the cult of personality

[faithlilly]

Thought provoking, Carana.  Thankyou

Says it all. 

When the peeps have realised their failings in their bullying of the Mccanns and if they can show the humility to acknowledge that ... we in our turn must forget our gripes and hatred of the way they have behaved

... and embrace them, as we have embraced Bren



The film illustrates just how easy it is to get sucked in

It takes a brave person to stand up and admit they were wrong all along.  Time for some peps to get their thinking caps on and their humanity back

Well done Carana

Please promise me sadie that if you are ever offered, for your sterling work on behalf of the McCanns, a free holiday to the lovely country of Guyana and a little something to drink on your arrival, that you won't accept.! 

[sadie]

Ermm????

[sadie]

A little bit of humility and remorse wouldn't hurt you Faith

[sadie]

There is at least one person on here who has doubts about the Mccann family, but he doesn't keep putting the boot in like some of you. 

[faithlilly]

A little bit of humility and remorse wouldn't hurt you Faith

Indeed it wouldn't Sadie.

So when can we expect you to show some ?

[gilet]

There's something rather cultish (pardon the spelling) about deliberately setting out to recruit people (often vulnerable types who have taken part in internet discussions about their own child abuse experiences) to the Anti McCann cause.  In fact it's extremely sinister in my view.

Whether deliberately recruited or not, it often surprises me just how many of the Anti-McCanns who have posted potted biographies have listed their major mental, sexual, social and other issues. It is a very surprising proportion of the numbers who have done so. Individuals have recounted every kind of serious emotional torment from abuse at the hands of nuns to drug problems and via every mental problem that exists. With some it seems almost to be a badge of honour in their postings.

I don't think it is only the McCann case which has seen this phenomenon but is more widely known as a problem as to how such issues are dealt with in society. The Internet has given people a wider audience than previously and allowed people the freedom to come together to discuss their issues. That is no bad thing. But it also allows for a feeling that you are hidden (not true of course) and that the anonymity allows you to express things that really are probably neither safely nor wisely discussed so openly to be discussed in that way.  The potential for bullying and manipulation of vulnerable people once they have been so open is immense. The desire for being part of a group is innate and the Internet provides a surrogate group when none is available in the real world. It is attractive. It is enticing and it is dangerous, most especially for those who are vulnerable and have openly disclosed that they are vulnerable.

[faithlilly]

There's something rather cultish (pardon the spelling) about deliberately setting out to recruit people (often vulnerable types who have taken part in internet discussions about their own child abuse experiences) to the Anti McCann cause.  In fact it's extremely sinister in my view.

Recruit people ? In what way ?

[faithlilly]

I think the problem, particularly in the McCann case, is that generally those who doubt the parents are more open about who they are and what they have experienced. Of the supporters this is less true and therefore we have no idea what has shaped their views.

It is a well known, and well used, propaganda tactic to paint anyone who is seen as a threat to be damaged or mentally unusable or 'just not like us' . That is what is happening here and it is as transparent as it is insulting to those of us who can think for themselves.

[faithlilly]

There's something rather cultish (pardon the spelling) about deliberately setting out to recruit people (often vulnerable types who have taken part in internet discussions about their own child abuse experiences) to the Anti McCann cause.  In fact it's extremely sinister in my view.

Recruit people ? In what way ?

Please don't pretend you are unaware of the deliberate and concerted efforts to recruit people to the Anti McCann cause via Twitter and Facebook.

I am. Please elaborate on how this is done ?

[gilet]

I think the problem, particularly in the McCann case, is that generally those who doubt the parents are more open about who they are and what they have experienced. Of the supporters this is less true and therefore we have no idea what has shaped their views.

It is a well known, and well used, propaganda tactic to paint anyone who is seen as a threat to be damaged or mentally unusable or 'just not like us' . That is what is happening here and it is as transparent as it is insulting to those of us who can think for themselves.

As for your first paragraph, you clearly have veered well away from my very valid (I believe) point about the dangers of the Internet for such vulnerable people.

As for your second paragraph. Utter nonsense. I made it very clear that it was not me calling these people "damaged or mentally unusable"(sic) which are your rather crass terms and not mine but the people themselves. It is disingenuous of you to imply that a significant proportion of the anti-McCanns have not described themselves as sexually abused, mentally ill, and otherwise extremely vulnerable. 

How is it insulting to point out the simple fact that people who have themselves described their vulnerabilities are doing so in a dangerous way.

I really think you have either misunderstood what I posted or have reacted to what you have read in a rather paranoid way because nothing I posted suggests what you are claiming.

[Mo Stache]

There's something rather cultish (pardon the spelling) about deliberately setting out to recruit people (often vulnerable types who have taken part in internet discussions about their own child abuse experiences) to the Anti McCann cause.  In fact it's extremely sinister in my view.

Whether deliberately recruited or not, it often surprises me just how many of the Anti-McCanns who have posted potted biographies have listed their major mental, sexual, social and other issues. It is a very surprising proportion of the numbers who have done so. Individuals have recounted every kind of serious emotional torment from abuse at the hands of nuns to drug problems and via every mental problem that exists. With some it seems almost to be a badge of honour in their postings.

I don't think it is only the McCann case which has seen this phenomenon but is more widely known as a problem as to how such issues are dealt with in society. The Internet has given people a wider audience than previously and allowed people the freedom to come together to discuss their issues. That is no bad thing. But it also allows for a feeling that you are hidden (not true of course) and that the anonymity allows you to express things that really are probably neither safely nor wisely discussed so openly to be discussed in that way.  The potential for bullying and manipulation of vulnerable people once they have been so open is immense. The desire for being part of a group is innate and the Internet provides a surrogate group when none is available in the real world. It is attractive. It is enticing and it is dangerous, most especially for those who are vulnerable and have openly disclosed that they are vulnerable.

The recruitment of people to the Anti McCann caused stepped up several gears recently when the Jimmy Savile and other sex abuse cases came to the fore.  Discussions on the internet of sex abuse were deliberately targeted by a small group of rabid Anti McCann cult members who admitted their tactic was to link the McCann name to these recent high profile cases.  Subsequently these same Anti McCanns have successfully recruited several hundred people from the "sex abuse" discussions to join them on the Controversy Anti McCann Facebook page, the same page that made the news recently.

A recent Facebook discussion on This Morning page regarding Kate McCann's forgiving of her child's abductor garnered no less than 2,400 mainly negative comments regarding the McCanns. Over 2,000 ordinary people who wether neither 'recruited' or had any prior connection to the McCann case.

A telling snapshot of, when allowed to voice their opinion, the general population's view of this case.

Faithlilly, you have to ask yourself on WHAT the general populations view of the case is based or has been influenced to arrive at that 'view'.

I say that the press/media is largely responsible, especially in the earlier months of reporting on the case, for the influencing of the general population and the shaping of their view.

If one had to select a number of the general population and gauge their opinion at stages:
1. Early media reports only
2. Opinion post files released to public
3. Post announcement of Scotland Yard review statements

Do you think there will have been a shift in opinion (from guilty to possibly not guilty) between no. 1 and no. 2?

[Mo Stache]

A recent Facebook discussion on This Morning page regarding Kate McCann's forgiving of her child's abductor garnered no less than 2,400 mainly negative comments regarding the McCanns. Over 2,000 ordinary people who wether neither 'recruited' or had any prior connection to the McCann case.

A telling snapshot of, when allowed to voice their opinion, the general population's view of this case.

Perhaps as you have claimed to be unaware of something else on this thread, then this is something else you are unaware of.

There is a concerted effort on anti-McCann sites on every occasion that there is an opportunity to comment on a McCann story to "round up the troops". Threads are opened to encourage those on the sites to post and repost comment after comment.

I am very, very surprised that after all this time you have failed to notice the threads which do this.

When you say 2,000 ordinary people, I say no. Look more carefully. First there are many repeat names, people making more than one comment, people replying to other comments etc. Second, these "ordinary people" are mustered by the anti sites.

I suggest next time if you wish to become aware, you go to one or two of these sites. In particular look out for a well-known stirrer from down under who just loves to lead her fellow [ censored word] to the comment pages. But there are others. The Havern forum is notorious for having threads which urge people to post and so is Hideho's page. Remember the gun threat fiasco?

Not forgetting, compare the amount or portion of the general population who all signed a petition (to Downing Street) to ask for a review of the case.

[Mrs. B]

Well, the usual suspects currently have a petition to charge the McCann's for....something...(not too clear what exactly) as apparently they think the Justice System is based on some type of popular vote. Let's wait & see how much support it gets.

Also, it's quite funny how they always pretend that it's the "public" making the majority negative comments, when they quite openly brag how many times they've logged in to make comments using aliases & make a concerted effort to persuade their fellow members to do the same. That's what makes it an organised campaign destined to spread lies & rumors & incite hatred. It's a witch hunt, nothing else.

[faithlilly]

Faithlilly, you have to ask yourself on WHAT the general populations view of the case is based or has been influenced to arrive at that 'view'.

I say that the press/media is largely responsible, especially in the earlier months of reporting on the case, for the influencing of the general population and the shaping of their view.

If one had to select a number of the general population and gauge their opinion at stages:
1. Early media reports only
2. Opinion post files released to public
3. Post announcement of Scotland Yard review statements

Do you think there will have been a shift in opinion (from guilty to possibly not guilty) between no. 1 and no. 2?

I think in general the British press were very supportive of the McCanns in the few months after the disappearance. It was only post-arguido that that began to change.

 That the number of the public who doubt the McCanns seems to have risen after the release of the files, and despite the statements from SY and the strangle hold CR have on newspaper editors, is telling in itself.

[faithlilly]

Not forgetting, compare the amount or portion of the general population who all signed a petition (to Downing Street) to ask for a review of the case.

I would think any sane adult would support a review if it brought an end to this case. There is, however, no implicit support of he McCanns, because of that.