Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't think it was anything to do with reviews or with evidence. I think the UK authorities, for whatever reason, decided very early on that the McCanns and their friends were blameless.

And that is just speculation based on your gut feel and tendency towards conspiracy theories to explain mysteries such as this case.

[Brietta]

I don't think it was anything to do with reviews or with evidence. I think the UK authorities, for whatever reason, decided very early on that the McCanns and their friends were blameless.

That is absolute classic conspiracy theory lore without a shred of evidence to back anything up.

As has been pointed out these shadows in which you believe didn't bother with a cover up for the future British king, but they pulled out all the stops for two obscure doctors from Leicestershire.

There is no remedy for a mind set like that and it is beyond sad.

In the meantime a family awaits the result of the attempt to find out what happened to their daughter after their fifteen year search for her; spare a thought for what they are going through right at this very moment and make it a benign one if you can.

[Brietta]

And that is just speculation based on your gut feel and tendency towards conspiracy theories to explain mysteries such as this case.

There would be no mystery associated with this case if the Portuguese police had conducted their investigation into it with any competence.

The mysteries exist to explain the preposterous because there is nothing else which can.

[barrier]

And that is just speculation based on your gut feel and tendency towards conspiracy theories to explain mysteries such as this case.

Well the CB tale is nothing but a conspiracy, was he there, was he not, I saw him, I know he did it , all to be read in the rag of choice, not one iota of substance of note.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well the CB tale is nothing but a conspiracy, was he there, was he not, I saw him, I know he did it , all to be read in the rag of choice, not one iota of substance of note.

I don't think you understand what a conspiracy theory is.  It would be a conspiracy theory to suggest that CB was being fitted up to protect the McCanns for example.  Is this something you think might be the case?  What conspiracy theory do you think I believe in?

[G-Unit]

And that is just speculation based on your gut feel and tendency towards conspiracy theories to explain mysteries such as this case.

I don't think it's anything to do with a conspiracy, that's not how I see it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't think it's anything to do with a conspiracy, that's not how I see it.

What do you think it's to do with then?  Explain your thoughts and feelings otherwise one can only surmise that you view it all as a giant establishment conspiracy...

[G-Unit]

I don't think you understand what a conspiracy theory is.  It would be a conspiracy theory to suggest that CB was being fitted up to protect the McCanns for example.  Is this something you think might be the case?  What conspiracy theory do you think I believe in?

I have no idea what, if any, conspiracy theories you believe in. What seems to be a feature of McCann supporters, however, is a tendency to accuse others of believing in them.

At the same time there are suggestions from some supporters that the PJ might have conspired against the McCanns; some seem to think they personally have been victimised and that people are manipulating the internet somehow and others that posters here might be getting instructed on what to post by those on other forums.

I find some posters quite paranoid to be honest - they see conspiracies eveywhere.

[The General]

I have no idea what, if any, conspiracy theories you believe in. What seems to be a feature of McCann supporters, however, is a tendency to accuse others of believing in them.

At the same time there are suggestions from some supporters that the PJ might have conspired against the McCanns; some seem to think they personally have been victimised and that people are manipulating the internet somehow and others that posters here might be getting instructed on what to post by those on other forums.

I find some posters quite paranoid to be honest - they see conspiracies eveywhere.

In fairness, for 60 years everyone maintained that JFK was killed by Oswald acting alone, whereas we now know with some certainty that there was a large-scale conspiracy at work.

But we did land on the moon; 'we' being humans, for those of us here who fall in to that classification.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have no idea what, if any, conspiracy theories you believe in. What seems to be a feature of McCann supporters, however, is a tendency to accuse others of believing in them.

At the same time there are suggestions from some supporters that the PJ might have conspired against the McCanns; some seem to think they personally have been victimised and that people are manipulating the internet somehow and others that posters here might be getting instructed on what to post by those on other forums.

I find some posters quite paranoid to be honest - they see conspiracies eveywhere.

I don't think there is a conspiracy in this case, so why even suggest it?  *Oh I see, you replied to a post I wrote that wasn't even addressed to you*.  You claim you don't think there is a conspiracy either, however as you claim not to have ruled anything out including death before the 3rd that would suggest to me you haven't ruled out a conspiracy somewhere along the line. 

You claim you don't believe that it's a conspiracy that the police decided it was an abduction from the off and deliberately chose not to look at the parents, yet you have failed to say why you believe this and on what grounds you believe the police chose to take this action.  I asked you to give your thoughts on what other reasons the police might have for not (according to you) considering parental involvement and you deflected, yet again.

You are not an honest debater IMO.

[G-Unit]

What do you think it's to do with then?  Explain your thoughts and feelings otherwise one can only surmise that you view it all as a giant establishment conspiracy...

I think it became a sort of fashionable view; the 'poor Kate and Gerry' message became accepted because anything else tended to be savagely attacked. Those who actually weren't sure kept quiet, only admitting to having had doubts with the assurance that they didn't have them any more. David Jones for example;

"Kate McCann's haunting account makes me rue the day I doubted them"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1384977/Kate-McCanns-haunting-account-makes-rue-day-I-doubted-them.html

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think it became a sort of fashionable view; the 'poor Kate and Gerry' message became accepted because anything else tended to be savagely attacked. Those who actually weren't sure kept quiet, only admitting to having had doubts with the assurance that they didn't have them any more. David Jones for example;

"Kate McCann's haunting account makes me rue the day I doubted them"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1384977/Kate-McCanns-haunting-account-makes-rue-day-I-doubted-them.html

Wow.  Just wow.  Can I remind you that earlier today you wrote:
" I think the UK authorities, for whatever reason, decided very early on that the McCanns and their friends were blameless".
When did it become "fashionable" to have sympathy for Kate and Gerry then?  Your article you posted in support of your contention is dated 2011.  I remember it being VERY fashionable to be putting the boot into Kate and Gerry for the best part of a year at least from 2007, which is "very early on" so I think your rationale is somewhat flawed.  Your opinion of the UK authorities must be extremely low if you think they didn't investigate the McCanns because they feared being lambasted by the Mail in 2011.  Why would they have been if their investigations were kept undercover anyway?  Your notions are utterly absurd when you really think about it - imo.

[Brietta]

I think it became a sort of fashionable view; the 'poor Kate and Gerry' message became accepted because anything else tended to be savagely attacked. Those who actually weren't sure kept quiet, only admitting to having had doubts with the assurance that they didn't have them any more. David Jones for example;

"Kate McCann's haunting account makes me rue the day I doubted them"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1384977/Kate-McCanns-haunting-account-makes-rue-day-I-doubted-them.html

I think your view of the press treatment of the McCanns is preposterous and not only ill researched but not researched at all.
Your opinion does not reflect the actuality of the situation.

Page last updated at 10:37 GMT, Wednesday, 19 March 2008

Papers paying damages to McCanns

A newspaper group is paying £550,000 to the parents of Madeleine McCann after it settled a libel case over reports of her disappearance.

Express Newspapers' titles, including the Daily Express, Daily Star and Sunday Express, are also printing front-page apologies.

They say they were wrong to suggest the couple, of Rothley, Leicestershire, were responsible for Madeleine's death.

The McCanns say the money will go to the Find Madeleine campaign.
In a statement read out on behalf of the McCanns at the High Court on Wednesday, they said they were pleased that Express Newspapers had admitted the "utter falsity" of the numerous stories written about them over many months.

Their spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, added that the allegations had caused them "great distress".

'Wholehearted apology'

It is understood that the sum donated to the campaign doubles the amount left in the fund.

Madeleine disappeared, days before her fourth birthday, during a family holiday in the resort of Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, on 3 May last year.

Her parents, Kate and Gerry, have been named as suspects in the case by Portuguese police but have always denied any involvement.

The settlement was confirmed at a High Court hearing, although the amount of damages was not formally disclosed.

It came after Wednesday's editions of the Daily Express and Daily Star both carried front-page apologies under the headline, "Kate and Gerry McCann: Sorry".

The Express said it accepted that a "number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up".

It also acknowledged there was "no evidence whatsoever" to support that theory.

The paper added that Mr and Mrs McCann are "completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance".

A similarly worded statement appeared in the Daily Star.

The Star said it was making a "wholehearted apology to Kate and Gerry McCann for stories suggesting the couple were responsible for, or may be responsible for, the death of their daughter Madeleine and for covering it up".

Further apologies are expected in the publications' sister Sunday titles at the weekend.

The libel action related to more than 100 stories across the four titles, including 42 printed in the Daily Express.

All four titles are published by the Express Newspapers group, which has agreed to all the McCanns' requests. It is also paying all their costs.

A spokesman for the company said: "We have nothing to add to what will be said in court and in our titles."

The McCanns' lawyers said that some of the newspapers' articles were "grossly defamatory".

'Trust and credibility'

Richard Bilton, BBC News special correspondent, said one of the couple's representatives had said the response of the newspaper group was "much more responsible than they were perhaps initially with these articles".

Media commentator Roy Greenslade said that for two national newspapers to carry front-page apologies at the same time was "unprecedented".

"I think this is an amazing stand-down, U-turn, by the Express newspapers," he said.

"I think when people realise that more than 100 stories have been complained about as being grossly defamatory, it will annihilate the Express' readers sense of trust and credibility in their newspaper."

Media lawyer Paul Gilbert, from Finers Stephens Innocent, said the courts encourage early settlement of defamation cases.

"Clearly the Express' lawyers felt this was a case they should settle without a high-profile trial - which it would be - and as a result have saved considerable costs," he said.

"It certainly is a warning sign to newspapers in the future - if they're going to speculate, they've got to be very careful about what they speculate about."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7303801.stm

[G-Unit]

Ah yes. The UK newspapers who admitted their wrongdoing and paid compensation without being ordered to do so by the courts....unlike Amaral who fought back and paid them nothing.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Ah yes. The UK newspapers who admitted their wrongdoing and paid compensation without being ordered to do so by the courts....unlike Amaral who fought back and paid them nothing.

More deflection.