|
Post by serpico on Oct 27, 2013 13:46:45 GMT
I read somewhere that's she a keen runner, she has the physique and physical appearance of someone who does a lot of running, distance running can make people look boney and haggard and generally sickly looking. Ahhh that explains Wilson, Adam and Palacios then. Footballers don't have much in common with long distance runners, footballers don't run 6-10 miles a day, they do weights, they have special diets to build their bodies to cope with the rigors of a physical contact sport. I also think Kate McCann is a naturally skinny person so on top of the running it's no wonder she looks haggard.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2013 14:00:08 GMT
You are treating the McCanns much as you might slightly exotic contestants on Big Brother. Especially foxy, photogenic, middle-class GP Kate, her class and apparent composure demands immediate respect, and then later suspicion and derision. It’s the usual thing: one moment she’s up, the next moment she’s down. Frankly it's just a nonsense. That's why i'm pretty loathed to get into it to be fair Gods. And there is no hard evidence to substantiate any of the claims that the McCanns are lying. It's all highly circumstantial and the "body language" argument is school playground. The strange thing about these two is why does the mother have the appearance of someone who is genuinely suffering a loss over time, She looks completely haggard whereas he dosnt have the appearance of someone tormented. He gives me the impression that hes a control freak. I was staggered when I read this. I was hoping that this post was meant as a witty and sarcastic commentary on the general public's trial of the McCann's by body language. Ie "She's too paggard, he's too cool". However, because you also failed to mention that you thought that Maddie's father's eyes were too far apart, I can only assume that you were in fact being serious. The point is, we are talking about real people and a family that has been ripped apart by events. Bizarrely, they may even be keeping the pressure up on the media because that's their only hope. Look, it may well turn out that the McCann's are guilty of murder. It may well turn out that they are totally innocent of murder too. Who knows? That's not my issue here. It's these awful hate posts that trouble me deeply and will also trouble any right minded person. Until such time as authenticated documentation surfaces, signed witness confessions are made, or a smoking gun surfaces that directly links the McCann's to this hypothetical murder, shouldn't we show humility, common decency, human dignity and a little compassion? Innocent until proven guilty? Remember that one? Some of the language and the thinking behind the posts that are emerging within this thread are of a morally reprehensible grade. The feeling i'm left with is one of pre-judgment, bigotry, hatred and of "Burn the Witch". I'm appealing to everyone to think more carefully about the nature of what you are actually commenting on and how you phrase it. Some of it is, if not actually libellous, pretty close too. The overpowering moralistic tone that is being adopted, is fairly unacceptable from any reasonable common sense point of view. That's my own personal opinion by the way, no one else's.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 27, 2013 14:04:21 GMT
Wouldn't a 3 year old child who was being carried away by a strange person in the middle of the night show signs of distress ? yet non of these sightings seem to suggest the children in question were screaming or crying, I suppose it's possible the alleged abductor told MM they were taking her to her mum and dad ? or they drugged her ?.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 27, 2013 14:16:42 GMT
This article in the Sunday Times is the end for the McCanns IMO. It blasts a massive hole in their raison d'être for the existence of the Find Madeleine Limited Company. Well done the Sunday Times for this damning exposure.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 27, 2013 14:29:48 GMT
That's why i'm pretty loathed to get into it to be fair Gods. And there is no hard evidence to substantiate any of the claims that the McCanns are lying. Until such time as authenticated documentation surfaces, signed witness confessions are made, or a smoking gun surfaces that directly links the McCann's to this hypothetical murder, shouldn't we show humility, common decency, human dignity and a little compassion? Innocent until proven guilty? Remember that one? There is no evidence to suggest an abduction or that the mccanns are telling the truth Until such time the mccanns show some contrite for the total lack of disregard for their children's welfare Admit what they did was wrong And actually try and help find their daughter instead of leading the media and police a merry dance They might get some compassion from me. Until then they are two middle class cunts who would rather get pissed than look after their children. Great link from Sunday times too
|
|
|
Post by blurtonboy on Oct 27, 2013 15:10:39 GMT
In my recollection of cases like this, the police, allways first try to find out, who was the last person in contact, with the alleged offence.
Now, after reading all the links that have been posted on here,who was the last person?
This has never been brought up, WHY?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2013 15:15:48 GMT
That's why i'm pretty loathed to get into it to be fair Gods. And there is no hard evidence to substantiate any of the claims that the McCanns are lying. Until such time as authenticated documentation surfaces, signed witness confessions are made, or a smoking gun surfaces that directly links the McCann's to this hypothetical murder, shouldn't we show humility, common decency, human dignity and a little compassion? Innocent until proven guilty? Remember that one? There is no evidence to suggest an abductiom Until such time the mccanns show some contrite for the total lack of disregard for their children's welfare Admit what they did was wrong And actually try and help find their daughter instead of leading the media and pice a merry dance They might get some compassion from me. Until then they are two middle class cunts who would rather get pissed than look after their children. Great link from Sunday times too What i'm trying to understand is where all this anger is coming from Salop? You seem to have hit the roof over this issue, as though you know something that I don't. What is the one single fact that convinces you, above all the others and beyond any reasonable doubt that the McCann's are in some way part of a cover up, and that you can refer to them as a pair of "see you next Tuesday's" particularly when they have lost a child? Are you angry about the mass media engagement they have bought about? Or is it the fact that they are middle class? I'm really of no opinion on the matter itself, i'm far more interested in the UK's polarised public reaction to the McCann's scenario to be honest. In a sickening twist of fate, the media focus that they have achieved has now almost completely switched from Maddie to the subtext around her parents. They really are the subjects of intense media, social, moral scrutiny, I find it all a bit strange if i'm honest. My feeling is that it is all somehow linked to the austerity measures we are currently under in the UK. Don't ask me how, i'm just contemplating it right now. I remember when the very young James Bulger was abducted and murdered in Liverpool back in 1993. His mum turned her back for a few minutes in the Bootle shopping centre and he was gone. Do you think that she could also be accused of child neglect? I also know that in your line of work you have to make a "snap" decision on someone or a situation. Does this have an effect on your overall permanent take? Serious questions, and i'm not loading a gun either, mate.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2013 15:20:34 GMT
This article in the Sunday Times is the end for the McCanns IMO. It blasts a massive hole in their raison d'être for the existence of the Find Madeleine Limited Company. Well done the Sunday Times for this damning exposure. Got a non-subscription press (non ST) link for that Squire? What's the gist of it? Any new evidence, or mostly conjecture?
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 27, 2013 15:30:46 GMT
This article in the Sunday Times is the end for the McCanns IMO. It blasts a massive hole in their raison d'être for the existence of the Find Madeleine Limited Company. Well done the Sunday Times for this damning exposure. Got a non-subscription press (non ST) link for that Squire? What's the gist of it? Any new evidence, or mostly conjecture? Here is the full story from Sunday Times: Hello! “ Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports The Sunday Times Insight team Published: 27 October 2013 Comment (0) Print Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007 (Adrian Sheratt) THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators. The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008. It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard. A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine. Click to enlarge 10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope. But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy. They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared. This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month. One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough. The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief. Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing. An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends. Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.” He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund. A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public. Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authoritiesKate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence. It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing. The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children. The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm. The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account. Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”. The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes. The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008 (Adrian Sheratt) The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay. The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal. One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said. The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance. Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released. Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key? The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse. As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors. There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz. Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects. The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US. The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute. He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors. “[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source. A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard. It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.” Insight: Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert Is this the smoking gun you suggested in an earlier post.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 27, 2013 15:31:40 GMT
There is no evidence to suggest an abductiom Until such time the mccanns show some contrite for the total lack of disregard for their children's welfare Admit what they did was wrong And actually try and help find their daughter instead of leading the media and pice a merry dance They might get some compassion from me. Until then they are two middle class cunts who would rather get pissed than look after their children. Great link from Sunday times too What i'm trying to understand is where all this anger is coming from Salop? You seem to have hit the roof over this issue, as though you know something that I don't. What is the one single fact that convinces you, above all the others and beyond any reasonable doubt that the McCann's are in some way part of a cover up, and that you can refer to them as a pair of "see you next Tuesday's" particularly when they have lost a child? Are you angry about the mass media engagement they have bought about? Or is it the fact that they are middle class? I'm really of no opinion on the matter itself, i'm far more interested in the UK's polarised public reaction to the McCann's scenario to be honest. In a sickening twist of fate, the media focus that they have achieved has now almost completely switched from Maddie to the subtext around her parents. They really are the subjects of intense media, social, moral scrutiny, I find it all a bit strange if i'm honest. My feeling is that it is all somehow linked to the austerity measures we are currently under in the UK. Don't ask me how, i'm just contemplating it right now. I remember when the very young James Bulger was abducted and murdered in Liverpool back in 1993. His mum turned her back for a few minutes in the Bootle shopping centre and he was gone. Do you think that she could also be accused of child neglect? I also know that in your line of work you have to make a "snap" decision on someone or a situation. Does this have an effect on your overall permanent take? Serious questions, and i'm not loading a gun either, mate. This isn't the case of turning your back, so how you can compare bulgers parents and the mccanns is beyond me and equally contemptible And it's nothing to do with austerity, the public see a child missing, two parents crying crocodile tears of a child they neglected with a whole load of ambiguity in the case Have you not read the whole thread The single fact that convinces me that's these people are terrible people is that they have admitted hardly seeing their kids all holiday, repeatedly left them at night to go eating and drinking and they have stated this is normal behaviour and they've done nothing wrong No evidence to back up their version. How can these people educated people who believe it is ok to neglect and leave their kids be believed in anything else And why did they hinder the investigation? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 27, 2013 15:33:24 GMT
Leslie, the screw is turning
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2013 18:02:54 GMT
What i'm trying to understand is where all this anger is coming from Salop? You seem to have hit the roof over this issue, as though you know something that I don't. What is the one single fact that convinces you, above all the others and beyond any reasonable doubt that the McCann's are in some way part of a cover up, and that you can refer to them as a pair of "see you next Tuesday's" particularly when they have lost a child? Are you angry about the mass media engagement they have bought about? Or is it the fact that they are middle class? I'm really of no opinion on the matter itself, i'm far more interested in the UK's polarised public reaction to the McCann's scenario to be honest. In a sickening twist of fate, the media focus that they have achieved has now almost completely switched from Maddie to the subtext around her parents. They really are the subjects of intense media, social, moral scrutiny, I find it all a bit strange if i'm honest. My feeling is that it is all somehow linked to the austerity measures we are currently under in the UK. Don't ask me how, i'm just contemplating it right now. I remember when the very young James Bulger was abducted and murdered in Liverpool back in 1993. His mum turned her back for a few minutes in the Bootle shopping centre and he was gone. Do you think that she could also be accused of child neglect? I also know that in your line of work you have to make a "snap" decision on someone or a situation. Does this have an effect on your overall permanent take? Serious questions, and i'm not loading a gun either, mate. This isn't the case of turning your back, so how you can compare bulgers parents and the mccanns is beyond me and equally contemptible And it's nothing to do with austerity, the public see a child missing, two parents crying crocodile tears of a child they neglected with a whole load of ambiguity in the case Have you not read the whole thread The single fact that convinces me that's these people are terrible people is that they have admitted hardly seeing their kids all holiday, repeatedly left them at night to go eating and drinking and they have stated this is normal behaviour and they've done nothing wrong No evidence to back up their version. How can these people educated people who believe it is ok to neglect and leave their kids be believed in anything else And why did they hinder the investigation? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stmThe James Bulger murder is not something i've tried to compare. I'm simply trying to understand where you draw the line as to what constitutes acceptable parenting and what falls short. It seems that your main issue is with the way the McCann's failed to make themselves "on the spot parents", so to speak, and their subsequent failure to admit to this fact. That's totally fair enough Salop. So, the next question is this. Were the McCann's simply too casual as parents, or were they actively involved in the abduction? I think this is the crux. In my view, somewhere along the McCann timeline, they seem to have transitioned from "bad parents" to "lying murder suspects". Without, it would seem, any new revelations, or indeed actual evidence. There has only been "chatter". Would you agree with that point Salop? So what changed? I think the answer to that is that we the public, grew weary. We are now more cynical, quicker to judge, less tolerant and less patient. We are also very mistrusting of the middle classes, the banking class. The same feelings of intolerance are echoed in the press and the media too. I have thought for some time now that the McCann's current position has been a result of a media driven initiative, as part of a response to the governments austerity package.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Oct 27, 2013 18:13:42 GMT
You are treating the McCanns much as you might slightly exotic contestants on Big Brother. Especially foxy, photogenic, middle-class GP Kate, her class and apparent composure demands immediate respect, and then later suspicion and derision. It’s the usual thing: one moment she’s up, the next moment she’s down. Frankly it's just a nonsense. That's why i'm pretty loathed to get into it to be fair Gods. And there is no hard evidence to substantiate any of the claims that the McCanns are lying. It's all highly circumstantial and the "body language" argument is school playground. The strange thing about these two is why does the mother have the appearance of someone who is genuinely suffering a loss over time, She looks completely haggard whereas he dosnt have the appearance of someone tormented. He gives me the impression that hes a control freak. I was staggered when I read this. I was hoping that this post was meant as a witty and sarcastic commentary on the general public's trial of the McCann's by body language. Ie "She's too paggard, he's too cool". However, because you also failed to mention that you thought that Maddie's father's eyes were too far apart, I can only assume that you were in fact being serious. The point is, we are talking about real people and a family that has been ripped apart by events. Bizarrely, they may even be keeping the pressure up on the media because that's their only hope. Look, it may well turn out that the McCann's are guilty of murder. It may well turn out that they are totally innocent of murder too. Who knows? That's not my issue here. It's these awful hate posts that trouble me deeply and will also trouble any right minded person. Until such time as authenticated documentation surfaces, signed witness confessions are made, or a smoking gun surfaces that directly links the McCann's to this hypothetical murder, shouldn't we show humility, common decency, human dignity and a little compassion? Innocent until proven guilty? Remember that one? Some of the language and the thinking behind the posts that are emerging within this thread are of a morally reprehensible grade. The feeling i'm left with is one of pre-judgment, bigotry, hatred and of "Burn the Witch". I'm appealing to everyone to think more carefully about the nature of what you are actually commenting on and how you phrase it. Some of it is, if not actually libellous, pretty close too. The overpowering moralistic tone that is being adopted, is fairly unacceptable from any reasonable common sense point of view. That's my own personal opinion by the way, no one else's. If you read it again **************, im actually supporting her. Ive accused no one of anything just made an observation of how an incident has affected two individuals. From interviews etc her behaviour seems more steady than his.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2013 18:21:28 GMT
That's why i'm pretty loathed to get into it to be fair Gods. And there is no hard evidence to substantiate any of the claims that the McCanns are lying. It's all highly circumstantial and the "body language" argument is school playground. I was staggered when I read this. I was hoping that this post was meant as a witty and sarcastic commentary on the general public's trial of the McCann's by body language. Ie "She's too paggard, he's too cool". However, because you also failed to mention that you thought that Maddie's father's eyes were too far apart, I can only assume that you were in fact being serious. The point is, we are talking about real people and a family that has been ripped apart by events. Bizarrely, they may even be keeping the pressure up on the media because that's their only hope. Look, it may well turn out that the McCann's are guilty of murder. It may well turn out that they are totally innocent of murder too. Who knows? That's not my issue here. It's these awful hate posts that trouble me deeply and will also trouble any right minded person. Until such time as authenticated documentation surfaces, signed witness confessions are made, or a smoking gun surfaces that directly links the McCann's to this hypothetical murder, shouldn't we show humility, common decency, human dignity and a little compassion? Innocent until proven guilty? Remember that one? Some of the language and the thinking behind the posts that are emerging within this thread are of a morally reprehensible grade. The feeling i'm left with is one of pre-judgment, bigotry, hatred and of "Burn the Witch". I'm appealing to everyone to think more carefully about the nature of what you are actually commenting on and how you phrase it. Some of it is, if not actually libellous, pretty close too. The overpowering moralistic tone that is being adopted, is fairly unacceptable from any reasonable common sense point of view. That's my own personal opinion by the way, no one else's. If you read it again **************, im actually supporting her. Ive accused no one of anything just made an observation of how an incident has affected two individuals. From interviews etc her behaviour seems more steady than his. Who can say how an individual would respond to the loss of a loved one? I thought your comments were pretty harsh though.
|
|
|
Post by stonmg on Oct 27, 2013 18:23:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 27, 2013 18:27:28 GMT
This isn't the case of turning your back, so how you can compare bulgers parents and the mccanns is beyond me and equally contemptible And it's nothing to do with austerity, the public see a child missing, two parents crying crocodile tears of a child they neglected with a whole load of ambiguity in the case Have you not read the whole thread The single fact that convinces me that's these people are terrible people is that they have admitted hardly seeing their kids all holiday, repeatedly left them at night to go eating and drinking and they have stated this is normal behaviour and they've done nothing wrong No evidence to back up their version. How can these people educated people who believe it is ok to neglect and leave their kids be believed in anything else And why did they hinder the investigation? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stmThe James Bulger murder is not something i've tried to compare. I'm simply trying to understand where you draw the line as to what constitutes acceptable parenting and what falls short. It seems that your main issue is with the way the McCann's failed to make themselves "on the spot parents", so to speak, and their subsequent failure to admit to this fact. That's totally fair enough Salop. So, the next question is this. Were the McCann's simply too casual as parents, or were they actively involved in the abduction? I think this is the crux. In my view, somewhere along the McCann timeline, they seem to have transitioned from "bad parents" to "lying murder suspects". Without, it would seem, any new revelations, or indeed actual evidence. There has only been "chatter". Would you agree with that point Salop? So what changed? I think the answer to that is that we the public, grew weary. We are now more cynical, quicker to judge, less tolerant and less patient. We are also very mistrusting of the middle classes, the banking class. The same feelings of intolerance are echoed in the press and the media too. I have thought for some time now that the McCann's current position has been a result of a media driven initiative, as part of a response to the governments austerity package. No, a lot of the public began to lose sympathy for less middle class reasons Failures to show remorse or grief A huge pr machine which seemed more about self promotion than finding maddie A dodgy fund Changing statements Refusal to answer questions Dogs and cadevars. There is no hard evidence to prove anything however there is circumstantial evidence to raise doubt in the mccanns version of events I'm yet to see anything that suggests an abduction - more than happy to be put right on that one though, but it seems bar some changed statements, dodgy efits and the mccanns saying she was abducted. Considering the fact they could not conceive naturally you would think they would take their responsibility as parents greater, and considering they had just had a daughter abducted the last thing any normal people would do is put the twins back in the holiday crèche.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 27, 2013 20:18:57 GMT
This isn't the case of turning your back, so how you can compare bulgers parents and the mccanns is beyond me and equally contemptible And it's nothing to do with austerity, the public see a child missing, two parents crying crocodile tears of a child they neglected with a whole load of ambiguity in the case Have you not read the whole thread The single fact that convinces me that's these people are terrible people is that they have admitted hardly seeing their kids all holiday, repeatedly left them at night to go eating and drinking and they have stated this is normal behaviour and they've done nothing wrong No evidence to back up their version. How can these people educated people who believe it is ok to neglect and leave their kids be believed in anything else And why did they hinder the investigation? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stmThe James Bulger murder is not something i've tried to compare. I'm simply trying to understand where you draw the line as to what constitutes acceptable parenting and what falls short. It seems that your main issue is with the way the McCann's failed to make themselves "on the spot parents", so to speak, and their subsequent failure to admit to this fact. That's totally fair enough Salop. So, the next question is this. Were the McCann's simply too casual as parents, or were they actively involved in the abduction? I think this is the crux. In my view, somewhere along the McCann timeline, they seem to have transitioned from "bad parents" to "lying murder suspects". Without, it would seem, any new revelations, or indeed actual evidence. There has only been "chatter". Would you agree with that point Salop? So what changed? I think the answer to that is that we the public, grew weary. We are now more cynical, quicker to judge, less tolerant and less patient. We are also very mistrusting of the middle classes, the banking class. The same feelings of intolerance are echoed in the press and the media too. I have thought for some time now that the McCann's current position has been a result of a media driven initiative, as part of a response to the governments austerity package. To blame the McCann's situation on a media driven initiative as part of a response to the governments austerity package is truly one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. The unquestioning press they have received even today when a newspaper reveals they kept back information for 5 years on a crucial lead to help find their child (another to add to a long list of questions they have never answered) is unprecedented but then so is their appetite for litigation. The only thing that is certain is that if they are dodgy the sunday times article is just the opening shot, the ST would have to be very certain if they are as it appears to be gearing up to go after them.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 28, 2013 0:35:42 GMT
What i'm trying to understand is where all this anger is coming from Salop? You seem to have hit the roof over this issue, as though you know something that I don't. What is the one single fact that convinces you, above all the others and beyond any reasonable doubt that the McCann's are in some way part of a cover up, and that you can refer to them as a pair of "see you next Tuesday's" particularly when they have lost a child? Are you angry about the mass media engagement they have bought about? Or is it the fact that they are middle class? I'm really of no opinion on the matter itself, i'm far more interested in the UK's polarised public reaction to the McCann's scenario to be honest. In a sickening twist of fate, the media focus that they have achieved has now almost completely switched from Maddie to the subtext around her parents. They really are the subjects of intense media, social, moral scrutiny, I find it all a bit strange if i'm honest. My feeling is that it is all somehow linked to the austerity measures we are currently under in the UK. Don't ask me how, i'm just contemplating it right now. I remember when the very young James Bulger was abducted and murdered in Liverpool back in 1993. His mum turned her back for a few minutes in the Bootle shopping centre and he was gone. Do you think that she could also be accused of child neglect? I also know that in your line of work you have to make a "snap" decision on someone or a situation. Does this have an effect on your overall permanent take? Serious questions, and i'm not loading a gun either, mate. This isn't the case of turning your back, so how you can compare bulgers parents and the mccanns is beyond me and equally contemptible And it's nothing to do with austerity, the public see a child missing, two parents crying crocodile tears of a child they neglected with a whole load of ambiguity in the case Have you not read the whole thread The single fact that convinces me that's these people are terrible people is that they have admitted hardly seeing their kids all holiday, repeatedly left them at night to go eating and drinking and they have stated this is normal behaviour and they've done nothing wrong No evidence to back up their version. How can these people educated people who believe it is ok to neglect and leave their kids be believed in anything else And why did they hinder the investigation? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stmAm I right in thinking they were on a Club Mark Warner holiday Salop? I've been on dozens of them (skiing not summer admittedly) and on the ones I have been on the whole creche/nannying facilities are a massive part of it. The parents ski all day while the kids are in ski school. Then in the evening they are then looked after in the creche/play area until about 10pm or so while the parents have dinner. After that some parents go to bed but many take their children to their rooms then come back downstairs for a drink with the other guests before bed. I'm not a parent myself and I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of it but what I will tell you is that the atmosphere is dead chilled and the practice is absolutely common place.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 28, 2013 7:05:02 GMT
This isn't the case of turning your back, so how you can compare bulgers parents and the mccanns is beyond me and equally contemptible And it's nothing to do with austerity, the public see a child missing, two parents crying crocodile tears of a child they neglected with a whole load of ambiguity in the case Have you not read the whole thread The single fact that convinces me that's these people are terrible people is that they have admitted hardly seeing their kids all holiday, repeatedly left them at night to go eating and drinking and they have stated this is normal behaviour and they've done nothing wrong No evidence to back up their version. How can these people educated people who believe it is ok to neglect and leave their kids be believed in anything else And why did they hinder the investigation? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stmAm I right in thinking they were on a Club Mark Warner holiday Salop? I've been on dozens of them (skiing not summer admittedly) and on the ones I have been on the whole creche/nannying facilities are a massive part of it. The parents ski all day while the kids are in ski school. Then in the evening they are then looked after in the creche/play area until about 10pm or so while the parents have dinner. After that some parents go to bed but many take their children to their rooms then come back downstairs for a drink with the other guests before bed. I'm not a parent myself and I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of it but what I will tell you is that the atmosphere is dead chilled and the practice is absolutely common place. in this case by their own admission they used the crèche in day Left kids in tbe apartment alone at night EVEN THOUGH CRÈCHE / BABYSITTING FACILITIES WERE AVAILABLE
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 7:31:42 GMT
What i'm trying to understand is where all this anger is coming from Salop? You seem to have hit the roof over this issue, as though you know something that I don't. What is the one single fact that convinces you, above all the others and beyond any reasonable doubt that the McCann's are in some way part of a cover up, and that you can refer to them as a pair of "see you next Tuesday's" particularly when they have lost a child? Are you angry about the mass media engagement they have bought about? Or is it the fact that they are middle class? I'm really of no opinion on the matter itself, i'm far more interested in the UK's polarised public reaction to the McCann's scenario to be honest. In a sickening twist of fate, the media focus that they have achieved has now almost completely switched from Maddie to the subtext around her parents. They really are the subjects of intense media, social, moral scrutiny, I find it all a bit strange if i'm honest. My feeling is that it is all somehow linked to the austerity measures we are currently under in the UK. Don't ask me how, i'm just contemplating it right now. I remember when the very young James Bulger was abducted and murdered in Liverpool back in 1993. His mum turned her back for a few minutes in the Bootle shopping centre and he was gone. Do you think that she could also be accused of child neglect? I also know that in your line of work you have to make a "snap" decision on someone or a situation. Does this have an effect on your overall permanent take? Serious questions, and i'm not loading a gun either, mate. This isn't the case of turning your back, so how you can compare bulgers parents and the mccanns is beyond me and equally contemptible And it's nothing to do with austerity, the public see a child missing, two parents crying crocodile tears of a child they neglected with a whole load of ambiguity in the case Have you not read the whole thread The single fact that convinces me that's these people are terrible people is that they have admitted hardly seeing their kids all holiday, repeatedly left them at night to go eating and drinking and they have stated this is normal behaviour and they've done nothing wrong No evidence to back up their version. How can these people educated people who believe it is ok to neglect and leave their kids be believed in anything else And why did they hinder the investigation? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stmFirst time I've ever read that link Salop Can't believe the crime watch reconstruction after reading that Disgraceful
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 28, 2013 8:21:01 GMT
This isn't the case of turning your back, so how you can compare bulgers parents and the mccanns is beyond me and equally contemptible And it's nothing to do with austerity, the public see a child missing, two parents crying crocodile tears of a child they neglected with a whole load of ambiguity in the case Have you not read the whole thread The single fact that convinces me that's these people are terrible people is that they have admitted hardly seeing their kids all holiday, repeatedly left them at night to go eating and drinking and they have stated this is normal behaviour and they've done nothing wrong No evidence to back up their version. How can these people educated people who believe it is ok to neglect and leave their kids be believed in anything else And why did they hinder the investigation? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stmFirst time I've ever read that link Salop Can't believe the crime watch reconstruction after reading that Disgraceful I think the link to that was out up on this thread earlier Frase...I personally find it very odd that she remained silent virtually all the time.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 28, 2013 11:41:26 GMT
red tops now carrying the FT Story
very odd huddy
although different cases and no comparison however:
can anyone see the similarities in the maccans denial, the way they litigate against anyone who doubts and their huge pr machine with the lance armstrong denial
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 28, 2013 11:42:19 GMT
So, we can add suppressing e-fits to the list of odd actions taken by the McCanns ? why would they do this ? it's even more strange when you consider 5 years later these e-fits are deemed to be a massive break through worthy of a massive press campaign, Kate McCann didn't even deem these worthy of inclusion in her book with the other e-fits of possible abductors, why have they suddenly taken on significance now ?.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 28, 2013 11:44:16 GMT
So, we can add suppressing e-fits to the list of odd actions taken by the McCanns ? why would they do this ? it's even more strange when you consider 5 years later these e-fits are deemed to be a massive break through worthy of a massive press campaign, Kate McCann didn't even deem these worthy of inclusion her book with other e-fits, why have they suddenly taken on significance now ?. lets assume guilt for a minute sometimes a lie takes on a world of its own and its hard to keep track i cant help but believe its all about the current libel in trial in portugal this trial could break them
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 28, 2013 11:55:47 GMT
So, we can add suppressing e-fits to the list of odd actions taken by the McCanns ? why would they do this ? it's even more strange when you consider 5 years later these e-fits are deemed to be a massive break through worthy of a massive press campaign, Kate McCann didn't even deem these worthy of inclusion her book with other e-fits, why have they suddenly taken on significance now ?. lets assume guilt for a minute sometimes a lie takes on a world of its own and its hard to keep track i cant help but believe its all about the current libel in trial in portugal this trial could break them It is interesting timing, isn't it ?. Is there anyone left who doesn't think there's something odd about this entire case ? not necessarily anything majorly sinister, but just odd and inconsistent with what you'd expect from two parents who have a child missing, why would they suppress this after claiming they want to leave no stone unturned ? why after 5 years have these e-fits gone from insignificant to very significant ?. They need to explain this one.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 28, 2013 12:01:48 GMT
So, we can add suppressing e-fits to the list of odd actions taken by the McCanns ? why would they do this ? it's even more strange when you consider 5 years later these e-fits are deemed to be a massive break through worthy of a massive press campaign, Kate McCann didn't even deem these worthy of inclusion her book with other e-fits, why have they suddenly taken on significance now ?. lets assume guilt for a minute sometimes a lie takes on a world of its own and its hard to keep track i cant help but believe its all about the current libel in trial in portugal this trial could break them Or related to this trial m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24691241A bad mistake to align themselves with Hacked off as they appear to be running out of money and friends to control their version of the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 12:37:39 GMT
My guess is, and It is only a guess, the authorities are now toying with the mccanns , in the hope they make a mistake....hopefully
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 28, 2013 12:45:48 GMT
Wouldn't a 3 year old child who was being carried away by a strange person in the middle of the night show signs of distress ? yet non of these sightings seem to suggest the children in question were screaming or crying, I suppose it's possible the alleged abductor told MM they were taking her to her mum and dad ? or they drugged her ?. This link to the hacking trial, starting today, was made my many posts on the thread posted by Serpico yesterday(above). That thread was 48 pages long by tea time yesterday which demonstrates the unease many people are feeling now. Murdoch's Sunday Times Insight investigators will be treading carefully regarding the truth behind these latest exposures in a way to somehow show support to those reporters on the dock. I have a feeling that the ST will be revealing more on this exposure as the weeks go by. One thing is for certain Goncalo Amoral's defence team will be pouring over them because McCanns will look more than stupid claiming his book hindered police investigations.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 28, 2013 13:34:58 GMT
So they have spent 5 million on the latest investigation and have released e-fits and information that was given to the McCanns 5 years ago by private detectives which the McCanns subsequently suppressed until now ?. So exactly what have they spent 5 million pounds on ?.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 13:52:45 GMT
The James Bulger murder is not something i've tried to compare. I'm simply trying to understand where you draw the line as to what constitutes acceptable parenting and what falls short. It seems that your main issue is with the way the McCann's failed to make themselves "on the spot parents", so to speak, and threir subsequent failure to admit to this fact. That's totally fair enough Salop. So, the next question is this. Were the McCann's simply too casual as parents, or were they actively involved in the abduction? I think this is the crux. In my view, somewhere along the McCann timeline, they seem to have transitioned from "bad parents" to "lying murder suspects". Without, it would seem, any new revelations, or indeed actual evidence. There has only been "chatter". Would you agree with that point Salop? So what changed? I think the answer to that is that we the public, grew weary. We are now more cynical, quicker to judge, less tolerant and less patient. We are also very mistrusting of the middle classes, the banking class. The same feelings of intolerance are echoed in the press and the media too. I have thought for some time now that the McCann's current position has been a result of a media driven initiative, as part of a response to the governments austerity package. To blame the McCann's situation on a media driven initiative as part of a response to the governments austerity package is truly one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. The unquestioning press they have received even today when a newspaper reveals they kept back information for 5 years on a crucial lead to help find their child (another to add to a long list of questions they have never answered) is unprecedented but then so is their appetite for litigation. The only thing that is certain is that if they are dodgy the sunday times article is just the opening shot, the ST would have to be very certain if they are as it appears to be gearing up to go after them. If you read what i'm commenting on and try to understand the idea FYD, it's concerning the incendiary nature of some of the posts on this thread the way a subplot is gaining a foothold. It's an indicator of what might be happening in our society, without the burden of physical proof, outside of chit-chat and speculative conjecture. We seem to be entering a new era in the "Burn the Witch" scenario. I don't care about the McCann's either way, but it's this guilty as hell presumption that troubles me deeply, and how it empowers folks to demand heads on plates. This mentality sets a dangerous precedent. Please try and understand what you're reading before wading in, and i'm sorry if the point I was making was a little more challenging in the context of the bigger picture.
|
|