We have people that monitor the internet.

[DCI]

The mccanns have already admitted there are people on the net acting on their behalf.

And Amaral hasn't?

[jassi]

And Amaral hasn't?

I don't know. Do you know or are you just speculating?

[stephen25000]

I don't know. Do you know or are you just speculating?

The 1-dimensional nature of some mccann supporters only reinforces the distinct impression that they only care about the parents, on whom the responsibility for this whole case falls.

[Alfred R Jones]

I note that you fall far short of condemning the insanity and volume of the abuse directed at the Drs McCann, who I may remind you are the parents of a missing child.

I also note that what you are describing is the situation being suffered day and daily but multiplied thousands fold by the McCann family. 

It says a lot about you that while you condemn isolated incidents you fail to condemn organised campaigns against people you do not know but have decided views about. Why is that?
You ignore the danger implicit in goading seriously disturbed individuals into action against the targets of this organised vitriol.  Why is that? 

What kind of mind is it that would even think of putting on a ‘madeleine’ face mask … a child who is missing ... and surrounding her mother while she is running to raise money for the charity set up to assist in publicising missing people and assisting their families?   
IMO a very disturbed mind indeed.

Yet in a certain section of society ... it met with universal approval ... and I note you do not distance yourself from it.

Everything "Faithlilly" describes as having been suffered by herself and fellow sceptics applies also to many McCann supporters so that kind of cancels that argument out, leaving the daily victimisation and abuse of  the McCanns and their family as the subject of discussion here.  Her argument is typical "sceptic" deflection from the point of the thread - i.e:  is there anything intrinsically wrong or suspicious about the McCanns having people monitoring the net for them?

[slartibartfast]

Everything "Faithlilly" describes as having been suffered by herself and fellow sceptics applies also to many McCann supporters so that kind of cancels that argument out, leaving the daily victimisation and abuse of  the McCanns and their family as the subject of discussion here.  Her argument is typical "sceptic" deflection from the point of the thread - i.e:  is there anything intrinsically wrong or suspicious about the McCanns having people monitoring the net for them?

It doesn't cancel anything out, 2 wrongs do not make a right. No one should be abusing anyone about the case. Expressing belief or doubt about the McCann's story should not make one a target of abuse.

[stephen25000]

Everything "Faithlilly" describes as having been suffered by herself and fellow sceptics applies also to many McCann supporters so that kind of cancels that argument out, leaving the daily victimisation and abuse of  the McCanns and their family as the subject of discussion here.  Her argument is typical "sceptic" deflection from the point of the thread - i.e:  is there anything intrinsically wrong or suspicious about the McCanns having people monitoring the net for them?

Faithlilly  is hardly the only mccann skeptic to receive abuse.


Why is it mccann supporters won't accept it has happened in both directions ?

[stephen25000]

It doesn't cancel anything out, 2 wrongs do not make a right. No one should be abusing anyone about the case. Expressing belief or doubt about the McCann's story should not make one a target of abuse.

Precisely, and it happens on here as well.

[DCI]

It doesn't cancel anything out, 2 wrongs do not make a right. No one should be abusing anyone about the case. Expressing belief or doubt about the McCann's story should not make one a target of abuse.

Expressing belief or doubt about the Amaral's story should not make one a target of abuse, either.

[slartibartfast]

Expressing belief or doubt about the Amaral's story should not make one a target of abuse, either.

That is irrelevant, his story was his opinion about the McCann Story so not a separate issue.

[stephen25000]

Expressing belief or doubt about the Amaral's story should not make one a target of abuse, either.

True enough, but as you know when tempers get frayed, as we have seen on here, it happens.

Though fairly 'mildly' compared to other sites.

[Alfred R Jones]

It doesn't cancel anything out, 2 wrongs do not make a right. No one should be abusing anyone about the case. Expressing belief or doubt about the McCann's story should not make one a target of abuse.

Where did I say 2 wrongs make a right?  The abuse of sceptics is at least equal to the abuse of McCann supporters and is not the subject of discussion here. 

[Brietta]

There certainly should be people monitoring the internet; there should be arrests and prosecutions as well as an official inquiry into why incitement to hatred has been allowed for well over six years. 

I consider this is part of the real McCann Circus which should have been STOPped with the full force of law; a real break down in policing and law and order.

I think it is time to step back and take stock of exactly where this statement emanates from - "We have people that monitor the internet". 
Dr Kate McCann did not say it;
Dr Gerry McCann did not say it;
Anne Guedes did not write it in her court report; ... but … Joana Morais did.

So like a great deal of the 'couthy' sayings that have entered into legend in Madeleine’s case … the originator is none other than Joana Morais.

 - CLIP - Written by Joana Morais - Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro allows a question put by Dr. Isabel Duarte - What were the reactions to the book and to the documentary in England?

Kate Healy - The reactions were less negative than in Portugal, due to the newspapers in England who were sued for defamatory articles, those articles weren't based on evidence. We have people that monitor the internet and there are groups of people, like the 'Madeleine Foundation' who have caused us great distress by publishing Mr. Amaral's theories on the internet, which has compounded to our vilification.

 - CLIP - Written by Anne Guedes - Isabel Duarte (for the plaintiffs) – Was there a reaction to the book and the documentary in the UK?
Judge reformulates but keeps the question

KMC says that there were a bit less reactions than in Portugal and that it was because of the media who accepted what the book said and published reports upon it. People on the Web and through e-mails were stimulated to insult them, like the Madeleine Foundation, and created a lot of damages. As Gonçalo Amaral was the coordinator of the investigation, it provided him credibility and it intensified the vilification of them.
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/Kate_McCann_08_07_2014.htm

Spot the difference?  But why falsify a court report ... people will notice when the official version is published? 

IMO the audience to which it is directed, won't care, just another myth for addition to all the other discredited myths about Madeleine's family.

[slartibartfast]

Where did I say 2 wrongs make a right?  The abuse of sceptics is at least equal to the abuse of McCann supporters and is not the subject of discussion here.

If you can accept that questioning or having doubts about the McCann's story does not equal abuse of the McCanns then I can accept that.

[faithlilly]

I note that you fall far short of condemning the insanity and volume of the abuse directed at the Drs McCann, who I may remind you are the parents of a missing child.

I also note that what you are describing is the situation being suffered day and daily but multiplied thousands fold by the McCann family. 

It says a lot about you that while you condemn isolated incidents you fail to condemn organised campaigns against people you do not know but have decided views about. Why is that?
You ignore the danger implicit in goading seriously disturbed individuals into action against the targets of this organised vitriol.  Why is that? 

What kind of mind is it that would even think of putting on a ‘madeleine’ face mask … a child who is missing ... and surrounding her mother while she is running to raise money for the charity set up to assist in publicising missing people and assisting their families?   
IMO a very disturbed mind indeed.

Yet in a certain section of society ... it met with universal approval ... and I note you do not distance yourself from it.

And I ask you what kind of obsessed individual would attempt to get a person sacked with all the financial implications it may have for the person and their family simply because  you do not agree on the criminal culpability of a couple neither of you know ?

[Brietta]

I condemn all such behaviour no matter what side it comes from. I notice though no supporter has condemned such behaviour when it's targeted at sceptics

But you still do not condemn the long running, organised campaigns to vilify the family of a missing child, which extends to the child herself when attempts are made to interfere with and impede the investigation into exactly what happened to her.