Re: Gerry McCann promotes exciting new missing child smart phone app

by plebgate 06.11.14 22:12

That still picture of them with the pink hydrangeas in the background is getting on my nerves. Aren't they nearer 50 now than 20, so why the hand holding still? That hand holding gets on my nerves too.

by HelenMeg 06.11.14 22:21

plebgate wrote:That still picture of them with the pink hydrangeas in the background is getting on my nerves. Aren't they nearer 50 now than 20, so why the hand holding still? That hand holding gets on my nerves too.

Yes - ridiculous hand-holding. Still, if they hand-hold it probably really means they are virtually separated. It is not normal behaviour to have to hold hands like that - therefore if it is not normal it is abnormal and usually means they are doing it to hide something else.

It is a well known and accepted formula with the Mc Canns. If their behaviour or actions are not normal - then you can be sure that they are only doing it to hide something.

by Stillthinking 07.11.14 12:42

HelenMeg wrote:
plebgate wrote:That still picture of them with the pink hydrangeas in the background is getting on my nerves. Aren't they nearer 50 now than 20, so why the hand holding still? That hand holding gets on my nerves too.
Yes - ridiculous hand-holding. Still, if they hand-hold it probably really means they are virtually separated. It is not normal behaviour to have to hold hands like that - therefore if it is not normal it is abnormal and usually means they are doing it to hide something else.

It is a well known and accepted formula with the Mc Canns. If their behaviour or actions are not normal - then you can be sure that they are only doing it to hide something.

I think some couples are handholders, some aren't. April Jones' parents are often pictured holding hands too.

by plebgate 07.11.14 14:13

Was just watching Ed Milliband and his wife (library pics) from September. Another pair of 40odd year olds holding hands and "skipping" along like a couple of young love dreamers.

Never seen anything like it in me life. ha ha big grin

Oh they are happy and merry and in love, but doesn't look like it's helping with the voters. Gets on me nerves, it really does. big grin

Edited to add: OH DRAT, my post has just pushed their faces back up the page. Last from me, getting on me nerves BIG TIME. big grin

by Guest 07.11.14 14:21

Can't visualize Sir Winston & Clemmie holding hands in public, nor HM EII & HRH the Duke for that matter

by Nina 07.11.14 16:13

Well hubby and I hold hands and have been married 53 years, he's 81 and me 71 but it is just a comfortable habit I suppose.
What I cannot abide is all this thigh gripping though.

by mysterion 07.11.14 16:24

I would just ask your hubby to stop. lol

by Joss 07.11.14 16:29

Nina wrote:Well hubby and I hold hands and have been married 53 years, he's 81 and me 71 but it is just a comfortable habit I suppose.
What I cannot abide is all this thigh gripping though.

Aww, that is sweet. I like to see older couples holding hands, it shows they are still in love with each other, or how i see it anyway.
With the McC's i don't know if it is for that reason or for public show? I guess only they would know that.
A lot of couples actually drift apart after the loss of a child, but some grow closer.
I also agree with the thigh gripping though, that is rather odd, imo.

by kimHager 07.11.14 18:11

Wait the adults dont carry cellphones or watches so this app would have been useless to the mccanns unless poor maddy had the cell phone,she was smart you know and advanced enough to be her moms best friend,watch two toddlers younger than herself,and watch dr.who.She would have used it before her parents!

by sallypelt 07.11.14 21:55

Reposted:

An app made by the Samaritans that was supposed to detect when people on Twitter appeared to be suicidal has been pulled due to "serious" concerns.

The charity's app was meant to use an algorithm to identify key words and phrases which indicated distress.

But in practice, some said the app made those with mental health issues feel more vulnerable.

The Samaritans apologised to "anyone who has inadvertently been caused any distress".

"We have made the decision to suspend the application at this time for further consideration," said the charity's policy director, Joe Ferns, in a statement.

"Our primary concern is for anyone who may be struggling to cope, including those with mental health conditions.

"We are very aware that the range of information and opinion, which is circulating about Samaritans Radar, has created concern and worry for some people and would like to apologise to anyone who has inadvertently been caused any distress.

"This was not our intention."
'Stalkers and bullies'
Launched last month, the Samaritans Radar app analysed Twitter accounts for phrases like "tired of being alone", "hate myself", "depressed", "help me" and "need someone to talk to".

Users who have signed up for the scheme will receive an email alert if someone they followed tweeted such statements.

While Samaritans Radar only monitored tweets that were publicly available, some found the level of analysis unsettling.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29962199

I think I need to go and lie down in a dark room! duh

by Harriet94 07.11.14 22:31

I saw the news report on this when it was launched and I felt a deep sense of unease about it. I assumed that a respected charity like the Samaritans would have done proper and extensive research before launching the application.

by Geowoo 07.11.14 22:34

With this highlighting of a missing child app promoted by the McCanns...the Hacked off group looking to tighten privacy laws and control the newspapers...the call for "trolls" to be made an example of and the loud shouting about "irresponsible journalism" you can see exactly where this is headed.
It is intended to completely suppress a vocal and suspicious public and to encourage the tracking of children by scaring parents who ..as Gerry purports...may just lose their child because it happens every day...There is an agenda most definitely and It is bovine manure.

NB. I do believe phone hacking was very wrong when it involved a young girls murder...and causing so much torment to her parents and making them think she was still alive.

by maebee 08.11.14 0:21

Geowoo wrote:With this highlighting of a missing child app promoted by the McCanns...the Hacked off group looking to tighten privacy laws and control the newspapers...the call for "trolls" to be made an example of and the loud shouting about "irresponsible journalism" you can see exactly where this is headed.
It is intended to completely suppress a vocal and suspicious public and to encourage the tracking of children by scaring parents who ..as Gerry purports...may just lose their child because it happens every day...There is an agenda most definitely and It is bovine manure.

NB. I do believe phone hacking was very wrong when it involved a young girls murder...and causing so much torment to her parents and making them think she was still alive.

Great post Geowoo. The Doctors McCann, instead of being focused on searching for the child they lost, are totally focused on trawling the internet for non-believers of their story and influencing/forcing Google to silence them. Unfrigginbelievable.

What was done in the Milly Dowler case is nothing short of disgraceful. Some good news: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/11215669/Former-News-of-the-World-executive-Ian-Edmondson-jailed-for-phone-hacking.html

by Poppyfox 08.11.14 15:07

I think they hold hands so that if one makes a verbal mistake the other will squeeze it to make them aware of this(Gerry was allowed to put a hand on Kate's shoulder in the first police interview, again to ensure Kate didn't slip up. This was a huge mistake by the PJ to allow this manipulation from the very beginning by this odious pair). As for the thigh groping this is to show how virile and sexy Gerry is and that Kate can't keep her hands off him!!! :bad:

by Rorschach 08.11.14 15:40

Poppyfox wrote:I think they hold hands so that if one makes a verbal mistake the other will squeeze it to make them aware of this(Gerry was allowed to put a hand on Kate's shoulder in the first police interview, again to ensure Kate didn't slip up. This was a huge mistake by the PJ to allow this manipulation from the very beginning by this odious pair). As for the thigh groping this is to show how virile and sexy Gerry is and that Kate can't keep her hands off him!!! :bad:

I agree. In interviews they seem so obviously nervous and guilty. When Gerry stormed off after being questioned about about the blood, Kate looked positively terrified. "what you doing muffled under her breath followed by the" e's too 'ot, go get some fresh air" while fanning her own face? What do you mean it's too hot Kate, he just stated he was annoyed specifically at at the blood question. And why so dismissive of the evidence n the apartment, even SY are entertaining the the ridiculous theory a burglar killed her there. I find this video to be one of the most telling examples of all the body language analysis. Imo they are very clearly guilty of something and never allow themselves to relax.

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:10

Geowoo wrote:With this highlighting of a missing child app promoted by the McCanns...the Hacked off group looking to tighten privacy laws and control the newspapers...the call for "trolls" to be made an example of and the loud shouting about "irresponsible journalism" you can see exactly where this is headed.
It is intended to completely suppress a vocal and suspicious public and to encourage the tracking of children by scaring parents who ..as Gerry purports...may just lose their child because it happens every day...There is an agenda most definitely and It is bovine manure.

NB. I do believe phone hacking was very wrong when it involved a young girls murder...and causing so much torment to her parents and making them think she was still alive.

This is truly quite scary stuff. The Mcs (and their friends) are so obviously implicated in the disappearance of Madeleine, imo, I think even an intelligent eight year old would be able to spot the inconsistencies in their stories.

There is a 'wider agenda' here, definitely. There is also the Mc agenda which is to try to silence, as you say, a 'vocal and suspicious' public. I think that, for the Mcs, this is especially important as they do not want their surviving children to read what the vocal and suspicious members of the public have written about the Mc version of events.

By claiming that parents lose their children all the time - even if just for a short time - GM is trying to 'normalize' what happened to Madeleine. Suggesting that what happened to Madeleine could happen to anyone.

As both Kate and Gerry know, the kidnapping and abduction of children by COMPLETE STRANGERS is remarkably unusual. The statistics support this. And, indeed, the McCanns were/are very well aware of this FACT. Indeed, it is the reason that both Kate and Gerry felt it was completely safe to leave all three of their children every evening without a babysitter. Because, as Kate wrote in her book, the risk of one (or more) of the children being stolen by a stranger was zero. Kate writes that if she had felt that what they were doing was in any way unsafe, she would not have done it.

To my mind this is the McCanns greatest undoing. To claim that there is no risk of one of the children being abducted by a stranger, and then claim, when one of their children is missing from the apartment, that the only scenario is the very one that they felt there was no risk of, is just LUDICROUS, as Gerry would say.

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:17

I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

by plebgate 09.11.14 14:20

Parents lose their children all the time - Eh?

Does he mean that a parent might lose sight of a child for a short time whilst out with them?

That would be totally different to both parents deciding several nights in a row to leaving 3 children under the age of 4 in an unlocked apartment which, as Martin Brunt showed in a video dated December 2007, the apartment was 80 paces away from the tapas bar , could not be clearly seen from the bar and was in the dark.

Totally different, absolutely totally different.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:22

j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

It would have placed them at the scene of the crime.

by plebgate 09.11.14 14:23

j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

Don't know for sure, but if they had been in the house and settled down the door would have been locked?

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:23

I suppose by promoting the big bad bogey-man abduction story, there was a great 'marketing ploy' as GM might say.

And it would encourage people to donate to THE FUND.

They really are a repulsive couple, imo, and it is the height of bad taste that they are allowed within a million miles of any organization that purports to help innocent parents find children who have gone missing through no fault of their own.

by Liz Eagles 09.11.14 14:25

Panto time on the forum again.

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:26

plebgate wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?
Don't know for sure, but if they had been in the house and settled down the door would have been locked?

Someone could have jemmied the shutters, I suppose?! big grin

The could have pretended that they forgot to lock the door. Or even that they felt that resort was 'so safe' that it was fine to leave a window open, or a door unlocked.

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:26

aquila wrote:Panto time on the forum again.

What do you mean, aquila?

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:28

plebgate wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?
Don't know for sure, but if they had been in the house and settled down the door would have been locked?

And they'd definitely have heard shutters being raised.

Log in for more topics