Does publicly "doubting" the McCanns add to the distress of the McCann family?

[Lyall]

Imagine you are one of the McCann children.  Imagine one of their classmates comes to school having come across the Controversy Facebook page and confronts you about it.  Now use your imagination (and even your logic too, if you possess any) and take the scenario further.  Any opportunities for distress to be caused there, in your view?

Do you think they won't have seen the lurid newspaper front pages in the past years? Not many this year but in the past two there have been numerous.

Are you and allies doing anything about them?

Personally I'd be cheering as much as you if every facebook page disappeared, but you're only telling part of the story (the part that suits your narrative - and you ignore the parts that don't).

There is public interest in this case, and therefore discussion and publication is perfectly valid (assuming it isn't libelous). Like you I'd prefer those discussing didn't include the extremists, but you really can't blame us for them anyway.

[Brietta]

&%+((£  fancy her blaming  little  maddie

I think there is a serious deficiency in people who post the same statements ad nauseam on the internet every day for eight years ... it serves no purpose but to show them up as rather miserable human beings anxious to keep up a war of attrition against people who have had to live for eight years with the loss of their much loved daughter.

The negativity directed towards Madeleine McCann's parents is intended to be hurtful.  But it also impinges directly on Madeleine McCann and any chance she may have of being found particularly when active campaigns are mounted to derail any attempt.

The disruption to the CW switchboard being one illustration of such perverse behaviour.



**snip
Police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are being hampered by nuisance calls following this week's Crimewatch appeal.

Dozens of sick trolls boasted on Twitter and Facebook how they were going to call in with useless information.

Many said they were going to point out that the e-fit released by police resembles Gerry McCann.

A Twitter user called Brendan Breslin wrote: "Anyone else think the Madeleine McCann e-fits look a lot like Gerry McCann. I might call CrimeWatch."

Another called Jonto-' Lantern Gore tweeted: "Chain smoking pack after pack of cigarettes to change my voice so I can prank call Crimewatch"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/vile-trolls-target-madeleine-mccann-2472668

[Alfred R Jones]

Do you think they won't have seen the lurid newspaper front pages in the past years? Not many this year but in the past two there have been numerous.

Are you and allies doing anything about them?

Personally I'd be cheering as much as you if every facebook page disappeared, but you're only telling part of the story (the part that suits your narrative - and you ignore the parts that don't).

There is public interest in this case, and therefore discussion and publication is perfectly valid (assuming it isn't libelous). Like you I'd prefer those discussing didn't include the extremists, but you really can't blame us for them anyway.

The lurid headlines mostly came out before the twins could read.  But really, that's besides the point.  Distress is not a one off experience.  They could have been distressed reading headlines and distressed by the activities of online "doubters". 

Attempts have definitely been made to flag up sites like Controversy, both to FB and the MSM (as well you know) - it hasn't made a blind bit of difference.  Obviously the only hope is that 20,000 plus people have a collective Damascene moment of realisation that what they're doing does cause distress to innocent people like the twins and their grandparents but I'm definitely not holding my breath over that one.

What part of the story am I not telling by the way?

[G-Unit]

Do you think they won't have seen the lurid newspaper front pages in the past years? Not many this year but in the past two there have been numerous.

Are you and allies doing anything about them?

Personally I'd be cheering as much as you if every facebook page disappeared, but you're only telling part of the story (the part that suits your narrative - and you ignore the parts that don't).

There is public interest in this case, and therefore discussion and publication is perfectly valid (assuming it isn't libelous). Like you I'd prefer those discussing didn't include the extremists, but you really can't blame us for them anyway.

     Well said.

@ Alfred. Is the FB page you are referring to the HiDeHo page?

@Brietta

If people thought an efit resembled someone why should they not call CW?

[Alfred R Jones]

    Well said.

@ Alfred. Is the FB page you are referring to the HiDeHo page?

@Brietta

If people thought an efit resembled someone why should they not call CW?

No it's not the HiDeHo page - it was one set up after some almighty ruckus on the original doubter page -the one I am referring to has 25,000 members and its members relentlessy criticise and smear the McCanns day in, day out. 

[Lyall]

    Well said.

@ Alfred. Is the FB page you are referring to the HiDeHo page?

@Brietta

If people thought an efit resembled someone why should they not call CW?

Ta G

[Lyall]

The lurid headlines mostly came out before the twins could read.  But really, that's besides the point.  Distress is not a one off experience.  They could have been distressed reading headlines and distressed by the activities of online "doubters". 

Attempts have definitely been made to flag up sites like Controversy, both to FB and the MSM (as well you know) - it hasn't made a blind bit of difference.  Obviously the only hope is that 20,000 plus people have a collective Damascene moment of realisation that what they're doing does cause distress to innocent people like the twins and their grandparents but I'm definitely not holding my breath over that one.

What part of the story am I not telling by the way?

No, I meant what are you doing about the lurid newspaper front pages. You say Madeleine's brother and sister may see what the nuts on facebook say, but they will already have seen some terrifying front pages (front pages of the Mirror particularly) - why aren't you as concerned about them?

That's the part of the story you overlook: the newspapers and other sources the other members of the McCann family will undoubtedly see, which are nothing to do with those on this 'side'.

There is public interest in the case - your appeal for people to cease discussing it is as absurd as it was for those saying nobody should discuss the circumstances of Diana's death (and other high-profile cases).

And you can't blame us for what people may be saying on facebook. It was just about possible to communicate with the more extreme people before last October (some of them at least), but not now. You can blame Sky News and their allies for that, not us.

[Alfred R Jones]

No, I meant what are you doing about the lurid newspaper front pages. You say Madeleine's brother and sister may see what the nuts on facebook say, but they will already have seen some terrifying front pages (front pages of the Mirror particularly) - why aren't you as concerned about them?

That's the part of the story you overlook: the newspapers and other sources the other members of the McCann family will undoubtedly see, which are nothing to do with those on this 'side'.

There is public interest in the case - your appeal for people to cease discussing it is as absurd as it was for those saying nobody should discuss the circumstances of Diana's death (and other high-profile cases).

And you can't blame us for what people may be saying on facebook. It was just about possible to communicate with the more extreme people before last October (some of them at least), but not now. You can blame Sky News and their allies for that, not us.

Who is this "us" you keep talking about? 

This thread is about distress caused by publicly "doubting" the McCanns, by anyone in any medium, newspapers included.  It is undoubtedly true that the media has been responsible for a huge amount of distress, but does that mean that no distress is caused and perpetuated by online "doubters" too?  At least newspapers have some codes of practise they have to abide by and can be sued for damages caused, the same cannot be said for thousands of anonymous "doubters" on a facebook page, and lets face it, much of what they are posting is infinitely nastier and more threatening / intimidating than anything that has ever appeared in any newspaper.

[Lyall]

Who is this "us" you keep talking about? 

This thread is about distress caused by publicly "doubting" the McCanns, by anyone in any medium, newspapers included.  It is undoubtedly true that the media has been responsible for a huge amount of distress, but does that mean that no distress is caused and perpetuated by online "doubters" too?  At least newspapers have some codes of practise they have to abide by and can be sued for damages caused, the same cannot be said for thousands of anonymous "doubters" on a facebook page, and lets face it, much of what they are posting is infinitely nastier and more threatening / intimidating than anything that has ever appeared in any newspaper.

You say that but some of the Mirror frontpages in the past couple of years terrified me, so goodness knows what they'd do to someone closely involved in this matter.

You keep mentioning what they're saying on facebook - what do you think we can do about it?

'Us' is the collective 'sceptics'.

[Brietta]

You say that but some of the Mirror frontpages in the past couple of years terrified me, so goodness knows what they'd do to someone closely involved in this matter.

You keep mentioning what they're saying on facebook - what do you think we can do about it?

'Us' is the collective 'sceptics'.

I think one of the main emotions missing from people who so unthinkingly cause distress is empathy.

But there are also those who put a great deal of thought into it indeed.

[carlymichelle]

You say that but some of the Mirror frontpages in the past couple of years terrified me, so goodness knows what they'd do to someone closely involved in this matter.

You keep mentioning what they're saying on facebook - what do you think we can do about it?

'Us' is the collective 'sceptics'.

if  alfie likes it or not the people on fb are allowed to have their opinions    the mcanns put themselves in the public domain  by at the very  least leaving   3  children alone  leading to the vanishing and probable death of a 3  year old

[Alfred R Jones]

You say that but some of the Mirror frontpages in the past couple of years terrified me, so goodness knows what they'd do to someone closely involved in this matter.

You keep mentioning what they're saying on facebook - what do you think we can do about it?

'Us' is the collective 'sceptics'.

Which Mirror front pages have terrified you?  We can't do anything about facebook, I thought I'd made that clear several times, nor am I demanding that something is done, what makes you think otherwise?

[Lyall]

I think one of the main emotions missing from people who so unthinkingly cause distress is empathy.

But there are also those who put a great deal of thought into it indeed.

I know, and what Sky News and their allies did gave those people a big boost.

You can't blame us.

[carlymichelle]

I know, and what Sky News and their allies did gave those people a big boost.

You can't blame us.

what they did to brenda  caused many distress except  mcann supporters who said she deserved what she  got

[Lyall]

what they did to brenda  caused many distress except  mcann supporters who said she deserved what she  got

I know Carly, it distressed me too. But I think the majority reacted to it in the wrong way, and after what happened they stopped listening to other opinions.