What is the current public opinion of the McCanns?

[C.Edwards]

Many times I've seen supporters of the McCanns state that only a few [ censored word ]s/[ censored word ]s are against the McCanns and that the British Public is supportive and sympathetic.  Is that really the case?  Every time a newspaper leaves the comments section open, there's an avalanche of negative comments posted.  I've seen supporters of the McCanns claim that this is just the actions of a few [ censored word ]s/[ censored word ]s who have found a way to circumvent the IP logging software so they can vote multiple times.

What do you feel is the current state of play? Mainly sympathetic or mainly not?

[muratfan]

The comment sections on the media sites are done by e-mail addresses, not IP's. Therefore, and it has be shown many times, that Anti's are flooding comment sections with nasty comments.

In fact it is usually seen on the hate sites that comments are being allowed and then the idiotic posters, rush back to the hate sites, to say what they have posted, under what names.

[C.Edwards]

The reason I ask, by the way, is that a facebook friend of mine just linked me to a newsline article on the "This Morning" site: https://www.facebook.com/ThisMorning (story is a little bit down the page)

In excess of 1500 comments on that story now. You have to look very hard to find anything positive.  I guess these are all just made-up people and "socks" though, right?

[C.Edwards]

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there is an organised hate campaign against the McCanns - the evidence of this is all over the net, especially on newspaper comments sections.  Often you will see the rallying cries of "hey folks! The Telegraph article is taking comments now!" on ANti McCann facebook pages and twitter, followed by a deluge of hateful comments on the paper's website by the same sad old trolls.  Many are recognisable by what they write, even if they change their names, many post multiple comments to bump up the number of Anti comments. 

Even now the Anti troops are rallying in preparation for the 3rd of May when they plan to spend all day tweeting Anti McCann sentiment on the #paedogeddon hash tag - what sort of evil is at the heart of these people?

So... there has to be a lot of [ censored word] then in order to achieve this kind of result?  Or are they all just sock puppets?  If so, how would you explain the reaction on the facebook page for "this morning" as I've just had a quick look on MM and JH forums and can't find reference to it anywhere and yet 1,500+ comments pretty much universally condemning the McCanns...

OOPS, just found reference to the facebook page on a page in a thread on MM. There you go then. Must be the thousands of [ censored word ]s on MM flocking over there then. Mystery solved.

[Puffin]

It is 6 or 7 years old, this story, and Joe Public has moved on to other more current and pressing things.  However, looking for instance at how much Kate McCann has raised for charity re her marathon run this Sunday I would say that it is obvious interest is still there and therefore so will be the sympathy.  For instance, if we had believed all the media stories re Mrs Thatcher's funeral there were going to be massive protests during the procession and all there were was a few banners and a bit of shouting.  There have been threats to disrupt and attack Kate during the marathon but these were reported to the police, who will no doubt be watching things closely. Personally, I think it is up to individuals to make up their own minds as to whether they are sympathetic or not.

[muratfan]

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there is an organised hate campaign against the McCanns - the evidence of this is all over the net, especially on newspaper comments sections.  Often you will see the rallying cries of "hey folks! The Telegraph article is taking comments now!" on ANti McCann facebook pages and twitter, followed by a deluge of hateful comments on the paper's website by the same sad old trolls.  Many are recognisable by what they write, even if they change their names, many post multiple comments to bump up the number of Anti comments. 

Even now the Anti troops are rallying in preparation for th
 Attachments and other options
shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to previewe 3rd of May when they plan to spend all day tweeting Anti McCann sentiment on the #paedogeddon hash tag - what sort of evil is at the heart of these people?

So... there has to be a lot of [ censored word] then in order to achieve this kind of result?  Or are they all just sock puppets?  If so, how would you explain the reaction on the facebook page for "this morning" as I've just had a quick look on MM and JH forums and can't find reference to it anywhere and yet 1,500+ comments pretty much universally condemning the McCanns...

OOPS, just found reference to the facebook page on a page in a thread on MM. There you go then. Must be the thousands of [ censored word ]s on MM flocking over there then. Mystery solved.

You know, as well as i do , that a lot of members on the controversy facebook page are made up. It was proven when someone used a picture of someone else on his profile and claimed it was his friend. There are at least 70 that we know of, and another poster on there admitted to having seven ID's

[C.Edwards]

It's a bit harder to dismiss 1500+ people as a minority of "[ censored word ]s", isn't it...?

[debunker]

!500 people out of say 60 million in the UK or 350 million in Europe seems a small proportion to me.

Valancy is the most important issue- the massive majority of people no longer give a toss about the story in any dedicated way, seeing it as just more non-news in non-newspapers.

[C.Edwards]

It's a bit harder to dismiss 1500+ people as a minority of "[ censored word ]s", isn't it...?

LOL.  Firstly, evidence of 1500 distinct [ censored word ]s would be nice, secondly - 1500 [ censored word ]s versus what number of people who choose not to post judgmental, hate-filled, inaccurate biased crap about the McCanns on the internet??

...versus what number of those that feel the same as those that voiced their opinion on that "this morning" thread but haven't commented?

You see, there should be, according to canon, a vanishingly small amount of "[ censored word ]s" among those who happen to be on the "this morning" thread, right?  It's not like everyone on there is likely to be a [ censored word ], therefore it's disproportionate, is it?  It's s representative cross-section of society as viewed by the demographic of those that watch "this morning" which, although I can't stand it personally, is probably a fair reflection of Mr & Mrs Joe Public.

I think you have to face up to the fact that the vast majority of the British public are not anywhere near as sympathetic to the McCann cause as you think.

[debunker]

It's a bit harder to dismiss 1500+ people as a minority of "[ censored word ]s", isn't it...?

LOL.  Firstly, evidence of 1500 distinct [ censored word ]s would be nice, secondly - 1500 [ censored word ]s versus what number of people who choose not to post judgmental, hate-filled, inaccurate biased crap about the McCanns on the internet??

...versus what number of those that feel the same as those that voiced their opinion on that "this morning" thread but haven't commented?

You see, there should be, according to canon, a vanishingly small amount of "[ censored word ]s" among those who happen to be on the "this morning" thread, right?  It's not like everyone on there is likely to be a [ censored word ], therefore it's disporportionate, is it?  It's s representative cross-section of society as viewed by the demographic of those that watch "this morning" which, although I can't stand it personally, is probably a fair reflection of Mr & Mrs Joe Public.

I think you have to face up to the fact that the vast majority of the British public are not anywhere near as sympathetic to the McCann cause as you think.

We have no way of really knowing.

Petitions placed by [ censored word ]s have produced very few signatures.

People really care not one way or the other.

[C.Edwards]

It's a bit harder to dismiss 1500+ people as a minority of "[ censored word ]s", isn't it...?

LOL.  Firstly, evidence of 1500 distinct [ censored word ]s would be nice, secondly - 1500 [ censored word ]s versus what number of people who choose not to post judgmental, hate-filled, inaccurate biased crap about the McCanns on the internet??

...versus what number of those that feel the same as those that voiced their opinion on that "this morning" thread but haven't commented?

You see, there should be, according to canon, a vanishingly small amount of "[ censored word ]s" among those who happen to be on the "this morning" thread, right?  It's not like everyone on there is likely to be a [ censored word ], therefore it's disporportionate, is it?  It's s representative cross-section of society as viewed by the demographic of those that watch "this morning" which, although I can't stand it personally, is probably a fair reflection of Mr & Mrs Joe Public.

I think you have to face up to the fact that the vast majority of the British public are not anywhere near as sympathetic to the McCann cause as you think.

You've still got it CEdwards - the ability to make me hoot with laughter, well done!

Howzabout I quote facebook numbers at you - 110,000 supporters on the Official Find Madeleine page versus, oooh, how many on the most popular Anti FB page? Less than 1000? - will you accept those figures as a gauge of popular opinion?  No, I didn't think so.

I think in order to make your point you may need to get a more properly conducted statistical evidence - perhaps you and your fellow "sceptics" could club together and pay for an independently conducted opinion poll then come back and tell us all about it.

No, no. You're missing the obvious point. I'm not talking about cult pages that suit either side's agenda, I'm talking about a general representative -of-the-british-public page which is centred on the popular "this morning" show which has only ever shown McCann-favourable bias in reports to date.  The users of their facebook page will be a representative cross-section of the British public and therefore a very reasonable standard for judging the general mood/opinion out there.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee Martha. The great British public have spoken and they're holding two thumbs down for the McCanns, it's quite obvious.

[debunker]

In any subject, people with a strong dislike for the subject are bound to make the most waves. [ censored word ]s usually win in those polls.

See BBC complaints dept when something is up the noses of a particular interest group.

[gavdalf]

No one can tell me how or what to feel or think

I don't have to like them, my prerogative if I feel that and that doesn't bother me a jot.

I distrust them though, and pretty much everyone else that has been involved in this case from the Tapas nine to the PJ et all.

[Eleanor]

Do I sense that C Edwards is getting a kick out of hate filled posts?  I presume he must have read them all, otherwise he wouldn't know what he was talking about.
What a very strange way to spend a sunny Spring day.

[C.Edwards]

No one can tell me how or what to feel or think

I don't have to like them, my prerogative if I feel that and that doesn't bother me a jot.

I distrust them though, and pretty much everyone else that has been involved in this case from the Tapas nine to the PJ et all.

Good point gavdalf.  It's not like we're all a flock of sheep bleating from the same hymnsheet now, is it? ;-)