UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => 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. => Topic started by: stephen25000 on November 08, 2013, 09:14:22 AM
-
Having read some of the threads on forums and facebook, it seems to me the extremes on both sides have gone to far.
Where will it end ?
-
Having read some of the threads on forums and facebook, it seems to me the extremes on both sides have gone to far.
Where will it end ?
I can't see it ever ending even if she is found dead or alive.
-
Having read some of the threads on forums and facebook, it seems to me the extremes on both sides have gone to far.
Where will it end ?
Devotion to me means believing things without looking at the facts...so some might say that applies to you stephen
-
I can't see it ever ending even if she is found dead or alive.
You could well be right Angelo.
It's rather like the current libel trial, whoever loses, the other side will claim some sort of fix.
-
Devotion to me means believing things without looking at the facts...so some might say that applies to you stephen
Have you read the title davel ?
-
Have you read the title davel ?
Are you saying you do not support amaral
-
You could well be right Angelo.
It's rather like the current libel trial, whoever loses, the other side will claim some sort of fix.
Much like the Tony Bennett trial which resulted in him being nearly forced into penury and permanently banned from repeating his defamation. He will be paying off the case until he dies.
Read the anti sites and this is seen as a marvellous victory.
-
Have you read the title davel ?
i dont support anyone but maddie she IS the only victim the rest of the people caught up in this are adults maddie couldnt defend herself but we can defend her against the neglect that she had on that holiday and make it known that that is not normal parenting despite what pros and the mcanns say
-
I can't see it ever ending even if she is found dead or alive.
I think alot would change if either of those two things happened.....and in what circumstances...
Dont know about devotion....Im certainly not devoted to Mr Amaral in the slightest....I dont like him being targetted and used as some scapegoat by so many...its quite irrational at best imo
-
Are you saying you do not support amaral
Actually , I don't agree with everything Amaral has stated.
-
Actually , I don't agree with everything Amaral has stated.
what gets me is the devotion of the mcanns with certian people is like a brain washed cult i hesitate to use that word but its true its like they preech to their flock you will believe me or else kinda thing
-
Having read some of the threads on forums and facebook, it seems to me the extremes on both sides have gone to far.
Where will it end ?
I will go further..the McCann supporters tend to be concerned more with the evidence...and support the McCanns because despite their persecution there is precious little evidence against them. So that support is rational..not devotional. Those who criticise the MCCanns do exhibit devotional behaviour...ie believing in something without evidence
-
what gets me is the devotion of the mcanns with certian people is like a brain washed cult i hesitate to use that word but its true its like they preech to their flock you will believe me or else kinda thing
From my point of view, both sides act like a cult.
-
I will go further..the McCann supporters tend to be concerned more with the evidence...and support the McCanns because despite their persecution there is precious little evidence against them. So that support is rational..not devotional. Those who criticise the MCCanns do exhibit devotional behaviour...ie believing in something without evidence
Having read through some of the comments on the site you 'recommended', your above post makes no sense at all.
Likewise having seen some of the material on the official facebook page, it has increasing hallmarks of an almost religious devotion.
-
Actually , I don't agree with everything Amaral has stated.
that wasn't the question, I asked do you support amaral
-
Having read through some of the comments on the site you 'recommended', your above post makes no sense at all.
Likewise having seen some of the material on the official facebook page, it has increasing hallmarks of an almost religious devotion.
exactly if you break from the flock you are a black sheep IE we dont believe everything the mcanns say so we are considered trolls etc and [ censored word ]s same kinda thing right?
-
Having read through some of the comments on the site you 'recommended', your above post makes no sense at all.
Likewise having seen some of the material on the official facebook page, it has increasing hallmarks of an almost religious devotion.
Your devotion to blaming the MCCanns is clouding your judgement. In my opinion you are displaying devotional behaviour
-
that wasn't the question, I asked do you support amaral
Define support.
I have stated before, he is a bit player in this case, but clearly has become the focal point of the obsessed mccann followers hatred.
-
Define support.
I have stated before, he is a bit player in this case, but clearly has become the focal point of the obsessed mccann followers hatred.
Do you think he is a decent , honest good policeman
-
Do you think he is a decent , honest good policeman
Do you think the mccanns are decent, good and honest people who cared so much for their children, they left them unprotected whilst out drinking with their associates ?
-
Do you think the mccanns are decent, good and honest people who cared so much for their children, they left them unprotected whilst out drinking with their associates ?
I think that the McCanns are ordinary people with no proof of their criminality. I think they erred in their childcare and have suffered terribly. Unless the unthinkable happened and they actively harmed her, but there is no evidence that this happened.
-
Do you think the mccanns are decent, good and honest people who cared so much for their children, they left them unprotected whilst out drinking with their associates ?
I think the McCanns are decent good honest people who cared for their children .. why are you running away from answering my question re amaral
-
Define support.
I have stated before, he is a bit player in this case, but clearly has become the focal point of the obsessed mccann followers hatred.
BIT PLAYER?
Well he darned well shouldn't have been.
He led the damned case. He carries the can.
-
Do you think he is a decent , honest good policeman
Me too.
I would like to know if, you, Stephen believe Amaral to be a decent, good, honest policeman
-
Me too.
I would like to know if, you, Stephen believe Amaral to be a decent, good, honest policeman
Stephen has been avoiding the question all day
-
BIT PLAYER?
Well he darned well shouldn't have been.
He led the damned case. He carries the can.
Carries the can?
Think about what you're saying. Who is responsible for this situation?
-
Stephen has been avoiding the question all day
8)-))) Don't blame him.
-
Carries the can?
Think about what you're saying. Who is responsible for this situation?
Perhaps you have never been in a senior position?
Didn't you know that the Head Honcho always ultimately carries the can? He is responsible and answerable for everything.
Amaral was the Haed Honcho in the Madeleine case .... and according to an article I found a couple of days ago (soz have forgotten where it was, so you will have to believe me) he was also Head Honcho on the Joana Cipriano case.
He is answerable for everything. He should not sidestep the responsibility.
-
8)-))) Don't blame him.
I don't blame him either ...because its quite obvious ..hes not 8)-)))
-
Perhaps you have never been in a senior position?
Didn't you know that the Head Honcho always ultimately carries the can? He is responsible and answerable for everything.
Amaral was the Haed Honcho in the Madeleine case .... and according to an article I found a couple of days ago (soz have forgotten where it was, so you will have to believe me) he was also Head Honcho on the Joana Cipriano case.
He is answerable for everything. He should not sidestep the responsibility.
But there are others even more responsible.
Legal action was taken against him because of the book, not the investigation. You ought to take note of that.
-
Did anyone celebrate Amaral Day this year...yes a day has been decreed Amaral day by some of his supporters on the net...that's devotion for you
-
I don't blame him either ...because its quite obvious ..hes not 8)-)))
?{)(** No, it's not that, it's that there's no answer anyone could give that would stop your incessant campaign against the man. The man who apparently is Portugal's only policeman.
So no wonder the question isn't answered.
-
Did anyone celebrate Amaral Day this year...yes a day has been decreed Amaral day by some of his supporters on the net...that's devotion for you
Is this the one where everyone gathers round and reverently opens tins of sardines, while drinking copious amounts of Portuguese vino ? Sounds good to me.
-
Is this the one where everyone gathers round and reverently opens tins of sardines, while drinking copious amounts of Portuguese vino ? Sounds good to me.
are you a devotee?
-
?{)(** No, it's not that, it's that there's no answer anyone could give that would stop your incessant campaign against the man. The man who apparently is Portugal's only policeman.
So no wonder the question isn't answered.
twaddle and poppycock ...of course he's a dishonest man 8)-))) he just refuses to admit it ...awww theres loyalty for ya 8)-)))
-
Stephen has been avoiding the question all day
Sorry to disappoint you davel, but i do have other things to do than answer your superfluous questions.
The mccanns are clearly flawed.
Amaral has his flaws.
We all have flaws, unless you are of course Mr. Perfect. 8)-)))
-
Sorry to disappoint you davel, but i do have other things to do than answer your superfluous questions.
The mccanns are clearly flawed.
Amaral has his flaws.
We all have flaws, unless you are of course Mr. Perfect. 8)-)))
You still haven't answered the question ...
-
You still haven't answered the question ...
Don't bother Stephen...you have made a fool of yourself again and proved that you cannot take part in an intelligent debate
-
Don't bother Stephen...you have made a fool of yourself again and proved that you cannot take part in an intelligent debate
No please try again.
The ONLY thing you have proved is your DEVOTION to all things mccann.
As your reference to .....2 proved earlier. 8((()*/
-
No please try again.
The ONLY thing you have proved is your DEVOTION to all things mccann.
As your reference to .....2 proved earlier. 8((()*/
Stephen..debate is about posing and answering questions..you are just not very good at it..everyone can see..even the [ censored word] must be cringing at your antics
-
Stephen..debate is about posing and answering questions..you are just not very good at it..everyone can see..even the [ censored word] must be cringing at your antics
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Stephen..debate is about posing and answering questions..you are just not very good at it..everyone can see..even the [ censored word] must be cringing at your antics
I don't think so, but most of the country will cringe at your obsession with one man.
But don't let that stop you 8(>((
-
It is after all, to get serious for a moment, all you have.
-
I don't think so, but most of the country will cringe at your obsession with one man.
But don't let that stop you 8(>((
also his saint like adoration of the mcanns
-
also his saint like adoration of the mcanns
and that gets right up your nose doesnt carly ?>)()<
-
are you a devotee?
Sardines and wine ? - devoted to them
-
Sardines and wine ? - devoted to them
i persona;lly find devoting so much time defending people you know on both sides odd i defend maddies rights to be protected by her parents and she wasnt but you know what i mean bottom line what ever did happen the mcanns leaving those children caused all this to happen
-
i persona;lly find devoting so much time defending people you know on both sides odd i defend maddies rights to be protected by her parents and she wasnt but you know what i mean bottom line what ever did happen the mcanns leaving those children caused all this to happen
You really can't argue with that, though I sure some will.
-
i persona;lly find devoting so much time defending people you know on both sides odd i defend maddies rights to be protected by her parents and she wasnt but you know what i mean bottom line what ever did happen the mcanns leaving those children caused all this to happen
so you keep parroting ...zzzzzzzzzz boring 8-)(--)
-
Sardines and wine ? - devoted to them
Ah, Stephen will not answer.
So let's ask you.
Do you think Amaral is a decent , honest good policeman
-
Ah, Stephen will not answer.
So let's ask you.
Do you think Amaral is a decent , honest good policeman
Other than pointing out that he is an ex-policeman, I shan't indulge you.
-
You really can't argue with that, though I sure some will.
It is possible to argue with it. The question is- what was the primary cause.
Certainly leaving the children alone was part of a causal chain (which also includes deciding to go on holiday, choosing PdL, choosing those dates, and other possible secondary causes.) but if as the Met and PJ seem to believe now that Madeleine was abducted, the primary cause becomes the abductor! If the McCanns were guilty of hiding a corpse, then equally, 'leaving the children alone' is not the primary cause.
Your argument leaves out the question of direct rather than indirect responsibility. Many things were potentially indirectly responsible for Madeleine's disappearance or death, but 'leaving them alone' can never be the prime cause!
-
You really can't argue with that, though I sure some will.
yep thy will but that dosnt make it ok they support child negect and dont care about maddie imo if they did they wouldnt defend her parents in front of maddies neeeds as a toddler to feel safe and loved
-
Other than pointing out that he is an ex-policeman, I shan't indulge you.
Why are both you and Stephen frightened to express your opinion...when Stephen asked me about the Mcanns I had no problem replying
-
Why are both you and Stephen frightened to express your opinion...when Stephen asked me about the Mcanns I had no problem replying
That's because you are a devotee, solid in your belief.
I, on the other hand, have no such certainty about anything, particularly not about people I do not know.
-
Other than pointing out that he is an ex-policeman, I shan't indulge you.
priceless @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Ah, Stephen will not answer.
So let's ask you.
Do you think Amaral is a decent , honest good policeman
Ex-policeman. Yes I think so. You only had to hear the British officer speaking to the select committee this week to understand some things about policeman who have had long careers.
-
That's because you are a devotee, solid in your belief.
I, on the other hand, have no such certainty about anything, particularly not about people I do not know.
Who said I was certain and who says I don't know them
-
Who said I was certain and who says I don't know them
I was referring to myself, not you.
You certainly come come across as a true believer. Please accept mu apology if I have maligned you.
-
I was referring to myself, not you.
You certainly come come across as a true believer. Please accept mu apology if I have maligned you.
maybe a little bit obesssed with them even??
-
Other than pointing out that he is an ex-policeman, I shan't indulge you.
Ah, this is getting interesting @)(++(*
Nobody will say that Amaral is a decent , honest good policeman
Wonder if John has answered that question yet?
-
maybe a little bit obesssed with them even??
Yes, I find obsession difficult to understand unless on is a relative or close friend. I find the case fascinating , but not to the extent that some seem to. Somebody yesterday talked about reading the files for six and a half years ! Do they not have a life ?
-
Stephen..debate is about posing and answering questions..you are just not very good at it..everyone can see..even the [ censored word] must be cringing at your antics
I put up this thread to display exactly how some people behave in context of their viewpoint in this case.
You have amply displayed that in your responses, and earlier in your support
of .....2.
-
I put up this thread to display exactly how some people behave in context of their viewpoint in this case.
You have amply displayed that in your responses, and earlier in your support
of .....2.
i hope you dont think im a devoteee lol i dont know the manns OR GA I have always been on maddies side she is the victim of this whole case not the adults who were mature enough to make their own bad choices
-
Ah, this is getting interesting @)(++(*
Nobody will say that Amaral is a decent , honest good policeman
Wonder if John has answered that question yet?
Well sadie, can you say the mccanns are decent honourable people for placing their children in danger ?
Ultimately, this is where the case starts and finishes.
-
Yes, I find obsession difficult to understand unless on is a relative or close friend. I find the case fascinating , but not to the extent that some seem to. Somebody yesterday talked about reading the files for six and a half years ! Do they not have a life ?
It must be remembered that to an anti, someone who has read the files for six years is a saint if they identify as an anti, and a fool if they identify as a pro.
And to a pro, someone who has read the files for six years is a saint if they identify as a pro and a fool if they identify as an anti.
Hypocrisy on both sides.
-
Well sadie, can you say the mccanns are decent honourable people for placing their children in danger ?
Ultimately, this is where the case starts and finishes.
I can say they are decent honourable people who also placed their children foolishly at risk. Decent honourable people do stupid things.
-
i hope you dont think im a devoteee lol i dont know the manns OR GA I have always been on maddies side she is the victim of this whole case not the adults who were mature enough to make their own bad choices
I assume you have never made a bad choice in your life. Motes and beams!
-
i hope you dont think im a devoteee lol i dont know the manns OR GA I have always been on maddies side she is the victim of this whole case not the adults who were mature enough to make their own bad choices
No Carly.
You are quite right, the only victim all along has been Madeleine, not the mccanns.
Neither was it amaral who left 3 very young children by themselves and unprotected.
-
No Carly.
You are quite right, the only victim all along has been Madeleine, not the mccanns.
Neither was it amaral who left 3 very young children by themselves and unprotected.
exactly by adults i meant the mcanns and their friends
-
No Carly.
You are quite right, the only victim all along has been Madeleine, not the mccanns.
Neither was it amaral who left 3 very young children by themselves and unprotected.
And nor was it the bad decision to leave them alone the Prime cause for Madeleine's absence.
-
It must be remembered that to an anti, someone who has read the files for six years is a saint if they identify as an anti, and a fool if they identify as a pro.
And to a pro, someone who has read the files for six years is a saint if they identify as a pro and a fool if they identify as an anti.
Hypocrisy on both sides.
Indeed. I just can't understand that degree of obsession if someone is not personally involved, though I suppose you get people who are just as obsessed with celebrities and their activities.
-
No Carly.
You are quite right, the only victim all along has been Madeleine, not the mccanns.
Neither was it amaral who left 3 very young children by themselves and unprotected.
But he used to drive around drunk with his daughter in the car.
And you can bet that he didn't take take her with him when on duty. She quite probably was left in the car or at home (on her own?)
-
But he used to drive around drunk with his daughter in the car.
And you can bet that he didn't take take her with him when on duty. She quite probably was left in the car or at home (on her own?)
sadie, this case is not about amaral, it is about what the mccanns failed to do.
Try to remember that.
-
sadie, this case is not about amaral, it is about what the mccanns failed to do.
Try to remember that.
Try to remember your thread is about amaral
-
Try to remember your thread is about amaral
8(>(( Every thread is for you guys.
-
Try to remember your thread is about amaral
Please read the thread title carefully. 8((()*/
-
So pray tell, what caused Madeleine's disappearance.
I presume you have proof of how she disappeared ?
Whatever the answer, leaving them alone was not a prime cause.
If abducted, then the abductor is the prime cause.
If she died earlier in the day and her corpse was disposed of, then that is the prime cause.
If she woke and wandered, she must have been disposed of by someone, and that is the prime cause.
Leaving them alone can only be a secondary cause as being left alone cannot be a direct cause of death.
-
sadie, this case is not about amaral, it is about what the mccanns failed to do.
Try to remember that.
Please read the title of the thread!
-
Whatever the answer, leaving them alone was not a prime cause.
If abducted, then the abductor is the prime cause.
If she died earlier in the day and her corpse was disposed of, then that is the prime cause.
If she woke and wandered, she must have been disposed of by someone, and that is the prime cause.
Leaving them alone can only be a secondary cause as being left alone cannot be a direct cause of death.
'If she died earlier in the day and her corpse was disposed of, then that is the prime cause.'
Do you give credence to that theory ?
P.S. As they were left alone, assuming nothing happened before that evening, then the prime cause of her disappearance is the fact the parents weren't there. What happened afterwards is probably something we will never know.
-
'If she died earlier in the day and her corpse was disposed of, then that is the prime cause.'
Do you give credence to that theory ?
I have insufficient evidence to make any decision together with the maturity and intelligence to keep my mouth shut about things beyond my ken. If only others had those abilities!
-
'If she died earlier in the day and her corpse was disposed of, then that is the prime cause.'
Do you give credence to that theory ?
P.S. As they were left alone, assuming nothing happened before that evening, then the prime cause of her disappearance is the fact the parents weren't there. What happened afterwards is probably something we will never know.
We might - police are sometime much cleverer than we give them credit for. It is possible that they believe they know exactly what happened but are, as yet, unable to prove it.
I shall continue to have faith in them until washed away by whitewash.
-
We might - police are sometime much cleverer than we give them credit for. It is possible that they believe they know exactly what happened but are, as yet, unable to prove it.
I shall continue to have faith in them until washed away by whitewash.
Fair points Jassi.
-
We might - police are sometime much cleverer than we give them credit for. It is possible that they believe they know exactly what happened but are, as yet, unable to prove it.
I shall continue to have faith in them until washed away by whitewash.
This is what in the world of Criminology known as "The Policeman's Fallacy".
-
This is what in the world of Criminology known as "The Policeman's Fallacy".
I'm not familiar with that. Would you care to explain ?
-
Well sadie, can you say the mccanns are decent honourable people for placing their children in danger ?
Ultimately, this is where the case starts and finishes.
You haven't answered the question yet, Stephen
Do you think that Amaral is a decent , honest good policeman?
-
You haven't answered the question yet, Stephen
Do you think that Amaral is a decent , honest good policeman?
He had a 26 year career in the police in which he became a Criminal Investigation Coordinator.
If he wasn't a good policeman, I don't think he would have reached such a high rank or had such a long career.
-
You haven't answered the question yet, Stephen
Do you think that Amaral is a decent , honest good policeman?
What is the title of the thread sadie ?
Your support of the mccanns can easily be catergorized as obsessive.
>@@(*&)
-
I'm not familiar with that. Would you care to explain ?
The assumption that they have special powers of divination that allows them to know things with insufficient evidence.
-
He had a 26 year career in the police in which he became a Criminal Investigation Coordinator.
If he wasn't a good policeman, I don't think he would have reached such a high rank or had such a long career.
So I have read but - what confuses me is - If as is stated, he was so good in the Drug Traffficking section -Why was he moved? >@@(*&)
-
What is the title of the thread sadie ?
Your support of the mccanns can easily be catergorized as obsessive.
>@@(*&)
Try to remember your thread is about Amaral, Stephen
As you are clearly chickening out of giving an answer, it shows that
"You do NOT think that Amaral is a decent , honest good policeman"
Why dont you just say it and get it over?
-
Try to remember your thread is about Amaral, Stephen
As you are clearly chickening out of giving an answer, it shows that
"You do NOT think that Amaral is a decent , honest good policeman"
Why dont you just say it and get it over?
sadie, you exhibit the classic symptoms associated with support of the Mccanns.
Inability to read the thread title, about 'devotion' to amaral or mccanns.
Blind backing of the Mccanns.
Attacking Amaral.
i.e you are clearly demonstrating in full the title of the thread. >@@(*&)
-
sadie, you exhibit the classic symptoms associated with support of the Mccanns.
Inability to read the thread title, about 'devotion' to amaral or mccanns.
Blind backing of the Mccanns.
Attacking Amaral.
i.e you are clearly demonstrating in full the title of the thread. >@@(*&)
You are exhibiting the behaviour of someone cornered by facts.
Answer the question rather than defensively blathering.
-
You are exhibiting the behaviour of someone cornered by facts.
Answer the question rather than defensively blathering.
I was waiting for that.
You like giving orders.
P.S. I am under no obligation to answer sadie's question base on her obsession, and her compatriotsBV with amaral.
.
-
You are exhibiting the behaviour of someone cornered by facts.
Answer the question rather than defensively blathering.
I anticipated your response.
Cornered by facts ?
As I have stated before, you are and never have been neutral in this case. Your stance fools no one.
P.S. I am under no obligation to answer sadie's question base on her obsession, and her compatriots, with amaral.
He is the fall guy both for the Mccanns and people such as you.
If it hadn't been him, someone else would have been the target.
-
'If she died earlier in the day and her corpse was disposed of, then that is the prime cause.'
Do you give credence to that theory ?
P.S. As they were left alone, assuming nothing happened before that evening, then the prime cause of her disappearance is the fact the parents weren't there. What happened afterwards is probably something we will never know.
Just seen your edit.
You do not understand what a Prime Cause is. A prime cause is an event that of itself ensured that the event happened. Events that merely make it possible for an event to happen are subsidiary causes.
For example, if (to lower the temperature of debate) there was a theft a holiday apartment resulting in the loss of valuables, the causative chain would be:
Events of the people from birth to-
Deciding to go on holiday
Deciding to be at that place on holiday
Going there
Deciding to go out to dinner that night
Failing to put the valuables in the safe in the room
Leaving the lights out
Not locking the door
(up to this point all are subsidiary causes)
Thief enters the room and steals the valuables.
(this is the prime cause)
All the subsidiary causes could happen (may have happened on previous nights) without the theft occurring. The primary cause is that event that is necessary for the theft to occur.
The only case in which their abandonment was a prime cause would be woke and wandered if we accept that a three year old is not the only cause of their behaviour.
The only possible Prime causes of Madeleine's disappearance are that of the example above, an unknown abductor, or harm from a family member followed by a cover up.
Leaving the children alone was an error but can never be the Prime cause of abduction or cover up.
-
I anticipated your response.
Cornered by facts ?
As I have stated before, you are and never have been neutral in this case. Your stance fools no one.
P.S. I am under no obligation to answer sadie's question base on her obsession, and her compatriots, with amaral.
He is the fall guy both for the Mccanns and people such as you.
If it hadn't been him, someone else would have been the target.
So we shall assume that your failure to give Amaral your full backing means that you have reservations about him personally or his methods. Question answered by avoidance. Thank you.
-
So we shall assume that your failure to give Amaral your full backing means that you have reservations about him personally or his methods. Question answered by avoidance. Thank you.
Assume what you wish, they are no more than supposition.
Now what are the failures of the Mccanns ?
I await your answer.
-
Assume what you wish, they are no more than supposition.
Now what are the failures of the Mccanns ?
I await your answer.
I have already answered. You will not like it when you find it as it does not fir your biased view of me. Go look.
-
Assume what you wish, they are no more than supposition.
Now what are the failures of the Mccanns ?
I await your answer.
I see you are ignoring the information about Prime Causes and subsidiary causes. No answer, eh!
-
I see you are ignoring the information about Prime Causes and subsidiary causes. No answer, eh!
As Stepen is too stubborn, to forgetful or too lazy to find my previous response to the status of the McCanns, I give him this reference:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2930.msg102680#msg102680
-
As Stepen is too stubborn, to forgetful or too lazy to find my previous response to the status of the McCanns, I give him this reference:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2930.msg102680#msg102680
Read it already.
it is of no consequence whatsoever.
Honourable people do not place their children at risk from unnecessary danger.
-
I have already answered. You will not like it when you find it as it does not fir your biased view of me. Go look.
my view of you is based on your comments, as is yours of me.
-
Just seen your edit.
You do not understand what a Prime Cause is. A prime cause is an event that of itself ensured that the event happened. Events that merely make it possible for an event to happen are subsidiary causes.
For example, if (to lower the temperature of debate) there was a theft a holiday apartment resulting in the loss of valuables, the causative chain would be:
Events of the people from birth to-
Deciding to go on holiday
Deciding to be at that place on holiday
Going there
Deciding to go out to dinner that night
Failing to put the valuables in the safe in the room
Leaving the lights out
Not locking the door
(up to this point all are subsidiary causes)
Thief enters the room and steals the valuables.
(this is the prime cause)
All the subsidiary causes could happen (may have happened on previous nights) without the theft occurring. The primary cause is that event that is necessary for the theft to occur.
The only case in which their abandonment was a prime cause would be woke and wandered if we accept that a three year old is not the only cause of their behaviour.
The only possible Prime causes of Madeleine's disappearance are that of the example above, an unknown abductor, or harm from a family member followed by a cover up.
Leaving the children alone was an error but can never be the Prime cause of abduction or cover up.
Leaving the children was not an 'error'. It was appalling.
It was repeated for several successive nights.
If Madeleine's disappearance followed her parents absence, it was the primary cause of subsequent events.
-
The assumption that they have special powers of divination that allows them to know things with insufficient evidence.
Thanks.
What I wrote was not that they perhaps 'knew', but that they might 'believe they knew', which is not quite the same thing. I recognise that investigations can go down a wrong track because officers become fixated with a particular theory.
-
Thanks.
What I wrote was not that they perhaps 'knew', but that they might 'believe they knew', which is not quite the same thing. I recognise that investigations can go down a wrong track because officers become fixated with a particular theory.
McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Moita Flores.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2765.0
SO – What reason did you have to comment on this case?
MF says that first it is his job. He does it professionally because he has experience of being a police inspector and has connections with the police. In this particular case he says that very early he claimed that the police were making errors.
SO – Why?
MF Because they should have considered all the possible hypotheses instead of restricting the investigation to the prefabricated idea of abduction.
-
Read it already.
it is of no consequence whatsoever.
Honourable people do not place their children at risk from unnecessary danger.
That is your view. I am sure that many honourable people make errors.
This is just bias on your part.
-
That is your view. I am sure that many honourable people make errors.
This is just bias on your part.
No merely the bias on yours defending what they did.
-
Leaving the children was not an 'error'. It was appalling.
It was repeated for several successive nights.
If Madeleine's disappearance followed her parents absence, it was the primary cause of subsequent events.
If it was repeated for several nights, then it cannot be a prime cause of Madeleine's disappearance.
For something to be a prime cause it is necessary that 'A' the cause happens prior to the event 'B' and that 'B' cannot happen without 'A' and 'B' always happens when 'A' precedes it. (cite- Aristotle and David Hume.)
-
No merely the bias on yours defending what they did.
This displays your stupidity. Where did I defend what they did. I have said that their childcare was dreadful that holiday and that I would never have done that.
Despite that error, I see no reason to doubt their honour.
I do not particularly warm to them, but I do believe that people have the right to act within the law however stupid that decision is. They broke no laws.
-
This displays your stupidity. Where did I defend what they did. I have said that their childcare was dreadful that holiday and that I would never have done that.
Despite that error, I see no reason to doubt their honour.
I do not particularly warm to them, but I do believe that people have the right to act within the law however stupid that decision is. They broke no laws.
Insults yet again.
Surprise, surprise.
Your behaviour patterns if nothing else are consistent.
-
Insults yet again.
Surprise, surprise.
Your behaviour patterns if nothing else are consistent.
It was not an insult, it was an observation of your ability to process information and formulate a rational response.
And then you use bluster to avoid what I actually said about your statement:
YOU: "No merely the bias on yours defending what they did."
ME: "Where did I defend what they did. I have said that their childcare was dreadful that holiday and that I would never have done that.
Despite that error, I see no reason to doubt their honour.
I do not particularly warm to them, but I do believe that people have the right to act within the law however stupid that decision is. They broke no laws."
Now try addressing that rather than blustering to avoid it.
-
It was not an insult, it was an observation of your ability to process information and formulate a rational response.
And then you use bluster to avoid what I actually said about your statement:
YOU: "No merely the bias on yours defending what they did."
ME: "Where did I defend what they did. I have said that their childcare was dreadful that holiday and that I would never have done that.
Despite that error, I see no reason to doubt their honour.
I do not particularly warm to them, but I do believe that people have the right to act within the law however stupid that decision is. They broke no laws."
Now try addressing that rather than blustering to avoid it.
it is an insult and a result of your over dressed ego, which results invariably in insulting other posters.
It has happened before and will happen again, irrespective of which user name you adopt as C.Edwards accurately pointed out.
-
It was not an insult, it was an observation of your ability to process information and formulate a rational response.
And then you use bluster to avoid what I actually said about your statement:
YOU: "No merely the bias on yours defending what they did."
ME: "Where did I defend what they did. I have said that their childcare was dreadful that holiday and that I would never have done that.
Despite that error, I see no reason to doubt their honour.
I do not particularly warm to them, but I do believe that people have the right to act within the law however stupid that decision is. They broke no laws."
Now try addressing that rather than blustering to avoid it.
I see no reason to doubt their honour.
Intercalary report compiled by chief inspector Tavares de Almeida, for the attention of the Criminal Investigation Coordinator Gonçalo Amaral
"Total incoherence results from the GROUP’s statements, which makes it easy to verify that everyone lies."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id315.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did.
-
it is an insult and a result of your over dressed ego, which results invariably in insulting other posters.
It has happened before and will happen again, irrespective of which user name you adopt as C.Edwards accurately pointed out.
Still blustering rather than addressing the issue you started- my view of the McCanns. Just because I do not conform to your prejudiced view, you will not respond to it. Keep whistling.
-
As I have said I see no devotion by pros but I have seen a group who have designated a day...to be called amaral day... the only people who have days named after them are saints. I have seen nothing approaching this level by McCann supporters
-
I see no reason to doubt their honour.
Intercalary report compiled by chief inspector Tavares de Almeida, for the attention of the Criminal Investigation Coordinator Gonçalo Amaral
"Total incoherence results from the GROUP’s statements, which makes it easy to verify that everyone lies."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id315.html
Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did.
You have provided a precis of the words of the report and given the incorrect URL.
Mrs Fenn's statement is at:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id331.html
-
I see no reason to doubt their honour.
Intercalary report compiled by chief inspector Tavares de Almeida, for the attention of the Criminal Investigation Coordinator Gonçalo Amaral
"Total incoherence results from the GROUP’s statements, which makes it easy to verify that everyone lies."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id315.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did.
-
As I have said I see no devotion by pros but I have seen a group who have designated a day...to be called amaral day... the only people who have days named after them are saints. I have seen nothing approaching this level by McCann supporters
Slightly inaccurate - for example MLK has a day named after him.
That said it does seem a bit odd that someone would want to have an Amaral day.
N
-
Slightly inaccurate - for example MLK has a day named after him.
That said it does seem a bit odd that someone would want to have an Amaral day.
N
Well you have missed it this year...oct 2nd..we had a little celebration out of respect
-
Well let's look at my views:
What happened to Madeleine?: I don't know whether Madeleine was snatched, wandered or was killed by her family. There is little evidence to decide these matters- the AG said so and I tend to agree.
The Public Prosecutor, in his final report, also allowed for the possibility of 'neglectful homicide' ... that is to say, that the missing child died of an accident as a consequence of her parents negligence
That is the one scenario that you seem to have overlooked
-
The Public Prosecutor, in his final report, also allowed for the possibility of 'neglectful homicide' ... that is to say, that the missing child died of an accident as a consequence of her parents negligence
That is the one scenario that you seem to have overlooked
Or natural causes and the body hidden could be a possibility.
that's the thing isn't it - there is no real evidence of what happened so it all boils down to interpretation of the known facts. You can't be surprised that the PJ were suspicious of the parents given the circumstances as statistically they were the most likely culprits IF wrongdoing had occurred - they had precious little else to go on.
From the NSPCC (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/statistics/child_homicide_statistics_wda48747.html)
Every ten days in England and Wales one child is killed at the hands of their parent. In over two thirds (67% on average) of all cases of children killed at the hands of another person, the parent is the principal suspect.
These are figures for the UK.
edited to add stats and link
N
-
The Public Prosecutor, in his final report, also allowed for the possibility of 'neglectful homicide' ... that is to say, that the missing child died of an accident as a consequence of her parents negligence
That is the one scenario that you seem to have overlooked
Find another hair to split.
Neglectful homicide is homicide by definition, homicide is the responsibility for killing someone, I said that "killed by parents" was a possibility. If they were guilty of neglectful homicide, that is a finding that she was killed by her parents actions or omissions.
Try to find something substantial to argue with. Petty disagreements are a waste of time.
-
Or natural causes and the body hidden could be a possibility.
that's the thing isn't it - there is no real evidence of what happened so it all boils down to interpretation of the known facts. You can't be surprised that the PJ were suspicious of the parents given the circumstances as statistically they were the most likely culprits IF wrongdoing had occurred and they had precious little else to go on.
N
Abduction by aliens is a possibility. What possible circumstances would lead anyone to conceal a body if there was a death by natural causes?
Statistics are inapplicable to single cases. They give only a probability, not evidence of any kind.
-
Find another hair to split.
Neglectful homicide is homicide by definition, homicide is the responsibility for killing someone, I said that "killed by parents" was a possibility. If they were guilty of neglectful homicide, that is a finding that she was killed by her parents actions or omissions.
Try to find something substantial to argue with. Petty disagreements are a waste of time.
I just wondered why, when giving a list of possibilities, you did not say she might have died of an accident whilst her parents were out at night
-
I just wondered why, when giving a list of possibilities, you did not say she might have died of an accident whilst her parents were out at night
Because that would be neglectful homicide.
-
Abduction by aliens is a possibility. What possible circumstances would lead anyone to conceal a body if there was a death by natural causes?
Statistics are inapplicable to single cases. They give only a probability, not evidence of any kind.
The stats were there to illustrate why the PJ focussed on the parents, not as evidence of what most likely occurred. this was clear in my post.
N
-
The stats were there to illustrate why the PJ focussed on the parents, not as evidence of what most likely occurred. this was clear in my post.
N
Statistics are inapplicable to single cases. They should never be used as a criteria for inclusion or exclusion, only as background guidance.
Let me give you an example.
A penny is flipped a hundred times in succession and the result is 49 heads 51 tails.
Flips 101- 109 are all heads.
What does that tell us about flip 110?
What does it tell us about flips 110-120?
-
Having read some of the threads on forums and facebook, it seems to me the extremes on both sides have gone to far.
Where will it end ?
Yes.
I would say that, after what I've read here and in other places a sort of fundamentalism has been developed for both sides.
Sometimes it is unbelievable how far people go to the point of almost threatening the other side for a difference of opinion.
It will end when people understand that there is only one victim: a 3 years old child that is most probably dead.
-
Yes.
I would say that, after what I've read here and in other places a sort of fundamentalism has been developed for both sides.
Sometimes it is unbelievable how far people go to the point of almost threatening the other side for a difference of opinion.
It will end when people understand that there is only one victim: a 3 years old child that is most probably dead.
It might help if people backed up their statements with evidence rather than just expressing their opinion as a fact.
-
Statistics are inapplicable to single cases. They should never be used as a criteria for inclusion or exclusion, only as background guidance.
Let me give you an example.
A penny is flipped a hundred times in succession and the result is 49 heads 51 tails.
Flips 101- 109 are all heads.
What does that tell us about flip 110?
What does it tell us about flips 110-120?
I don't need an example, but thanks. As I have made clear - the PJ had nothing to go on, no evidence of abduction and very little forensic evidence. So it is understandable that they looked at the parents rather than an accident, alien abduction etc. They know that 67% of the time it's the parents so they investigate them. It was all they had.
That doesn't mean it was the parents, but it would be negligent of them to ignore the figures.
If you have no idea where your car keys are but historically you tend to find them in your coat pocket - where is the first place you look? Do you discount what *tends* to be the most likely place because this time it might not be? Do you start looking for evidence that someone has entered your house and taken them? I would suggest that most people would go with the stats and look in their coat. This is the crux of what I am saying.
Missing car keys are complex than coin flips as there are more than two possible outcomes - the bloody things could be anywhere so you have to have some sort of plan for their discovery.
N
-
I don't need an example, but thanks. As I have made clear - the PJ had nothing to go on, no evidence of abduction and very little forensic evidence. So it is understandable that they looked at the parents rather than an accident, alien abduction etc. They know that 67% of the time it's the parents so they investigate them. It was all they had.
That doesn't mean it was the parents, but it would be negligent of them to ignore the figures.
If you have no idea where your car keys are but historically you tend to find them in your coat pocket - where is the first place you look? Do you discount what *tends* to be the most likely place because this time it might not be? Do you start looking for evidence that someone has entered your house and taken them? I would suggest that most people would go with the stats and look in their coat. This is the crux of what I am saying.
Missing car keys are complex than coin flips as there are more than two possible outcomes - the bloody things could be anywhere so you have to have some sort of plan for their discovery.
N
Of course all avenues should be investigated. But any reliance on statistics for any real information in a single case is totally useless.
-
Meanwhile, fundamentalists keep making other victims, that if you allow me I won't mention, but that everyone is conscious of.
Police officers didn't kidnap the child;
All the random sightings were media fakes and some with victimization of some children and adults ;
Web commentators didn't harm the child;
The last pretended suspects are but another attempt to divert guilt away...
As I said, there is one victim: a 3 year old girl, there is no need to make more as has been done along these last years.
-
Of course all avenues should be investigated. But any reliance on statistics for any real information in a single case is totally useless.
I never said anyone relied on it. Put yourself in their shoes at the start of the investigation, there is no evidence of abduction other than a statement made by 1 person who had been with a group who were drinking.
so, you start to search and don't find anything.
You are scuppered - you have nothing to go on. Witness statements don't match and everyone is screaming for a resolution.
In these circumstances it is perfectly understandable why attention turned to the parents. Not even because you *think* they did it, but because you can justify your decision to your superiors.
It was the only option the PJ had at the time.
N
-
I never said anyone relied on it. Put yourself in their shoes at the start of the investigation, there is no evidence of abduction other than a statement made by 1 person who had been with a group who were drinking.
so, you start to search and don't find anything.
You are scuppered - you have nothing to go on. Witness statements don't match and everyone is screaming for a resolution.
In these circumstances it is perfectly understandable why attention turned to the parents. Not even because you *think* they did it, but because you can justify your decision to your superiors.
It was the only option the PJ had at the time.
N
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2765.0
Francisco Moita Flores is a retired Polícia Judiciária (PJ) Inspector, he is also a writer.
SO – What reason did you have to comment on this case?
MF says that first it is his job. He does it professionally because he has experience of being a police inspector and has connections with the police. In this particular case he says that very early he claimed that the police were making errors.
SO – Why?
MF Because they should have considered all the possible hypotheses instead of restricting the investigation to the prefabricated idea of abduction.
GP – Do you think that, because of the book, they stopped investigating the case?
MF says he was perplexed when the case was shelved. He feels he has to say that the case was very well investigated. If the Public Ministry doesn't reopen the case, it's because no relevant piece of evidence has been brought. The witness suggests that the case suffered carnival aspects and early errors, the biggest being not to have investigated the parents. Life shows us that there are parents who mistreat their children and this eventuality could not be properly discarded.
RA – When you said that the police had committed an error in investigating only the abduction hypothesis, what do you base that assumption on?
MF answers that it is based on his own experience. Experience says that the main suspects are closest to the victim and that the solution is often the simpler one. He adds that an abduction assumption cannot be discarded, but should not be the first or only one to be examined.
RA – Why were you perplexed when the process was shelved?
MF I found that the contradictions by the people who had access to the McCann apartment were not explored sufficiently. It was a fundamental error not to isolate them, check who had access to the apartment and collect the data relating to their phone calls in order to clarify the discrepancies in their statements. If it had been done, we wouldn't be here, involved in a trial on freedom of opinion.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id347.html
The former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral said today that it was a "victory for democracy" - the decision of the Supreme Court to allow distribution of his book "The Truth of the Lie" about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Gonçalo Amaral
"This decision was a victory for democracy. What was at issue was freedom of speech,"
"From that couple, I already expect everything. Nonetheless, if in fact they are looking for their daughter, it is not in the Portuguese civil courts that they will find her"
-
Because that would be neglectful homicide.
So you accept the Public Prosecutor's conclusion that accidental death, as a consequence of negligence, is a possibility ?
... and that Amaral might be right ?
-
I never said anyone relied on it. Put yourself in their shoes at the start of the investigation, there is no evidence of abduction other than a statement made by 1 person who had been with a group who were drinking.
so, you start to search and don't find anything.
You are scuppered - you have nothing to go on. Witness statements don't match and everyone is screaming for a resolution.
In these circumstances it is perfectly understandable why attention turned to the parents. Not even because you *think* they did it, but because you can justify your decision to your superiors.
It was the only option the PJ had at the time.
N
Except for abduction by strangers.
-
So you accept the Public Prosecutor's conclusion that accidental death, as a consequence of negligence, is a possibility ?
... and that Amaral might be right ?
I have never said otherwise as I have never passed any comment about definite conclusions. All possibilities are open. That does not mean that thgose that are defamatory may be stated as fact or even supposition.
-
It's no defamation to state that, as nobody saw the shutters and the window open, the only fact is the McCanns said they found them open.
It's no defamation to state that many UK newspapers cited familiars of the McCanns who had been called and told by them that the shutters and the window had been broken.
It's no defamation to state that Mr McCann changed his first statement.
It's no defamation to state that the cadaver dog reacted only in the flat from which Madeleine disappeared.
It's no defamation to state that Mrs McCann, advised by her lawyer, refused to answer 48 questions but was aware that her refusal hampered the search for her daughter.
It's no defamation to state that the McCanns didn't ask their companions to accept the reconstruction requested by the MP.
Etc.
It could be eventually defamatory to collect all those true facts and build on them a theory which would damage the McCann family's life. However the intention of nuisance should be demonstrated.
But it isn't defamation to provide elements for those who haven't read the files and wish to think by themselves instead of being imposed ignorance by the McCann's unsupported claim.
-
It's no defamation to state that, as nobody saw the shutters and the window open, the only fact is the McCanns said they found them open.
It's no defamation to state that many UK newspapers cited familiars of the McCanns who had been called and told by them that the shutters and the window had been broken.
It's no defamation to state that Mr McCann changed his first statement.
It's no defamation to state that the cadaver dog reacted only in the flat from which Madeleine disappeared.
It's no defamation to state that Mrs McCann, advised by her lawyer, refused to answer 48 questions but was aware that her refusal hampered the search for her daughter.
It's no defamation to state that the McCanns didn't ask their companions to accept the reconstruction requested by the MP.
Etc.
It could be eventually defamatory to collect all those true facts and build on them a theory which would damage the McCann family's life. However the intention of nuisance should be demonstrated.
But it isn't defamation to provide elements for those who haven't read the files and wish to think by themselves instead of being imposed ignorance by the McCann's unsupported claim.
8@??)(
"This decision was a victory for democracy. What was at issue was freedom of speech,"
"From that couple, I already expect everything. Nonetheless, if in fact they are looking for their daughter, it is not in the Portuguese civil courts that they will find her"
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id347.html
-
8@??)(
"This decision was a victory for democracy. What was at issue was freedom of speech,"
"From that couple, I already expect everything. Nonetheless, if in fact they are looking for their daughter, it is not in the Portuguese civil courts that they will find her"
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id347.html
ditto
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
It's no defamation to state that, as nobody saw the shutters and the window open, the only fact is the McCanns said they found them open.
It's no defamation to state that many UK newspapers cited familiars of the McCanns who had been called and told by them that the shutters and the window had been broken.
It's no defamation to state that Mr McCann changed his first statement.
It's no defamation to state that the cadaver dog reacted only in the flat from which Madeleine disappeared.
It's no defamation to state that Mrs McCann, advised by her lawyer, refused to answer 48 questions but was aware that her refusal hampered the search for her daughter.
It's no defamation to state that the McCanns didn't ask their companions to accept the reconstruction requested by the MP.
Etc.
It could be eventually defamatory to collect all those true facts and build on them a theory which would damage the McCann family's life. However the intention of nuisance should be demonstrated.
But it isn't defamation to provide elements for those who haven't read the files and wish to think by themselves instead of being imposed ignorance by the McCann's unsupported claim.
Agreed. But many go further.
-
What do you mean by 'devotion' Stephen, what have you read on face book to make you think people are devoted to either Amaral or the McCann's?
-
What do you mean by 'devotion' Stephen, what have you read on face book to make you think people are devoted to either Amaral or the McCann's?
Why bother - he will not answer basic questions about his own feelings on the matter.
-
What do you mean by 'devotion' Stephen, what have you read on face book to make you think people are devoted to either Amaral or the McCann's?
I suggest you spend a little time reading the comments on the 'official' Madeleine facebook page, or from the alternative from a certain Tony Bennett.
-
Why bother - he will not answer basic questions about his own feelings on the matter.
What I choose to answer is up to me.
The conclusions you make are a product of your bias and ego, as they always have been.
-
What I choose to answer is up to me.
The conclusions you make are a product of your bias and ego, as they always have been.
Ducking valid questions again- questions he posed to others but refuses to answer himself.
He is obviously a hypocrite- different rules for him and his opponents.
-
Ducking valid questions again- questions he posed to others but refuses to answer himself.
He is obviously a hypocrite- different rules for him and his opponents.
How pathetic.
The thread is about those who idolize the mccanns or amaral.
For you this site is an ego trip on which you try to impose your views.
I certainly don't idolize the amaral or the mccanns.
Amaral trued to do his job in solving the case.
He made some mistakes, though nothing in the league of what the mccanns did.
However, you called the mccanns an honourable couple. On what basis did you make this judgement ?
-
How pathetic.
The thread is about those who idolize the mccanns or amaral.
For you this site is an ego trip on which you try to impose your views.
I certainly don't idolize the amaral or the mccanns.
Amaral trued to do his job in solving the case.
He made some mistakes, though nothing in the league of what the mccanns did.
However, you called the mccanns an honourable couple. On what basis did you make this judgement ?
I will respond after you respond to my previous questions which you are ignoring.
-
I will respond after you respond to my previous questions which you are ignoring.
Therein lies the problem.
Others must reply to YOUR questions.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I suggest you spend a little time reading the comments on the 'official' Madeleine facebook page, or from the alternative from a certain Tony Bennett.
I do Stephen, I don't think of any of them as 'devoted' to Amaral or the McCann's. Devoted to the cause maybe but not to individuals.
I am interested and finding out what makes you believe they are devoted.
-
So davel,
hat do you think of those such as 'Official DWB™ @OfficialDWB -' and 'pedro' ? from their comments as well known mccann supporters, and I use that word carefully. ?
I haven't seen them Stephen..pm their comments to me if you like
-
the mistake you have made stepnen is that the title of the thread is....
has support....................devotion for their supporters
perhaps you should have said "for SOME of their supporters"
-
By the way Stephen...do you support amamral
-
the mistake you have made stepnen is that the title of the thread is....
has support....................devotion for their supporters
perhaps you should have said "for SOME of their supporters"
Fair point.
So what is you opinion of these people including Pedro, whom I believe has posted on here ?
-
By the way Stephen...do you support amamral
I support some of his conclusions, but he made some errors in interpretation.
No more, no less.
-
Fair point.
So what is you opinion of these people including Pedro, whom I believe has posted on here ?
I would have to see his posts first...nothing ive seen up to now has been bad. I do have values and morals sstephen
-
Absolutely Red but at the very least we acknowledge that.
Indeedy......i have yet to read any pro mccan camper castigate their pro mccanner camp tweeters bloggers facebookers etc for the disgusting stuff they post....not once....not a single time, i personally and i know of others who havebeen dismayed disappointed and disgusted with some of the stuff so called [ censored word] have posted.....and said so..... this is the internet jungle, but still, as i said not a single complaint against their own...says it all....
-
Reported for telling the truth benita ?
Now why would that be ?
posters have been banned off here for posting posters posts from else where ...shall we all do it and show some of the ......... posts ever seen on the innterenet from you anti's ...I could poste pages and pages ... ?>)()<
its against forum rules Stephen are you blind or cant you read 8-)(--)
-
Please do not introduce offensive posts from elsewhere since they will only be whooshed.
Would I be right in saying that the extremists on both sides are equally obnoxious?
-
Please do not introduce offensive posts from elsewhere since they will only be whooshed.
Would I be right in saying that the extremists on both sides are equally obnoxious?
The extremists? Yes, you would be right
-
Please do not introduce offensive posts from elsewhere since they will only be whooshed.
Would I be right in saying that the extremists on both sides are equally obnoxious?
Indeed you are right John.
It is the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
-
Indeed you are right John.
It is the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Stephen..re the posts..first...we would have to see what context the post was
second,,,there were posts on THIS forum a couple of nights ago by an anti that were a hundred times worse than that
-
Stephen..re the posts..first...we would have to see what context the post was
second,,,there were posts on THIS forum a couple of nights ago by an anti that were a hundred times worse than that
Yes or no, do you believe the language in the tweet posted ( since removed ) was appallingly offensive no matter what the context ?
-
Stephen..re the posts..first...we would have to see what context the post was
second,,,there were posts on THIS forum a couple of nights ago by an anti that were a hundred times worse than that
I missed those, what were they? Catch up tomorrow
-
Yes or no, do you believe the language in the tweet posted ( since removed ) was appallingly offensive no matter what the context ?
Do you not understand...it would depend on the context...and is no where near as bad as what was posted here 2 days ago
-
I missed those, what were they? Catch up tomorrow
the words used on this forum were f**king retard...
-
Do you not understand...it would depend on the context...and is no where near as bad as what was posted here 2 days ago
So in what context would you find it acceptable to call individuals spastics and cripples ?
-
So in what context would you find it acceptable to call individuals spastics and cripples ?
would you first like to condemn the poster who used that language on our forum
-
would you first like to condemn the poster who used that language on our forum
I didn't see it but if that language was used of course I condemn it. Now could you please answer my question ?
-
Please do not introduce offensive posts from elsewhere since they will only be whooshed.
Would I be right in saying that the extremists on both sides are equally obnoxious?
I have no idea of an anti extremist, John.
And weren't all trolls fanatic pros ?
-
I didn't see it but if that language was used of course I condemn it. Now could you please answer my question ?
well I would certainly condemn spastics and cripples..now we know both sides can be abusive
-
well I would certainly condemn spastics and cripples..now we know both sides can be abusive
Thank you. You see we got there in the end.
-
Thank you. You see we got there in the end.
I would have said that without 12 pages of posting that Stephen initiated..its obvious there will be loonies on both sides
-
I would have said that without 12 pages of posting that Stephen initiated..its obvious there will be loonies on both sides
It's a shame that this case engenders such appalling behaviour.
-
Indeedy......i have yet to read any pro mccan camper castigate their pro mccanner camp tweeters bloggers facebookers etc for the disgusting stuff they post....not once....not a single time, i personally and i know of others who havebeen dismayed disappointed and disgusted with some of the stuff so called [ censored word] have posted.....and said so..... this is the internet jungle, but still, as i said not a single complaint against their own...says it all....
They just mimic the McCanns who left the tabloids publish the most repugnant and sadist comments about, not only Gonçalo Amaral, but the PJ, the ambassador, the Portuguese State.
And now some, who perhaps thought this little nation was masochist in essence, are surprised that the Portuguese aren't worshipping the McCanns ?
-
They just mimic the McCanns who left the tabloids publish the most repugnant and sadist comments about, not only Gonçalo Amaral, but the PJ, the ambassador, the Portuguese State.
And now some, who perhaps thought this little nation was masochist in essence, are surprised that the Portuguese aren't worshipping the McCanns ?
Too right! Well said....the Mccanns kept sooo quiet didnt they when in Portugal whilst the uglies like parsons and co printed their crap....and only one day after the abduction had the sister philo on tv saying they were terrible....took them five hours to get there and other such LIES.....wonder where she got that info from......they in Portugal just went on tv and said how wonderful the pj were and what a good job they were doing and how pleased they were etc..... And for months having great relationship with pj and not saying a WORD against those who were demonising them....thats sneaky acceptance and collaboration in my book
@)(++(*
-
Too right! Well said....the Mccanns kept sooo quiet didnt they when in Portugal whilst the uglies like parsons and co printed their crap....and only one day after the abduction had the sister philo on tv saying they were terrible....took them five hours to get there and other such LIES.....wonder where she got that info from......they in Portugal just went on tv and said how wonderful the pj were and what a good job they were doing and how pleased they were etc..... And for months having great relationship with pj and not saying a WORD against those who were demonising them....thats sneaky acceptance and collaboration in my book
@)(++(*
I can forgive Philomena, far away and impotent. But I don't forgive the horrors the McCanns let write about the people who invested so much of themselves in trying to find Madeleine.
-
Exactly,sat back and said nothing,perhaps it suited them, ungrateful and immoral
No judgement, just observation !
-
Indeedy......i have yet to read any pro mccan camper castigate their pro mccanner camp tweeters bloggers facebookers etc for the disgusting stuff they post....not once....not a single time, i personally and i know of others who havebeen dismayed disappointed and disgusted with some of the stuff so called [ censored word] have posted.....and said so..... this is the internet jungle, but still, as i said not a single complaint against their own...says it all....
Watching from the Fence I see foul abuse on both sides.