Wandering Off Topic

[Erngath]

Cite for distasteful please.
To reiterate:

There also appears to be a curious anti-British undercurrent from Brits who doubt the McCanns, who also seem quite defensive of even the slightest criticism directed at anything Portuguese.

An opinion I share.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It is quite obvious after a while.  Polarisation would be an apt description.

I disagree.  VS is making claims he/she cannot back up, also he /she infers this is about posters on this forum which is wrong. Perhaps VS can provide cites or state his opinion from observing (name it here).

As an example. IMO by reading the posts from supporters on this forum I get the impression they dislike anyone who challenges the McCanns version  of what happened to their daughter. They enjoy refereing to thses posters as  McCann bashers.

I enjoy this as it means they have no defence of the couple at all -what so ever. None.

[G-Unit]

The same goes for the xenophobic attitude towards the British  by the Portuguese media and some of its citizens,who seem to have decided that most Brits abroad are feckless drunks who neglect their children as a matter of routine.  As an advocate of fair play I'm sure you wholeheartedly agree.

I provided a cite showing a vicious xenophobic attack on the Portuguese people, their officials and institutions. I notice you have provided no cites to support your accusations of xenophobic attacks 'by the Portuguese media and some of it's citizens'. As an advocate of fair play I expect you to provide your evidence too.

[slartibartfast]

It's my opinion and so I don't need to provide a cite.  Surely you are not claiming never to have seen British sceptics slagging off British police whilst lauding the PJ to high heaven?

Thou shall not lay burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (“Burden of Proof Reversal”)

[slartibartfast]

Can we cut the sniping.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Thou shall not lay burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (“Burden of Proof Reversal”)

I'm not asking for proof, only if you are claiming not to have observed that of which I speak.  It's a simple question requiring a yes / no response.  If you have never witnessed any body on this forum  or elsewhere routinely slagging off, say Operation Grange, whilst simultaneously excusing and praising the PJ for their actions then just say so, and we'll leave it there. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

I provided a cite showing a vicious xenophobic attack on the Portuguese people, their officials and institutions. I notice you have provided no cites to support your accusations of xenophobic attacks 'by the Portuguese media and some of it's citizens'. As an advocate of fair play I expect you to provide your evidence too.

You're quite right, I haven't provided a cite.  I apologise for this, and it may take me a while to find one but I will get back to you on this....

[ShiningInLuz]

Kate wrote MADELEINE with personal experience and the benefit of hindsight.  I would therefore expect whatever she writes to be much more accurate than a newspaper not in possession of all the facts as she was.

However the gist of the article is all to accurate and that is that the McCanns were made arguidos eight days before a change in the law meant that mere suspicion of wrongdoing was not enough justification for so doing - it required firm evidence in justification.
In my opinion a disinterested observer looking at it dispassionately would be able to see at a glance why the law was changed ... it made mistakes less likely and cut down on corruption.

So fire ahead ... I think pedants are always welcome ... they certainly used to be on this thread.

Presumably I should keep this on copy and paste, the number of times it has already appeared, but for those who wish it yet again ...

"We'd waited almost 4 weeks for these interviews and it was obvious they had been hastily arranged once Bob Small notified the PJ that we would be leaving the country."

Not even Kate claims it had anything to do with forthcoming legal changes.  That idea is a red herring.

[slartibartfast]

I'm not asking for proof, only if you are claiming not to have observed that of which I speak.  It's a simple question requiring a yes / no response.  If you have never witnessed any body on this forum  or elsewhere routinely slagging off, say Operation Grange, whilst simultaneously excusing and praising the PJ for their actions then just say so, and we'll leave it there.

In that case no, I have not seen anyone praising the PJ and slagging off OG.

[Erngath]

In that case no, I have not seen anyone praising the PJ and slagging off OG.

A John McEnroe quote does come to mind.

[Mr Gray]

Presumably I should keep this on copy and paste, the number of times it has already appeared, but for those who wish it yet again ...

"We'd waited almost 4 weeks for these interviews and it was obvious they had been hastily arranged once Bob Small notified the PJ that we would be leaving the country."

Not even Kate claims it had anything to do with forthcoming legal changes.  That idea is a red herring.

I dont think your cite supports your claim.. Im fairly sure I have seen articles that support the claim that the mccanns were made arguido shortly before the law was changed... Ill see if I can dig one out

[Alice Purjorick]

Presumably I should keep this on copy and paste, the number of times it has already appeared, but for those who wish it yet again ...

"We'd waited almost 4 weeks for these interviews and it was obvious they had been hastily arranged once Bob Small notified the PJ that we would be leaving the country."

Not even Kate claims it had anything to do with forthcoming legal changes.  That idea is a red herring.

I presume some supporter provided a cite at some stage demonstrating this change to the law was was to be retrospective? 

[Alice Purjorick]

And the same goes for you.

Quite possibly or maybe not as the case may be.

[Alice Purjorick]

Cite for distasteful please.
To reiterate:

There also appears to be a curious anti-British undercurrent from Brits who doubt the McCanns, who also seem quite defensive of even the slightest criticism directed at anything Portuguese.

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Asking a Question
1. Asking a Question That Was Just Answered.
2. Asking About Something Completely Irrelevant
3. Asking Questions That Aren't Questions
4. Asking Questions That Are Ambiguous
5. Asking the Wrong Person

[Brietta]

Presumably I should keep this on copy and paste, the number of times it has already appeared, but for those who wish it yet again ...

"We'd waited almost 4 weeks for these interviews and it was obvious they had been hastily arranged once Bob Small notified the PJ that we would be leaving the country."

Not even Kate claims it had anything to do with forthcoming legal changes.  That idea is a red herring.

You posted:
Snip
“Kate's book said they were planning to leave.

p232 "We'd waited almost 4 weeks for these interviews and it was obvious they had been hastily arranged once Bob Small notified the PJ that we were leaving the country.  Otherwise, why now?  As far as we knew, they didn't have the forensics results back yet."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8044.msg397529#msg397529

Were I you I would also C&P the response to your post which was:
Snip
23rd August;
In any case, as we were now being kept in the dark, we didn’t know much about it ourselves by this stage
[Madeleine]
Clearly the PJ had no intention of telling them anything, let alone if the forensic results were back. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8044.msg397546#msg397546

Kate says they were being kept in the dark … in my opinion they knew relations had cooled considerably … if to the extent they had any inkling of being made arguidos ~ you would have to provide a cite for that, because I cannot.

What you have provided is proof the McCanns didn’t cut and run as claimed by some bloggers.  Their decision to leave when the lease on the rented villa expired was already known and may indeed have been the catalyst for the undue haste in making them arguidos.

All before having any evidence at all let alone sufficient evidence in justification. 

Perhaps in the hope of extracting a confession to 'solve' yet another case; which would have been farcical as confirmed when the forensic evidence was returned and interpreted correctly.