Feeding the Trolls - McCann Style

by Guest 05.03.17 11:15

Last night, whilst talking to my mum on the phone, she asked me if I knew that the McCanns received up to a hundred and fifty abusive messages a day. Apparently her neighbour had told her this. Initially I was taken aback by how quickly this nugget of 'research' had made its way into common parlance. What my mother said next, shifted my focus somewhat. "Of course," she said, "they have said some pretty insensitive things over the years." Perhaps because she comes from a generation far less emotionally incontinent than mine, it struck me that my mother was not in the least perturbed by this knowledge and in an even-handed way she was looking for why this might be rather than dwelling on the emotional impact this might have on the McCanns. As far as my mother was concerned, the Mccanns have to take some responsibility for this state of affairs - if this is Indeed the case. So it occurred to me that my mother had inadvertently stumbled upon the first rule of the Internet - a place I hasten to add to which she has never ventured. -This rule is of course: Don't feed the Trolls!

So I began to ponder how this simple adage really does seem to have escaped the McCanns and I set about compiling a beginners' guide to feeding the Trolls McCann style. Here are just a few comments made by the McCanns which rather than being food for thought are perhaps more accurately described as food for Trolls.

Gerry McCann: "The iris is Madeline's only truly distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her... her abductor might do something to her eye. But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy."

Kate McCann: "After five days, Gerry and I were finally able to sleep again."

Nobody should condone trolling but we all need to be mindful that the things we say have consequences and the public has a right to scrutinize and challenge and even feel anger where it's appropriate. The McCanns have courted publicity in a way that for many (in fact I would say for the majority) has been in poor taste - and they really haven't learnt the first lesson of the internet: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

by suzyjohnson 05.03.17 13:46

Trolling definition

1Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

There is a very big difference between deliberately trying to make someone miserable (largely just for maliciousness sake) and having an opposing view, and in this case, questioning the McCanns version of events.

by Guest 05.03.17 14:13

Thanks Suzy - I wanted to open the discussion up a bit and look at the reasons why there is so much anger towards the McCanns. I think there are so many facets to this but fundamentally, I think there is so much anger because people simply don't buy the story we've been spoon fed. I honestly think it's reaching boiling point now and whilst no one condones trolling, it's just too easy, as Jim Gamble and many others have done, to just label anyone who speaks out about the McCanns, as a troll. If the powers that be think they can simply shame people into submission and silence, I think they are in for a shock - Jack's well and truly out of the box.

by suzyjohnson 05.03.17 14:49

Could also be that they want people to think of anyone who criticises them as a troll. Trolls are people being unjustly unkind to them when they are 'obviously' innocent.

by suzyjohnson 05.03.17 15:06

There are quite a lot of reasons people are angry with the McCanns. Firstly they have never really taken responsibility for their part in the disappearance of their daughter.

Then, they have never acknowledged the effort and public money spent on their behalf by the Portuguese and the British. They are entitled to everything.

Everything that happens is always someone else's fault.

It annoys me, when so many people are living on a very limited budget, that they have thrown so much money away on conmen like Halligan, or litigation or Clarence Mitchell . Who hires a £70,000 a year spokesman?

That they have hounded a police officer through the courts.

That their own, personal contribution to either directly searching for their daughter or paying someone else to do so, has been so little.

ETA ...... but trolls don't necessarily troll someone because they are angry with someone, they do it just to get an emotional response. Trolls like to stay detached from the drama they create.

by Guest 05.03.17 15:17

That's what I think - it stifles descent because people think they're going to be shamed. This happened right from the start - Kate and Gerry calling the shots and no questions asked, because we don't want to appear unkind when really, it's just groupthink that's out of control. I just wish someone credible from mainstream media would break ranks. We need a talisman (with a bit more gravitas than Jodie Marsh) to get things moving...

by suzyjohnson 05.03.17 15:20

What's_up_doc? wrote:That's what I think - it stifles descent because people think they're going to be shamed. This happened right from the start - Kate and Gerry calling the shots and no questions asked, because we don't want to appear unkind when really, it's just groupthink that's out of control. I just wish someone credible from mainstream media would break ranks. We need a talisman (with a bit more gravitas than Jodie Marsh) to get things moving...

There's Mr Amaral, the Portuguese Supreme court, and several others prepared to say what they think.

by Guest 05.03.17 15:30

Yep you're right there are lots of people and if the mainstream media don't wake up soon, they are just going to lose more and more credibility - I think I'm too impatient. I want a more serious tone in the British press regarding this story but all we get is silly shallow stories about Kate's pain and how many nasty tweets they get. I just wish there was a bit more depth in the press. Maybe one day...

by willowthewisp 05.03.17 16:13

Hi Whats up doc, in a recent article from Textusa,the term being used is does the Government want another"Hillsborough" on it's hands with regard to Operation Grange?
Various Governments have spent Millions of Pounds looking for Madeleine McCann since the parents suggested,that Madeleine had been Abducted from Apartment 5a Ocean Club,Warner Leisure Industry,03 May 2007.
We have seen the BBC,Crime Watch programme provide Two separate studies of what happened,Dave Edgar produced a masterpiece in his production involving the Tapas Group,of whom all refused to go back and have a proper reconstruction of what actually happened on 3 May 2007 into Madeleine's disappearance?
If anyone doubts the recent fake news stories are not made up to skewer peoples perception of what is the actual "Truth",they have succeeded,by now casting doubt as to what is and is not True in the Main Stream Media,to a point of you now doubt any News being Broadcast,Confusion is Good?
IICSA, First part investigation is now uncovering what the"Establishment" did to it's own young children after the second World War after,Seventy Two Years later and it will take at least Five Years to possibly uncover the Real"Masters of deception" will they dare to expose them,MI 5/6?
The Real Trolls live in West Minster,who controls the puppets?

by Guest 05.03.17 16:44

Thanks willowthewisp - I'd like to read the Textusa's article- I look on his page sometimes but I do find him hard to follow. I'll have a glass of wine tonight and give it a go! I think I get what you're saying about another Hillsborough - does this mean they are damned if they do and damned if they don't - because it's like there are two parallel universes at the moment - the Internet where the myth of the McCanns has been well and truly debunked and then the mainstream media which hasn't got past deciding whether Kate should be mildly rebuked for allegedly leaving her kids unattended. So your question, 'Will they dare to expose them? Is the biggie and all this talk of trolls is just a diversion. Or is it more sinister and an attempt to engender sympathy? I really can't call it.

by **Jill Havern** 05.03.17 16:48

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Jill Havern** 05.03.17 16:50

What's_up_doc? wrote:Thanks willowthewisp - I'd like to read the Textusa's article- I look on his page sometimes but I do find him hard to follow. I'll have a glass of wine tonight and give it a go! I think I get what you're saying about another Hillsborough - does this mean they are damned if they do and damned if they don't - because it's like there are two parallel universes at the moment - the Internet where the myth of the McCanns has been well and truly debunked and then the mainstream media which hasn't got past deciding whether Kate should be mildly rebuked for allegedly leaving her kids unattended. So your question, 'Will they dare to expose them? Is the biggie and all this talk of trolls is just a diversion. Or is it more sinister and an attempt to engender sympathy? I really can't call it.

I also find his articles hard to follow and usually just skip to the end...but his last two articles have been really good in my opinion.

by Roxyroo 05.03.17 21:48

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Another piece about "trolling" Drip..drip..drip.

by Roxyroo 05.03.17 21:53

What's_up_doc? wrote:Thanks Suzy - I wanted to open the discussion up a bit and look at the reasons why there is so much anger towards the McCanns. I think there are so many facets to this but fundamentally, I think there is so much anger because people simply don't buy the story we've been spoon fed. I honestly think it's reaching boiling point now and whilst no one condones trolling, it's just too easy, as Jim Gamble and many others have done, to just label anyone who speaks out about the McCanns, as a troll. If the powers that be think they can simply shame people into submission and silence, I think they are in for a shock - Jack's well and truly out of the box.

Really enjoying your posts so far, new perspectives are good to hear.

m1264

by Guest 05.03.17 22:12

Roxyroo wrote:
What's_up_doc? wrote:Thanks Suzy - I wanted to open the discussion up a bit and look at the reasons why there is so much anger towards the McCanns. I think there are so many facets to this but fundamentally, I think there is so much anger because people simply don't buy the story we've been spoon fed. I honestly think it's reaching boiling point now and whilst no one condones trolling, it's just too easy, as Jim Gamble and many others have done, to just label anyone who speaks out about the McCanns, as a troll. If the powers that be think they can simply shame people into submission and silence, I think they are in for a shock - Jack's well and truly out of the box.

Really enjoying your posts so far, new perspectives are good to hear.

Thanks Roxyroo - I'm really enjoying the forum and all the posts - it's fascinating. Thanks for making me feel welcome. m1264

by Guest 06.03.17 18:21

There's a lot of trolling going on over at The Mail online with Karen Danczuc being called 'vile' and 'attention-seekinging and a' nasty piece of work' for speaking out against the McCanns by people who think the McCanns should be left alone because they've 'suffered enough'. Although there are a lot of comments supporting the McCanns, what's interesting is all of the most popular comments are from people criticizing the McCanns. 'Oldie' gets the most up votes - nearly 3000 - for saying the McCanns 'are to blame' whilst the most unpopular is from those saying they have 'suffered enough' should be 'left alone' or other platitudes. I did not see one personal ad hominem attacks on the McCanns but many personal attacks on KD.

by suzyjohnson 06.03.17 23:24

What's_up_doc? wrote:There's a lot of trolling going on over at The Mail online with Karen Danczuc being called 'vile' and 'attention-seekinging and a' nasty piece of work' for speaking out against the McCanns by people who think the McCanns should be left alone because they've 'suffered enough'. Although there are a lot of comments supporting the McCanns, what's interesting is all of the most popular comments are from people criticizing the McCanns. 'Oldie' gets the most up votes - nearly 3000 - for saying the McCanns 'are to blame' whilst the most unpopular is from those saying they have 'suffered enough' should be 'left alone' or other platitudes. I did not see one personal ad hominem attacks on the McCanns but many personal attacks on KD.

There are always a lot of misunderstandings in the comment sections re the McCann case. It's clear that a lot of commenters assume that what they have read in the British press all these years is correct.

by Roxyroo 06.03.17 23:49

What's_up_doc? wrote:Yep you're right there are lots of people and if the mainstream media don't wake up soon, they are just going to lose more and more credibility - I think I'm too impatient. I want a more serious tone in the British press regarding this story but all we get is silly shallow stories about Kate's pain and how many nasty tweets they get. I just wish there was a bit more depth in the press. Maybe one day...

I think i can safely say that this is the reason we love Richard d. Hall here on the forum, he's turning out to be the only investigative journalist with any integrity left in the uk!
And thank goodness for him and HideHo. Otherwise it would be left up to the shameful reporting by the MSM (which is a dying platform now imo)
I literally cringe when i see the likes of Lorraine Kelly et al. daily spewing forth their platitudes towards the Mc's.
All the MSM care about is money. We can hold our heads up here as all we care about is justice

by suzyjohnson 06.03.17 23:51

' ........The McCann's friend said: 'People need to remember that the family's lawyers are kept fully informed of all social media and broadcast remarks which are malicious and libellous .......'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4285994/Karen-Danczuk-launches-Twitter-attack-McCann-parents.html#ixzz4aanVzP2y
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Someone really should explain to the McCanns the difference between libellous comments, and having an opinion. It would save them an awful lot of money.

Karen's comment today, 'Anyone who says McCanns are innocent, just remember they left 3 children under the age of 4 alone to go out. Either Way they have guilt!

NcCann's friend's remark, 'These minor celebrities think they can say what they want without a shred of evidence and simply rehash all the old rumours'

Mail article, 'Maddie and twins Sean and Amelie had been left asleep at 8.30pm in the ground-floor apartment, while Kate and Gerry dined in a restaurant 180ft away.'

So, what isn't true exactly?

They need to stop consulting expensive lawyers and get on with constructively looking for their missing child.
'

by Roxyroo 06.03.17 23:57

I saw a tweet earlier putting forth the theory that maybe all these "slebs" have had a nice wee earner from Bell-Pottinger to keep the Mc's in the headlines.
Certainly made me stop and think, and the cogs are still turning (as i go and look back over say Miss Marsh's tweets for example)
Though who knows where the money's coming from now.
waiting

by Phoebe 07.03.17 0:22

Here's a challenge for the media which is so concerned about "anti McCann trolls". I am certainly no troll and abhor disrespectful or spiteful comments. However, I, and many others would like to be able to express our concern about the many contradictions in the statements given to the police by the McCanns and their companions. I am concerned that the best sniffer dogs of their time working solo, and at different times, alerted to the scent of a corpse and blood in the McCann's apartment and on items which they had contact with while not alerting to such odours in any other place in Luz nor to anyone else's possessions. This has never been resolved. I am concerned by the fact that the police, despite spending £12 million, have advanced no further than the P.J. were a decade ago. I would like to comment on the fact that the Supreme Court of Portugal has just ruled that there was sound reasoning behind making the parents arguidos and that, to date, they have not been cleared of suspicion. Finally, I would like to express my concern that a small child, whether neglected or not, has vanished from life and to remind people that whether she was neglected is an minor consideration beside the main fact of her disappearance. Where can we make such comments? Which paper will allow them, either in their comment section or in any article re the case? Let them volunteer to provide a forum. If they don't then we must draw the logical conclusions from such reluctance.

by Roxyroo 07.03.17 1:16

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Good post, but you really should re-think the neglect angle.
It really DOES matter.
No neglect, i.e. whether the children were left alone OR NOT DOES matter. Abduction is facilitated by the neglect angle.

If we all joined together, and agreed some set facts to spell out, which could not be construed as "trolling", we could ALL just state said facts over and over again. Maybe on tenth anniversary? On twitter or facebook? The facts would need to be agreed apon beforehand, and minor disagreements about different theories put aside for one day. Maybe our 7000 members really could make a difference over social media?

by Guest 07.03.17 11:32

suzyjohnson wrote:' ........The McCann's friend said: 'People need to remember that the family's lawyers are kept fully informed of all social media and broadcast remarks which are malicious and libellous .......'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4285994/Karen-Danczuk-launches-Twitter-attack-McCann-parents.html#ixzz4aanVzP2y
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Someone really should explain to the McCanns the difference between libellous comments, and having an opinion. It would save them an awful lot of money.

Karen's comment today, 'Anyone who says McCanns are innocent, just remember they left 3 children under the age of 4 alone to go out. Either Way they have guilt!

NcCann's friend's remark, 'These minor celebrities think they can say what they want without a shred of evidence and simply rehash all the old rumours'

Mail article, 'Maddie and twins Sean and Amelie had been left asleep at 8.30pm in the ground-floor apartment, while Kate and Gerry dined in a restaurant 180ft away.'

So, what isn't true exactly?

They need to stop consulting expensive lawyers and get on with constructively looking for their missing child.
'

That's true because if you look at the comments which overwhelmingly support what KD said, it would surely be impossible to prove these comments have damaged their reputation - and the issue of their reputation gets scrutinized.

by Phoebe 07.03.17 11:44

Hi Roxyroo. Don't get me wrong I do get that only neglect allows for abduction but think that all the recent emphasis on neglect is deliberate and welcomed by team McCann. I would rather start from stressing the fact that Madeleine is no longer around, that there is still no evidence of abduction a decade on, and that the best police dogs in the business have shown that a corpse and blood-spill was in apt 5G. Given that no has ever died there before and the McCanns never mentioned cleaning up any blood in the statements of their daily routines during that week, how can these findings be explained? It was at this very stage of the investigation that they fled Portugal and those questions have since been avoided by British investigators. Only then should neglect, which may or may not have occurred, enter the equation. Perhaps an open letter, signed by ALL those concerned by the direction the investigation has taken, should be sent.

by Guest 07.03.17 11:50

Roxyroo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Good post, but you really should re-think the neglect angle.
It really DOES matter.
No neglect, i.e. whether the children were left alone OR NOT DOES matter. Abduction is facilitated by the neglect angle.

If we all joined together, and agreed some set facts to spell out, which could not be construed as "trolling", we could ALL just state said facts over and over again. Maybe on tenth anniversary? On twitter or facebook? The facts would need to be agreed apon beforehand, and minor disagreements about different theories put aside for one day. Maybe our 7000 members really could make a difference over social media?

Hi all - I do think the neglect issue is presented as a smoking gun but in truth does serve a useful purpose for the McCanns and I suppose, to keep on topic it does feed the Trolls and keep us all talking about parenting rather than digging deeper. I must admit I still think it's possible that earlier in the week, the parents could have been over confident and left the kids but I accept it does serve a purpose and understand why many people who have looked into this subject in much more detail than me have discredited it. Lots of good threads by HideHo and others on this subject Phoebe!

I really like your idea of a group consensus on what's in and what's out Roxboro - I think you should float it!