Crimewatch - why now? and some other questions

Why the Crimewatch propaganda now? Is this to do with the libel case, or is there more to it?
 
I think the story about the little girl in the Greek gypsy camp is part of the same propaganda push. The media started referring to her as 'abducted' before there was any evidence of abduction. If believing that any child with blonde hair living in a gypsy camp must have been abducted isn't racist, I wonder what on earth is! I am a white man. If my wife and I take our black neighbours' little boy with us to the park to walk our dog, should we meet with suspicion?
 
In this day and age, children in some poor areas are still sold to those to whom they can provide an income as beggars or in other activities, sometimes without there being any forcible abduction involved. Not all adoptions, however deeply unpleasant they may be, are abductions.
 
Given this enormous level of propaganda, there may well be more to come, before the libel case is over. More stuff, on top of Crimewatch and gypsies in Greece.
 
Are the McCanns (and their powerful backers) drunk on hubris, believing that pushing their story in the media (thanks police, thanks BBC) will help win the libel case, whereas what will actually happen is that they will lose, and plummet down to their inevitable exposure as criminals?
 
Or does the latest push help them in the Portuguese courtroom? I don't know. Does someone have the basis for an informed opinion?
 
How is the Crimewatch propaganda being reported in Portugal?
 
How will an Amaral victory in the case be reported in the British press anyway?
 
One possibility that I think may well happen is that the libel case gets stopped somehow, without a substantive verdict - either with a technical verdict, or with the case withdrawn by the claimants, with the withdrawal reported to British punters as being 'only for technical reasons to do with the silly Portuguese system.'
 
If Amaral wins, difficulties between Britain and Portugal may escalate. How much dirty money do British-based interests park in Portugal? Just askin'. There may well be live issues which come to the fore. In a recent downturn in British-Spanish relations over Gibraltar, the Spanish government raised the issue of dirty money in Gibraltar. (Good for them, but on the other hand, let's not forget the dirty money in Spain!)
 
In Portugal many may believe the McCanns are guilty, so if the McCanns win the case then the public authorities take a hit to their reputation in their home market, which can't be what they want.
 
The case must surely be of major significance diplomatically.

I wrote:

"In Portugal everyone thinks the McCanns are guilty" or words to that effect, and candyfloss edited to "many may think", saying that I "cannot state 'everyone' as (I) don't know".

You are quite right, although I think my usage was within what people usually mean when they say that "everyone" thinks something.

I don't quite understand why you chose to edit my words rather than post what you have to say in a follow-up post?Of course I respect administrators' rights to edit things that are against the rules or spirit of the forum, but I don't think editing is the right tool to use for the above sort of correction.

I have several friends who are Portuguese, and I'd be willing to run with the amended contention that almost everyone in Portugal thinks the McCanns are guilty.

Haroldd you stated it as fact, when the truth is you don't know and have not got any statistics for this.  Therefore by saying that imo it could be libellous, ie  damaging their reputation.  I have said many times I am not a lawyer, but we know people are watching therefore it is best to have this clarified.  Therefore, that was deleted, and not left in the post.

haroldd wrote:I wrote:

"In Portugal everyone thinks the McCanns are guilty" or words to that effect, and candyfloss edited to "many may think", saying that I "cannot state 'everyone' as (I) don't know".

You are quite right, although I think my usage was within what people usually mean when they say that "everyone" thinks something.

I don't quite understand why you chose to edit my words rather than post what you have to say in a follow-up post?Of course I respect administrators' rights to edit things that are against the rules or spirit of the forum, but I don't think editing is the right tool to use for the above sort of correction.

I have several friends who are Portuguese, and I'd be willing to run with the amended contention that almost everyone in Portugal thinks the McCanns are guilty.

Harold, Candy is absolutely correct. When writing an academic paper, for example, if you put "everyone" when you have no evidence if it  everyone, the paper would be worthless. As we know, some, or even many, people may think that the McCann's are guilty, meaning that some think they are innocent. So that is what one has to say, for it to have any credibility.

haroldd wrote:I wrote:

"In Portugal everyone thinks the McCanns are guilty" or words to that effect, and candyfloss edited to "many may think", saying that I "cannot state 'everyone' as (I) don't know".

You are quite right, although I think my usage was within what people usually mean when they say that "everyone" thinks something.

I don't quite understand why you chose to edit my words rather than post what you have to say in a follow-up post?Of course I respect administrators' rights to edit things that are against the rules or spirit of the forum, but I don't think editing is the right tool to use for the above sort of correction.

I have several friends who are Portuguese, and I'd be willing to run with the amended contention that almost everyone in Portugal thinks the McCanns are guilty.

I said it before and I'll say it again:
I've met people here ( Portugal ) that have no opinion about this whole "Maddie case " but I never met a single one that backs up the parents. At least, they say, they're guilty of leaving the children alone. Of course I won't even start saying what the people that have a formed opinion on it, say...
That being said, you raised some very important questions that I had in my mind already.
This is not a "war " in the full sense of the word, but it seems like it especially in British media. First obviously, slant the PJ, then open grounds to portray ALL the Portuguese people as "sardine munching drunks" and of course "not very intelligent because it's a 3rd world country ".
Then go on on news ( not the news comments made by people but ) actual news articles calling everyone with half a brain TROLLS, VILLE people ( and of course opening ground to internet "witch hunts ").
Now ,let's go after the gypsies... I'm not talking about British people, as there's many in this forum and they're all AWESOME for going against "everyone " around them. I'm talking about journalists, PEOPLE WITH THE MISSION OF GIVING ACTUAL NEWS TO THE WORLD and not write whatever they think ( or don't, because most of the times that's what they do, not thinking ).
I'm sorry for the angry tone of this post but enough is enough and someone should be called to reason that is no good to go on and get people into fighting certain types of individuals based on their beliefs or ethnicity.

A bit off topic: isn't it wonderful the way people are "genuinely " worried about the blonde girls living in poor conditions on gipsy camps and take them away, leaving the rest of the "gipsy looking " children there?!

Ayniia wrote: [...]
A bit off topic:  isn't it wonderful the way people are "genuinely " worried about the blonde girls living in poor conditions on gipsy camps and take them away, leaving the rest of the "gipsy looking " children there?!

***
A bit OT indeed, Ayniia, but very worthwhile to note.

Ayniia wrote:I'm sorry for the angry tone of this post but enough is enough and someone should be called to reason that is no good to go on and get people into fighting certain types of individuals based on their beliefs or ethnicity.

  You're amongst like-minded people here Ayniia who share your frustration.