecutor insists, she is dead.Harder hitting than just saying it, but indecent?Yet, you in your capacity as moderator, intend to ban posted “images” of Madeleine as an alive 18-year old until the contrary is proven?
This thread was started to discuss the fact that Madeline would be 18 this month.
Unlike Brenda Leyland, there are people who doubt that Madeleine died.
My friends & family are quite familiar with my ways having known me personally for several decades, so I can already report back that they wouldn't be in the least bit concerned or surprised by my mutterings & rants on social media.And yet you seem to crave attention so. Weird.
And I don't care about feedback, people could never take notice of a word I said here ever again & it really wouldn't concern me in the slightest.
The picture reflects Madeleine's likeness if, as the German prosecutor insists, she is dead. Harder hitting than just saying it, but indecent?Yes, indecent. If you can’t see why then there is literally nothing I can say to make you understand.
This thread was started to discuss the fact that Madeline would be 18 this month.
Unlike Brenda Leyland, there are people who doubt that Madeleine died.
Give it a go, doubt it'll alter opinion of you either way.I think you’re wrong. I have never posted indecent, insensitive material or sick jokes referring to dead people. A number of people on this forum seem to like my posts but I doubt they’d find it appropriate or amusing if I posted a picture of human remains to refer Brenda Leyland. Obviously I am not going to do that because unlike some people on here I do have a shred of common decency.
The picture reflects Madeleine's likeness if, as the German prosecutor insists, she is dead. Harder hitting than just saying it, but indecent?
This thread was started to discuss the fact that Madeline would be 18 this month.
Unlike Brenda Leyland, there are people who doubt that Madeleine died.
Brendas definitely dead...just a rotting coffin fillled with rotting bones....all the flesh eaten by worms and bugs.
what about the kids in gaza/israel being killed do they matter as much as maddie does to some?? they matter to meAt least they know what happened to them and what caused their deaths.
what about the kids in gaza/israel being killed do they matter as much as maddie does to some?? they matter to meTalk about a non-sequitur! How about start a thread about it and grieve for them on there? Maybe Spam will post some pictures of dead Palestinian babies for a laff.
Yet, you in your capacity as moderator, intend to ban posted “images” of Madeleine as an alive 18-year old until the contrary is proven?
Pictures of real living children should not be posted as being 'possibly' Madeleine. The inference being, imo, that the girl's parents or guardians have been raising a child who isn't theirs.
The picture reflects Madeleine's likeness if, as the German prosecutor insists, she is dead. Harder hitting than just saying it, but indecent?
This thread was started to discuss the fact that Madeline would be 18 this month.
Unlike Brenda Leyland, there are people who doubt that Madeleine died.
The picture reflects Madeleine's likeness if, as the German prosecutor insists, she is dead. Harder hitting than just saying it, but indecent?
This thread was started to discuss the fact that Madeline would be 18 this month.
Unlike Brenda Leyland, there are people who doubt that Madeleine died.
This Thread is a complete disgrace to the memory of this Forum, which it undoubtedly will be. This Forum is now a Cess Pit.
You are welcome.
what about the kids in gaza/israel being killed do they matter as much as maddie does to some?? they matter to me
Presently the internet is awash with young girls posting photographs of themselves claiming they are Madeleine.One of those girls might be right. That is why facial analysis is important IMO. If they have made that public claim they can't claim to be bothered by the display of their photo.
A sign of the times. Their fifteen minutes of fame V the pain and trauma of the last fourteen years suffered by her parents and everyone connected to Madeleine; I make no apology for mentioning her family since neither they nor I have a reference point for Madeleine.
Thoughtless young lookalikes when measured against the pain engendered ~ perhaps should be more in line for your criticism (although I think parents who can produce such insensitive offspring might deserve a bit too).
I think your continued criticism of Anthro quite perplexing. I think it is due to your misunderstanding of the information uncontaminated with bile she attempts to bring to the forum.
I for one find many of her posts innovative and when measured against the same old same old posted by sceptics refreshing.
One of those girls might be right. That is why facial analysis is important IMO. If they have made that public claim they can't claim to be bothered by the display of their photo.
Presently the internet is awash with young girls posting photographs of themselves claiming they are Madeleine.
A sign of the times. Their fifteen minutes of fame V the pain and trauma of the last fourteen years suffered by her parents and everyone connected to Madeleine; I make no apology for mentioning her family since neither they nor I have a reference point for Madeleine.
Thoughtless young lookalikes when measured against the pain engendered ~ perhaps should be more in line for your criticism (although I think parents who can produce such insensitive offspring might deserve a bit too).
I think your continued criticism of Anthro quite perplexing. I think it is due to your misunderstanding of the information uncontaminated with bile she attempts to bring to the forum.
I for one find many of her posts innovative and when measured against the same old same old posted by sceptics refreshing.
Perhaps you need to check if the photos posted are of girls claiming to be Madeleine or if it is others promoting the rumour and the girls are unaware what is being done.
I don't need to ... perhaps you should take your own advice to inform yourself; I could supply links but I'm sure you are perfectly capable of performing your own research.
If you can provide links to show the source of these unexplained uncited postings please do so. It would be interesting to see where they originate, as I can't find their sources.Your posts are going from the sublime to the ridiculous ...
Your posts are going from the sublime to the ridiculous ...
NB
I was responding to Gunit's post Rob. Where she mistakenly implied that Anthro was disrespecting these girls; parents etc ~ some of whom display colobomas in the requisite eye???
"The inference being, imo, that the girl's parents or guardians have been raising a child who isn't theirs."
It only takes one to start a trend on TikTok which is what these kids are doing; on the other hand it could be that one of them may be right and maybe somewhere someone has been taken from other work to check it out.
However should one of these parents or guardians prove to "have been raising a child who isn't theirs" raises far different repercussions for this Tik Tok trend than those dictated by Gunit being much more in line with what you say about images posted by these now young adults.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12065.msg651833#msg651833
________________________________________________________________________-
Ok so there’s a new ‘trend’ of people on TikTok claiming they’re Madeleine McCann
This is… weird?
Last week, there was a girl who went viral on TikTok saying she thought she could be missing British girl Madeleine McCann. But now, it looks like the video has become part of a much wider “trend” as TikTok is literally flooded with people claiming they’re Madeleine McCann too.
https://thetab.com/uk/2021/05/11/tiktok-madeleine-mccann-users-videos-trend-204772
These are not as you say "these unexplained uncited postings"
They are well thought out postings to the extent some have colobomas in their eyes. Do please catch up with current events and desist from this present tack of posting. I have printed the facts ... what is your excuse.
Presently the internet is awash with young girls posting photographs of themselves claiming they are Madeleine.Here is one such example, Brietta. My daughter uses TikTok and showed me the actual footage a couple of days ago.
A sign of the times. Their fifteen minutes of fame V the pain and trauma of the last fourteen years suffered by her parents and everyone connected to Madeleine; I make no apology for mentioning her family since neither they nor I have a reference point for Madeleine.
Thoughtless young lookalikes when measured against the pain engendered ~ perhaps should be more in line for your criticism (although I think parents who can produce such insensitive offspring might deserve a bit too).
I think your continued criticism of Anthro quite perplexing. I think it is due to your misunderstanding of the information uncontaminated with bile she attempts to bring to the forum.
I for one find many of her posts innovative and when measured against the same old same old posted by sceptics refreshing.
I don't think that is any accident.
There are those who simply cannot bear the thought of a forum which allows the likes of you and me to have a voice.
They set up their failed forum to attack this one ~ didn't work out as planned though did it.
So turning it into a disrespected cess pit is plan B. MY OPINION ... but the truth is out there.
It is just about done now, although I can't say that I actually care anymore.
I no longer have any desire to Delete anything, or would even know where to begin.
Fortunately, this is of no odds to The McCanns. This Forum is defunct.
Here is one such example, Brietta. My daughter uses TikTok and showed me the actual footage a couple of days ago.
https://www.kidspot.com.au/news/tiktokkers-pretend-to-be-madeleine-mccann-in-sickening-new-trend/news-story/1852a41e72932b9b2c7f57db7a5df63a
Was this forum at the behest and for them ?
It is just about done now, although I can't say that I actually care anymore.
I no longer have any desire to Delete anything, or would even know where to begin.
Fortunately, this is of no odds to The McCanns. This Forum is defunct.
I think we and her parents will find out what happened to Madeleine but the hatred will continue. Far too ingrained in some psyches to ever be otherwise.
Why do you think that?
Even if Brueckner is the man, what makes you think he will say what happened to her?
I think we and her parents will find out what happened to Madeleine but the hatred will continue. Far too ingrained in some psyches to ever be otherwise.
I don't think he ever will ... pretty soon it may well be the only 'power' he has and he won't give it up. The police will have to find evidence to charge and convict him and I think they are almost there - just case building extra carefully since murder has been mentioned.
Only took 14 yrs to catch up with why Harrison was brought in.I think for UK police murder was the most likely from the start. I don't think anyone seriously suggests the McCanns are guilty of murder
Why would those who claim all options are on the table dismiss murder by the parents as a possibility? I’d like to know their rationale, so kindly present it here.
Wellll murder means it would have been planned. "Gerry lets kill our daughter on holiday" Kate "Okay how will we accomplish this"... oh erm and why would we do that?you do know not all murders are planned days in advance don’t you? So let’s try that again.
Yeah, no, not very likely really. Now- manslaughter, accidental killing- maybe a case could be made with evidence.