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: faithlilly on August 16, 2018, 10:45:23 AM
-
I thought it would be interesting asking the same question as the ‘ sceptic ‘ thread but in relation to supporters.
-
OK here is my opinion of some supporters (of the couple). This is not a carte blanche picture of my impression of every supporter just some I have seen whilst looking into the case.
It seems to me that Kate & Gerry can do no wrong in their eyes with the possible exception of leaving the children alone. Everything the McCanns have said or done is justified in the eyes of the supporters, weirdly though this appears to include Leonor Cipriano the convicted murderer of her own 8 year old daughter Joanna. I see very little mention of Joanna only Leonor, which I find very odd.
To a supporter anything or anyone that indicates any possible guilt in anything even something small is to be derided and explained away.
Looking on other forums as I have done in the last year or so, I see sceptics have been insulted, laughed at, have their physical appearance picked apart and their photographs put on open threads for anyone to see.
Personally I find this type of behaviour reprehensible and seeing how Brenda Leyland was treated by both the media and the supporters elsewhere (and to a lesser degree here), I can't understand why an adult discussion cannot go ahead without name calling and personal insults.
Just my thoughts and opinion of course.
-
OK here is my opinion of some supporters (of the couple). This is not a carte blanche picture of my impression of every supporter just some I have seen whilst looking into the case.
It seems to me that Kate & Gerry can do no wrong in their eyes with the possible exception of leaving the children alone. Everything the McCanns have said or done is justified in the eyes of the supporters, weirdly though this appears to include Leonor Cipriano the convicted murderer of her own 8 year old daughter Joanna. I see very little mention of Joanna only Leonor, which I find very odd.
To a supporter anything or anyone that indicates any possible guilt in anything even something small is to be derided and explained away.
Looking on other forums as I have done in the last year or so, I see sceptics have been insulted, laughed at, have their physical appearance picked apart and their photographs put on open threads for anyone to see.
Personally I find this type of behaviour reprehensible and seeing how Brenda Leyland was treated by both the media and the supporters elsewhere (and to a lesser degree here), I can't understand why an adult discussion cannot go ahead without name calling and personal insults.
Just my thoughts and opinion of course.
could you explain what is wrong with giving a counter argumnet to claims of evidence
-
could you explain what is wrong with giving a counter argumnet to claims of evidence
Nothing at all except if you see what I posted
To a supporter anything or anyone that indicates any possible guilt in anything even something small is to be derided and explained away.
Of course I have no problem with anyone giving a counter claim as long as it is factually based and relevant cites are provided, what I do have an issue with is when sceptics are called stupid and told they are incapable of reading and understanding evidence. Also have you found anything at all that you would criticise the McCanns or their friends for, apart from saying they left the children alone
ETA because of your later post.
Of course abuse seems to come from both sides and just because it does it doesn't mean this thread needs to be simply about that Davel. Why is your sole aim to talk about sceptics abuse of supporters. It works both ways and I have seen unpleasantness from sceptics and supporters both here and elsewhere.
-
Nothing at all except if you see what I posted
To a supporter anything or anyone that indicates any possible guilt in anything even something small is to be derided and explained away.
Of course I have no problem with anyone giving a counter claim as long as it is factually based and relevant cites are provided, what I do have an issue with is when sceptics are called stupid and told they are incapable of reading and understanding evidence. Also have you found anything at all that you would criticise the McCanns or their friends for, apart from saying they left the children alone
ETA because of your later post.
Of course abuse seems to come from both sides and just because it does it doesn't mean this thread needs to be simply about that Davel. Why is your sole aim to talk about sceptics abuse of supporters. It works both ways and I have seen unpleasantness from sceptics and supporters both here and elsewhere.
I have nothing to criticise the mccanns for apart from .they were wrong to leave the children...whats wrong with taht
-
to me a supporter is someone who believes the mccanns are telling the truth....they found maddie gone and the window open... and they have no idea where she is
-
I have nothing to criticise the mccanns for aoart from .they were wrong to leave the children...whats wrong with taht
There you go then Davel you have proved my point as to what a supporter is and as you have agreed you are a supporter then IMO I was correct in my post.
Davel the post below though I can't agree with
my arguments are factually based....re understanding evidence qualified by opinion.
Not all of your claims are factual as you are unable to provide cites for them. We have previous on this you and I so I don't want to go into it again but you know what claims and when you said them.
But as you said before
It may be fact but until it is shown to be fact it's opinion
-
There you go then Davel you have proved my point as to what a supporter is and as you have agreed you are a supporter then IMO I was correct in my post.
Davel the post below though I can't agree with
Not all of your claims are factual as you are unable to provide cites for them. We have previous on this you and I so I don't want to go into it again but you know what claims and when you said them.
But as you said before
I think you are really struggling,,my claims e evidence are factual or qualified by imo... I probably provide more cites than any other poster..imo
-
I think you are really struggling,,my claims e evidence are factual or qualified by imo... I probably provide more cites than any other poster..imo
That could be because you have far more posts than any other posters but even you fail from time to time as I have found out.
-
You can't say "obvious" and then IMO, in my opinion.
obvious
ˈɒbvɪəs/Submit
adjective
easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent.
The use of obvious goes way beyond opinion IMO.
It certainly raises the veracity of the opinion in the opinion holder. But I think you can have an opinion, with a conclusion that appear obvious to the poster.
-
It certainly raises the veracity of the opinion in the opinion holder. But I think you can have an opinion, with a conclusion that appear obvious to the poster.
But is this
I think you are really struggling,,my claims e evidence are factual or qualified by imo... I probably provide more cites than any other poster..imo
obvious to you Robittybob1 as an impartial observer in our discussion? This was what Davel was referring to.
-
OK here is my opinion of some supporters (of the couple). This is not a carte blanche picture of my impression of every supporter just some I have seen whilst looking into the case.
It seems to me that Kate & Gerry can do no wrong in their eyes with the possible exception of leaving the children alone. Everything the McCanns have said or done is justified in the eyes of the supporters, weirdly though this appears to include Leonor Cipriano the convicted murderer of her own 8 year old daughter Joanna. I see very little mention of Joanna only Leonor, which I find very odd.
To a supporter anything or anyone that indicates any possible guilt in anything even something small is to be derided and explained away.
Looking on other forums as I have done in the last year or so, I see sceptics have been insulted, laughed at, have their physical appearance picked apart and their photographs put on open threads for anyone to see.
Personally I find this type of behaviour reprehensible and seeing how Brenda Leyland was treated by both the media and the supporters elsewhere (and to a lesser degree here), I can't understand why an adult discussion cannot go ahead without name calling and personal insults.
Just my thoughts and opinion of course.
Which forums post pictures of scetpics to be insulted and laughed at? That’s a new one on me. Poor sceptics, they are such grown up, polite,decent folk none would ever use another’s personal details to intimidate, threaten, mock or deride, of course.
-
Which forums post pictures of scetpics to be insulted and laughed at? That’s a new one on me. Poor sceptics, they are such grown up, polite,decent folk none would ever use another’s personal details to intimidate, threaten, mock or deride, of course.
Do you really want me to find the posts on the forums and share them here?
I see you too are deriding sceptics in your post so showing my initial post was correct IMO.
There are so called nasty posters on both sides of the fence. I have seen it from my viewings of various fora but the only ones that appear to post up photographs of the opposition (so to speak) are the supporters forums so far as I have seen.
-
Do you really want me to find the posts on the forums and share them here?
I see you too are deriding sceptics in your post so showing my initial post was correct IMO.
There are so called nasty posters on both sides of the fence. I have seen it from my viewings of various fora but the only ones that appear to post up photographs of the opposition (so to speak) are the supporters forums so far as I have seen.
Really? I am quite astounded by that view. I am not aware on any supporter forum that has posted up pictures of sceptics to laugh at, I am however aware of a few places where sceptics post where certain well known McCann supporters are mocked on an almost daily basis, their likenesses photoshopped to make them appear grotesque and where certain supporters on this forum have been discussed in openly hostile and disparaging terms.
-
Really? I am quite astounded by that view. I am not aware on any supporter forum that has posted up pictures of sceptics to laugh at, I am however aware of a few places where sceptics post where certain well known McCann supporters are mocked on an almost daily basis, their likenesses photoshopped to make them appear grotesque and where certain supporters on this forum have been discussed in openly hostile and disparaging terms.
I find that impossible to believe, sorry Vertigo Swirl. You have already said you post on many fora and for you to have been interested in this case for this long you must have seen these posts. I am not about to share them here but if an impartial moderator such as Robittybob1 would like me to do so I will do my best to find them again and share the posts with them so they can confirm that I am correct in what I say.
-
I find that impossible to believe, sorry Vertigo Swirl. You have already said you post on many fora and for you to have been interested in this case for this long you must have seen these posts. I am not about to share them here but if an impartial moderator such as Robittybob1 would like me to do so I will do my best to find them again and share the posts with them so they can confirm that I am correct in what I say.
Are these photos on other forums unrelated to this one? If they were I think we'd better drop the discussion for anything is possible elsewhere.
-
Are these photos on other forums unrelated to this one? If they were I think we'd better drop the discussion for anything is possible elsewhere.
They are elsewhere Robittybob1 and thank goodness they are not here. I mentioned them in my initial post describing my impression of some supporters -not all
-
a supporter to me is a person who a 100% believes the mcanns and wont have anything said against them they get hostile when people tll them no one is perfect and everybody has flaws they say horrible things about people who disagree about them/the mcanns all this is in my IMO
-
a supporter to me is a person who a 100% believes the mcansn and wont have anything said against them they get hostile when people tll them no one is perfect and everybody has flaws they say horrible things about people who disagree about them/the mcanns IMO
With a view like that no wonder there is a great divide.
-
I find that impossible to believe, sorry Vertigo Swirl. You have already said you post on many fora and for you to have been interested in this case for this long you must have seen these posts. I am not about to share them here but if an impartial moderator such as Robittybob1 would like me to do so I will do my best to find them again and share the posts with them so they can confirm that I am correct in what I say.
PM me the names of forums and I’ll take a look myself, meanwhile I would just like to say that as this thread is simply another opportunity for both sides to have a massive barney I am not participating in it any further and recommend that supporters do likewise and not rise to the bait. Let the sceptics use this thread to vent their spleen but don’t feed them, it’s a mug’s game. This thread was much friendlier when it was about music :-(
-
PM me the names of forums and I’ll take a look myself, meanwhile I would just like to say that as this thread is simply another opportunity for both sides to have a massive barney I am not participating in it any further and recommend that supporters do likewise and not rise to the bait. Let the sceptics use this thread to vent their spleen but don’t feed them, it’s a mug’s game. This thread was much friendlier when it was about music :-(
Two things.
Firstly, sorry no I won't pm the names to you I said I would only do that to a moderate moderator (??) such as Robittybob1
Secondly, perhaps the thread about sceptics would have been friendlier if it had all been about music too :)
-
There is no context that would make your behaviour correct. If you have cause to ask a member to change his behaviour that is between you and him and not the rest of the forum. Have some integrity please.
Using your own argument maybe this ought to be via PM too.
-
With a view like that no wonder there is a great divide. "the McCanns they drove a person to suicide" Now can you provide a cite for that?
You need the entire post Robittybob1 as your snip is not accurate.
IMO Carlymichelle wasn't talking about the McCanns driving anyone to suicide she was referring to the actions of the dossier makers, the ensuing media furore and then Brenda Leyland's suicide.
All of which is well documented elsewhere and it was why I became interested in the case in the first place.
-
You need the entire post Robittybob1 as your snip is not accurate.
IMO Carlymichelle wasn't talking about the McCanns driving anyone to suicide she was referring to the actions of the dossier makers, the ensuing media furore and then Brenda Leyland's suicide.
All of which is well documented elsewhere and it was why I became interested in the case in the first place.
exactly sunny they named and shamed brenda for having a opinion and ruined her life with a dossier
-
the bullying of brenda did rob and the media attention that brenda got from supporters doing the document they did
Are you blaming the McCanns or their supporters?
-
Are you blaming the McCanns or their supporters?
the supporters and rob i must say being a mod you need to read everything and not just jump in on things imo
-
PM me the names of forums and I’ll take a look myself, meanwhile I would just like to say that as this thread is simply another opportunity for both sides to have a massive barney I am not participating in it any further and recommend that supporters do likewise and not rise to the bait. Let the sceptics use this thread to vent their spleen but don’t feed them, it’s a mug’s game. This thread was much friendlier when it was about music :-(
Very sensible choice of action ~ in my opinion
-
the supporters and rob i must say being a mod you need to read everything and not just jump in on things imo
I don't blame all supporters for what happened to Brenda Leyland but I do believe that the dossier gatherers were partially to blame for what happened to her. If they had just gone to the police with their concerns then fair enough but they didn't did they they wanted national media coverage. I have read a particular forum at the time Brenda was exposed by Martin Brunt and the red tops and there appeared to be a lot of back slapping going on between posters.
-
You need the entire post Robittybob1 as your snip is not accurate.
IMO Carlymichelle wasn't talking about the McCanns driving anyone to suicide she was referring to the actions of the dossier makers, the ensuing media furore and then Brenda Leyland's suicide.
All of which is well documented elsewhere and it was why I became interested in the case in the first place.
OK I see that / has some special meaning.
"a supporter to me is a person who a 100% believes the mcansn and wont have anything said against them they get hostile when people tll them no one is perfect and everybody has flaws they say horrible things about people who disagree about them/the mcanns they drove a person to sucide and i for one will never forget that "
Tidied up it could be "The supporters say horrible things about people who disagree about them or the McCanns. They even drove a person to suicide".
the supporters and rob i must say being a mod you need to read everything and not just jump in on things imo
Are you trying to drive me to suicide?
-
I don't blame all supporters for what happened to Brenda Leyland but I do believe that the dossier gatherers were partially to blame for what happened to her. If they had just gone to the police with their concerns then fair enough but they didn't did they they wanted national media coverage. I have read a particular forum at the time Brenda was exposed by Martin Brunt and the red tops and there appeared to be a lot of back slapping going on between posters.
it went around the world including here in australia she was named and shamed across the world
-
OK here is my opinion of some supporters (of the couple). This is not a carte blanche picture of my impression of every supporter just some I have seen whilst looking into the case.
It seems to me that Kate & Gerry can do no wrong in their eyes with the possible exception of leaving the children alone. Everything the McCanns have said or done is justified in the eyes of the supporters, weirdly though this appears to include Leonor Cipriano the convicted murderer of her own 8 year old daughter Joanna. I see very little mention of Joanna only Leonor, which I find very odd.
To a supporter anything or anyone that indicates any possible guilt in anything even something small is to be derided and explained away.
Looking on other forums as I have done in the last year or so, I see sceptics have been insulted, laughed at, have their physical appearance picked apart and their photographs put on open threads for anyone to see.
Personally I find this type of behaviour reprehensible and seeing how Brenda Leyland was treated by both the media and the supporters elsewhere (and to a lesser degree here), I can't understand why an adult discussion cannot go ahead without name calling and personal insults.
Just my thoughts and opinion of course.
My support for Kate & Gerry is an extension of my support for Madeleine's right to be found & their right to justice for her. Joana Cipriano was denied that right, due in no small way by the manner in which her case was handled - coincidentally involving some of the same PJ officers who later worked on the Madeleine case. The majority of supporters hold the same opinion, which is based on logical conclusion after assessing the available evidence (or rather the lack of it when it comes to parental involvement).
IMO most supporters can be proud of their stance in the pursuit of justice for Madeleine. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of those who choose to cross the lines of common decency & are embarrassed when their behaviour is displayed nationally for all to see.
-
My support for Kate & Gerry is an extension of my support for Madeleine's right to be found & their right to justice for her. Joana Cipriano was denied that right, due in no small way by the manner in which her case was handled - coincidentally involving some of the same PJ officers who later worked on the Madeleine case. The majority of supporters hold the same opinion, which is based on logical conclusion after assessing the available evidence (or rather the lack of it when it comes to parental involvement).
IMO most supporters can be proud of their stance in the pursuit of justice for Madeleine. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of those who choose to cross the lines of common decency & are embarrassed when their behaviour is displayed nationally for all to see.
An interesting post Misty. Most of which I can fully understand although I think the last bit is a bit rich. I assume all sceptics are included in your post (the bolded part) and clearly you are speaking about Brenda Leyland. I think she was more than "embarrassed" having her name, photograph, address emblazoned over the TV, radio and it seemed all nearly media outlets with the name TROLL forever to be her epitaph.
Do you think she deserved what she was given by the likes of Martin Brunt etc? I don't.
-
An interesting post Misty. Most of which I can fully understand although I think the last bit is a bit rich. I assume all sceptics are included in your post (the bolded part) and clearly you are speaking about Brenda Leyland. I think she was more than "embarrassed" having her name, photograph, address emblazoned over the TV, radio and it seemed all nearly media outlets with the name TROLL forever to be her epitaph.
Do you think she deserved what she was given by the likes of Martin Brunt etc? I don't.
I referred to those who crossed the lines of common decency, whatever their views on the case. Some have been named in the media, some cautioned for trolling & some convicted for serious crimes. The recipients/victims of such actions do not deserve to be treated in such a fashion - what sort of society do we live in if people turn a blind eye just in case the perpetrators get upset?
-
I referred to those who crossed the lines of common decency, whatever their views on the case. Some have been named in the media, some convicted of trolling & some for serious crimes. The recipients/victims of such actions do not deserve to be treated in such a fashion - what sort of society do we live in if people turn a blind eye just in case the perpetrators get upset?
Has anyone been convicted of trolling in the McCann case? Interesting you mention "some for serious crimes". Could you give me cites for these please Misty.
-
If they had simply gone to the police with their concerns then I may have understood the dossier builders but they didn't they went straight to the mainstream media to cause Brenda as much pain as possible. Perhaps they knew before hand that Brenda hadn't broken any laws and still wanted her to feel pain much like Kate mcCann wanted Goncalo Amaral to do.
From what I gather the McCanns aren't on twitter or social media so Brenda wasn't speaking to them directly and I imagine only a few people would have read her posts on twitter so to go to a full blown media expose on her is extremely OTT in her case. I imagine there are some sceptics who may have more deserved that treatment but I certainly don't think Brenda did.
-
If they had simply gone to the police with their concerns then I may have understood the dossier builders but they didn't they went straight to the mainstream media to cause Brenda as much pain as possible. Perhaps they knew before hand that Brenda hadn't broken any laws and still wanted her to feel pain much like Kate mcCann wanted Goncalo Amaral to do.
From what I gather the McCanns aren't on twitter or social media so Brenda wasn't speaking to them directly and I imagine only a few people would have read her posts on twitter so to go to a full blown media expose on her is extremely OTT in her case. I imagine there are some sceptics who may have more deserved that treatment but I certainly don't think Brenda did.
IMO your research of twitter events at the time is incomplete.
-
Has anyone been convicted of trolling in the McCann case? Interesting you mention "some for serious crimes". Could you give me cites for these please Misty.
I have amended my post to "cautioned" for trolling. There will be no cites as the least said about these people, the better.
-
IMO your research of twitter events at the time is incomplete.
It wasn't methodical research by any means. I have seen all her tweets (I think) and I did look at others around that time and since on the #mccann thread.
-
My support for Kate & Gerry is an extension of my support for Madeleine's right to be found & their right to justice for her. Joana Cipriano was denied that right, due in no small way by the manner in which her case was handled - coincidentally involving some of the same PJ officers who later worked on the Madeleine case. The majority of supporters hold the same opinion, which is based on logical conclusion after assessing the available evidence (or rather the lack of it when it comes to parental involvement).
IMO most supporters can be proud of their stance in the pursuit of justice for Madeleine. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of those who choose to cross the lines of common decency & are embarrassed when their behaviour is displayed nationally for all to see.
I have never used this emoticon before but now is the appropriate time to do so. 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
OK I see that / has some special meaning.
"a supporter to me is a person who a 100% believes the mcansn and wont have anything said against them they get hostile when people tll them no one is perfect and everybody has flaws they say horrible things about people who disagree about them/the mcanns they drove a person to sucide and i for one will never forget that "
Tidied up it could be "The supporters say horrible things about people who disagree about them or the McCanns. They even drove a person to suicide".
Are you trying to drive me to suicide?
I think you'll find that it was Martin Brunt's unwarranted intervention that tipped the poor vulnerable woman over the edge and almost destroyed his own career as a journalist for Sky News.
-
My support for Kate & Gerry is an extension of my support for Madeleine's right to be found & their right to justice for her. Joana Cipriano was denied that right, due in no small way by the manner in which her case was handled - coincidentally involving some of the same PJ officers who later worked on the Madeleine case. The majority of supporters hold the same opinion, which is based on logical conclusion after assessing the available evidence (or rather the lack of it when it comes to parental involvement).
IMO most supporters can be proud of their stance in the pursuit of justice for Madeleine. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of those who choose to cross the lines of common decency & are embarrassed when their behaviour is displayed nationally for all to see.
Same old...same old. If you need to blame anyone, blame her murdering uncle and delinquent mother.
-
If they had simply gone to the police with their concerns then I may have understood the dossier builders but they didn't they went straight to the mainstream media to cause Brenda as much pain as possible. Perhaps they knew before hand that Brenda hadn't broken any laws and still wanted her to feel pain much like Kate mcCann wanted Goncalo Amaral to do.
From what I gather the McCanns aren't on twitter or social media so Brenda wasn't speaking to them directly and I imagine only a few people would have read her posts on twitter so to go to a full blown media expose on her is extremely OTT in her case. I imagine there are some sceptics who may have more deserved that treatment but I certainly don't think Brenda did.
Totally agree. Misty talks about sceptics being embarrassed when publicly exposed, was the author of the dossier so exposed or publicly embarrassed yet?
As for the thread title, I would always support the parents of a missing child if I thought they deserved it. In this case I don't.
-
Totally agree. Misty talks about sceptics being embarrassed when publicly exposed, was the author of the dossier so exposed or publicly embarrassed yet?
As for the thread title, I would always support the parents of a missing child if I thought they deserved it. In this case I don't.
IYO what is the one thing that makes you feel like this Angelo?
-
If they had simply gone to the police with their concerns then I may have understood the dossier builders but they didn't they went straight to the mainstream media to cause Brenda as much pain as possible. Perhaps they knew before hand that Brenda hadn't broken any laws and still wanted her to feel pain much like Kate mcCann wanted Goncalo Amaral to do.
From what I gather the McCanns aren't on twitter or social media so Brenda wasn't speaking to them directly and I imagine only a few people would have read her posts on twitter so to go to a full blown media expose on her is extremely OTT in her case. I imagine there are some sceptics who may have more deserved that treatment but I certainly don't think Brenda did.
"If they had simply gone to the police with their concerns then I may have understood the dossier builders "
Sunny with this regard I believe the dossiers took it to SY who said it was nothing to do with the investigation, to take it to LP. when they got no joy they went to the media. I have tried to find the thread where this was mentioned...
A lot of online stuff was sent to police... no arrests
-
Do you mean holding cells Robittybob1? If so I think you are incorrect as the police have said that Brenda Leyland broke no laws so I imagine most of the other sceptics haven't done so either.
As we have here:
https://news.sky.com/story/mccann-trolls-police-wont-take-action-10361261
I accept that there are some horrific 'jokes' about Madeliene I am disgusted by any I have come across. There is also unpleasantness by some who just do not like the McCanns- I do not share their mindset or agree with their behaviour in some parts on the web. However, I am very aware of the huge 'public attention seeking agenda' by the parents and their supporters.
This is to make all people who do not buy into their version of what happened that night into a large scale 'terror network'. Huge fail!
The supporters Give the impression the McCanns are above and beyond reproach. In doing this , they deny justice for The real VICTIM= Madeliene Beth Mc Cann IMHO.
-
Totally agree. Misty talks about sceptics being embarrassed when publicly exposed, was the author of the dossier so exposed or publicly embarrassed yet?
As for the thread title, I would always support the parents of a missing child if I thought they deserved it. In this case I don't.
I haven't a clue who compiled the dossier. However, I am pretty sure that Amy Tierney, as a victim of mistaken identity, was grateful BL never turned up at her place of work accusing her of all sorts.
-
They can arrest them and hold them for questioning though can't they?
Not in the U.K. without evidence of a crime.
-
Same old...same old. If you need to blame anyone, blame her murdering uncle and delinquent mother.
No forensic evidence Joana was murdered.
Here's a good read for you, Angelo - especially the "40 pages" part.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262584165_Making_sense_of_the_story_-_The_dialogues_between_the_police_and_forensic_laboratories_in_the_construction_of_DNA_evidence
-
I haven't a clue who compiled the dossier. However, I am pretty sure that Amy Tierney, as a victim of mistaken identity, was grateful BL never turned up at her place of work accusing her of all sorts.
So you don't think the dossier writers have a case to answer? Your insistance to black name and infer Brenda as deserving of such action is very telling. Let us look at what the Parents behaviour has who it has affected.
Everyone! Their own family, the twins, A whole community, a company (MW), Robert Murat, otherpointed at, a police coordinator, a police service, bad mouthed many witneses, people on the net who don't buy their version of accounts and .....a little three yearold girl. what terror she was subjected to we have no idea.
Let's keep it real. the parents are wholly responsible for their childrens well being and safety.
-
That's the problem with forensics - it doesn't always come up with the answers.
-
So you don't think the dossier writers have a case to answer? Your insistance to black name and infer Brenda as deserving of such action is very telling. Let us look at what the Parents behaviour has who it has affected.
Everyone! Their own family, the twins, A whole community, a company (MW), Robert Murat, otherpointed at, a police coordinator, a police service, bad mouthed many witneses, people on the net who don't buy their version of accounts and .....a little three yearold girl. what terror she was subjected to we have no idea.
Let's keep it real. the parents are wholly responsible for their childrens well being and safety.
BL, Hyland, Nessling et al made their own choices when it came to how they behaved using Madeleine's case as their platform. They were/are the antithesis of support for Madeleine.
-
No forensic evidence Joana was murdered.
Here's a good read for you, Angelo - especially the "40 pages" part.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262584165_Making_sense_of_the_story_-_The_dialogues_between_the_police_and_forensic_laboratories_in_the_construction_of_DNA_evidence
Interesting you should post that link.
That link shows how the archived files on the McCann case are refernced. A point you were calling into question a few days ago.
It also gives the true statement made by Martin Grime.
Small world innit?
-
BL, Hyland, Nessling et al made their own choices when it came to how they behaved using Madeleine's case as their platform. They were/are the antithesis of support for Madeleine.
I see Brenda Leyland doesn't even get to be called by her given name only BL, also isn't Nessling one of the McCann supporters. Vee8 wasn't it?
I find it interesting so far no one appears to know who has created the dossier perhaps the creaters are now ashamed of what they did following Brenda's death.
-
I see Brenda Leyland doesn't even get to be called by her given name only BL, also isn't Nessling one of the McCann supporters. Vee8 wasn't it?
I find it interesting so far no one appears to know who has created the dossier perhaps the creaters are now ashamed of what they did following Brenda's death.
I was of the opinion that the identity of the instigator was well known, who due to the unforeseen consequences of her action has crawled back under her stone.
-
I was of the opinion that the identity of the instigator was well known, who due to the unforeseen consequences of her action has crawled back under her stone.
i know who it was she fled the internet right after brendas death
-
I see Brenda Leyland doesn't even get to be called by her given name only BL, also isn't Nessling one of the McCann supporters. Vee8 wasn't it?
I find it interesting so far no one appears to know who has created the dossier perhaps the creaters are now ashamed of what they did following Brenda's death.
You mistakenly thought I was being biased in my criticism of those whose behaviour has crossed the lines of moral decency. Criticism of a dossier which sought to harvest abusive comments & behaviour & intended for police eyes should not be a source of embarrassment to anyone, whoever they are IMO.
-
You mistakenly thought I was being biased in my criticism of those whose behaviour has crossed the lines of moral decency. Criticism of a dossier which sought to harvest abusive comments & behaviour & intended for police eyes should not be a source of embarrassment to anyone, whoever they are IMO.
So why are they hiding their light under a bushel.
-
You mistakenly thought I was being biased in my criticism of those whose behaviour has crossed the lines of moral decency. Criticism of a dossier which sought to harvest abusive comments & behaviour & intended for police eyes should not be a source of embarrassment to anyone, whoever they are IMO.
If that's where they'd left it - in a constabulary rubbish bin - then everything would have been fine.
Unfortunately they didn't and it wasn't.
A prime example of supporter obsession, I think.
-
So why are they hiding their light under a bushel.
maybe because they drove a woman to sucide? with martin brunts help all IMHO
-
So why are they hiding their light under a bushel.
No idea who they are or if they are hiding anywhere. However, the police response to the dossier appears to have been a smack in the face to all people who have reported online abuse & harassment - possibly because the worst scenario in most cases of police non-action under the Communications Act is a suicide.
IMO.
-
Maybe its because it mostly isn't an actual crime.
-
maybe because they drove a woman to sucide? with martin brunts help all IMHO
Do you have a cite for " they drove a woman to suicide"?
Did she leave a suicide note?
You have absolutely no idea of what her reasons were but continue to use her suicide as a excuse to malign the MCCanns and supporters.
Your post is quite shameful in my opinion
-
Do you have a cite for " they drove a woman to suicide"?
Did she leave a suicide note?
You have absolutely no idea of what her reasons were but continue to use her suicide as a excuse to malign the MCCanns and supporters.
Your post is quite shameful in my opinion
You sound very defensive.
-
You sound very defensive.
you know what im saying i keep ...... on ignore i cant deal with people like her life isnt perfect but the dossier had alot to do with what brenda did imo the dossier people ruined her life just because she had a opinion that didnt match theirs that dossier shit went allaround the world brenda was on every news including here in australia and sky news shamefully repeated it over and over sorry people justifying the dossier actions piss me off
-
What follows is all my own opinion.
A supporter is someone who thinks leaving small children home alone isn't advisable. It is, however, understandable and excusable when on holiday, when the place 'feels safe', when the children are checked every 30 minutes, when the place the parents are at is 'almost' like being in your garden and when 'thousands' of others have done/do the 'same' when on their holidays.
-
What a bitchfest.
“Supporters are basically child neglect fans who deliberately set out to drive poor sceptics to their deaths”.
That’s it in a nutshell.
-
IYO what is the one thing that makes you feel like this Angelo?
It's a combination of things but the whole case stinks imho.
-
They can arrest them and hold them for questioning though can't they?
Nope. They might have a word in their ear though.
-
Maybe its because it mostly isn't an actual crime.
None of it otherwise the police would have taken action.
-
No forensic evidence Joana was murdered.
Here's a good read for you, Angelo - especially the "40 pages" part.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262584165_Making_sense_of_the_story_-_The_dialogues_between_the_police_and_forensic_laboratories_in_the_construction_of_DNA_evidence
That publication is riddled with errors, it even claims that Grimes dog alerted to cadaver odour in 5a.
There were blood traces in several places including the wall where her mother claimed she had bashed her daughter's head. Hair and skull fragments were found in the pigsty and drains. Both Leonor and João confessed to her murder, the latter taking part in a videoed reconstruction. I despair sometimes at the crap some supporters post.
-
Can someone tell Carly that I don't have her on ignore.
Her thought provoking posts are one of the reasons I do read the forum.
She must have nearly every supporter on ignore.
It's a very good plan. ^*&&
-
Can someone tell Carly that I don't have her on ignore.
Her thought provoking posts are one of the reasons I do read the forum.
She must have nearly every supporter on ignore.
It's a very good plan. ^*&&
@Carly. Erngath wants you to know that he doesn't have you on ignore.
-
I find it a good idea to ignore the really irritating ones.
One of my ignores hasn't posted this year, so may have gone for good.
Another disappeared yesterday for the Nth time but is bound to be back before long.
-
Interesting you should post that link.
That link shows how the archived files on the McCann case are refernced. A point you were calling into question a few days ago.
It also gives the true statement made by Martin Grime.
Small world innit?
Shot in both feet comes to mind. @)(++(*
-
@Carly. Erngath wants you to know that he doesn't have you on ignore.
@)(++(* ty i have them on ignore
-
Do you have a cite for " they drove a woman to suicide"?
Did she leave a suicide note?
You have absolutely no idea of what her reasons were but continue to use her suicide as a excuse to malign the MCCanns and supporters.
Your post is quite shameful in my opinion
Do you think Brenda Leyland would have committed suicide on that day if she hadn’t been exposed on national TV ?
-
i know who it was she fled the internet right after brendas death
Could we have the name please Carly?
-
you know what im saying i keep emgrath on ignore i cant deal with people like her life isnt perfect but the dossier had alot to do with what brenda did imo the dossier people ruined her life just because she had a opinion that didnt match theirs that dossier shit went allaround the world brenda was on every news including here in australia and sky news shamefully repeated it over and over sorry people justifying the dossier actions piss me off
Had Brunt not intervened in the nasty cowardly way he did by ambushing a vulnerable woman on her doorstep she might still be alive today.
-
Could we have the name please Carly?
Jaylees
-
Do you think Brenda Leyland would have committed suicide on that day if she hadn’t been exposed on national TV ?
I have no idea .
I believe she had attempted suicide before.
I don't know what drove her to make this first attempt.
If you had a relative who in your opinion was driven to suicide by being exposed on national television, would you pursue some form of legal action against that television company?
-
Maybe its because it mostly isn't an actual crime.
Freedom of speech permits the mental cruelty which is inflicted on many vulnerable people via social & other medis conduits. It appears that only when there is physical harm in some form does such FOS become a crime, which in many cases is preventable by early intervention & deterrent.
-
Which is perhaps how it should be.
Police have enough to do dealing with actual crime, without having to bother with upset feelings.
IMO
-
I have no idea .
I believe she had attempted suicide before.
I don't know what drove her to make this first attempt.
If you had a relative who in your opinion was driven to suicide by being exposed on national television, would you pursue some form of legal action against that television company?
Okay. Do you believe Brenda Leyland’s treatment by Sky was measured and fair? Did she pose any threat at all to the McCanns ?
-
Okay. Do you believe Brenda Leyland’s treatment by Sky was measured and fair? Did she pose any threat at all to the McCanns ?
I find the modern rolling news to be over the top and this manner of reporting a news item is not measured.
I have no idea of whether she was a threat to Madeleine's family but she obviously had mental health issues and therefore her behaviour would be prone to being unpredictable.
Therefore she could have posed a threat.
Who would know.?
-
I find the modern rolling news to be over the top and this manner of reporting a news item is not measured.
I have no idea of whether she was a threat to Madeleine's family but she obviously had mental health issues and therefore her behaviour would be prone to being unpredictable.
Therefore she could have posed a threat.
Who would know.?
Are you suggesting that everyone with mental health issues are likely to be a danger ?
-
Okay. Do you believe Brenda Leyland’s treatment by Sky was measured and fair? Did she pose any threat at all to the McCanns ?
What would you suggest as a yardstick - coverage by Portuguese media of the McCanns during the preceding 7 years?
Are you suggesting that no-one was a threat to the McCanns (or anyone else), in spite of what was said online?
-
Are you suggesting that everyone with mental health issues are likely to be a danger ?
Someone who has mental health issues and who spends an inordinate time tweeting and obsessing about the family of a missing child and who behaves in what I would describe as in a stalking manner, could indeed present a danger to the person or persons they are obsessed with.
Nice try at deflecting away from my two questions.
-
What would you suggest as a yardstick - coverage by Portuguese media of the McCanns during the preceding 7 years?
Are you suggesting that no-one was a threat to the McCanns (or anyone else), in spite of what was said online?
I’m saying Brenda Leyland wasn’t a threat and for supporters to use the fact that she had mental health issues to suggest she was a danger to the McCanns is reprehensible behaviour. No wonder there’s such a stigma around mental health with individuals such as we see on this forum peddling their ill-informed opinions.
-
What would you suggest as a yardstick - coverage by Portuguese media of the McCanns during the preceding 7 years?
Are you suggesting that no-one was a threat to the McCanns (or anyone else), in spite of what was said online?
Talk's cheap. Has there ever been a physical attack made on the McCanns ? I don't recall anyone being charged with assault or affray .
-
I’m saying Brenda Leyland wasn’t a threat and for supporters to use the fact that she had mental health issues to suggest she was a danger to the McCanns is reprehensible behaviour. No wonder there’s such a stigma around mental health with individuals such as we see on this forum peddling their ill-informed opinions.
Who knew that she had any mental health issues before her death? Is it OK by you that people who have no involvement with online abuse are targeted in comments & maybe have to live in perpetual fear for their life? Is it OK by you that people must turn a blind eye to the abusers just in case they are really sensitive souls at heart who wouldn't hurt a fly?
People have an "off" button on electronic devices. The same does not apply to real life.
-
Who knew that she had any mental health issues before her death? Is it OK by you that people who have no involvement with online abuse are targeted in comments & maybe have to live in perpetual fear for their life? Is it OK by you that people must turn a blind eye to the abusers just in case they are really sensitive souls at heart who wouldn't hurt a fly?
People have an "off" button on electronic devices. The same does not apply in real life.
You were suggesting having mental health issues predisposes you to violence. That is ill-informed nonsense. People with mental health issues are more a danger to themselves than the public, as the sad case of Brenda clearly illustrated.
Let’s be clear, Brenda wasn’t targeted because she was a threat to the McCanns but probably the opposite. She was the antipathy of a ‘troll’ and that’s what gave the story its interest.
-
Do you ever stop to think whether Brenda and her fellow tweeters could in theory have driven one of their attack targets to suicide, with their threats and outings? You have to admit that sort of bullying behaviour online can lead to people taking their own lives can’t it?
-
Do you ever stop to think whether Brenda and her fellow tweeters could in theory have driven one of their attack targets to suicide, with their threats and outings? You have to admit that sort of bullying behaviour online can lead to people taking their own lives can’t it?
Maybe if the target bothered to read it. Of course the McCanns don't do social media so no danger there.
-
You were suggesting having mental health issues predisposes you to violence. That is ill-informed nonsense. People with mental health issues are more a danger to themselves than the public, as the sad case of Brenda clearly illustrated.
Let’s be clear, Brenda wasn’t targeted because she was a threat to the McCanns but probably the opposite. She was the antipathy of a ‘troll’ and that’s what gave the story its interest.
Stop twisting my words, Faith. Mental health issues have many different forms, some of which can present a threat to others. When online, we are judged solely by our words & the abusers come from all walks of life & have various degrees of physical or mental health. Perhaps people should be much more careful of who they choose to affiliate themselves to because so many are in it for the trolling, not Madeleine's interest.
-
Stop twisting my words, Faith. Mental health issues have many different forms, some of which can present a threat to others. When online, we are judged solely by our words & the abusers come from all walks of life & have various degrees of physical or mental health. Perhaps people should be much more careful of who they choose to affiliate themselves to because so many are in it for the trolling, not Madeleine's interest.
When you’re in a hole Misty, stop digging.
-
Jaylees
Jayelles?
-
I feel the dossier was compiled with the best of intentions.
So no shame.
The shame belongs to the people who have made abusing the family of a missing child their sport.
Obviously people who read Twitter, which I don't were aware of the abuse, accusations, threats made against the family of s missing child.
I have no doubt that it was the correct thing to do.
I don't approve of the way Sky news did rolling news about it but I don't like that manner of news broadcasting.
-
OOH , standoff at Dossier Gulch. Please resolve before 9 pm or I'm bound to miss it @)(++(*
-
When you’re in a hole Misty, stop digging.
I'm not in any hole, Faith. You appear to condone the same sort of abuse towards someone of mistaken identity that you complained about yourself a few days ago. Either you agree that social media threats should be dealt with by the law before something awful happens or you present yourself as a hypocrite. Which is it?
-
A past master in twisting words.
Disgraceful conduct in my opinion.
Trying to imply that supporters are anything less than understanding of the whole issue of mental health.
A very sneaky and a most unpleasant way of posting. IMO
-
Maybe if the target bothered to read it. Of course the McCanns don't do social media so no danger there.
It wasn’t the McCanns I was referring to specifically.
-
I'm not in any hole, Faith. You appear to condone the same sort of abuse towards someone of mistaken identity that you complained about yourself a few days ago. Either you agree that social media threats should be dealt with by the law before something awful happens or you present yourself as a hypocrite. Which is it?
I absolutely think if someone has broken the law it should be dealt with but by the courts, not by some wrinkly, coffin dodgers with a hotline to Sky news.
-
Let's keep it civil please guys and gals. TY
-
Who knew that she had any mental health issues before her death? Is it OK by you that people who have no involvement with online abuse are targeted in comments & maybe have to live in perpetual fear for their life? Is it OK by you that people must turn a blind eye to the abusers just in case they are really sensitive souls at heart who wouldn't hurt a fly?
People have an "off" button on electronic devices. The same does not apply to real life.
But there are ways of avoiding the circles of life that may give offence.
-
I feel the dossier was compiled with the best of intentions.
So no shame.
The shame belongs to the people who have made abusing the family of a missing child their sport.
Obviously people who read Twitter, which I don't were aware of the abuse, accusations, threats made against the family of s missing child.
I have no doubt that it was the correct thing to do.
I don't approve of the way Sky news did rolling news about it but I don't like that manner of news broadcasting.
Presumably you have to select the relevant bit of twitter to read otherwise you'd be swamped with all sorts of stuff.
-
I absolutely think if someone has broken the law it should be dealt with but by the courts, not by some wrinkly, coffin dodgers with a hotline to Sky news.
Ha Ha. Best post of the day 8((()*/
-
Presumably you have to select the relevant bit of twitter to read otherwise you'd be swamped with all sorts of stuff.
I have no idea of how to access, read or select anything to do with Twitter.
-
As an old wrinkly myself, I absolutely refuse to take offence @)(++(*
-
As an old wrinkly myself, I absolutely refuse to take offence @)(++(*
That’s because your mate posted it. Now if Davel had used the term, it would probably mot have got you “post of the day” vote, you wrinkly old coffin doger you... 8(0(*
-
That’s because your mate posted it. Now if Davel had used the term, it would probably mot have got you “post of the day” vote, you wrinkly old coffin doger you... 8(0(*
You mentioned Faux outrage earlier.
-
I feel the dossier was compiled with the best of intentions.
So no shame.
The shame belongs to the people who have made abusing the family of a missing child their sport.
Obviously people who read Twitter, which I don't were aware of the abuse, accusations, threats made against the family of s missing child.
I have no doubt that it was the correct thing to do.
I don't approve of the way Sky news did rolling news about it but I don't like that manner of news broadcasting.
OK Erngath I understand your post but I still can't understand why taking it to Martin Brunt was preferable to going to the police.
-
You mentioned Faux outrage earlier.
None in my posts as you can clearly see.
-
That’s because your mate posted it. Now if Davel had used the term, it would probably mot have got you “post of the day” vote, you wrinkly old coffin doger you... 8(0(*
Nah, he's about as old as me and probably just as wrinkly
-
Nome in my posts as you can clearly see.
Don’t worry I found it before posting.
-
No she hasn’t, you have twisted her meaning to make a mountain out of a molehill, I can smell the faux outrage from here.
Hmm.
-
Hmm.
Do you know what faux outrage actually is? It involves a degree of pretend outrage like saying “your post about mental health was an absolute disgrace and shame on you”or words to that effect. Please point me to my expressions of faux outrage, many thanks.
-
FYI, Slarti - Outrage - an extremely stong reaction of shock, anger or indignation.
-
You're funny.
My question was way before yours.
I find the fact that you won’t answer the question interesting. It does appear to be a lose, lose question I know.
-
I find the fact that you won’t answer the question interesting. It does appear to be a lose, lose question I know.
Exactly my sentiment about you.
By your initial and complete twisting of my post you have successfully avoided my question..
Mmmmm.
However I will answer your question.
I find nothing shameful about the compiling of the dossier.
I have no idea of who the compilers were or had any involvement at all.
I have stated that a few times.
I don't do Twitter where I believe many of the examples of the abuse, accusations and threats against the family of a missing child were made.
My annoyance at being linked with the compilation is because I had stated all of this before.
I have said several times that the rolling reporting of news is one I dislike and do not approve of.
Now my question again.
If a member of your family committed suicide and you felt that suicide was a direct result of rolling news where your family member was televised in an unpleasant way, would you take any action against the TV channel?
-
They love bringing the dossier up don't they, for some reason they think all supporters should be ashamed, the people who really should feel ashamed are the ones who joined in the sickening abuse of the McCann family on twitter who encouraged each other and give each other slaps on the back for taking part.
Now let BL rest in peace.
-
They love bringing the dossier up don't they, for some reason they think all supporters should be ashamed, the people who really should feel ashamed are the ones who joined in the sickening abuse of the McCann family on twitter who encouraged each other and give each other slaps on the back for taking part.
Now let BL rest in peace.
I do notice that none of you admit to being one of the collators of the dossier though Lace. Why not stand proud and say YES i was one of the people who sent the dossier to Sky News.
I agree twitter appears to be the worst for even making any sense to me. Perhaps it is because there isn't any moderation there but I do struggle to understand it even though I know how look through it a bit.
-
I absolutely think if someone has broken the law it should be dealt with but by the courts, not by some wrinkly, coffin dodgers with a hotline to Sky news.
Are you talking about yourself or others here?
-
They love bringing the dossier up don't they, for some reason they think all supporters should be ashamed, the people who really should feel ashamed are the ones who joined in the sickening abuse of the McCann family on twitter who encouraged each other and give each other slaps on the back for taking part.
Now let BL rest in peace.
As public spirited citizens, they brought their concerns to the attention of the police.
When the police rejected their assertions IMO they became a bunch of interfering busy bodies with a vendetta looking for a way to hit out.
-
I agree twitter appears to be the worst for even making any sense to me. Perhaps it is because there isn't any moderation there but I do struggle to understand it even though I know how look through it a bit.
Frankie Howard springs to mind when when he said titter ye not,I wonder if he meant twitter ye not.
-
I do notice that none of you admit to being one of the collators of the dossier though Lace. Why not stand proud and say YES i was one of the people who sent the dossier to Sky News.
I agree twitter appears to be the worst for even making any sense to me. Perhaps it is because there isn't any moderation there but I do struggle to understand it even though I know how look through it a bit.
I wasn't in any way involved in the dossier Sunny, but I can understand why no one would stand up and say they were, anti's have called the dossier compilers murders in the past which is absolutely appalling.
-
As public spirited citizens, they brought their concerns to the attention of the police.
When the police rejected their assertions IMO they became a bunch of interfering busy bodies with a vendetta looking for a way to hit out.
Thank you for your opinion slartibarfast.
-
I wasn't in any way involved in the dossier Sunny, but I can understand why no one would stand up and say they were, anti's have called the dossier compilers murders in the past which is absolutely appalling.
Thanks for your honesty Lace. As I mentioned earlier I looked back saw a lot of back slapping posted when the Sky News rolling news hit Brenda Leyland like a truck.
They were all waiting for the next sceptic to be hit as I remember.
-
They love bringing the dossier up don't they, for some reason they think all supporters should be ashamed, the people who really should feel ashamed are the ones who joined in the sickening abuse of the McCann family on twitter who encouraged each other and give each other slaps on the back for taking part.
Now let BL rest in peace.
I suppose they thought of themselves as helping the police by gathering evidence to give to them. Handing the information to the media was quite a different matter. That is not justifiable whatever led them to do it.
-
I wasn't in any way involved in the dossier Sunny, but I can understand why no one would stand up and say they were, anti's have called the dossier compilers murders in the past which is absolutely appalling.
Indeed Lace.
Appalling.
-
I suppose they thought of themselves as helping the police by gathering evidence to give to them. Handing the information to the media was quite a different matter. That is not justifiable whatever led them to do it.
can you explain why it is not justifiable? There was nothing in the dossier as far as I know that the media couldn’t have discovered for themselves and whoever handed Sky the dossier didn’t force them to go with the story.
-
I do notice that none of you admit to being one of the collators of the dossier though Lace. Why not stand proud and say YES i was one of the people who sent the dossier to Sky News.
I agree twitter appears to be the worst for even making any sense to me. Perhaps it is because there isn't any moderation there but I do struggle to understand it even though I know how look through it a bit.
It wasn' me. It was a big did it and ran away. @)(++(*
-
I suppose they thought of themselves as helping the police by gathering evidence to give to them. Handing the information to the media was quite a different matter. That is not justifiable whatever led them to do it.
Why?
Surely a gathering of evidence of the abuse, accusations and threats against the family of a missing child would be newsworthy.
Why not give an indication of such to the public?
Should the public not be made aware of such behaviour?
-
Exactly my sentiment about you.
By your initial and complete twisting of my post you have successfully avoided my question..
Mmmmm.
However I will answer your question.
I find nothing shameful about the compiling of the dossier.
I have no idea of who the compilers were or had any involvement at all.
I have stated that a few times.
I don't do Twitter where I believe many of the examples of the abuse, accusations and threats against the family of a missing child were made.
My annoyance at being linked with the compilation is because I had stated all of this before.
I have said several times that the rolling reporting of news is one I dislike and do not approve of.
Now my question again.
If a member of your family committed suicide and you felt that suicide was a direct result of rolling news where your family member was televised in an unpleasant way, would you take any action against the TV channel?
If the inquest verdict stated that the news channel was not at fault then no I wouldn’t as I would be very unlikely to win and ordinary people, without access to a fund, do not have the kind of money needed to launch such litigation.
Do you think the dossier should have been left for the police to deal with ?
-
Why?
Surely a gathering of evidence of the abuse, accusations and threats against the family of a missing child would be newsworthy.
Why not give an indication of such to the public?
Should the public not be made aware of such behaviour?
You do realise don’t you that if BL had been charged the publicity surrounding her could have jeopardised any trial ?
-
I do notice that none of you admit to being one of the collators of the dossier though Lace. Why not stand proud and say YES i was one of the people who sent the dossier to Sky News.
I agree twitter appears to be the worst for even making any sense to me. Perhaps it is because there isn't any moderation there but I do struggle to understand it even though I know how look through it a bit.
Why should anyone here be one of the collators?
Could be there is "sceptic" here who is actually a supporter but pretending to be a sceptic who could actually be one of the collators ?
-
Why should anyone here be one of the collators?
Could be there is "sceptic" here who is actually a supporter but pretending to be a sceptic who could actually be one of the collators ?
No too complicated for them to pull off IMO.
-
can you explain why it is not justifiable? There was nothing in the dossier as far as I know that the media couldn’t have discovered for themselves and whoever handed Sky the dossier didn’t force them to go with the story.
Handing something to the police can be described as a justified concern that the law is being broken. I can think of no justification for handing it to the media.
-
Why should anyone here be one of the collators?
Could be there is "sceptic" here who is actually a supporter but pretending to be a sceptic who could actually be one of the collators ?
What would be the point?
Its not as if us sceptics get together for a daily Team Brief to discuss tactics- or if they do, they don't include me @)(++(*
-
Handing something to the police can be described as a justified concern that the law is being broken. I can think of no justification for handing it to the media.
Vigilante mentaility
-
No too complicated for them to pull off IMO.
I would imagine you could watch without posting although I have seen some goading elsewhere that is aimed at making sure the target posts what the goader requires so they can save the post. I have seen that mentioned regarding at least one of Brenda Leyland's posts.
-
Which is perhaps how it should be.
Police have enough to do dealing with actual crime, without having to bother with upset feelings.
IMO
Some days you are the bug some days the windshield, that's life.
-
No too complicated for them to pull off IMO.
Who would even think up such a crazy idea? Apart from Erngarth, that is?
-
What would be the point?
Its not as if us sceptics get together for a daily Team Brief to discuss tactics- or if they do, they don't include me @)(++(*
There isn't a team,thank god for that.
Grouch Marks:“I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members.”
-
Who would even think up such a crazy idea? Apart from Erngarth, that is?
Good grief.
It was a jest.
Sheesh.
I think most posters were aware of that.
Apologies to you that you took my jest as a serious suggestion.
Never been called crazy before (&^&
-
Who would even think up such a crazy idea? Apart from Erngarth, that is?
What about Amaral's idea of the MI5 hiding Madeleine's body in a coffin lying in wake in the local church, and later having it cremated. That just about takes the cake IMO.
-
What about Amaral's idea of the MI5 hiding Madeleine's body in a coffin the local church, and later having it cremated. That just about takes the cake IMO.
Cite for his idea.
-
Good grief.
It was a jest.
Sheesh.
I think most posters were aware of that.
Apologies to you that you took my jest as a serious suggestion.
Never been called crazy before (&^&
We got you to confess at least.
-
Handing something to the police can be described as a justified concern that the law is being broken. I can think of no justification for handing it to the media.
Really? The media has been instrumental in bringing so many cases to justice that were previously ignored by the police.
-
Exposing troll was the right thing to do
I DO NOT buy into this idea that Twitter troll Brenda Leyland should have been ignored instead of exposed.
By CAMILLA TOMINEY
PUBLISHED: 09:31, Sun, Oct 12, 2014
There have been calls for Martin Brunt, the Sky News reporter who outed her, to be sacked after she was found dead in a hotel room two days later.
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Yes, Leyland was someone's mother, but so is Kate McCann, the woman she so mercilessly taunted online. Everyone on the receiving end of this kind of viral vomit is someone's daughter or someone's son. The solution is not for victims to simply grow a thicker skin.
Should Stella Creasy, the Labour MP who was threatened with rape for supporting a crusade to have women featured on the new £10 note, just have shrugged her shoulders and got on with it? Of course not.
Trolls like Leyland publish these online diatribes precisely because they have been able to get away with it for so long. Even Creasy said the police did not take the harassment seriously at first because it was happening online rather than in person. She was one of the lucky ones. Thanks in part to her high-profile position as a leading politician, her perpetrator, Peter Nunn, was jailed for 18 weeks last month.
However if the law cannot always bring these online offenders to However if the law cannot always bring these online offenders to justice then the task inevitably falls to journalists like Brunt. Some have criticised his decision to target Leyland because she did not actually threaten to kill the McCanns, unlike other trolls. But she did send thousands of hate tweets. Some days she would send more than 50 messages attacking the McCanns.
Had she hurled this abuse at the couple in the street, she would have been hauled off in handcuffs. Instead she continued to publish with impunity, safe from scrutiny at home in Burton Overy, just 15 miles from where the McCanns live in Leicestershire. Yes, these were the acts of an obsessed loner but "being an oddball" is not a defence to this sort of criminal behaviour.
Which brings us to Leyland's state of mind. As the inquest has not yet been carried out into her "non-suspicious" death, it would be wrong to pre-empt the coroner's verdict. But why has there been so much focus on Leyland's mental health and not the McCanns'? I cannot imagine they have been faring well psychologically since three-year-old Madeleine went missing in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz in 2007.
There is an old adage that you should not dish it out if you cannot take it back.
We are all responsible for what we say, and that includes on social networking sites. What goes online, stays online. These words do not just disappear into the ether once you press "post", they are preserved for eternity.
A "Sack Martin Brunt" Facebook page has been set up in Leyland's memory which has already attracted more than 1,000 likes. While I feel sympathy for anyone who has lost a loved one, what are her supporters trying to achieve? Brunt was not trolling Leyland. All he did was reveal her identity. I hope he exposes as many others as possible.
Speaking after she was confronted, Leyland admitted: "I regret what I've done". She might have lived a lie but at least she died with the dignity of finally being honest with herself. Her death will not be in vain if it finally makes trolls think twice before tweeting, serving as a reminder that they are only ever a mouse click away from being unmasked.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/camilla-tominey/521746/Camilla-Tominey-McCanns-trolls-wake-up-selfies-the-real-Prince-Phillip
-
Nice opinion piece Brietta, because that is all it is IMO.
-
Nice opinion piece Brietta, because that is all it is IMO.
Would you still have the same opinion if a Supporter had been the subject of Sky's 24hr trollathon & then committed suicide?
-
Would you still have the same opinion if a Supporter had been the subject of Sky's 24hr trollathon & then committed suicide?
What would they say if Kate McCann committed suicide?
-
Nice opinion piece Brietta, because that is all it is IMO.
another feel sorry for the mccans woe is them article imo
-
Nice opinion piece Brietta, because that is all it is IMO.
"Leyland was someone's mother, but so is Kate McCann, the woman she so mercilessly taunted online. Everyone on the receiving end of this kind of viral vomit is someone's daughter or someone's son."
Two facts there making a sound basis for an 'opinion piece' ... in my opinion.
-
Exposing troll was the right thing to do
I DO NOT buy into this idea that Twitter troll Brenda Leyland should have been ignored instead of exposed.
By CAMILLA TOMINEY
PUBLISHED: 09:31, Sun, Oct 12, 2014
There have been calls for Martin Brunt, the Sky News reporter who outed her, to be sacked after she was found dead in a hotel room two days later.
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Yes, Leyland was someone's mother, but so is Kate McCann, the woman she so mercilessly taunted online. Everyone on the receiving end of this kind of viral vomit is someone's daughter or someone's son. The solution is not for victims to simply grow a thicker skin.
Should Stella Creasy, the Labour MP who was threatened with rape for supporting a crusade to have women featured on the new £10 note, just have shrugged her shoulders and got on with it? Of course not.
Trolls like Leyland publish these online diatribes precisely because they have been able to get away with it for so long. Even Creasy said the police did not take the harassment seriously at first because it was happening online rather than in person. She was one of the lucky ones. Thanks in part to her high-profile position as a leading politician, her perpetrator, Peter Nunn, was jailed for 18 weeks last month.
However if the law cannot always bring these online offenders to However if the law cannot always bring these online offenders to justice then the task inevitably falls to journalists like Brunt. Some have criticised his decision to target Leyland because she did not actually threaten to kill the McCanns, unlike other trolls. But she did send thousands of hate tweets. Some days she would send more than 50 messages attacking the McCanns.
Had she hurled this abuse at the couple in the street, she would have been hauled off in handcuffs. Instead she continued to publish with impunity, safe from scrutiny at home in Burton Overy, just 15 miles from where the McCanns live in Leicestershire. Yes, these were the acts of an obsessed loner but "being an oddball" is not a defence to this sort of criminal behaviour.
Which brings us to Leyland's state of mind. As the inquest has not yet been carried out into her "non-suspicious" death, it would be wrong to pre-empt the coroner's verdict. But why has there been so much focus on Leyland's mental health and not the McCanns'? I cannot imagine they have been faring well psychologically since three-year-old Madeleine went missing in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz in 2007.
There is an old adage that you should not dish it out if you cannot take it back.
We are all responsible for what we say, and that includes on social networking sites. What goes online, stays online. These words do not just disappear into the ether once you press "post", they are preserved for eternity.
A "Sack Martin Brunt" Facebook page has been set up in Leyland's memory which has already attracted more than 1,000 likes. While I feel sympathy for anyone who has lost a loved one, what are her supporters trying to achieve? Brunt was not trolling Leyland. All he did was reveal her identity. I hope he exposes as many others as possible.
Speaking after she was confronted, Leyland admitted: "I regret what I've done". She might have lived a lie but at least she died with the dignity of finally being honest with herself. Her death will not be in vain if it finally makes trolls think twice before tweeting, serving as a reminder that they are only ever a mouse click away from being unmasked.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/camilla-tominey/521746/Camilla-Tominey-McCanns-trolls-wake-up-selfies-the-real-Prince-Phillip
Camilla Tominey is no better than Brunt or the Sky News producer for that matter who sanctioned the door stepping. Brunt disappeared for weeks after the incident and was lucky he kept his job imo. It was Brunt and Sky News' job to report the news, not create it.
-
"Leyland was someone's mother, but so is Kate McCann, the woman she so mercilessly taunted online. Everyone on the receiving end of this kind of viral vomit is someone's daughter or someone's son."
Two facts there making a sound basis for an 'opinion piece' ... in my opinion.
Do you condone trial by media then ? Or only when it happens to the McCanns ?
Where you horrified when Sonia Paulton doorstepped Kate McCann ?
-
Nice opinion piece Brietta, because that is all it is IMO.
"Trolls like Leyland publish these online diatribes precisely because they have been able to get away with it for so long. Even Creasy said the police did not take the harassment seriously at first because it was happening online rather than in person. She was one of the lucky ones. Thanks in part to her high-profile position as a leading politician, her perpetrator, Peter Nunn, was jailed for 18 weeks last month."
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/camilla-tominey/521746/Camilla-Tominey-McCanns-trolls-wake-up-selfies-the-real-Prince-Phillip
As far as I am aware the practice of internet trolling carries on apace, which would appear to back up the opinion that the lack of zero tolerance makes it a reasonably safe, if cowardly, thing to do.
An opinion backed up by Stella Creasy who says that because it wasn't in her face but was happening online, the abuse she complained of wasn't taken seriously by the police.
She however was in the fortunate position of being able to do something about that ... raising the question of does one require to be a politician to be entitled to avail oneself of recourse to the law?
Shades of a dossier detailing instances of the internet being used for abuse being presented to the police, methinks.
-
"Trolls like Leyland publish these online diatribes precisely because they have been able to get away with it for so long. Even Creasy said the police did not take the harassment seriously at first because it was happening online rather than in person. She was one of the lucky ones. Thanks in part to her high-profile position as a leading politician, her perpetrator, Peter Nunn, was jailed for 18 weeks last month."
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/camilla-tominey/521746/Camilla-Tominey-McCanns-trolls-wake-up-selfies-the-real-Prince-Phillip
As far as I am aware the practice of internet trolling carries on apace, which would appear to back up the opinion that the lack of zero tolerance makes it a reasonably safe, if cowardly, thing to do.
An opinion backed up by Stella Creasy who says that because it wasn't in her face but was happening online, the abuse she complained of wasn't taken seriously by the police.
She however was in the fortunate position of being able to do something about that ... raising the question of does one require to be a politician to be entitled to avail oneself of recourse to the law?
Shades of a dossier detailing instances of the internet being used for abuse being presented to the police, methinks.
Was the individual who threatened Stella Creasy doorstepped or was he allowed every UK citizens right to due process ?
Unfortunately if BL has been charged Sky would have prejudiced her trial so thoroughly it could certainly be argued that she would not have had a fair trial.
-
Do you condone trial by media then ? Or only when it happens to the McCanns ?
Where you horrified when Sonia Paulton doorstepped Kate McCann ?
The thread title is ""Start by Asking Yourself What is a Supporter and Work on from There” ".
One would have assumed that you would have been au fait with that and anxious to push your case since you raised it.
Was Brenda Leyland a supporter? I think not ... so why is this poor troubled woman being used and shamed in death as she was in life to continue what in my opinion is a very sick agenda of abuse?
-
Was the individual who threatened Stella Creasy doorstepped or was he allowed every UK citizens right to due process ?
Unfortunately if BL has been charged Sky would have prejudiced her trial so thoroughly it could certainly be argued that she would not have had a fair trial.
Stella Creasey's abuser was charged with an offence ... was tried ... and was subsequently convicted and given a prison sentence for his use of the internet to abuse her.
What steps have been taken by the police to curtail the internet abuse directed at the McCann family and any associated with them?
-
The thread title is ""Start by Asking Yourself What is a Supporter and Work on from There” ".
One would have assumed that you would have been au fait with that and anxious to push your case since you raised it.
Was Brenda Leyland a supporter? I think not ... so why is this poor troubled woman being used and shamed in death as she was in life to continue what in my opinion is a very sick agenda of abuse?
Didn’t you post this ?
"Leyland was someone's mother, but so is Kate McCann, the woman she so mercilessly taunted online. Everyone on the receiving end of this kind of viral vomit is someone's daughter or someone's son."
And you lecture me about this undoubtedly poor woman being used and shamed.
Once again do you believe that any U.K. citizen should be tried by the media or are we all entitled to due process ? ( deletion will suffice as an answer if you are too cowardly to answer properly....and yes the points will be worth it )
-
Didn’t you post this ?
"Leyland was someone's mother, but so is Kate McCann, the woman she so mercilessly taunted online. Everyone on the receiving end of this kind of viral vomit is someone's daughter or someone's son."
And you lecture me about this undoubtedly poor woman being used and shamed.
Once again do you believe that any U.K. citizen should be tried by the media or are we all entitled to due process ? ( deletion will suffice as an answer if you are too cowardly to answer properly....and yes the pints will be worth it )
Reference to Brenda Leyland made an appearance on page 2 #23 of this thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9996.msg481384#msg481384 and perhaps even before if comment a couple of posts above is anything to go by.
I entered the discussion http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9996.msg481695#msg481695 on page 10 #148
Please don't break forum rules in an attempt to goad me ... much better since you are the one who brought this thread into being ... to stick to the topic while sticking to forum etiquette when posting.
-
Would you still have the same opinion if a Supporter had been the subject of Sky's 24hr trollathon & then committed suicide?
Yes I would misty.
What happened to Brenda Leyland wasn't just a Sky "24hr trollathon" it was a two pronged attack with Martin Brunt tackling her outside her home (but not naming her) followed by the Daily Mail naming her and giving full information on her. Then most of the rest of the media (as they are wont to do) went ahead screaming TROLL at this elderly woman.
Both these outlets were given Brenda's name and details from those who created the dossier.
-
Really? The media has been instrumental in bringing so many cases to justice that were previously ignored by the police.
I'm talking about a group of people who took it upon themselves to ferret out other people's personal details because they said things online that the group didn't like. No crime was committed so there was no-one to 'bring to justice'.
Amendment added
It seems Brunt admitted to finding out who she was, so I was mistaken. It still doesn't make what any of them did justifiable in my opinion.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9996.msg481726#msg481726
-
I'm talking about a group of people who took it upon themselves to ferret out other people's personal details because they said things online that the group didn't like. No crime was committed so there was no-one to 'bring to justice'.
How do you know they ferreted out people’s personal details? I was under the impression the dossier was just a bunch of rather troubling posts and tweets off the internet by anonymous usernames..
-
How do you know they ferreted out people’s personal details? I was under the impression the dossier was just a bunch of rather troubling posts and tweets off the internet by anonymous usernames..
It seems Brunt admitted to finding out who she was, so I was mistaken. It still doesn't make what any of them did justifiable in my opinion.
-
It seems Brunt admitted to finding out who she was, so I was mistaken. It still doesn't make what any of them did justifiable in my opinion.
By them do you mean the people who spent their time posting hate, vitriol and intimidating posts about the family of a missing child?
Agreed, completely unjustifiable.IMO
-
It seems Brunt admitted to finding out who she was, so I was mistaken. It still doesn't make what any of them did justifiable in my opinion.
Why not? Why has sending your concerns about internet trolls to the media something to be frowned on?
-
Why not? Why has sending your concerns about internet trolls to the media something to be frowned on?
The term 'internet trolls' has been used to describe such a wide range of behaviour that it's meaningless in my opinion. If people think others are breaking the law we have a process to deal with it. The media isn't part of that process.
-
The term 'internet trolls' has been used to describe such a wide range of behaviour that it's meaningless in my opinion. If people think others are breaking the law we have a process to deal with it. The media isn't part of that process.
i personally have thought the mcann supporters were/are too personally involved with kate and gerrys welfare maddie is oftern forgotten as are the twins their welfare was not considered on that holiday IMHO
-
The term 'internet trolls' has been used to describe such a wide range of behaviour that it's meaningless in my opinion. If people think others are breaking the law we have a process to deal with it. The media isn't part of that process.
As I pointed out before (which you ignored) the media has often been part of the process, not least the Times pursuing the issue of child sex grooming gangs for example. What laws should be instigated to protect people like Brenda Leyland? No response necessary, that is a rhetorical question.
-
The term 'internet trolls' has been used to describe such a wide range of behaviour that it's meaningless in my opinion. If people think others are breaking the law we have a process to deal with it. The media isn't part of that process.
So no free speech then?
No right to highlight the appalling behaviour of some trolls.
It was the media who outed Brenda and it was the media who made her the national news.
The media are often contacted when there is an issue which is causing concern.
Badly run hospitals, schools are often brought to the attention of the media by concerned individuals.
Only by highlighting the appalling behaviour of some on social media will any change be made to the completely ineffectual guidelines.
-
i personally have thought the mcann supporters were/are too personally involved with kate and gerrys welfare maddie is oftern forgotten as are the twins their welfare was not considered on that holiday IMHO
That old chestnut trotted out again. I'm not personally involved with the McCanns, never met them, don't know them, never been in contact.
I know you don't read my posts 8)><( but I'm just stating the above for the benefit of anyone else who has the same opinion as you.
-
I remember reading an article about a boy who posted that he was going to kill, he went on to kill, the people who read his posts wished they had alerted the police to what he was posting, but alas it was too late.
When a huge group of people on twitter start tweeting that they are going to kidnap the twins, or kidnap Kate and beat the truth out of them etc. How do we know there isn't a person among them who would go out and act on it?
-
I remember reading an article about a boy who posted that he was going to kill, he went on to kill, the people who read his posts wished they had alerted the police to what he was posting, but alas it was too late.
When a huge group of people on twitter start tweeting that they are going to kidnap the twins, or kidnap Kate and beat the truth out of them etc. How do we know there isn't a person among them who would go out and act on it?
Indeed Lace.
Some seem to be excusing the nasty posts made against the family of a missing child.as being of no consequence.
Perhaps some are unaware of just how unremitting and nasty some of these posts were.
You are correct in saying that there is always the danger that one of these threats could have been carried out.
-
Indeed Lace.
Some seem to be excusing the nasty posts made against the family of a missing child.as being of no consequence.
Perhaps some are unaware of just how unremitting and nasty some of these posts were.
You are correct in saying that there is always the danger that one of these threats could have been carried out.
How would you know how nasty they were?
-
How would you know how nasty they were?
I believe a selection of said posts were posted on this forum quite some time ago.
Once read, never forgotten!
-
I believe a selection of said posts were posted on this forum quite some time ago.
Once read, never forgotten!
How do you know they weren't made up by an agent provocateur to stir up feelings ?
-
Perhaps someone should compile a dossier listing all the critical comments aimed at Martin Grime on the internet and hand that to Brunt.
-
How do you know they weren't made up by an agent provocateur to stir up feelings ?
For heaven's sake.
You really are into conspiracies.
-
For heaven's sake.
You really are into conspiracies.
Not at all. Only last night you were suggesting that a supporter might be posing as a sceptic - or was it the other way round ? Whatever, it was you that put it in my mind.
-
Perhaps someone should compile a dossier listing all the critical comments aimed at Martin Grime on the internet and hand that to Brunt.
That is debate, there are no end of critical comments aimed at the McCann's, the nannies and the witnesses.
The comments on twitter were not debate they were threats.
-
The term 'internet trolls' has been used to describe such a wide range of behaviour that it's meaningless in my opinion. If people think others are breaking the law we have a process to deal with it. The media isn't part of that process.
Part of the process in my opinion is reporting concerns to the police in the first instance: as Stella Creasy found out, unless one happens to be a member of parliament there can be a certain difficulty in getting the police to treat the internet crime of abuse seriously.
-
Perhaps someone should compile a dossier listing all the critical comments aimed at Martin Grime on the internet and hand that to Brunt.
This is a free country with a free press so you are absolutely entitled to do that. Whether or not Martin Brunt would find that a particularly interesting news story to run on Sky is quite another matter. Why not give it a go though?
-
This is a free country with a free press so you are absolutely entitled to do that. Whether or not Martin Brunt would find that a particularly interesting news story to run on Sky is quite another matter. Why not give it a go though?
You've just probably summed sky and its worth up,possibly inadvertently though.
-
Not at all. Only last night you were suggesting that a supporter might be posing as a sceptic - or was it the other way round ? Whatever, it was you that put it in my mind.
Some posters tend to give the impression that when it comes to moral judgements they see themselves as the experts. In reality morals are relative, not objective. What offends one person doesn't necessarily offend everyone.
-
That is debate, there are no end of critical comments aimed at the McCann's, the nannies and the witnesses.
The comments on twitter were not debate they were threats.
Were they crimes?
-
You've just probably summed sky and its worth up,possibly inadvertently though.
Have I? Jolly good. I don't watch Sky and have no vested interest in it per se, apart from as it's part of the "mainstream media" I believe it should have the right to report honestly on whatever it likes.
-
Were they crimes?
Is it a crime to threaten? If they said it to the McCann's on the street would action have been taken?
I watched 999 what is your emergency, someone had been threatened on the street by a drunk, he threatened to slit their throats I believe, he was taken in to be questioned.
-
On one of the Madeleine Facebook forums Professor McCanns forthcoming lecture is being flagged up.
Venue, date and time.
Several askng if they can go along.
Comments being made include
"Can I bring a spotlight and thumbscrews."
"Can I bring a shovel."
And" I hope he has security"
Now I think this is nasty but accept some do not.
Just harmless social media posting.
I also believe there could be cause for concern and do indeed hope he has security.
-
On one of the Madeleine Facebook forums Professor McCanns forthcoming lecture is being flagged up.
Venue, date and time.
Several askng if they can go along.
Comments being made include
"Can I bring a spotlight and thumbscrews."
"Can I bring a shovel."
And" I hope he has security"
Now I think this is nasty but accept some do not.
Just harmless social media posting.
I also believe there could be cause for concern and do indeed hope he has security.
Well that's the problem isn't it Erngath, do they get security or not.
-
The tone of some of the previous comments (most now removed) was not conducive to friendly debate so be warned that I will come down hard on ANY member who continues to goad and argue.
The subject is...what is a supporter?
-
Reference to Brenda Leyland made an appearance on page 2 #23 of this thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9996.msg481384#msg481384 and perhaps even before if comment a couple of posts above is anything to go by.
I entered the discussion http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9996.msg481695#msg481695 on page 10 #148
Please don't break forum rules in an attempt to goad me ... much better since you are the one who brought this thread into being ... to stick to the topic while sticking to forum etiquette when posting.
Yet it was you who abused and shamed her first with your cut and paste Express article yet. Fortunately the flow of the thread is there for all to see.
-
Is it a crime to threaten? If they said it to the McCann's on the street would action have been taken?
I watched 999 what is your emergency, someone had been threatened on the street by a drunk, he threatened to slit their throats I believe, he was taken in to be questioned.
I don't know, is it? I expect a policeman would know and would explain if and why a threat on social media differs from a threat from a drunk in the street.
-
By them do you mean the people who spent their time posting hate, vitriol and intimidating posts about the family of a missing child?
Agreed, completely unjustifiable.IMO
But as a supporter with supporter psychie- you will do doubt condone the abuse of Sr Amaral- his family and children. and Kates wish to have him suffer. She didn't ask that the 'abductor- suspected paedophile gang' should suffer.. strange that.
"
Could be there is "sceptic" here who is actually a supporter but pretending to be a sceptic who could actually be one of the collators ?"
Seriously hilarious- As long as they paid their membership they are very welcome. ^*&&
You can join too.... 10 dolla mista -me lub- you loooooooong time
-
This is a free country with a free press so you are absolutely entitled to do that. Whether or not Martin Brunt would find that a particularly interesting news story to run on Sky is quite another matter. Why not give it a go though?
This is NOT a free country and we do not have a free press...
-
This is NOT a free country and we do not have a free press...
Oh yeah, I forgot, we’re living in North Korea, silly me.
-
But as a supporter with supporter psychie- you will do doubt condone the abuse of Sr Amaral- his family and children. and Kates wish to have him suffer. She didn't ask that the 'abductor- suspected paedophile gang' should suffer.. strange that.
"
Could be there is "sceptic" here who is actually a supporter but pretending to be a sceptic who could actually be one of the collators ?"
Seriously hilarious- As long as they paid their membership they are very welcome. ^*&&
You can join too.... 10 dolla mista -me lub- you loooooooong time
Very informative.
Thank you.
-
So no free speech then?
No right to highlight the appalling behaviour of some trolls.
It was the media who outed Brenda and it was the media who made her the national news.
The media are often contacted when there is an issue which is causing concern.
Badly run hospitals, schools are often brought to the attention of the media by concerned individuals.
Only by highlighting the appalling behaviour of some on social media will any change be made to the completely ineffectual guidelines.
Whose free speech do you mean?
-
Whose free speech do you mean?
The free speech of those who handed the dossier to Sky.
The rights of concerned individuals to share those concerns with whoever will take notice of their concerns.
-
The free speech of those who handed the dossier to Sky.
The rights of concerned individuals to share those concerns with whoever will take notice of their concerns.
So not Brenda Leyland’s free speech then.
-
So not Brenda Leyland’s free speech then.
She had the right of free speech and did exercise that right to an obsessive level. iMO
The subject of her obsession was the family of a missing child who she "hated" according to one of her tweets.
If her obsession and the posts and tweets of others caused alarm to an individual or individuals then they too had the right of free speech and the right to express their concern to anyone.
-
The thread title is "Start by Asking Yourself What is a Supporter and Work on from There”,go to the Brenda Leyland thread it become's self explanatory,imo of course.
-
So not Brenda Leyland’s free speech then.
There is an interesting rejoinder to that from an individual who joined a facebook page set up to excoriate Martin Brunt who commented as follows ...
""It may or may not be so that the McCanns choose not to read Twitter comments, but if I stand in the street and shout hateful comments about a person who is not there, does that make it acceptable?
It is desperately sad that this lady took her own life.
She certainly didn't deserve to die, but wake up people, all the reporter did was politely ask her (on one occasion) about the tweets she sent.
What she did next was entirely her own choice"
Guess what?
My comment was deleted and I have been blocked from the Facebook page.
Ironic that this group of people who thrives on the right to say what they want, however offensive, blocks anyone whose opinion isn't what they want to hear.I think that tells you everything you need to know.... "
Not for the first time I believe have the bastions ~ aka supporters ~ of ' free speech' taken pains to ensure it is applicable only if it applies to them and gone out of their way to censure opinion not in accord with their own.
These bastions or supporters do indeed have a really weird concept of free speech ... in my opinion.
-
There is an interesting rejoinder to that from an individual who joined a facebook page set up to excoriate Martin Brunt who commented as follows ...
""It may or may not be so that the McCanns choose not to read Twitter comments, but if I stand in the street and shout hateful comments about a person who is not there, does that make it acceptable?
It is desperately sad that this lady took her own life.
She certainly didn't deserve to die, but wake up people, all the reporter did was politely ask her (on one occasion) about the tweets she sent.
What she did next was entirely her own choice"
Guess what?
My comment was deleted and I have been blocked from the Facebook page.
Ironic that this group of people who thrives on the right to say what they want, however offensive, blocks anyone whose opinion isn't what they want to hear.I think that tells you everything you need to know.... "
Not for the first time I believe have the bastions ~ aka supporters ~ of ' free speech' taken pains to ensure it is applicable only if it applies to them and gone out of their way to censure opinion not in accord with their own.
These bastions or supporters do indeed have a really weird concept of free speech ... in my opinion.
There are some very familiar but less than desirable character traits referred to in there. IMO
Seen on here none too infrequently one might add IMO
*%87
-
There is an interesting rejoinder to that from an individual who joined a facebook page set up to excoriate Martin Brunt who commented as follows ...
""It may or may not be so that the McCanns choose not to read Twitter comments, but if I stand in the street and shout hateful comments about a person who is not there, does that make it acceptable?
It is desperately sad that this lady took her own life.
She certainly didn't deserve to die, but wake up people, all the reporter did was politely ask her (on one occasion) about the tweets she sent.
What she did next was entirely her own choice"
Guess what?
My comment was deleted and I have been blocked from the Facebook page.
Ironic that this group of people who thrives on the right to say what they want, however offensive, blocks anyone whose opinion isn't what they want to hear.I think that tells you everything you need to know.... "
Not for the first time I believe have the bastions ~ aka supporters ~ of ' free speech' taken pains to ensure it is applicable only if it applies to them and gone out of their way to censure opinion not in accord with their own.
These bastions or supporters do indeed have a really weird concept of free speech ... in my opinion.
I despise all this Uriah Heap wringing of their hands by supporters.
Before that VT was aired BL told MB that she had been thinking of committing suicide. Does anyone think it was right for Sky to still run it?
-
Martin Brunt knew BL was suicidal , he said so himself at her inquest. Why in all conscience did he then broadcast the doorsteping ?
-
I despise all this Uriah Heap wringing of their hands by supporters.
Before that VT was aired BL told MB that she had been thinking of committing suicide. Does anyone think it was right for Sky to still run it?
Uriah Heep, the Dickens character? Isn’t he known for his ingratiating manner and scyophancy? Which supporters do you believe exhibit these characteristics?
-
Martin Brunt knew BL was suicidal , he said so himself at her inquest. Why in all conscience did he then broadcast the doorsteping ?
Cite please.
-
Apparently one concerned McCann supporter wasn't content with'what the dossier compilers and Brunt had achieved. They felt the need to threaten too;
Today we can disclose some of the appalling comments sent to her. The first states: “Hoping you get beaten so bad you beg for mercy, only to have gasoline thrown on you and set ablaze.”
The next adds: “You have reached the end of your torturing campaign against the McCann family, understand.”
The third message is a direct threat against her life with the sadistic author stating: “Death is waiting and watching for u @sweepyface..Do you feel it????”
The next attack was so disgusting it is unsuitable for publication.
The last message states: “Sweepyface, we’re coming for you. Do you feel us?? The decent kind folk who pray for this family and their sad loss.You go to hell *****.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/169572/Mccann-troll-Brenda-Leyland-driven-to-suicide-after-twitter-death threats
-
Cite please.
The cite is the video posted earlier by Angelo.
-
Apparently one concerned McCann supporter wasn't content with'what the dossier compilers and Brunt had achieved. They felt the need to threaten too;
Today we can disclose some of the appalling comments sent to her. The first states: “Hoping you get beaten so bad you beg for mercy, only to have gasoline thrown on you and set ablaze.”
The next adds: “You have reached the end of your torturing campaign against the McCann family, understand.”
The third message is a direct threat against her life with the sadistic author stating: “Death is waiting and watching for u @sweepyface..Do you feel it????”
The next attack was so disgusting it is unsuitable for publication.
The last message states: “Sweepyface, we’re coming for you. Do you feel us?? The decent kind folk who pray for this family and their sad loss.You go to hell *****.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/169572/Mccann-troll-Brenda-Leyland-driven-to-suicide-after-twitter-death threats
All posted by one sick tweeter and if I recall these were the only tweets made from that account with no previous history of posting anything McCann related. A real troll. Should they have been investigated and charged? Had the Express tracked them down and exposed their RL identity would you have been disgusted by the paper’s actions? Rhetorical question, no answers demanded or expected.
-
All posted by one sick tweeter and if I recall these were the only tweets made from that account with no previous history of posting anything McCann related. A real troll. Should they have been investigated and charged? Had the Express tracked them down and exposed their RL identity would you have been disgusted by the paper’s actions? Rhetorical question, no answers demanded or expected.
I think they were all as bad as each other so for one lot to decide they were the goodies was hypocritical imo.
-
I think they were all as bad as each other so for one lot to decide they were the goodies was hypocritical imo.
Do you know who compiled the dossier? Do you have evidence of any social media activity by these people that are as bad as the material sent to the police / media? Please don’t feel obliged to reply.
-
It seems that the compiler is reluctant to publicly admit responsibility .
-
It seems that the compiler is reluctant to publicly admit responsibility .
Who can blame them, with all the ensuing baying for blood!
-
Who can blame them, with all the ensuing baying for blood!
Hyperbole alert. Hyperbole alert @)(++(*
-
Hyperbole alert. Hyperbole alert @)(++(*
It’s a turn of phrase, are you not aware of it?
“bay for blood. disapproving. If a group of people are baying for blood, they want someone to be hurt or punished: By now the crowd was baying for blood”.
-
It’s a turn of phrase, are you not aware of it?
“bay for blood. disapproving. If a group of people are baying for blood, they want someone to be hurt or punished: By now the crowd was baying for blood”.
Yeah, sure Alfie, whatever you say @)(++(*
-
Yeah, sure Alfie, whatever you say @)(++(*
wait VS is alfie? who would of thought &^^&* @)(++(*
-
Yeah, sure Alfie, whatever you say @)(++(*
Do you doubt what i’ve written? How odd.
-
All posted by one sick tweeter and if I recall these were the only tweets made from that account with no previous history of posting anything McCann related. A real troll. Should they have been investigated and charged? Had the Express tracked them down and exposed their RL identity would you have been disgusted by the paper’s actions? Rhetorical question, no answers demanded or expected.
So you were following Brenda Leyland's case closely then Vertigo Swirl. So what are your thoughts on her being a "troll". I imagine that is what hurt her the most as from what I can see she was a lovely caring woman who simply disbelieved the McCanns and felt that she needed to take to twitter to put her point across and perhaps discuss with other like minded people.
I think the use of the word "troll" was totally over the top when you consider Brenda Leyland's tweets yet the UK media descended on her like a pack of hyenas crying "troll, troll" for days on end.
What she posted was unpleasant and not complimentary to the McCanns but from what I remember most of her posts were targeted towards the McCann supporter tweeters in which she got involved with what appears to be slanging matches between her and the supporters.
Either way I don't believe she was or should have been called a troll.
Personally I don't consider Brenda a troll just someone who felt very strongly about the McCann case and wanted to put her point across, albeit in an unpleasant way at times.
As we know she didn't break any laws nor make any threats so I believe Martin Brunt and the dossier gang should all feel guilty for being part of the machine that drove her to take her own life.
ETA I see it appears that Vertigo Swirl DOES get about a bit.
-
It’s a turn of phrase, are you not aware of it?
“bay for blood. disapproving. If a group of people are baying for blood, they want someone to be hurt or punished: By now the crowd was baying for blood”.
Isn’t that exactly what the compilers hoped for ?
In a whole dossier full of cowardly actions, hiding behind MB’s skirts ( metaphorically speaking ) is the most cowardly of all.
-
Nice to see y’all mocking and attempting to goad me, well done, typical trollish behaviour... 8@??)(
-
Nice to see y’all mocking and attempting to goad me, well done, typical trollish behaviour... 8@??)(
Who is mocking and goading you ?
-
Nice to see y’all mocking and attempting to goad me, well done, typical trollish behaviour... 8@??)(
It works both ways Vertigo Swirl. You too have goaded other posters on here so can we say you have exhibited "typical trollish behaviour" too?
By the way were you Alfie? I have seen some posts by that poster.
I don't expect you to answer but it would be nice if you did.
-
It works both ways Vertigo Swirl. You too have goaded other posters on here so can we say you have exhibited "typical trollish behaviour" too?
By the way were you Alfie? I have seen some posts by that poster.
I don't expect you to answer but it would be nice if you did.
Alfie you say? Hmmm...name rings a bell, a bit before my time however... ?>)()<
-
Alfie you say? Hmmm...name rings a bell, a bit before my time however... ?>)()<
Very cool Vertigo Swirl 8**8:/:
-
It’s a turn of phrase, are you not aware of it?
“bay for blood. disapproving. If a group of people are baying for blood, they want someone to be hurt or punished: By now the crowd was baying for blood”.
Like the dossier compilers you mean?
-
wait VS is alfie? who would of thought &^^&* @)(++(*
Stalking Faithlilly the minute he walked through the door was a bit of a giveawy.
Good job he came in disguise otherwise we would never have known... *%87
-
It’s a turn of phrase, are you not aware of it?
“bay for blood. disapproving. If a group of people are baying for blood, they want someone to be hurt or punished: By now the crowd was baying for blood”.
I suppose the bolded bit is a bit like the dossier compilers wanted for Brenda Leyland and others too it seems, IMO.
-
Like the dossier compilers you mean?
I don’t believe the dossier compilers targeted individuals per se, nor do I think they expected or coerced Sky to doorstep any individual. . I genuinely believe their motivation was concern for the safety of a family they felt were targets, with their home address readily available online, so I don’t believe they were “baying for blood”, no.
-
Stalking Faithlilly the minute he walked through the door was a bit of a giveawy.
Good job he came in disguise otherwise we would never have known... *%87
Are you married to Faithlilly? You seem very protective of her. What a gent!
-
I don’t believe the dossier compilers targeted individuals per se, nor do I think they expected or coerced Sky to doorstep any individual. . I genuinely believe their motivation was concern for the safety of a family they felt were targets, with their home address readily available online, so I don’t believe they were “baying for blood”, no.
They, or those with similar views, worked very hard to find those they disagreed with;
snips/
After the death of a woman who targeted the McCann family with online abuse, Channel 4 News finds a website that has assembled 27 dossiers on people it claims post “McCann hate”.
They are hosted on a Wikipedia-style site called “Mccann Hate Exposed”. It was removed from the web sometime in the past week.
A dossier about Leyland’s account “Sweepyface” was hosted on the Wiki site, but it is unclear if this is the same dossier that was handed to the police or the same information that was used by Sky News.
https://www.channel4.com/news/mccann-internet-troll-hunting-site-deleted-after-death
-
I don’t believe the dossier compilers targeted individuals per se, nor do I think they expected or coerced Sky to doorstep any individual. . I genuinely believe their motivation was concern for the safety of a family they felt were targets, with their home address readily available online, so I don’t believe they were “baying for blood”, no.
They clearly gave Sky and I believe the Daily Mail the details of the individuals they had tweets for though, they could have expected this to happen and as I have mentioned earlier I have seen congratulatory posts on a forum, wondering who would be next, when the rolling news footage of Brenda was shown on Sky news again and again and again.
Hasn't the McCanns address been online since Madeleine disappeared so what had happened in 2014 to make the dossier compilers pass this information over to Sky and it would appear, Summers and Swan too for their book.
I understand your concerns about the safety of the remaining children but I think this was a sledgehammer to crack a nut i.e total overkill
-
They, or those with similar views, worked very hard to find those they disagreed with;
snips/
After the death of a woman who targeted the McCann family with online abuse, Channel 4 News finds a website that has assembled 27 dossiers on people it claims post “McCann hate”.
They are hosted on a Wikipedia-style site called “Mccann Hate Exposed”. It was removed from the web sometime in the past week.
A dossier about Leyland’s account “Sweepyface” was hosted on the Wiki site, but it is unclear if this is the same dossier that was handed to the police or the same information that was used by Sky News.
https://www.channel4.com/news/mccann-internet-troll-hunting-site-deleted-after-death
My personal view about compiling dossiers on hateful trollish behaviour is that it is a complete waste of time though I can understand why some people might be concerned about it. I think hateful tweets and forums are appalling but the sheer volume of it directed not just at the McCanns but at just about everyone in the public eye means that there is nothing anyone can realistically do about it. It’s an unsavoury aspect of modern life and we all just have to “suck it up”. I’m fairly certain the McCanns learned this a long time ago, and it’s a shame the dossier compilers spent so much time and effort in such an (IMO) futile task, albeit with honourable intentions (also IMO).
-
They clearly gave Sky and I believe the Daily Mail the details of the individuals they had tweets for though, they could have expected this to happen and as I have mentioned earlier I have seen congratulatory posts on a forum, wondering who would be next, when the rolling news footage of Brenda was shown on Sky news again and again and again.
Hasn't the McCanns address been online since Madeleine disappeared so what had happened in 2014 to make the dossier compilers pass this information over to Sky and it would appear, Summers and Swan too for their book.
I understand your concerns about the safety of the remaining children but I think this was a sledgehammer to crack a nut i.e total overkill
Has the McCanns address been online since Madeleine disappeared? How would you, as a newcomer to this case, know that?
-
Has the McCanns address been online since Madeleine disappeared? How would you, as a newcomer to this case, know that?
I have seen the address in many places and some of them go back to probably 2008 I suppose, so I was wrong saying when Madeleine disappeared. They were very old posts anyway. If you want I can find them now and show you where it is online still but probably not a good idea.
-
I have seen the address in many places and some of them go back to probably 2008 I suppose, so I was wrong saying when Madeleine disappeared. They were very old posts anyway. If you want I can find them now and show you where it is online still but probably not a good idea.
Wow, you’ve been reading posts goimg as far back as 2008?! You must be exhausted! Well done on your commitment to the cause though, so much research in such a short space of time.
-
Wow, you’ve been reading posts goimg as far back as 2008?! You must be exhausted! Well done on your commitment to the cause though, so much research in such a short space of time.
It has been well over a year Vertigo Swirl remember. I have read an awful lot on many forums both sceptic and supporter forums. I was trying to get a handle on why she would post what she did and why others would compile a dossier and hurt this poor woman so much. I have even looked at twitter and news paper articles and videos on youtube too.
I did get my eyes opened though of course.
-
It has been well over a year Vertigo Swirl remember. I have read an awful lot on many forums both sceptic and supporter forums. I was trying to get a handle on why she would post what she did and why others would compile a dossier and hurt this poor woman so much. I have even looked at twitter and news paper articles and videos on youtube too.
I did get my eyes opened though of course.
Of course...
ETA Brenda Leyland died in 2015, did you only hear about her sad demise a year or so ago?
-
Of course...
ETA Brenda Leyland died in 2015, did you only hear about her sad demise a year or so ago?
Wow It only seems like yesterday since I was doing the ironing whilst watching the rolling news on her and feeling sorry for that lady. Then when she died I started looking into why it had happened.
I have moved house twice since then though so obviously my sense of time is somewhat awry.
No wonder I have had time to read up so much then. Sometimes it seems life passes in a blur.
-
They, or those with similar views, worked very hard to find those they disagreed with;
snips/
After the death of a woman who targeted the McCann family with online abuse, Channel 4 News finds a website that has assembled 27 dossiers on people it claims post “McCann hate”.
They are hosted on a Wikipedia-style site called “Mccann Hate Exposed”. It was removed from the web sometime in the past week.
A dossier about Leyland’s account “Sweepyface” was hosted on the Wiki site, but it is unclear if this is the same dossier that was handed to the police or the same information that was used by Sky News.
https://www.channel4.com/news/mccann-internet-troll-hunting-site-deleted-after-death
I thought I'd have a look at this site. I have to admire their work ethic. Listing people (with real names added if known) and their tweets or other comments. What I can't work out is their motive. Information or action?
-
I thought I'd have a look at this site. I have to admire their work ethic. Listing people (with real names added if known) and their tweets or other comments. What I can't work out is their motive. Information or action?
Do you have a link?
-
Do you have a link?
I found it on Wayback. Just type the name in;
https://web.archive.org/web/20180301000000*/http://mccannhateexposed.pbworks.com/
I think it may still exist, but hidden. It was picked up earlier this year. There is a link here too, but it seems to be sign in only these days.
https://www.stopthemyths.info/viewforum.php?f=143
There does seem to be a connection between the two sites;
It has come to our attention that the anti McCanns are quoting as fact, a Channel 4 article which suggests that the site they refer to as the "hate wiki" was "deleted" after Brenda Leylands death. In fact, it was made private on Thursday 2nd October, two days before her death - a conscious decision so that it didn’t distract from or compromise any police investigation. Additionally, comparison of the wiki with the Sky report about the dossier clearly determines that the wiki is NOT the dossier. Nor, as has been suggested, does the wiki contain information of a personal nature other than that which was already contained in the public profiles of the tweets and posts
themselves.
https://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=7538
What an unpleasant forum. Their main interest seems to lie in criticising and name-calling.
-
I found it on Wayback. Just type the name in;
https://web.archive.org/web/20180301000000*/http://mccannhateexposed.pbworks.com/
I think it may still exist, but hidden. It was picked up earlier this year. There is a link here too, but it seems to be sign in only these days.
https://www.stopthemyths.info/viewforum.php?f=143
There does seem to be a connection between the two sites;
It has come to our attention that the anti McCanns are quoting as fact, a Channel 4 article which suggests that the site they refer to as the "hate wiki" was "deleted" after Brenda Leylands death. In fact, it was made private on Thursday 2nd October, two days before her death - a conscious decision so that it didn’t distract from or compromise any police investigation. Additionally, comparison of the wiki with the Sky report about the dossier clearly determines that the wiki is NOT the dossier. Nor, as has been suggested, does the wiki contain information of a personal nature other than that which was already contained in the public profiles of the tweets and posts
themselves.
https://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=7538
What an unpleasant forum. Their main interest seems to lie in criticising and name-calling.
My goodness!
Such hypocrisy.
Am I mistaken?
Are you a member of that ghastly site The complete mystery of .....??
-
I found it on Wayback. Just type the name in;
https://web.archive.org/web/20180301000000*/http://mccannhateexposed.pbworks.com/
I think it may still exist, but hidden. It was picked up earlier this year. There is a link here too, but it seems to be sign in only these days.
https://www.stopthemyths.info/viewforum.php?f=143
There does seem to be a connection between the two sites;
It has come to our attention that the anti McCanns are quoting as fact, a Channel 4 article which suggests that the site they refer to as the "hate wiki" was "deleted" after Brenda Leylands death. In fact, it was made private on Thursday 2nd October, two days before her death - a conscious decision so that it didn’t distract from or compromise any police investigation. Additionally, comparison of the wiki with the Sky report about the dossier clearly determines that the wiki is NOT the dossier. Nor, as has been suggested, does the wiki contain information of a personal nature other than that which was already contained in the public profiles of the tweets and posts
themselves.
https://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=7538
What an unpleasant forum. Their main interest seems to lie in criticising and name-calling.
I entirely agree, kindergarten level. I landed up there once (followed a link) - never again.
-
My goodness!
Such hypocrisy.
Am I mistaken?
Are you a member of that ghastly site The complete mystery of .....??
Are you calling me a hypocrite?
-
Are you calling me a hypocrite?
It's not against forum rules
Faithlilly called me such last night.
That ghastly site where they have taken a sweet photo of an innocent little girl and renamed it the "Lolitta" photo.
That ghastly site where they show sympathy for a known paedophile, because his name was linked at one time to Madeleine's disappearance
That ghastly site where they routinely accuse named people of being paedofiles.
If you are a member there, then yes you are a hypocrite to decry any other forum.
If you are not amember of that forum, then you are not a hypocrite and I will apologize.
-
It's not against forum rules
Faithlilly called me such last night.
That ghastly site where they have taken a sweet photo of an innocent little girl and renamed it the "Lolitta" photo.
That ghastly site where they show sympathy for a known paedophile, because his name was linked at one time to Madeleine's disappearance
That ghastly site where they routinely accuse named people of being paedofiles.
If you are a member there, then yes you are a hypocrite to decry any other forum.
If you are not amember of that forum, then you are not a hypocrite and I will apologize.
I saw the posts accusing people of being paedophiles, shocking and very disturbing, disgusting site.
-
My goodness!
Such hypocrisy.
Am I mistaken?
Are you a member of that ghastly site The complete mystery of .....??
I take it you’re a member ?
-
I saw the posts accusing people of being paedophiles, shocking and very disturbing, disgusting site.
Yet one of the Stopthemyths members was a paedophile.
-
Yet one of the Stopthemyths members was a paedophile.
That needs a cite.
-
I take it you’re a member ?
I believe you know that I am.
-
It's not against forum rules
Faithlilly called me such last night.
That ghastly site where they have taken a sweet photo of an innocent little girl and renamed it the "Lolitta" photo.
That ghastly site where they show sympathy for a known paedophile, because his name was linked at one time to Madeleine's disappearance
That ghastly site where they routinely accuse named people of being paedofiles.
If you are a member there, then yes you are a hypocrite to decry any other forum.
If you are not amember of that forum, then you are not a hypocrite and I apologize.
How interesting. You seem to be saying if a person is member of a forum they are responsible for and in agreement with everything posted on that forum. Guilty by association in other words.
-
Yet one of the Stopthemyths members was a paedophile.
Explain the relevance of that in regard to my original post.
Naming and shaming a convicted paedophile is not the same as accusing innocent named people as paedophiles without any evidence.
If you feel the need to name the former member who was convicted , then I have no objection.
Do you approve of naming and shaming innocent people as paedophiles?
-
How interesting. You seem to be saying if a person is member of a forum they are responsible for and in agreement with everything posted on that forum. Guilty by association in other words.
No but they are hypocritical to name another forum in a disparaging way while belonging to a revolting forum IMO
Do you agree that much on your other forum is disgusting and libellous
Or do you approve of innocent people being named as paedophiles.
-
Explain the relevance of that in regard to my original post.
Naming and shaming a convicted paedophile is not the same as accusing innocent named people as paedophiles without any evidence.
If you feel the need to name the former member who was convicted , then I have no objection.
Do you approve of naming and shaming innocent people as paedophiles?
I was just noting the irony.
I’m sure a year ago you’d have been up in arms if anyone had as much as suggested that Nessling was a paedophile.
-
No but they are hypocritical to name another forum in a disparaging way while belonging to a revolting forum IMO
Do you agree that much on your other forum is disgusting and libellous
Or do you approve of innocent people being named as paedophiles.
You can say exactly the same about stopthemyths members. They refer to this forum in a disparaging way while belonging to a revolting forum imo.
-
I was just noting the irony.
I’m sure a year ago you’d have been up in arms if anyone had as much as suggested that Nessling was a paedophile.
You are expert at avoiding answering questions.
Full marks for yet again doing so.
Do you approve of innocent named people being named and labelled as paedophiles?
-
I was just noting the irony.
I’m sure a year ago you’d have been up in arms if anyone had as much as suggested that Nessling was a paedophile.
The determination to stop him being discussed on here was palpable. When the discussion was allowed, there were desperate attempts to excuse/explain his behaviour and to have the discussion stopped.
-
You can say exactly the same about stopthemyths members. They refer to this forum in a disparaging way while belonging to a revolting forum imo.
Continued deflection.
Obviously you will not condemn the naming and libelling of innocent people as paedophiles, nor the dreadful description of a sweet named little girls photograph as the "Lollita" photograph.
I have no more to say on the subject.
-
You are expert at avoiding answering questions.
Full marks for yet again doing so.
Do you approve of innocent named people being named and labelled as paedophiles?
Of course not but I’ve seen both sides do it.
I seem to recall sceptics being called paedophile supporters just for pointing out that Hewlett could not have had any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.
On the whole most of the discourse on this case is so immature, especially in the partisan groups, that it’s no wonder individuals don’t want to be identified.
-
Yet one of the Stopthemyths members was a paedophile.
Please provide a cite for this allegation. This is my second request.
-
The determination to stop him being discussed on here was palpable. When the discussion was allowed, there were desperate attempts to excuse/explain his behaviour and to have the discussion stopped.
I think the "desperation" as you call it was out of respect for his family who must have been suffering terribly.
There were no excuses made for his behaviour.
I suppose all deviant behaviour has to have some form of explanation.
Feel free to discuss him all you want.
-
Faithlilly your posts will be moderated if you continue to ignore the request for the citation.
-
I think the "desperation" as you call it was out of respect for his family who must have been suffering terribly.
There were no excuses made for his behaviour.
I suppose all deviant behaviour has to have some form of explanation.
Feel free to discuss him all you want.
Respect seems to work in only one direction in my opinion. Everyone must respect the suffering of the McCanns and the Nesslings, but not the suffering of the families of those who have dared to express opinions which differ from those of the supporters.
Amaral, Grime, O'Doherty, O'Dowd, Sutton, Bennett, Havern, Leyland....to name but a few who 'deserve' to be discussed and criticised.
If you're interested in hypocracy, there's a lot of it about imo.
-
Respect seems to work in only one direction in my opinion. Everyone must respect the suffering of the McCanns and the Nesslings, but not the suffering of the families of those who have dared to express opinions which differ from those of the supporters.
Amaral, Grime, O'Doherty, O'Dowd, Sutton, Bennett, Havern, Leyland....to name but a few who 'deserve' to be discussed and criticised.
If you're interested in hypocracy, there's a lot of it about imo.
Still no condemnation of the points raised in my first post.
No more to be said!
-
Which post was that - there have been so many ?
-
Please provide a cite for this allegation. This is my second request.
The site deleted all his posts when he was convicted but Wayback shows he was there;
User avatar
Vee8
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:17 pm
Location: Suffolk
https://web.archive.org/web/20120507022617/http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com:80/topic2937.html
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich-man-avoids-prison-after-downloading-over-40-000-indecent-images-of-children-1-5283183
It's general knowledge that Nessling was Vee8. just google.
-
Still no condemnation of the points raised in my first post.
No more to be said!
Do you mean the unsubstantiated accusations made in your first post?
snip/
That ghastly site where they have taken a sweet photo of an innocent little girl and renamed it the "Lolitta" photo.
That ghastly site where they show sympathy for a known paedophile, because his name was linked at one time to Madeleine's disappearance
That ghastly site where they routinely accuse named people of being paedofiles.
Present your evidence and I will reply.
-
Do you mean the unsubstantiated accusations made in your first post?
snip/
That ghastly site where they have taken a sweet photo of an innocent little girl and renamed it the "Lolitta" photo.
That ghastly site where they show sympathy for a known paedophile, because his name was linked at one time to Madeleine's disappearance
That ghastly site where they routinely accuse named people of being paedofiles.
Present your evidence and I will reply.
How utterly ridiculous.
You are a member there go and have a look.
-
How utterly ridiculous.
You are a member there go and have a look.
I think we need a little more than " go and see for yourself" Hardly much of a cite.
-
I think we need a little more than " go and see for yourself" Hardly much of a cite.
We!! tough !
If you think for one moment that I will post a link to a photograph of a sweet little girl being labelled the Lollita photo, then think again.
I wouldn't bring trash like that to this form.
I don't believe John would appreciate a link being put on this forum which in my opinion is very libellous.
I don't care if you believe any of it or not.
-
Ah well, I'll just have to treat it as unsubstantiated hearsay.
Maybe Rob will have something to say - he seems red hot on cites.
-
Ah well, I'll just have to treat it as unsubstantiated hearsay.
Maybe Rob will have something to say - he seems red hot on cites.
Yes, just more rumours. Even if it's true it doesn't follow that every member past or present agrees with every word written on the forum. If that's so then it applies equally to members on stopthemyths where some very dodgy posts have been made.
I do hope Rob's desire for cites isn't becoming selective.
-
The site deleted all his posts when he was convicted but Wayback shows he was there;
User avatar
Vee8
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:17 pm
Location: Suffolk
https://web.archive.org/web/20120507022617/http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com:80/topic2937.html
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich-man-avoids-prison-after-downloading-over-40-000-indecent-images-of-children-1-5283183
It's general knowledge that Nessling was Vee8. just google.
Nessling, 59, now of Heron Close, Stowmarket, admitted three offences of making indecent images of children and possessing prohibited images of children.
Does that make him a paedophile? It sounds like it might be, but the crime was making and possessing prohibited images.
-
Nessling, 59, now of Heron Close, Stowmarket, admitted three offences of making indecent images of children and possessing prohibited images of children.
Does that make him a paedophile? It sounds like it might be, but the crime was making and possessing prohibited images.
What is a paedophile ?
There seems to be a wide range of behaviour that comes under that description, from kiddie-fiddling to collector of photographs. Public perception is very wide of the mark compared with legal definition.
-
Nessling, 59, now of Heron Close, Stowmarket, admitted three offences of making indecent images of children and possessing prohibited images of children.
Does that make him a paedophile? It sounds like it might be, but the crime was making and possessing prohibited images.
That's a relief then. It could have been something serious..... *%87
-
Yes, just more rumours. Even if it's true it doesn't follow that every member past or present agrees with every word written on the forum. If that's so then it applies equally to members on stopthemyths where some very dodgy posts have been made.
I do hope Rob's desire for cites isn't becoming selective.
Of course it's true or do you believe I have invented the thread where the photo of a little girl is labelled the Lollita photograph.
Or do you believe I have invented the thread labelling a named person a paedophile.
It is true.
I most assuredly assumed you would not agree with this filth but I did assume you would condemn them.
-
It's not unknown for people on here to make things up, or give them an exaggerated twist, which is why cites are required to give credence to statements.
-
It's not unknown for people on here to make things up, or give them an exaggerated twist, which is why cites are required to give credence to statements.
That may be something you would do but it's not the way I post.
-
That may be something you would do but it's not the way I post.
You are an anonymous poster on here whom I don't know from Adam, but by your own admission belong to at least one very unpleasant forum. How do I or other forum members know what you might be capable of?
-
You are an anonymous poster on here whom I don't know from Adam, but by your own admission belong to at least one very unpleasant forum. How do I or other forum members know what you might be capable of?
Equally all that applies to you.
If you can suspect me of all this skullduggery, then really there is no point in continuing this debate.
-
Equally all that applies to you.
If you can suspect me of all this skullduggery, then really there is no point in continuing this debate.
I don't suspect you of anything but I do expect to back up your claims with evidence.
-
I don't suspect you of anything but I do expect to back up your claims with evidence.
You suspect me of lying?
You think I would make up the existence of these posts or exaggerate them?
They are there on that forum for all to see.
I am not bringing them over here, so let it rest.
If you don't believe me, then fine that's the end of the debate.
ETA
I actually do trust members of this forum not to lie, or make up stories or exaggerate, until I have reason not to.
-
Of course it's true or do you believe I have invented the thread where the photo of a little girl is labelled the Lollita photograph.
Or do you believe I have invented the thread labelling a named person a paedophile.
It is true.
I most assuredly assumed you would not agree with this filth but I did assume you would condemn them.
Does every member of that forum who posted on those threads express the same opinions?
-
What is a paedophile ?
There seems to be a wide range of behaviour that comes under that description, from kiddie-fiddling to collector of photographs. Public perception is very wide of the mark compared with legal definition.
Someone sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, although, as you say, the label is applied to all sorts of other behaviours.
-
Please provide a cite for this allegation. This is my second request.
Rob, it is an accepted fact that Nigel Nessling aka vee8 was a convicted peadophile.
-
I don't suspect you of anything but I do expect to back up your claims with evidence.
I am confirming that there is such a forum as referred to by Erngath'
I confirm there is a thread there entitled McCann : Lolita Maddie - Image Taken By Photographer Paul Grover
I haven't bothered to investigate whether or not a named person is described as a paedophile for the simple reason I did not have to as it appears to have already been confirmed and the existence of such condoned on this forum.
-
I am confirming that there is such a forum as referred to by Erngath'
I confirm there is a thread there entitled McCann : Lolita Maddie - Image Taken By Photographer Paul Grover
I haven't bothered to investigate whether or not a named person is described as a paedophile for the simple reason I did not have to as it appears to have already been confirmed and the existence of such condoned on this forum.
Interesting that you felt it necessary to dig Erngath out of her hole. 8(>((
-
I am confirming that there is such a forum as referred to by Erngath'
I confirm there is a thread there entitled McCann : Lolita Maddie - Image Taken By Photographer Paul Grover
I haven't bothered to investigate whether or not a named person is described as a paedophile for the simple reason I did not have to as it appears to have already been confirmed and the existence of such condoned on this forum.
Condoned by whom? It's difficult to work out whether you mean factual or inferred so to save three pages or so of ping pong cover both pls.
-
Interesting that you felt it necessary to dig Erngath out of her hole. 8(>((
Actually Jassi ... in my opinion 'twas thee who was sailing very close to the wind as far as forum protocols are concerned ... so maybe you should develop an interest in watching out for that in future posts.
-
Condoned by whom? It's difficult to work out whether you mean factual or inferred so to save three pages or so of ping pong cover both pls.
I have absolutely no intention of ping ponging anything. If you have a serious post to make which is on topic fire ahead and I or whomsoever you are addressing may or may not deign to answer it ... please bear in mind that goading in any shape or form is unacceptable.
-
I have absolutely no intention of ping ponging anything. If you have a serious post to make which is on topic fire ahead and I or whomsoever you are addressing may or may not deign to answer it ... please bear in mind that goading in any shape or form is unacceptable.
OK then.
Condoned by whom?
-
Actually Jassi ... in my opinion 'twas thee who was sailing very close to the wind as far as forum protocols are concerned ... so maybe you should develop an interest in watching out for that in future posts.
In which case we would have had an appeal to the Star Chamber.
-
In which case we would have had an appeal to the Star Chamber.
It was a close run thing that such an event might have been forthcoming.
-
A current thread on Erngath's forum
Brietta on UK Injustice sums up everything perfectly ....
That shows exactly what they think of this forum. Perhaps Erngath or other members of both forums would care to comment.
-
I wasn't aware she had a forum.
Is there a link?
I do hope its not one of those pink ones - they really do my eyes no favours
-
A current thread on Erngath's forum
Brietta on UK Injustice sums up everything perfectly ....
That shows exactly what they think of this forum. Perhaps Erngath or other members of both forums would care to comment.
(&^&
First of all. It is not my forum.
Secondly I have not contributed to that thread.
Thirdly if you are trying to equate anything on that thread, which I have just read for the first time, in a desperate attempt to justify the appalling posts which I mentioned earlier, then major fail in my opinion.
Is anyone on that thread using a photograph of Madeleine and calling it a Lollita photograph?
Is anyone labelling a named person as a paedophile?
I think not!
-
A current thread on Erngath's forum
Brietta on UK Injustice sums up everything perfectly ....
That shows exactly what they think of this forum. Perhaps Erngath or other members of both forums would care to comment.
No, that shows exactly what ONE member of that forum thinks of this one, a member I believe who was banned from this forum, hence he might be harbouring a grievance?.
-
(&^&
First of all. It is not my forum.
Secondly I have not contributed to that thread.
Thirdly if you are trying to equate anything on that thread, which I have just read for the first time, in a desperate attempt to justify the appalling posts which I mentioned earlier, then major fail in my opinion.
Is anyone on that thread using a photograph of Madeleine and calling it a Lollita photograph?
Is anyone labelling a named person as a paedophile?
I think not!
Erngath I know it is not your forum but you are a member there and do post there. Yes I agree if what you say is true regarding the Lollita photograph and calling someone a paedophile then this is despicable. Luckily I haven't seen either of those.
I think I know the forum you are talking about there but I found it heavy reading and not easy to understand so I have read very little there except for a few compilation threads.
I wasn't asking if you had contributed to the thread it was just the title. Calling this forum "UK Injustice" i have seen this a few times. Do you have a comment on why they would call it this as I see several posters didn't point out the name of the forum was incorrect, and I have seen this forum given that name a few times on there?
That is why I posted my last post and asked the question that I did Erngath so do you have an answer?
Vertigo Swirl I guess you are a member there then as I asked for dual members to reply. So Ferryman=Honestbroker then. I had read it on another forum and they don't half sound the same.
-
A current thread on Erngath's forum
Brietta on UK Injustice sums up everything perfectly ....
That shows exactly what they think of this forum. Perhaps Erngath or other members of both forums would care to comment.
If you ever feel like you're being watched, you are.
-
If you ever feel like you're being watched, you are.
Sunny is doing lots of looking, watching and searching too. @)(++(*
-
Sunny is doing lots of looking, watching and searching too. @)(++(*
I have an interest in reading up all I can find. Some of it sticks in my brain other things don't.
Don't worry I won't be asking Martin Brunt to doorstep you Erngath.
-
That's a relief then. It could have been something serious..... *%87
Worse at least.
-
I have an interest in reading up all I can find. Some of it sticks in my brain other things don't.
Don't worry I won't be asking Martin Brunt to doorstep you Erngath.
I can't imagine why he would.
I've never been on twitter, never said I hate anyone.
-
Erngath I know it is not your forum but you are a member there and do post there. Yes I agree if what you say is true regarding the Lollita photograph and calling someone a paedophile then this is despicable. Luckily I haven't seen either of those.
I think I know the forum you are talking about there but I found it heavy reading and not easy to understand so I have read very little there except for a few compilation threads.
I wasn't asking if you had contributed to the thread it was just the title. Calling this forum "UK Injustice" i have seen this a few times. Do you have a comment on why they would call it this as I see several posters didn't point out the name of the forum was incorrect, and I have seen this forum given that name a few times on there?
That is why I posted my last post and asked the question that I did Erngath so do you have an answer?
Vertigo Swirl I guess you are a member there then as I asked for dual members to reply. So Ferryman=Honestbroker then. I had read it on another forum and they don't half sound the same.
Yes I am but very rarely post, go and see if you can spot me :-)
-
Yes I am but very rarely post, go and see if you can spot me :-)
No one springs to mind Vertigo Swirl possibly I have missed your few posts I don't read everything, everywhere.
This was the forum I liked the most whilst reading so this forum is the one I joined. In fact I almost felt like I knew some of the posters I had read so much here.
-
Erngath I know it is not your forum but you are a member there and do post there. Yes I agree if what you say is true regarding the Lollita photograph and calling someone a paedophile then this is despicable. Luckily I haven't seen either of those.
I think I know the forum you are talking about there but I found it heavy reading and not easy to understand so I have read very little there except for a few compilation threads.
I wasn't asking if you had contributed to the thread it was just the title. Calling this forum "UK Injustice" i have seen this a few times. Do you have a comment on why they would call it this as I see several posters didn't point out the name of the forum was incorrect, and I have seen this forum given that name a few times on there?
That is why I posted my last post and asked the question that I did Erngath so do you have an answer?
Vertigo Swirl I guess you are a member there then as I asked for dual members to reply. So Ferryman=Honestbroker then. I had read it on another forum and they don't half sound the same.
If someone's obsessively posting about Harrison, Grime and dogs it's highly likely to be ferryman aka honest broker.
-
If someone's obsessively posting about Harrison, Grime and dogs it's highly likely to be ferryman aka honest broker.
Should we be outing our members by defining them on other forums?
-
Should we be outing our members by defining them on other forums?
What would be the point. Unless you are compiling a dossier, who cares who anyone else is, on this or any other forum ?
-
What would be the point. Unless you are compiling a dossier, who cares who anyone else is, on this or any other forum ?
It could be interesting for many reasons, but I wonder if John is going to be happy, for next thing a poster on another forum criticises a member of the UK Justice forum over on another forum.
-
It could be interesting for many reasons, but I wonder if John is going to be happy, for next thing a poster on another forum criticises a member of the UK Justice forum over on another forum.
We've been through all this before to no avail. If someone uses a different user name on another forum, it is impossible to prove identity.
I have little doubt that I and other sceptics get slagged off on certain venomous pink sites, but so what, who cares ?
-
Should we be outing our members by defining them on other forums?
I was speaking of Ferryman, an ex member posting elsewhere. About a month ago someone mentioned Anne Guedes, another ex member posting elsewhere. Tony Bennett gets the occasional mention; he is a current member. here.
-
I was speaking of Ferryman, an ex member posting elsewhere. About a month ago someone mentioned Anne Guedes, another ex member posting elsewhere. Tony Bennett gets the occasional mention; he is a current member. here.
Tony Bennett is not hiding behind a non de plume. Ferryman was a member, why and when he left is anyone's guess. Did you check the members register?
-
Tony Bennett is not hiding behind a non de plume. Ferryman was a member, why and when he left is anyone's guess. Did you check the members register?
Please cease with the cross questioning. If you want to delete my post then do so.
-
Please cease with the cross questioning. If you want to delete my post then do so.
You seemed to have justified your post so why should I delete it. You delete it if you want.
-
You seemed to have justified your post so why should I delete it. You delete it if you want.
Justify indeed !
-
No, that shows exactly what ONE member of that forum thinks of this one, a member I believe who was banned from this forum, hence he might be harbouring a grievance?.
A poster who struggled with the concept of libel.
-
A poster who struggled with the concept of libel.
Some.here still.do.
IMO
-
Some.here still.do.
IMO
I know surprising isn’t it.
-
Some.here still.do.
IMO
Sorry.
Using my phone.
Please fix
-
I know surprising isn’t it.
But you don't seem too concerned about those who do.
-
Sorry.
Using my phone.
Please fix
Thank you.
-
But you don't seem too concerned about those who do.
Oh I am, some still struggle to understand what is and isn’t libel.
-
Oh I am, some still struggle to understand what is and isn’t libel.
I could send you a pm giving you some advice on the two posters who in my opinion are very close to libel.
Would that be of.any.help?
-
I could send you a pm giving you some advice on the two posters who in my opinion are very close to libel.
Would that be of.any.help?
Would I be right in guessing that your pm would have no supporter name included ?
-
Would I be right in guessing that your pm would have no supporter name included ?
Be aware of goading please.
-
Be aware of goading please.
It’s a question?
-
It’s a question?
Bordering on libel, bordering on goading, I think I was just letting everyone know they were bordering on goading.
Goading could be via questions, we had established that.
-
I could send you a pm giving you some advice on the two posters who in my opinion are very close to libel.
Would that be of.any.help?
Oh this looks interesting. very close isn't libel ? its like saying almost pregnant..Brenda didn't commit a crime but supporters could say close enough? lol
Oh why not just say it to the people in the open forum...
I smell a dossier being brewed ^*&&
-
Bordering on libel, bordering on goading, I think I was just letting everyone know they were bordering on goading.
Goading could be via questions, we had established that.
It isn’t goading or libel.
-
It isn’t goading or libel.
I agree. Is something bordering on libel, libellous?
-
Bordering on libel, bordering on goading, I think I was just letting everyone know they were bordering on goading.
Goading could be via questions, we had established that.
in that case you better have a word with VS.... or delete all his posts where he asks questions -demands replies.
-
I agree. Is something bordering on libel, libellous?
No.
-
Oh this looks interesting. very close isn't libel ? its like saying almost pregnant..Brenda didn't commit a crime but supporters could say close enough? lol
Oh why not just say it to the people in the open forum...
I smell a dossier being brewed ^*&&
When shall we three meet again?
-
When shall we three meet again?
One hair past a freckle.
-
I agree. Is something bordering on libel, libellous?
I would hazard a guess that you think libel is the piece of sticky paper you find on the front of jars Rob.
-
I would hazard a guess that you think libel is the piece of sticky paper you find on the front of jars Rob.
Pickle and jam jars in particular.
-
Would I be right in guessing that your pm would have no supporter name included ?
Correct.
-
I would hazard a guess that you think libel is the piece of sticky paper you find on the front of jars Rob.
In my opinion that could be a matter of pronunciation.
-
In my opinion that could be a matter of pronunciation.
Or spelling.
-
I would hazard a guess that you think libel is the piece of sticky paper you find on the front of jars Rob.
(&^&
-
Now there’s a surprise.
Just like the dossier compilers, you really don’t have the courage of your convictions, do you Erngath ? Everything’s done behind closed doors. For once have a backbone.
Oh we could be on that 'dossier;... I quite fancy I am one of the named. Most of my posts are very challenging , I always seem to upset supporters. Call it a gift! A lot of my posts are deleted due to not being nice to the McCanns. I just like to remind the readers that the McCann parents behaviour is to be discussed, freely without censorship!
This is what supporters are all about. They want to dictate what can and can't be said. THEY want to control the WWW... Oh hahahahahahaha. I think they have to settle for this forum...
-
Now there’s a surprise.
Just like the dossier compilers, you really don’t have the courage of your convictions, do you Erngath ? Everything’s done behind closed doors. For once have a backbone.
Nothing behind closed doors.
Quite happy to name the two posters who in my opinion post libel
Mistaken Identity and Kizzy.
I'm sure they and you and even the moderators will not agree but there you are.
Free Speech and all that jazz and all in my opinion.
-
Nothing behind closed doors.
Quite happy to name the two posters who in my opinion post libel
Mistaken Identity and Kizzy.
I'm sure they and you and even the moderators will not agree but there you are.
Free Speech and all that jazz and all in my opinion.
Here’s the thing Erngath. I’m sure you’ve never spent a day in law school. Libel is not simply saying something derogatory about the McCanns.
-
Here’s the thing Erngath. I’m sure you’ve never spent a day in law school. Libel is not simply saying something derogatory about the McCanns.
Their posts are more than derogatory .
-
Their posts are more than derogatory .
Again are you a trained lawyer ?
-
Again are you a trained lawyer ?
That's just such a silly question.
I haven't said their posts are libellous, just that in my opinion they are.
So if your opinion, and their opinion and the moderators don't share my opinion, then all is fine.
-
That's just such a silly question.
I haven't said their posts are libellous, just that in my opinion they are.
So if your opinion, and their opinion and the moderators don't share my opinion, then all is fine.
Great. Glad we sorted that out.
-
Great. Glad we sorted that out.
No problem.
-
Nothing behind closed doors.
Quite happy to name the two posters who in my opinion post libel
Mistaken Identity and Kizzy.
I'm sure they and you and even the moderators will not agree but there you are.
Free Speech and all that jazz and all in my opinion.
In my opinion opinions should be kept to a minimum.
-
In my opinion opinions should be kept to a minimum.
No free speech then?
Tut tut.
That should lessen the amount of malign opinions given about Madeleine's family.
Excellent.
-
In my opinion opinions should be kept to a minimum.
Saves on having to provide cites.
-
Saves on having to provide cites.
I thought opinions didn't need cites Rob only opinions dressed up as facts. 8(>((
Sorry about the emoticon but I have just spotted it and it is great.
-
I thought opinions didn't need cites Rob only opinions dressed up as facts. 8(>((
Sorry about the emoticon but I have just spotted it and it is great.
Presenting facts as opinion saves on having to provide cites. That was what I meant.
-
In my opinion opinions should be kept to a minimum.
Erngarth was goaded into sharing her opinion on this matter, in my opinion.
-
Erngarth was goaded into sharing her opinion on this matter, in my opinion.
If it comes to the point of having to analyse every post with a fine tooth comb, looking for "goading to share opinion" it might be time to give up.
Personally I like it when someone shares their opinion, as I get to know them, and how they think. So encouraging that is good IMO.
-
If it comes to the point of having to analyse every post with a fine tooth comb, looking for "goading to share opinion" it might be time to give up.
Personally I like it when someone shares their opinion, as I get to know them, and how they think. So encouraging that is good IMO.
Sharing and discussing opinions is the only thing forums have going for them IMO. Otherwise just conduct your “research” in private and keep your opinions and theories about the facts to yourself. IMO.
-
No free speech then?
Tut tut.
That should lessen the amount of malign opinions given about Madeleine's family.
Excellent.
That's the sort of opinion I mean, actually. It accuses other members of posting evil, critical and spiteful comments about the McCanns.
It doesn't identify those being referred to, however, so they are unable to reply.
As it stands an unspecified number of members stand accused of posting an unspecified number of 'malign opinions', but only in your opinion. Perhaps you would like to be more specific so that your opinion can be tested? Perhaps what is 'malign' in your opinion is not malign at all?
-
That's the sort of opinion I mean, actually. It accuses other members of posting evil, critical and spiteful comments about the McCanns.
It doesn't identify those being referred to, however, so they are unable to reply.
As it stands an unspecified number of members stand accused of posting an unspecified number of 'malign opinions', but only in your opinion. Perhaps you would like to be more specific so that your opinion can be tested? Perhaps what is 'malign' in your opinion is not malign at all?
Excellent idea. Perhaps we could compile a dossier of all the spiteful comments written on this forum directed at the McCanns and identify the authors by username? Luckily for those authors however most of the really nasty ones have been deleted by the moderators so probably wouldn’t really give a true reflection.
-
Excellent idea. Perhaps we could compile a dossier of all the spiteful comments written on this forum directed at the McCanns and identify the authors by username? Luckily for those authors however most of the really nasty ones have been deleted by the moderators so probably wouldn’t really give a true reflection.
On the other hand we could stop making unsupported accusations.
-
On the other hand we could stop making unsupported accusations.
Agreed.
-
That's the sort of opinion I mean, actually. It accuses other members of posting evil, critical and spiteful comments about the McCanns.
It doesn't identify those being referred to, however, so they are unable to reply.
As it stands an unspecified number of members stand accused of posting an unspecified number of 'malign opinions', but only in your opinion. Perhaps you would like to be more specific so that your opinion can be tested? Perhaps what is 'malign' in your opinion is not malign at all?
Did I say the malign comments were on this forum?
And whose criteria do I use to decide if in my opinion a comment is malign?
Perhaps what you consider not malign, is indeed malign.
-
Excellent idea. Perhaps we could compile a dossier of all the spiteful comments written on this forum directed at the McCanns and identify the authors by username? Luckily for those authors however most of the really nasty ones have been deleted by the moderators so probably wouldn’t really give a true reflection.
What would you hope to achieve by such an action ?
Desperation personified, but hey, if it makes you happy
-
On the other hand we could stop making unsupported accusations.
I hope that includes unsupported accusations against the family of a missing child?
-
Agreed.
Would we be permitted to support the accusation against sceptics showing their spiteful innuendo laden posts? I suspect not.
-
Did I say the malign comments were on this forum?
Are you saying you were accusing people elsewhere, not members of this forum?
-
Are you saying you were accusing people elsewhere, not members of this forum?
You said that in your opinion, opinions should be kept to a minimum.
No reference made to this forum.
My reply was to your post.
And if I feel a comment is malign, then that is my judgement, my opinion.
-
On the other hand we could stop making unsupported accusations.
What a novel idea.
-
Are you saying you were accusing people elsewhere, not members of this forum?
Let us start off the posting day with the intention to be polite to all other forum members and to desist from posting anything which could be considered goading and argumentative.
-
'Everything done behind closed doors' Faithlily says, an anonymous person from an anonymous location.
-
unsupported accusations I like that idea.
-
Would we be permitted to support the accusation against sceptics showing their spiteful innuendo laden posts? I suspect not.
Why post a question when you appear to have already decided what the answer is? If you think a post is libellous report it.
-
Let us start off the posting day with the intention to be polite to all other forum members and to desist from posting anything which could be considered goading and argumentative.
Are you suggesting that I'm goading or being argumentative by asking someone what they meant?
-
You said that in your opinion, opinions should be kept to a minimum.
No reference made to this forum.
My reply was to your post.
And if I feel a comment is malign, then that is my judgement, my opinion.
OK. In my opinion Amaral, Grime, O'Doherty, O'Dowd, Sutton, Poulton and many others have also been maligned.
-
Posters are reminded that this is a discussion forum with rules. Comments should be constructive and polite at all times. Goading, snide remarks and abuse will not be tolerated.
If the tone of comments in this thread does not improve it will be locked/removed.
-
What would you hope to achieve by such an action ?
Desperation personified, but hey, if it makes you happy
Oh fgs, it was tongue in cheek - if you read carefully you will see that the initial suggestion came from G-Unit, that we should seek out examples of malign opinion on the forum expressed towards the McCanns and post it to back up the assertion.
-
Are you suggesting that I'm goading or being argumentative by asking someone what they meant?
Good question ... and well worth you should perhaps give it some thought in conjunction with consideration of the following
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9996.msg482501#msg482501
-
Oh fgs, it was tongue in cheek - if you read carefully you will see that the initial suggestion came from G-Unit, that we should seek out examples of malign opinion on the forum expressed towards the McCanns and post it to back up the assertion.
I don't wish to be seen as goading or being argumentative, but I don't think I made any such suggestion.
-
Why post a question when you appear to have already decided what the answer is? If you think a post is libellous report it.
Have you heard of the concept of rhetorical questions? I didn't expect for one moment to get a reply, let alone a straight answer.
-
OK. In my opinion Amaral, Grime, O'Doherty, O'Dowd, Sutton, Poulton and many others have also been maligned.
Why are the Mccanns and members of their family and associates not on that list?
-
Good question ... and well worth you should perhaps give it some thought in conjunction with consideration of the following
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9996.msg482501#msg482501
Was John's post aimed exclusively at me, or is that just your opinion?
-
Was John's post aimed exclusively at me, or is that just your opinion?
It is being addressed.
-
Have you heard of the concept of rhetorical questions? I didn't expect for one moment to get a reply, let alone a straight answer.
You got a straight answer.
-
Why are the Mccanns and members of their family and associates not on that list?
I was replying to someone who had already mentioned them, but seemed to have overlooked others who have been treated similarly in my opinion.
-
Why are the Mccanns and members of their family and associates not on that list?
And the officers of Operation Grange and various politicians.
Put all the names in a list and it would be a very long lst
-
And the officers of Operation Grange and various politicians.
Put all the names in a list and it would be a very long lst
You know the names of the serving officers of OG ? Wow
-
Public figures expect criticism as part of the job.
-
You know the names of the serving officers of OG ? Wow
No, only the lead officers names
But the whole of operation Grange have been maligned.IMO
When it is suggested that they are covering up for the McCanns or turning a blind eye to evidence or not bringing evidence to the attention of their superiors, then in my opinion they are being maligned.
-
No, only the lead officers but the whole of operation Grange have been maligned.
When it is suggested that they are covering up for the McCanns or turning a blind eye to evidence or not bringing evidence to the attention of their superiors, then in my opinion they are being maligned.
The joys of democracy.
-
No, only the lead officers names
But the whole of operation Grange have been maligned.IMO
When it is suggested that they are covering up for the McCanns or turning a blind eye to evidence or not bringing evidence to the attention of their superiors, then in my opinion they are being maligned.
Like the whole of the PJ were maligned ?
-
Public figures expect criticism as part of the job.
Interesting. According to the Portuguese SC judges the McCanns were public figures.
-
Interesting. According to the Portuguese SC judges the McCanns were public figures.
criticism but not defamation...
-
criticism but not defamation...
No Portuguese judge has ever said they were defamed in my opinion. The McCanns were awarded damages initially because the judge believed that Amaral's freedom of speech was restricted due to his previous job. Had he not been an ex policeman she wouldn't have awarded those damages.
-
No Portuguese judge has ever said they were defamed in my opinion. The McCanns were awarded damages initially because the judge believed that Amaral's freedom of speech was restricted due to his previous job. Had he not been an ex policeman she wouldn't have awarded those damages.
The SC judgement discussed at length the right to reputation
-
The SC judgement discussed at length the right to reputation
...and the right to freedom of expression, so?
-
...and the right to freedom of expression, so?
And they ruled in favour of freedom of expression against the right to reputation... Defamation
-
And they ruled in favour of freedom of expression against the right to reputation... Defamation
To take this to a logical if silly conclusion, would you say that Fred West was defamed? The newspapers freedom of expression trumped his right to reputation.
-
To take this to a logical if silly conclusion, would you say that Fred West was defamed? The newspapers freedom of expression trumped his right to reputation.
Was there any evidence against Fred west
-
Like the whole of the PJ were maligned ?
No, only a couple who have been criticized.
Not the entire PJ.
To accuse serving officers of corruption is a very serious accusation.
Amaral has a conviction for perjury.
That is a fact.
-
No, only a couple who have been criticized.
Not the entire PJ.
To accuse serving officers of corruption is a very serious accusation.
Amaral has a conviction for perjury.
That is a fact.
To maliciously print information about a spent conviction with a view to damaging reputation can be seen as libellous.
-
To maliciously print information about a spent conviction with a view to damaging reputation can be seen as libellous.
So his conviction cannot be mentioned anywhere?
-
So his conviction cannot be mentioned anywhere?
Depends why you are doing it.
-
I don't wish to be seen as goading or being argumentative, but I don't think I made any such suggestion.
What were you suggesting here then?
"As it stands an unspecified number of members stand accused of posting an unspecified number of 'malign opinions', but only in your opinion. Perhaps you would like to be more specific so that your opinion can be tested?"
-
You got a straight answer.
Can we compile a list of malign opinions about the McCanns expressed on this forum with user names?
-
Can we compile a list of malign opinions about the McCanns expressed on this forum with user names?
I suggest you create a new thread.
-
I suggest you create a new thread.
Will it be approved?
-
What were you suggesting here then?
"As it stands an unspecified number of members stand accused of posting an unspecified number of 'malign opinions', but only in your opinion. Perhaps you would like to be more specific so that your opinion can be tested?"
Perhaps. The person I was posting to has since explained that they were not necessarily accusing other members here. Therefore there was no need, it seems, to quote any posts made by members here.
Speaking for myself if I see what I consider to be a 'malign' or accusatory post I challenge it at the time. That way the poster can reply. If I recall correctly I did this on the latest 'Grime' thread.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg477963#msg477963
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478543#msg478543
-
Perhaps. The person I was posting to has since explained that they were not necessarily accusing other members here. Therefore there was no need, it seems, to quote any posts made by members here.
Speaking for myself if I see what I consider to be a 'malign' or accusatory post I challenge it at the time. That way the poster can reply. If I recall correctly I did this on the latest 'Grime' thread.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg477963#msg477963
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg478543#msg478543
There was nothing malign in those posts in my opinion.
Malign -
speak about (someone) in a spitefully critical manner. where is the spite?
-
There was nothing malign in those posts in my opinion.
Malign -
speak about (someone) in a spitefully critical manner. where is the spite?
accusatory.
-
accusatory.
We were originally discussing malign postings about the McCanns were we not?
-
Interesting. According to the Portuguese SC judges the McCanns were public figures.
How convenient.
-
We were originally discussing malign postings about the McCanns were we not?
I suppose critical posts could be described as malign. In which case every critical post aimed at Grime is malign.
-
I suppose critical posts could be described as malign. In which case every critical post aimed at Grime is malign.
That is rubbish. Malign is spiteful criticism.
-
That is rubbish. Malign is spiteful criticism.
Only one of its meanings https://www.google.com/search?q=malign+meaning&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
-
That is rubbish. Malign is spiteful criticism.
In my opinion criticising a dog handler's knowledge and expertise without supporting knowledge or evidence could be seen as spiteful.
-
Only one of its meanings https://www.google.com/search?q=malign+meaning&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
"Malign
verb
1.
speak about (someone) in a spitefully critical manner.
"don't you dare malign her in my presence"
synonyms: defame, slander, libel, blacken someone's name/character, smear, run a smear campaign against, vilify, speak ill of, spread lies about, accuse falsely, cast aspersions on, run down, misrepresent, calumniate, traduce, denigrate, disparage, slur, derogate, abuse, revile;"
It is a powerful word.
-
Only one of its meanings https://www.google.com/search?q=malign+meaning&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
Is one of its meanings "criticism with no spite intended"?
-
In my opinion criticising a dog handler's knowledge and expertise without supporting knowledge or evidence could be seen as spiteful.
Supporting evidence was provided. Do you think the official report of Grime's actions as part of Operation Rectangle was malign?
-
Remember a dog alert does NOT provide evidence of motive, victim or suspect.
Missed the word NOT sorry.
-
Training a dog to alert to something is not difficult.... I have trained mine to alert to BS..... Careful what you post he's barking his head off, at the moment
That is rather droll. Presumably barking his head off at the BS you customarily type.
Jeez man I bet your neighbours are really happy with the racket when you sit down to type.
My dog's an engineer. Everytime I kick him up the backside he makes a bolt for the door.
-
That is rather droll. Presumably barking his head off at the BS you customarily type.
Jeez man I bet your neighbours are really happy with the racket when you sit down to type.
My dog's an engineer. Every time I kick him up the backside he makes a bolt for the door.
Very funny Alice @)(++(*
-
That is rather droll. Presumably barking his head off at the BS you customarily type.
Jeez man I bet your neighbours are really happy with the racket when you sit down to type.
My dog's an engineer. Everytime I kick him up the backside he makes a bolt for the door.
I know... You told us before... And before and before.. At least mine is original
-
I know... You told us before... And before and before.. At least mine is original
But yours was no where near as funny as Alice Purjorick's. 8(*(
-
But yours was no where near as funny as Alice Purjorick's. 8(*(
My dogs just barked again
-
My dogs just barked again
A false alert? *%87 ...maybe he's looking for his dinner?
-
My dog eats Bull Shite, and any other shite she can find, including her own. So we don't have much of a problem with it around here.
-
My dogs just barked again
Oh no lol - seems its everytime you post.
-
Oh no lol - seems its everytime you post.
My post was not a joke but a witty put down... So no surprise you didn't like it
-
My post was not a joke but a witty put down... So no surprise you didn't like it
IYO
-
IYO
I've enough sense to know sceptics would not like nor appreciate it
-
My dog eats Bull Shite, and any other shite she can find, including her own. So we don't have much of a problem with it around here.
aww is that because he can't see it .
-
My dogs just barked again
Stop typing then.
-
aww is that because he can't see it .
Dogs have a great sense of smell.
-
Stop typing then.
Ive tested my dog...anectdotally of course and hes a 100% reliable...not one bark during any of my psts
-
Dogs have a great sense of smell.
unfortunately they can on occasions eat there own...........**** ...so they cant be that clever
-
unfortunately they can on occasions eat there own...........**** ...so they cant be that clever
They do that to get vitamins and enzymes I've been told.
-
They do that to get vitamins and enzymes I've been told.
of course rob...you would understand why they do....
-
Ive tested my dog...anectdotally of course and hes a 100% reliable...not one bark during any of my psts
should that last word have an i OR an O in it? 8**8:/:They do that to get vitamins and enzymes I've been told.
So whats wrong with pedigree chum or holland and Barrat for vits and stuff?
-
of course rob...you would understand why they do....
Dogs particularly like calf poo when the calves are on milk. Back to the topic.
-
snip ...
So whats wrong with pedigree chum or holland and Barrat for vits and stuff?
Enzymes will only be in raw foods.
-
Dogs particularly like calf poo when the calves are on milk. Back to the topic.
cows being vegetarian thats a little different...Im quite happy to put cow poo on my pumpkins
-
cows being vegetarian thats a little different
Cows actually live off the bacterial byproducts rather than the grass.
-
Cows actually live off the bacterial byproducts rather than the grass.
all I can say is my pumpkins are massive
-
all I can say is my pumpkins are massive
YEAH Katie Price says the same thing....
What happened to the topic Rob?...lol
-
YEAH Katie Price says the same thing....
What happened to the topic Rob?...lol
You can't say anything wrong about Katie Price IMO.
-
You can't say anything wrong about Katie Price IMO.
Poor lady is now having to shop at Aldi. Hot off the press. This is 2 hours old, sorry it is off topic but made me laugh.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/22/katie-price-forced-to-shop-in-aldi-after-keiran-hayler-blew-their-dosh-in-ms-7873135/
-
Poor lady is now having to shop at Aldi. Hot off the press. This is 2 hours old, sorry it is off topic but made me laugh.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/22/katie-price-forced-to-shop-in-aldi-after-keiran-hayler-blew-their-dosh-in-ms-7873135/
aldi is fantastic
-
You can't say anything wrong about Katie Price IMO.
Why, Is she a supporter?... oh ah right... 8(0(*
-
aldi is fantastic
Saves me spending a fortune on callebaut chips when their value chocolate makes just as nice ganache.
-
Why, Is she a supporter?... oh ah right... 8(0(*
She is visiting NZ. "Katy Perry has added another high class act to her Witness Tour which is due in New Zealand soon.
Perry announced this week that German DJ, Zedd, will be joining her for her two Auckland shows on August 20 and 21." https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=12075186
-
She is visiting NZ.
lucky NZ. ^*&&.. say Hi to her massive pumpkins...if you get the chance.
-
They do that to get vitamins and enzymes I've been told.
That's one reason, but there are a few. Some well known dog foods don't provide everything a dog needs. In her later years (sadly she passed away a few months ago) my dog had chicken, rice or pasta and vegetables cooked daily by me. Her appetite and condition both improved.
-
That's one reason, but there are a few. Some well known dog foods don't provide everything a dog needs. In her later years (sadly she passed away a few months ago) my dog had chicken, rice or pasta and vegetables cooked daily by me. Her appetite and condition both improved.
I found my animals got fussier as they got older, they started to turn up their noses at food they had wolfed down when they were younger and as you say freshly cooked chicken always went down well with my oldies.
-
That's one reason, but there are a few. Some well known dog foods don't provide everything a dog needs. In her later years (sadly she passed away a few months ago) my dog had chicken, rice or pasta and vegetables cooked daily by me. Her appetite and condition both improved.
I'm not an expert at anything. I've tried making my own cat food and found how difficult it is to understand what it is what she likes.
When I try something she likes I keep on that line.
I don't know if calf poo is really beneficial but the way dogs seek it out one would think it was. How would townies get that? It could also be part of their maternal instinct, to clean up after their puppies.
-
I'm not an expert at anything. I've tried making my own cat food and found how difficult it is to understand what it is what she likes.
When I try something she likes I keep on that line.
I don't know if calf poo is really beneficial but the way dogs seek it out one would think it was. How would townies get that? It could also be part of their maternal instinct, to clean up after their puppies.
Our dog used to eat the trimmings from horse's hooves. Like a big pork scratching. I've no idea why. If it smells good they eat it, they don't have our inhibitions. I wouldn't eat my own sick, for example, although I have seen a rugby player eat someone else's.
-
Is anyone else wishing they hadn't read the last few posts? 8(8-))
-
Is anyone else wishing they hadn't read the last few posts? 8(8-))
@)(++(* You need a strong constitution to stomach this forum.
-
a supporter to me is someone who makes excuses for the mcanns actions on that holiday and to me a supporter is someone that cares more about kate and gerrys welfare then others including maddies
-
a supporter to me is someone who makes excuses for the mcanns actions on that holiday and a supporter is someone that cares more about kate and gerrys welfare then others if maddie had beena poor child froma poor background would supporters have cared about her and her parents as much as maddie IMO NO
There is so much terribly wrong with this post .
I find it quite insulting and extremely arrogant of you to decide that I wouldn't care if a poor child from a poor background went missing.
Such a dreadful accusation to make.
I know you don't read my post therefore you won't respond.
-
a supporter to me is someone who makes excuses for the mcanns actions on that holiday and to me a supporter is someone that cares more about kate and gerrys welfare then others including maddies
Indeed carly. The supporters not only do not want to discuss possible 'abductors' and what could have /may still be happening to MBM. As it reminds people of their callous behaviour, and infers they are complicit in her situation. AND we just cannot be having their reputation brought into disrepute.... well, it has been since that first day we learned they left the children alone... to wine and dine- and more so when we learned they left a door unlocked...
-
Is anyone else wishing they hadn't read the last few posts? 8(8-))
Small children have also been known to show an interest in their own excrement.
-
Small children have also been known to show an interest in their own excrement.
My niece found some play doh one morning in her cot.
-
Small children have also been known to show an interest in their own excrement.
I found that any suggestion of bowel habits usually sent an entire class into peels of laughter.
-
I found that any suggestion of bowel habits usually sent an entire class into peels of laughter.
I was referring to much younger children eating it, not older children emitting peals of laughter at the mention of it. Fart cushions were much loved by my grandsons.
-
I was referring to much younger children eating it, not older children emitting peals of laughter at the mention of it. Fart cushions were much loved by my grandsons.
I have never heard of that.
Will Google!
My children preferred my cooking @)(++(*
And without being sexist it was usually the boys in the class who laughed most and for the longest at any suggestion of farts or and /poo.
-
we are primates basically.
-
we are primates basically.
I think there's a tendency to forget we're animals too. I'm a great believer in letting children get dirty as I think it builds a strong immune system for example.
-
I think there's a tendency to forget we're animals too. I'm a great believer in letting children get dirty as I think it builds a strong immune system for example.
That is what they say. Last report was about the need for dirt in the first year of life. Primes the immune system. I could imagine a lot of mothers not trusting the science though.
-
I see this thread is nicely off topic again.
Perhaps a supporter could explain why they can find nothing that the McCanns have done that they disagree with (apart from leaving the children alone).
So far in my reading, everything that the McCanns have done including not having the twins checked out straight away, deleting calls selectively, and criticising the police from the very morning after Madeleine's disappearance is to be explained away.
So is there nothing that they have done post Madeleine's disappearance that any supporter would disagree with?
-
I see this thread is nicely off topic again.
Perhaps a supporter could explain why they can find nothing that the McCanns have done that they disagree with (apart from leaving the children alone).
So far in my reading, everything that the McCanns have done including not having the twins checked out straight away, deleting calls selectively, and criticising the police from the very morning after Madeleine's disappearance is to be explained away.
So is there nothing that they have done post Madeleine's disappearance that any supporter would disagree with?
No, because until you have walked in their shoes and experienced what they have experienced how can you really judge them to have behaved improperly or inappropriately? Even if they had both gone off the rails and turned to drink, drugs, infidelities, even if they’d decided to give up on Madeleine after a year or two and gone quiet never to be heard of again, IMO that would all be quite understandable and me slagging them off on the internet doesn’t help anybody IMO. . I think they receive more than enough criticism from sceptics without supporters joining in too!
-
No, because until you have walked in their shoes and experienced what they have experienced how can you really judge them to have behaved improperly or inappropriately? Even if they had both gone off the rails and turned to drink, drugs, infidelities, even if they’d decided to give up on Madeleine after a year or two and gone quiet never to be heard of again, IMO that would all be quite understandable and me slagging them off on the internet doesn’t help anybody IMO. . I think they receive more than enough criticism from sceptics without supporters joining in too!
Of course you may be correct but why do supporters always appear to barge in and try to make excuses for everything they do regardless, IMO.
That goes far further than criticising them, that is giving the impression that to supporters everything the McCanns do is right not simply that supporters don't want to criticise them, IMO.
-
No, because until you have walked in their shoes and experienced what they have experienced how can you really judge them to have behaved improperly or inappropriately? Even if they had both gone off the rails and turned to drink, drugs, infidelities, even if they’d decided to give up on Madeleine after a year or two and gone quiet never to be heard of again, IMO that would all be quite understandable and me slagging them off on the internet doesn’t help anybody IMO. . I think they receive more than enough criticism from sceptics without supporters joining in too!
I think that's very noble, but if you apply that to everyone you can't criticise anyone. What about Amaral's shoes? Those who refuse to judge or criticise the McCanns seem to have no problem with criticising him.
-
Of course you may be correct but why do supporters always appear to barge in and try to make excuses for everything they do regardless, IMO.
That goes far further than criticising them, that is giving the impression that to supporters everything the McCanns do is right not simply that supporters don't want to criticise them, IMO.
that simply is your...incorrect imo...perception of things...when supporters post a different point of view ...you see it as...supporters always appear to barge in and try to make excuses for everything they do regardless....that really is rubbish imo...supporters simply have a better understanding of the evidence..imo...its asimple as that
-
I think that's very noble, but if you apply that to everyone you can't criticise anyone. What about Amaral's shoes? Those who refuse to judge or criticise the McCanns seem to have no problem with criticising him.
I think it’s perfectly acceptable to criticise a public servant who has behaved improperly while in office, and who has used his privileged position to publicly cast aspersions on others, defaming them on a regular basis and IMO damaging their reputation and their search for their daughter. In any case, I don’t support Amaral, so that makes criticising him that much easier. 8(0(*
-
Of course you may be correct but why do supporters always appear to barge in and try to make excuses for everything they do regardless, IMO.
That goes far further than criticising them, that is giving the impression that to supporters everything the McCanns do is right not simply that supporters don't want to criticise them, IMO.
I’ll tell you why - it’s because on a forum like this it is not possible to have a nuanced debate. Neither side is prepared ever to accept that the other has a point, to give and take, to accept that things which cannot be readily explained don’t automatically imply guilt. The debate has become too polarised for that. All IMO.
-
I’ll tell you why - it’s because on a forum like this it is not possible to have a nuanced debate. Neither side is prepared ever to accept that the other has a point, to give and take, to accept that things which cannot be readily explained don’t automatically imply guilt. The debate has become too polarised for that. All IMO.
I disagree. I for one am quite happy to be enlightened by new facts from any quarter. The problem is that when things which can’t be readily explained are brought up someone will immediately explain them.
-
I think it’s perfectly acceptable to criticise a public servant who has behaved improperly while in office, and who has used his privileged position to publicly cast aspersions on others, defaming them on a regular basis and IMO damaging their reputation and their search for their daughter. In any case, I don’t support Amaral, so that makes criticising him that much easier. 8(0(*
You said;
snip/
"until you have walked in their shoes and experienced what they have experienced how can you really judge"
How can you say that when you have clearly judged both parties imo before bestowing your empathy on one and withholding it from the other?
-
I disagree. I for one am quite happy to be enlightened by new facts from any quarter. The problem is that when things which can’t be readily explained are brought up someone will immediately explain them.
Often by 'explaining' how people's situation and feelings affected their behaviour. That's not a factual explanation. it's invented by those who think they know something they can't possibly know in my opinion.
-
No, because until you have walked in their shoes and experienced what they have experienced how can you really judge them to have behaved improperly or inappropriately? Even if they had both gone off the rails and turned to drink, drugs, infidelities, even if they’d decided to give up on Madeleine after a year or two and gone quiet never to be heard of again, IMO that would all be quite understandable and me slagging them off on the internet doesn’t help anybody IMO. . I think they receive more than enough criticism from sceptics without supporters joining in too!
It shouldn't be about the mcns and how they feel - they brought that on themselves
It should be about whether they were involved in maddie's disappearance.
Some thing that maddie did not bring on herself.
-
I disagree. I for one am quite happy to be enlightened by new facts from any quarter. The problem is that when things which can’t be readily explained are brought up someone will immediately explain them.
Why is that a problem? IMO if this forum was moderated in such a way that ALL emotive, judging language and ad hom attacks were banned we might get somewhere, but as it is we are all too deeply entrenched and emotionally involved, not just in the case, but in the argument itself. We cannot seem to discus it entirely dispassionately or objectively IMO.
-
Why is that a problem? IMO if this forum was moderated in such a way that ALL emotive, judging language and ad hom attacks were banned we might get somewhere, but as it is we are all too deeply entrenched and emotionally involved, not just in the case, but in the argument itself. We cannot seem to discus it entirely dispassionately or objectively IMO.
Are you on the same forum as me? Crying foul seems to be a habit rather than a description of reality. The moderators are subject to rules too. It's certainly not to blame for a lack of objective debate. It's the lack of objectivity which is the cause of that in my opinion.
-
Are you on the same forum as me? Crying foul seems to be a habit rather than a description of reality. The moderators are subject to rules too. It's certainly not to blame for a lack of objective debate. It's the lack of objectivity which is the cause of that in my opinion.
I am on the same forum as you and I am allowed to express my opinion. I don’t quite understand what you mean by the above anyway. There are certain individuals who come along usually late in the evening and post in most disparaging, unobjective and troll like way which has the habit of destoying any reasonable debate that was being had. I mostly ignore them now anyway but surely you can see that if emotive, goading, judgemental emoticon-heavy posts were removed the quality of debate might improve overall and people may be more inclined to have a more nuanced discussion?
-
I am on the same forum as you and I am allowed to express my opinion. I don’t quite understand what you mean by the above anyway. There are certain individuals who come along usually late in the evening and post in most disparaging, unobjective and troll like way which has the habit of destoying any reasonable debate that was being had. I mostly ignore them now anyway but surely you can see that if emotive, goading, judgemental emoticon-heavy posts were removed the quality of debate might improve overall and people may be more inclined to have a more nuanced discussion?
I just wish sometimes that there was less complaining. Everything seems to be someone else's fault; the moderators, other members. I just take responsibility for what I post and ignore all those who wish to disrupt unless they attack me directly. Life isn't fair, people don't always agree and the only person you can control is yourself. I think my style is nuanced and you have asked me to be less subtle.
-
I just wish sometimes that there was less complaining. Everything seems to be someone else's fault; the moderators, other members. I just take responsibility for what I post and ignore all those who wish to disrupt unless they attack me directly. Life isn't fair, people don't always agree and the only person you can control is yourself. I think my style is nuanced and you have asked me to be less subtle.
Perhaps some of us have something to complain about... I made, a response to one of your posts... Both you and rob replied... All polite, and within the rules... But the posts, were deleted... Why do you think that was
-
Perhaps some of us have something to complain about... I made, a response to one of your posts... Both you and rob replied... All polite, and within the rules... But the posts, were deleted... Why do you think that was
Because it had degenerated into another vehicle for argument rather than a discussion about the case.
-
Perhaps some of us have something to complain about... I made, a response to one of your posts... Both you and rob replied... All polite, and within the rules... But the posts, were deleted... Why do you think that was
That;s the difference between us. I too noticed something I posted had disappeared, didn't know why, but accepted it and moved on.
-
That;s the difference between us. I too noticed something I posted had disappeared, didn't know why, but accepted it and moved on.
the diference is that your post was allowed to stand whilst my counter post has been removed....thats why you were able to move on...im not surprised you dont see the difference
-
In your opinion of course... I feel the use if the word invention to be wrong but you have allowed that description to stand and not allowed it to be countered... That is totally unfair.. Imo.. It's also offensive to suggest posters are inventing things
You were one of three who had posts deleted, but the only one who feels aggrieved.
Try phrasing your answer differently, bearing in mind that I was referring to posters claiming to know what others unknown to them were thinking at a certain point in time. How can they know that? Empathising doesn't include mind reading. does it?
-
I just wish sometimes that there was less complaining. Everything seems to be someone else's fault; the moderators, other members. I just take responsibility for what I post and ignore all those who wish to disrupt unless they attack me directly. Life isn't fair, people don't always agree and the only person you can control is yourself. I think my style is nuanced and you have asked me to be less subtle.
I don’t think I’ve expressed myself as clearly as I could. Do you ever concede that the other side may have a point, or do you feel that by doing so you would you lose too much face, or jeopardise your whole position? Would you ever admit to being wrong, or do you believe are you always right? Rhetorical questions, not specifically addressed to you. I believe none of us could easily concede that the other side has made a valid point and that many of us struggle to admit when the are wrong about something.
-
You were one of three who had posts deleted, but the only one who feels aggrieved.
Try phrasing your answer differently, bearing in mind that I was referring to posters claiming to know what others unknown to them were thinking at a certain point in time. How can they know that? Empathising doesn't include mind reading. does it?
I feel agreived because you were allowed to make your point and I wasnt
No it doesn't have to include mindreading... If someone has suffered a, tragedy it's not mind reading or invention to think that they might act in a certain way.. It's common sense based on reason... No invention
-
I don’t think I’ve expressed myself as clearly as I could. Do you ever concede that the other side may have a point, or do you feel that by doing so you would you lose too much face, or jeopardise your whole position? Would you ever admit to being wrong, or do you believe are you always right? Rhetorical questions, not specifically addressed to you. I believe none of us could easily concede that the other side has made a valid point and that many of us struggle to admit when the are wrong about something.
As a sceptic I can accept other opinions, possibilities and facts. As I don’t have a rigid theory on what happened whatever the final outcome is, it won’t disturb me greatly. This isn’t a religion so don’t expect me to swayed by other’s beliefs.
-
I feel agreived because you were allowed to make your point and I wasnt
No it doesn't have to include mindreading... If someone has suffered a, tragedy it's not mind reading or invention to think that they might act in a certain way.. It's common sense based on reason... No invention
If it is couched in the proper terms it isn’t a problem, it is a problem when it is stated as fact aka invented.
-
As a sceptic I can accept other opinions, possibilities and facts. As I don’t have a rigid theory on what happened whatever the final outcome is, it won’t disturb me greatly. This isn’t a religion so don’t expect me to swayed by other’s beliefs.
The fact that I have assessed the evidence and feel that abduction is the odds on favourite does not mean I will be at all disappointed if I'm proven wrong.. Whoever is guilty of a crime deserves to be punished... I'm more concerned with justice than simply being right
-
If it is couched in the proper terms it isn’t a problem, it is a problem when it is stated as fact aka invented.
...no...then it's opinion stated as fact... Not invented.. Imo
-
I don’t think I’ve expressed myself as clearly as I could. Do you ever concede that the other side may have a point, or do you feel that by doing so you would you lose too much face, or jeopardise your whole position? Would you ever admit to being wrong, or do you believe are you always right? Rhetorical questions, not specifically addressed to you. I believe none of us could easily concede that the other side has made a valid point and that many of us struggle to admit when the are wrong about something.
I made a factual mistake recently on the CSI thread and apologised. I've never been afraid of acknowledging my mistakes because 'face' isn't something I care about. It's not so easy to resolve when opinions or interpretations are being discussed, because they're not facts. That;s why I prefer to avoid them if I can.
-
I made a factual mistake recently on the CSI thread and apologised. I've never been afraid of acknowledging my mistakes because 'face' isn't something I care about. It's not so easy to resolve when opinions or interpretations are being discussed, because they're not facts. That;s why I prefer to avoid them if I can.
How can you possibly avoid opinions... Think Grime
If we avoid opinions there would be nothing to talk about
-
How can you possibly avoid opinions... Think Grime
If we avoid opinions there would be nothing to talk about
Ok...
Fact - there are discrepancies in the statements.
How would you counter that with facts?
-
Ok...
Fact - there are discrepancies in the statements.
How would you counter that with facts?
The fact that there are discrepancies in the statements is neither here nor there.... It's why there are discrepancies that's important.... Surely that is a fact
-
The fact that there are discrepancies in the statements is neither here nor there.... It's why there are discrepancies that's important.... Surely that is a fact
Unless you have evidence as to why there are discrepancies it is purely opinion.
-
Ok...
Fact - there are discrepancies in the statements.
How would you counter that with facts?
The discrepancies may have an innocent explanation... That's a fact
-
The discrepancies may have an innocent explanation... That's a fact
But there is no evidence of one.
-
But there is no evidence of one.
Who says so... That's your opinion.. SYmay well have such evidence... Another fact
-
But there is no evidence of one.
I gave you a factual counter... It is factual that the discrepancies may have an innocent explanation
-
I feel agreived because you were allowed to make your point and I wasnt
No it doesn't have to include mindreading... If someone has suffered a, tragedy it's not mind reading or invention to think that they might act in a certain way.. It's common sense based on reason... No invention
Common sense is used to describe universally agreed facts. 'If you put your hand in the fire you'll burn it' type of statement. Can it really be used in this context? 'If you experience this tragedy you'll react like this'. I don't agree. I think there are many possible reactions.
-
Common sense is used to describe universally agreed facts. 'If you put your hand in the fire you'll burn it' type of statement. Can it really be used in this context? 'If you experience this tragedy you'll react like this'. I don't agree. I think there are many possible reactions.
Everyone might react differently... The McCanns went jogging... Some say that's ridiculous... I say it's, a, stress coping strategy... Would you say that's an invention on my part ...because it isn't
-
Who says so... That's your opinion.. SYmay well have such evidence... Another fact
Ok, to be totally accurate, we have no evidence of any.
-
Ok, to be totally accurate, we have no evidence of any.
What investigations have WE done to look for evidence
-
Everyone might react differently... The McCanns went jogging... Some say that's ridiculous... I say it's, a, stress coping strategy... Would you say that's an invention on my part
Exercise is a stress coping strategy: I think we could accept as a fact.
The McCanns went jogging as a stress coping strategy: is an opinion based on the likelihood of them being stressed.
Because they had so nearly been able to thwart the abductor, the McCanns went jogging as a stress coping strategy: is an invention as we don’t know what was stressing them.
If people want to give opinions fine, just make sure they are clear it is an opinion.
-
What investigations have WE done to look for evidence
I haven’t done any for this particular point have you?
-
Exercise is a stress coping strategy: I think we could accept as a fact.
The McCanns went jogging as a stress coping strategy: is an opinion based on the likelihood of them being stressed.
Because they had so nearly been able to thwart the abductor, the McCanns went jogging as a stress coping strategy: is an invention as we don’t know what was stressing them.
If people want to give opinions fine, just make sure they are clear it is an opinion.
It's not an invention IMO... It's, a reasonable explanation
-
I haven’t done any for this particular point have you?
Then it's no surprise you have no evidence
-
Then it's no surprise you have no evidence
You don’t either.
-
Might be worth leaving it there and accepting that... Invention... Is an opinion.. Not a fact... the very thing gunit wishes to avoid
-
Might be worth leaving it there and accepting that... Invention... Is an opinion.. Not a fact... the very thing gunit wishes to avoid
Whatever you say.
-
Isn't much of behavioural analysis invention?
-
Isn't much of behavioural analysis invention?
Is it or is that just your opinion ? Perhaps a cite might help
-
Is it or is that just your opinion ? Perhaps a cite might help
I'm musing. Just thinking about how a certain expert in the field equates the mention of an opening door with previous child sexual abuse which is surely invention rather than opinion or fact. Totally off topic of why people choose to support the McCanns against such pseudo-science........
-
Everyone might react differently... The McCanns went jogging... Some say that's ridiculous... I say it's, a, stress coping strategy... Would you say that's an invention on my part ...because it isn't
Unless they said it it's your opinion. Kate said it was a kind of self-punishment;
I also felt a compulsion to run up to the top of the Rocha Negra. Somehow, inflicting physical pain on myself seemed to be the only possible way of escaping my internal pain......
My child had suffered and therefore so must I. [madeleine]
-
I made a factual mistake recently on the CSI thread and apologised. I've never been afraid of acknowledging my mistakes because 'face' isn't something I care about. It's not so easy to resolve when opinions or interpretations are being discussed, because they're not facts. That;s why I prefer to avoid them if I can.
You invite opinion and speculation by wondering about certain aspects of the case don’t you?
-
You invite opinion and speculation by wondering about certain aspects of the case don’t you?
Not too soon hopefully.
-
Ok...
Fact - there are discrepancies in the statements.
How would you counter that with facts?
It’s a fact that it is quite common for there to be discrepancies in statements from witnesses to the same set of events, especially if there are many witnessses. It is a fact that discrepancies in witness statements do not necessarily mean that one or more witnesses is lying.
-
You invite opinion and speculation by wondering about certain aspects of the case don’t you?
In your opinion. I just try to point out facts.
-
It’s a fact that it is quite common for there to be discrepancies in statements from witnesses to the same set of events, especially if there are many witnessses. It is a fact that discrepancies in witness statements do not necessarily mean that one or more witnesses is lying.
Neither does it mean they aren't lying. Investigators should notice them and be open to both possibilities in my opinion.
-
Unless they said it it's your opinion. Kate said it was a kind of self-punishment;
I also felt a compulsion to run up to the top of the Rocha Negra. Somehow, inflicting physical pain on myself seemed to be the only possible way of escaping my internal pain......
My child had suffered and therefore so must I. [madeleine]
My opinion... Based on the facts.. Not my invention
-
My opinion... Based on the facts.. Not my invention
Did they say it? If not you invented it. There are always two sides to every coin too;
a study published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport reported that triathletes who had recently dealt with a "minor life event" or "hassle" (family, work, health, or financial issue) were more prone to injuries than those under less stress. Another study from the British Journal of Sports Medicine reported that elite athletes were more likely to get hurt if they competed while angry, confused, fatigued, tense, or depressed.
https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20801551/relieve-stress-safely-when-running/
-
Did they say it? If not you invented it. There are always two sides to every coin too;
a study published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport reported that triathletes who had recently dealt with a "minor life event" or "hassle" (family, work, health, or financial issue) were more prone to injuries than those under less stress. Another study from the British Journal of Sports Medicine reported that elite athletes were more likely to get hurt if they competed while angry, confused, fatigued, tense, or depressed.
https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20801551/relieve-stress-safely-when-running/
I didn't invent it... Exercise produces endorphins... Did you know that.... The helpful effects of exercise on those suffering stress is, well documented... No invention
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/exercise-and-stress/art-20044469
I think you need to define what you mean by invention
-
In your opinion. I just try to point out facts.
If you write in a post with “I wonder what the twins were looking at on the bus or why Gerry was so grumpy” or “I wonder why Kate didn’t get the twins checked out at hospital “, then is that not a post inviting your readers to speculate? Should we just ignore and do you object if someone offers an opinion that is critical of the McCanns, as well as those who are supportive of the McCanns?
-
This thread has already been tidied once, don’t make it happen again.
-
Neither does it mean they aren't lying. Investigators should notice them and be open to both possibilities in my opinion.
I totally agree... And I would expect the investigators to have done that...
-
I totally agree... And I would expect the investigators to have done that...
...and will continue to do so until such time as perpetrator is identified.
-
...and will continue to do so until such time as perpetrator is identified.
In that I don't agree... After 11 years, they should have decided... On the evidence if people are telling the truth... And they msy well have found other reasons for the discrepancies
-
In that I don't agree... After 11 years, they should have decided... On the evidence if people are telling the truth... And they msy well have found other reasons for the discrepancies
May or may not. It is not an easy one.
-
May or may not. It is not an easy one.
The McCann's clearly are not being investigated which supports the idea they have... Imo
-
There is lots of evidence the McCann's are not suspects or being investigated... And none that they are
-
In that I don't agree... After 11 years, they should have decided... On the evidence if people are telling the truth... And they msy well have found other reasons for the discrepancies
According to Rowley in 2017 they didn't repeat what the PJ had 'dealt with' in 2007-8. He seems to have been unaware that the PJ were unable to verify the group's timeline.
-
In that I don't agree... After 11 years, they should have decided... On the evidence if people are telling the truth... And they msy well have found other reasons for the discrepancies
A) you don’t know if SY have a firm suspect.
B) if they had, you don’t know who it is.
C) the Police statements were a long time ago.
D) the Police wouldn’t announce that someone was a suspect and wouldn’t no comment a question about an person being a suspect.
So your reply is basically your belief.
-
In that I don't agree... After 11 years, they should have decided... On the evidence if people are telling the truth... And they msy well have found other reasons for the discrepancies
Its not only the statments that have discrepencys. imo
kmcn in her book paints gmcn as one wonderful husband - i thought when reading it a bit ott.
Yet in her diaries she says this.
Kate McCann's diary reveals she struggled to cope with three 'hyperactive' children, it was claimed yesterday.
The notebook, photocopied by Portuguese police, is said to show she found her role as a mother hard.
Portuguese newspapers, which have published what they claim are extracts, say it is 'fundamental' to the belief that she was involved in the death of her daughter Madeleine.
The 39-year-old GP is reported to have written about how difficult it was to control Madeleine and her two-year- old brother and sister, and how her husband Gerry often left her to get on with family duties on her own.
Mrs McCann reportedly described Madeleine and the twins as hyperactive and 'hysterical', and discloses that looking after them sapped her strength and emotions.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/5sep7/14_09_2007.htm
Also imo it was strange how they detached from the group from the sunday not doing much of the children activities ...
yet still did the grown up stuff....that didn't involve the children.
-
Did they say it? If not you invented it. There are always two sides to every coin too;
a study published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport reported that triathletes who had recently dealt with a "minor life event" or "hassle" (family, work, health, or financial issue) were more prone to injuries than those under less stress. Another study from the British Journal of Sports Medicine reported that elite athletes were more likely to get hurt if they competed while angry, confused, fatigued, tense, or depressed.
https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20801551/relieve-stress-safely-when-running/
It is a fact that exercise helps to cope with stress.
-
It is a fact that exercise helps to cope with stress.
As is fairly commonly agreed, that wasn’t the source of the discussion.
We have only one bit of evidence as to why they went jogging from Kate, self punishment.
Exercise can be used for stress relief is a fact.
The McCanns went jogging to relieve stress is an invention unless someone has evidence to show it to be true.
-
It is a fact that exercise helps to cope with stress.
Surely though there is stress and stress - like with everyday thing money problems family problems etc etc
There's was not stress as such imo - i would say it should be classed more as devastation. [not stress]
-
As is fairly commonly agreed, that wasn’t the source of the discussion.
We have only one bit of evidence as to why they went jogging from Kate, self punishment.
Exercise can be used for stress relief is a fact.
The McCanns went jogging to relieve stress is an invention unless someone has evidence to show it to be true.
It is not something that I feel The McCanns need to prove. Jogging helps to relieve stress. This is not an invention.
-
It is not something that I feel The McCanns need to prove. Jogging helps to relieve stress. This is not an invention.
You are missing the point. The invention is that they went jogging to relieve the stress.
-
You are missing the point. The invention is that they went jogging to relieve the stress.
It's not an invention... It's an opinion based on known facts.
-
You are missing the point. The invention is that they went jogging to relieve the stress.
How can I get the point unless you define invention... Go ahead
-
It's not an invention... It's an opinion based on known facts... How much jogging have you done... I've done a lot
Well we must make sure people state it as such.
-
You are missing the point. The invention is that they went jogging to relieve the stress.
No, I am not missing the point. What is going on here is Nit Picking to create an argument, and I am getting very tired of it.
-
Well we must make sure people state it as such.
Not in this instance.
-
Anyone who knows, anything about anxiety management knows that exercise is advised.... The McCann's were doctors.... It's my opinion that exercise was being used to help them cope.... It certainlly is not an invention... An invention is something made up
-
The idea the McCann's went jogging because they didn't care about the loss of Maddie is total invention because it has no evidence, whatsoever to support it
-
Not in this instance.
So are you suggesting that the opinion rules have been dispensed with?
-
So are you suggesting that the opinion rules have been dispensed with?
When they are being used to Nit Pick and create Dissension, Yes.
A bit of common sense is required.
-
When they are being used to Nit Pick and create Dissension, Yes.
A bit of common sense is required.
Noted for future information.
-
Its not only the statments that have discrepencys. imo
kmcn in her book paints gmcn as one wonderful husband - i thought when reading it a bit ott.
Yet in her diaries she says this.
Kate McCann's diary reveals she struggled to cope with three 'hyperactive' children, it was claimed yesterday.
The notebook, photocopied by Portuguese police, is said to show she found her role as a mother hard.
Portuguese newspapers, which have published what they claim are extracts, say it is 'fundamental' to the belief that she was involved in the death of her daughter Madeleine.
The 39-year-old GP is reported to have written about how difficult it was to control Madeleine and her two-year- old brother and sister, and how her husband Gerry often left her to get on with family duties on her own.
Mrs McCann reportedly described Madeleine and the twins as hyperactive and 'hysterical', and discloses that looking after them sapped her strength and emotions.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/5sep7/14_09_2007.htm
Also imo it was strange how they detached from the group from the sunday not doing much of the children activities ...
yet still did the grown up stuff....that didn't involve the children.
Why do you think it "ott"that Kate paints Gerry "as one wonderful husband"
Where is the cite for Madeleine and the twins being " hyperactive and hysterical" ?
Were they hyperactive and hysterical all the time or just now and then.
None of the statements given by the nannies or those who knew them paint this picture of hysterica!l and hyperactive children.
-
It is not something that I feel The McCanns need to prove. Jogging helps to relieve stress. This is not an invention.
Well it seems so - but as yet no one knows what caused the stress.
Abduction/non abduction either would have the same effect cause stress. etc etc
so imo it doesn't prove anything why she went jogging.
-
Why do you think it "ott"that Kate paints Gerry "as one wonderful husband"
Where is the cite for Madeleine and the twins being " hyperactive and hysterical" ?
Were they hyperactive and hysterical all the time or just now and then.
None of the statements given by the nannies or those who knew hem paint this picture of hysterica!l and hyperactive children.
WY did kmcn write it in her dairy then - a diary imo is your hidden thoughts.
What ever the statements say - they are kmcns words.
-
WY did kmcn write it in her dairy then - a diary imo is your hidden thoughts.
What ever the statements say - they are kmcns words.
Answers none of my questions.!
-
Well it seems so - but as yet no one knows what caused the stress.
Abduction/non abduction either would have the same effect cause stress. etc etc
so imo it doesn't prove anything why she went jogging.
Does anyone need to prove for why they went jogging?
-
Does anyone need to prove for why they went jogging?
If people are claiming a particular reason as fact, yes. IMO
-
"Start by Asking Yourself What is a Supporter and Work on from There”
Just a reminder of the thread title ... while I ponder how much of this morning's posting actually contributes to that particular topic ... please endeavour to remain on topic in all future posts. Thank you
-
Answers none of my questions.!
Right your questions were.
Why do you think it "ott"that Kate paints Gerry "as one wonderful husband"
Where is the cite for Madeleine and the twins being " hyperactive and hysterical" ?
Were they hyperactive and hysterical all the time or just now and then.
None of the statements given by the nannies or those who knew them paint this picture of hysterica!l and hyperactive children.
That was my opinion kmcann went ott how wonderful gmcn is [in her book]
The cite was kmcn diary which said
Kate McCann's diary reveals she struggled to cope with three 'hyperactive' children, it was claimed yesterday.
The notebook, photocopied by Portuguese police, is said to show she found her role as a mother hard.
Portuguese newspapers, which have published what they claim are extracts, say it is 'fundamental' to the belief that she was involved in the death of her daughter Madeleine.
The 39-year-old GP is reported to have written about how difficult it was to control Madeleine and her two-year- old brother and sister, and how her husband Gerry often left her to get on with family duties on her own.
Mrs McCann reportedly described Madeleine and the twins as hyperactive and 'hysterical', and discloses that looking after them sapped her strength and emotions.
As the diary shows it is kmcn that contradicts what others have said in there statements
i thought it was clear enough in my last post,
[not sure if this post off topic apologies if so]
-
Right your questions were.
Why do you think it "ott"that Kate paints Gerry "as one wonderful husband"
Where is the cite for Madeleine and the twins being " hyperactive and hysterical" ?
Were they hyperactive and hysterical all the time or just now and then.
None of the statements given by the nannies or those who knew them paint this picture of hysterica!l and hyperactive children.
That was my opinion kmcann went ott how wonderful gmcn is [in her book]
The cite was kmcn diary which said
Kate McCann's diary reveals she struggled to cope with three 'hyperactive' children, it was claimed yesterday.
The notebook, photocopied by Portuguese police, is said to show she found her role as a mother hard.
Portuguese newspapers, which have published what they claim are extracts, say it is 'fundamental' to the belief that she was involved in the death of her daughter Madeleine.
The 39-year-old GP is reported to have written about how difficult it was to control Madeleine and her two-year- old brother and sister, and how her husband Gerry often left her to get on with family duties on her own.
Mrs McCann reportedly described Madeleine and the twins as hyperactive and 'hysterical', and discloses that looking after them sapped her strength and emotions.
As the diary shows it is kmcn that contradicts what others have said in there statements
i thought it was clear enough in my last post,
[not sure if this post off topic apologies if so]
"Reported to have Written."
-
"Reported to have Written."
Reported to have written what E
-
Reported to have written what E
All of it, it would seem. No actual proof.
-
All of it, it would seem. No actual proof.
Sorry not to be able to contribute to this thread.
-
All of it, it would seem. No actual proof.
Doesn't that go for everything though in this case - including abduction.
-
Doesn't that go for everything though in this case - including abduction.
I don't want to shut down this discussion because it could be interesting. But it is Off Topic in my opinion.
Perhaps you would like to start a new Thread, Kizzy.
-
I don't want to shut down this discussion because it could be interesting. But it is Off Topic in my opinion.
Perhaps you would like to start a new Thread, Kizzy.
I would EL but i wont be here after tonight for a while.
-
I would EL but i wont be here after tonight for a while.
That's a pity because I can't continue to support this discussion on this Thread.
Perhaps someone else could do it.
-
That's a pity because I can't continue to support this discussion on this Thread.
Perhaps someone else could do it.
Oh right, but not sure what you mean.
-
Oh right, but not sure what you mean.
Perhaps another Member would like to start a Thread about Kate's Diary as I will have to delete any further discussion of this subject on this Thread.
-
Perhaps another Member would like to start a Thread about Kate's Diary as I will have to delete any further discussion of this subject on this Thread.
No worries EL if mine are they will only join the hundred of others that have been deleted.
My thread would have been.
Why did the mcns detach from the group child time yet not adult time.[or similar]
-
No worries EL if mine are they will only join the hundred of others that have been deleted.
My thread would have been.
Why did the mcns detach from the group child time yet not adult time.[or similar]
They weren't deleted by me. I just want it discussed on another Thread.