Re: Sunday Times apology

by kitchen 31.12.13 17:39

Well said Cristobell; I find everyone's opinion on this forum interesting, especially the people who have different views to me. I am also a fan of good manners. I have no actual knowledge to back this up but I have the impression that the Mccann's are rude and ill-mannered by instinct; a jolly good reason for us to be extra courteous. Happy New Year to all.

by juliet 31.12.13 17:42

It is interesting to see OTH present the McCanns as ordinary parents who should be treated just like any couple who had nothing to do with their child's disappearance.

by Cristobell 31.12.13 17:45

Daisy wrote:OTH has stated he/she didn't come here to debate, but seemingly to enlighten those who can't see the wood for the trees. At least that's the way I read these rather patronising statements.

Quotes - Over the Hill: "Re suggestions that my colleagues and I should be running around telling news editors what to do, I can assure you that this case is being covered in a very similar way to most other crime stories, it's just your perception that is different because you are particularly interested in it"

But is true! Most people in the real world have moved on and can only just remember the McCann case, they certainly do not know details such as Tannerman and Smithman. Think of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of tragedies that have occurred since Madeleine disappeared, we can't name the detectives in charge, we don't know the timelines or the central characters, some of us only know about this case. Behind those other cases there are real people who probably also feel that they are being treated unfairly by the press. If we think of the Media as an industry, the stories are rolling in on a conveyor belt, some are bigger than others, and some will get special treatment.

On this forum we have taken a special interest in this case and it has altered our perception, we pounce on every Madeleine story that appears, then deconstruct it within an inch of its life. Yes, I too am part of that, in a way it feels as though we are part of internet war that started many years ago, and some of us just refuse to give up! As the McCanns fire the missiles, we counter them with the truth.

"Try to stand away from the forum and see things from a wider perspective All we have is a situation where a girl is missing"

"I didn't come here for a debate, I came to shed some light on certain specialist work procedures for forum members."

And I look forward to that! It is always interesting to hear alternative perspectives, therein lies the path to enlightenment. smilie

by **Tony Bennett** 31.12.13 17:50

Cristobell wrote:
In my opinion OTH has much to bring to this discussion...

Cristobell, could you please enlighten us all a little more about what you say is the 'much' that OTH has brought to this forum.

So far, if you flick back through his posts, they include the following:

* The Gaspar statements are just a 'misunderstanding'

* There are 'few facts' in the case

* Some forum members are beastly to newcomers

* The PJ statements should never have been released to the public, and

* Amaral is wrong about what happened to Madeleine.

I am more than happy to 'look for the positives' in OTH's contributions to CMOMM.

I am struggling to see what they are, however, so please share with us

by **Tony Bennett** 31.12.13 17:54

Cristobell wrote:
And I look forward to that! It is always interesting to hear alternative perspectives, therein lies the path to enlightenment.

It may be 'interesting' to hear alternative perspectives.

But sooner or later, we must apply our minds as to which ones are correct, and which ones are wrong.

For example, OTH suggests that thare are 'few facts' about Madeleine's disappearance. What are we to make of that, given that in the PJ statements and on this forum there are hundreds, if not thousands of facts?

And should we not ask OTH why he insists, against the evidence, that there are 'few facts'?

by Cristobell 31.12.13 18:03

aiyoyo wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
OTH has every opportunity to respond to this and the request for an apology for suggesting Tony Bennett was found guilty of libel against the McCanns. Why doesn't OTH do that?
That may depend on exactly who he is ! !

Exactly, yet it seems strange there are posters willing to accept him at face value !

I accept everyone at face value Aiyoyo and treat them with respect. We are communicating via the internet, other than those of us who have revealed our names and faces, we have no idea who we are talking to. I like to treat people on the internet in the same way that I would treat them in the real world, and I wouldn't dream of interrogating someone I have just met.

In my opinion OTH has much to bring to this discussion, look forward to what he/she has to say, and hope that they are not put off by the reception they have received thus far.

That's your prerogative Cristobel! Good for you that you take people at face value.

Others are free to discern for themselves what to make of poster/s claiming this and that, depending on merits of their posts.
Nothing wrong with that.
It might help if you don't hide behind the "respect" stick to beat around the bush - not first time either - seems to be a trait typical to you.
Maybe your idea of blanket and blind respect is something I have yet to learn to grasp.

People who are skeptical of any issues have a right raise question about them - that's equally their prerogative.
That's not to say they are any less respectful than you of other posters.
Respect is earned not given and especially not given blindly.

OTH being from MSM supposedly is surely eloquent to defend his stance.

I will have to disagree with you about respect, it has been my experience that if you treat people with respect they usually respond in kind and it leads to a more interesting debate. Hostility inevitably brings discussion to an end.

I am not disputing anyone's right to an opinion, I am merely adding mine, which is why I find your last line curious. I am sure OTH is more than capable of defending his/her stance, I am merely giving my opinion, as you are.

by justthinking 31.12.13 18:06

by 'facts' I think Over the Hill is meaning totally estabished, undeniable, capable-of-no-other-explanation pieces of real, hard, evidence as analysed by properly trained investigators.

by Guest 31.12.13 18:13

Both quotes from OTH on the subject of the Gaspars statements :
"But suppose you made a statement like the Gaspar one and you realised by now that it was just a big misunderstanding (guys can be very silly when they've had a few drinks), how would you feel that your original statement has been sent around the world for everyone to read? Not even a retraction would repair the damage between you and your (former) friends"

"The problem that someone may decide not to go to the police with their suspicions for fear of the fact that, if they are wrong, it may have terrible repercussions when that statement is made public and they are outed as a witness, as happened in this case when it was shelved"

I don't know who he is or what he does, but what was this all about?

guys being silly???
Gaspars made a mistake?
terrible repercusions?? for who?

All sounds a little personal to me.

by Okeydokey 31.12.13 18:13

The reason people are focussing on OTH is not because they disagree with his/her opinions, but because OTH is claiming special expertise. But we have seen OTH shown to be wrong on two important counts: thinking Tony Bennett was convicted for libel and thinking that there was no legal privilege in this country for reporting of court proceedings in other countries.

How can such a self-touted "expert" be so clangingly wrong on two such important issues relating to the McCann case?

There's one way: OTH might not have the expertise claimed.

And why doesn't OTH apologise for misleading people? That's the normal protocol when we make mistakes in debate.

Well, that makes me wonder about OTH's motives for being on here.

by Cristobell 31.12.13 18:16

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
In my opinion OTH has much to bring to this discussion...

Cristobell, could you please enlighten us all a little more about what you say is the 'much' that OTH has brought to this forum.

So far, if you flick back through his posts, they include the following:

* The Gaspar statements are just a 'misunderstanding'

* There are 'few facts' in the case

* Some forum members are beastly to newcomers

* The PJ statements should never have been released to the public, and

* Amaral is wrong about what happened to Madeleine.

I am more than happy to 'look for the positives' in OTH's contributions to CMOMM.

I am struggling to see what they are, however, so please share with us

I haven't seen those posts Tony, but I will certainly look out for them.

As to what OTH can bring to the table, I had high hopes. It would be good to have someone who works within the MSM to give us an insider perspective.

by Cristobell 31.12.13 18:21

dantezebu wrote:Both quotes from OTH on the subject of the Gaspars statements :
"But suppose you made a statement like the Gaspar one and you realised by now that it was just a big misunderstanding (guys can be very silly when they've had a few drinks), how would you feel that your original statement has been sent around the world for everyone to read? Not even a retraction would repair the damage between you and your (former) friends"

"The problem that someone may decide not to go to the police with their suspicions for fear of the fact that, if they are wrong, it may have terrible repercussions when that statement is made public and they are outed as a witness, as happened in this case when it was shelved"

I don't know who he is or what he does, but what was this all about?

guys being silly???
Gaspars made a mistake?
terrible repercusions?? for who?

All sounds a little personal to me.

I don't read it that way. The Gaspars must have been in terrible turmoil and must have been tormenting themselves with thoughts of 'what if we are wrong'. If we put ourselves in their position within a group of our own friends we can start to imagine how they felt.

by Cristobell 31.12.13 18:24

justthinking wrote:by 'facts' I think Over the Hill is meaning totally estabished, undeniable, capable-of-no-other-explanation pieces of real, hard, evidence as analysed by properly trained investigators.

That is how I read it too. Scotland Yard do not have enough facts to say anything either way, so I doubt the MSM have.

by Okeydokey 31.12.13 18:45

dantezebu wrote:Both quotes from OTH on the subject of the Gaspars statements :
"But suppose you made a statement like the Gaspar one and you realised by now that it was just a big misunderstanding (guys can be very silly when they've had a few drinks), how would you feel that your original statement has been sent around the world for everyone to read? Not even a retraction would repair the damage between you and your (former) friends"

"The problem that someone may decide not to go to the police with their suspicions for fear of the fact that, if they are wrong, it may have terrible repercussions when that statement is made public and they are outed as a witness, as happened in this case when it was shelved"

I don't know who he is or what he does, but what was this all about?

guys being silly???
Gaspars made a mistake?
terrible repercusions?? for who?

All sounds a little personal to me.

Yes OTH seems very concerned about the effects of such statements being made public. But he/she doesn't seem to have any concern about the effects of Team McCann's various statements on the lives of others e.g. Amaral. And oddly for a UK media person, he/she shows absolutely no concern about the use of secret court orders in this case. Once again I invite OTH to condemn the secret court order (made when the McCanns were still arguidos) instructing all official agencies to co-operate with them (this order was revealed during the McCanns v Leics Police case).

by **Tony Bennett** 31.12.13 18:47

Cristobell wrote:
As to what OTH can bring to the table, I had high hopes. It would be good to have someone who works within the MSM to give us an insider perspective.

The last person to come on here and purport to be a 'mainstream journalist' was 'StraightThinking', who was banned and then momentarily returned as 'ThinkingStraight' before making 3 posts and then voluntarily disappearing for good. It was in his second 'life' as 'ThinkingStraight' that he claimed he was a mainstream journalist, albeit 'freelance'. Just for the record, here is part of the debate on here which was about yet another ridiculous Sunday Express story about Madeleine [thread: New heights of insanity - Express]:

ThinkingStraight:

Hello Tony

Yes it's me, StraightThinking, back again this time in the form of ThinkingStraight.

Before this post is deleted and I am banned again, please give me the courtesy of reading this post and all the previous ones I made. Then ask yourself whether it really is the behaviour of a troll. In fact, I am a journalist trying to get to the bottom of this case as much as anyone on here. I have to make strong arguments and clear up certain issues or I can't progress with my work.

Your case against the Smiths came straight out of the blue and I wanted to know why.

But hey-ho, I'm not a troll, nor I suspect was Sockpuppet, whose line of questioning just happened to coincide with mine. Before anyone asks, no I am not Sockpuppet in disguise.

I won't be posting again but ask the moderators to leave this post in place for all to see so that others can comment. If people with genuine points to make are driven off the board by sarcasm and unfair accusations, you will lose a lot of genuine help.

As for this particular sorry case, if the forum's conclusion that I was a troll is anything to go by, you will never solve what happened to M because you were 100 per cent wrong with me.

If this post is removed, I will know there is a hidden agenda lurking behind the otherwise stimulating discussion between the clever minds who post on here. You really shouldn't ban posters just because they don't agree with you because it detracts from everything else you do. But thanks for reading it anyway.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath:

Are you at liberty Thinking Straight to say whether you work for a national paper and whether or not you (and your colleagues) feel that you are restricted in what you report about the case?

ThinkingStraight:

If the moderators will allow me to post again to answer your point, NFWTD'A, this is one of the main concerns I have about the discussion on here. I am a freelance journalist and have been interested in this case since 3 May 2007.

During that time I have had numerous discussions with colleagues about what happened to M. There is no consensus in the media re the explanation, but in six and a half years I have NEVER been told to report on the story in a particular way except that we are bound by the laws of defamation.

We can't imply that that someone has committed a crime before they are found guilty, which is why several newspapers got into trouble in Aug/Sept 2007.

As for D-notices, I know many editors in all branches of the media and none of them have even hinted at such a thing.

Because I know for a fact that this aspect of the case is incorrect, as regularly speculated on in this forum, I have to question everything else.

I do regret that the press is full of junk stories about sightings of M, but I'm afraid I can't do anything about that - they just want to sell newspapers

Tony Bennett:

You wrote: 'In fact, I am a journalist trying to get to the bottom of this case as much as anyone on here...' REPLY: Yeah, right...

ThinkingStraight:

And your evidence for that is what, exactly?

Tony Bennett:

I believe that you are, as you say, a journalist. But I don't for one moment believe that you are 'trying to get to the bottom of this case as much as anyone on here'.

Jeanmonroe:

Thinking straight. You say you have been on this case for six and half years,

You must therefore have your own particular 'theory' about what happened to a missing child in May 2007.

If you could just say what that is, we'd be delighted to hear it.

I have my 'theory' as everyone knows.

That dosen't mean I disagree with yours, whatever that is.

If you could just post a summary of what you think happened i'm sure you'll get a fair hearing.

After all, we all here to try to find out the truth about a missing child's disappearance, aren't we?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Of course, our journalist friend, ThinkingStraight, never replied.

And is it just me, but can anyone else see the remarkable similarities between the commernts of StraightThinking = ThinkingStaright and those of Over_The_Hill?

by sallypelt 31.12.13 18:48

Excuse my ignorance, but who is OTH?

Opps, I can see now that it's Over The Hill spin

by Guest 31.12.13 18:49

Cristobell wrote:
I don't read it that way. The Gaspars must have been in terrible turmoil and must have been tormenting themselves with thoughts of 'what if we are wrong'. If we put ourselves in their position within a group of our own friends we can start to imagine how they felt.

Yes. I think it's the very fact that they'd have been in an acute state of agitation about such a potentially damaging admission regarding their friends that makes the Gasper statement so credible. Their moral strength when it would have been so easy to give a rueful shake of the head and say 'we must be mistaken' and avoid such a dilemma is admirable, convinces me of their honesty and that their statement must be true and precise.

OTH is wrong on this, I think.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.12.13 18:54

Okeydokey wrote:
dantezebu wrote:Both quotes from OTH on the subject of the Gaspars statements:

"But suppose you made a statement like the Gaspar one and you realised by now that it was just a big misunderstanding (guys can be very silly when they've had a few drinks), how would you feel that your original statement has been sent around the world for everyone to read? Not even a retraction would repair the damage between you and your (former) friends"

"The problem that someone may decide not to go to the police with their suspicions for fear of the fact that, if they are wrong, it may have terrible repercussions when that statement is made public and they are outed as a witness, as happened in this case when it was shelved"

I don't know who he is or what he does, but what was this all about?

guys being silly???
Gaspars made a mistake?
terrible repercusions?? for who?

All sounds a little personal to me.

Yes OTH seems very concerned about the effects of such statements being made public. But he/she doesn't seem to have any concern about the effects of Team McCann's various statements on the lives of others e.g. Amaral. And oddly for a UK media person, he/she shows absolutely no concern about the use of secret court orders in this case. Once again I invite OTH to condemn the secret court order (made when the McCanns were still arguidos) instructing all official agencies to co-operate with them (this order was revealed during the McCanns v Leics Police case).

Why is OTH on here?

Even Cristobell admits that she can't name anything 'positive' he has brought here, she simply says she has high hopes because he says he is a journalist.

To those who will no doubt accuse me of being unfair, sarcastic, beastly to newbies etc. etc., I have to admit that I have a very low threshold for time-wasters

by Guest 31.12.13 18:55

Let me put first, Cristobel, that I am exactly like you describe yourself. I am taking anyone and everyone to be nice, faithful, reliable, honest at first face. I know that that is "stupid", as I've been conned so many times, BUT I will not change that, because it's basically the way I am. HOWEVER, once someone starts talking porkies, cheats on me, does not reply to normal questions in openness and honesty to allow at least debate, I switch off and turn around. OTH admits that s/he not here to debate, but to lecture us. And makes detectable mistakes in the process. Why would we not question them?

by Guest 31.12.13 18:58

Dee Coy wrote:[ [...]
Yes. I think it's the very fact that they'd have been in an acute state of agitation about such a potentially damaging admission regarding their friends that makes the Gasper statement so credible. Their moral strength when it would have been so easy to give a rueful shake of the head and say 'we must be mistaken' and avoid such a dilemma is admirable, convinces me of their honesty and that their statement must be true and precise.

OTH is wrong on this, I think.

***
I agree.
And I have never seen a genuine explanation, why the PJ got these statements with months delay ...

by RIPM 31.12.13 18:59

justthinking wrote:by 'facts' I think Over the Hill is meaning totally estabished, undeniable, capable-of-no-other-explanation pieces of real, hard, evidence as analysed by properly trained investigators.

So now OTH has a 'spokesman' to explain what he/she might really mean. Could I ask why OTH cannot speak for themselves?

I asked earlier in response to OTH stating the BBC had made cockups and those responsible had paid with their jobs, who at the BBC East Midlands Today regarding the comment "fuck the McCanns" has paid with their job?

Answer nobody, so when people tell lies and state it is a fact, why should they be given any respect?

by Daisy 31.12.13 18:59

Cristobell wrote:
Daisy wrote:OTH has stated he/she didn't come here to debate, but seemingly to enlighten those who can't see the wood for the trees. At least that's the way I read these rather patronising statements.

Quotes - Over the Hill: "Re suggestions that my colleagues and I should be running around telling news editors what to do, I can assure you that this case is being covered in a very similar way to most other crime stories, it's just your perception that is different because you are particularly interested in it"

But is true! Most people in the real world have moved on and can only just remember the McCann case, they certainly do not know details such as Tannerman and Smithman. Think of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of tragedies that have occurred since Madeleine disappeared, we can't name the detectives in charge, we don't know the timelines or the central characters, some of us only know about this case. Behind those other cases there are real people who probably also feel that they are being treated unfairly by the press. If we think of the Media as an industry, the stories are rolling in on a conveyor belt, some are bigger than others, and some will get special treatment.

On this forum we have taken a special interest in this case and it has altered our perception, we pounce on every Madeleine story that appears, then deconstruct it within an inch of its life. Yes, I too am part of that, in a way it feels as though we are part of internet war that started many years ago, and some of us just refuse to give up! As the McCanns fire the missiles, we counter them with the truth.

"Try to stand away from the forum and see things from a wider perspective All we have is a situation where a girl is missing"

"I didn't come here for a debate, I came to shed some light on certain specialist work procedures for forum members."

And I look forward to that! It is always interesting to hear alternative perspectives, therein lies the path to enlightenment.

Might be true to you Cristobell but not to me. I like to think I do live in the real world. I have a life outside of this forum and hopefully have learned to always appreciate and look into the wider perspective. I have learned nothing from OTH. But you carry on, fill ya boots.

by Guest 31.12.13 18:59

Tony Bennett wrote:

ThinkingStraight:

If the moderators will allow me to post again to answer your point, NFWTD'A, this is one of the main concerns I have about the discussion on here. I am a freelance journalist and have been interested in this case since 3 May 2007.

You never come across anybody who's been interested in this case since before 3rd May 2007, do you. Now that's one journalist I would like to hear from.

by Daisy 31.12.13 19:03

Some people can be very naive when dealing with strangers over the Internet.

The very people you come out in support of (I'm referring to the 'new' members that aren't really new here) are often the one's stabbing you in the back. They play games with you and then go laughing behind your back. Why give these people your energy?

I call it being cautious, others obviously view it as paranoia.

by Guest 31.12.13 19:05

This is an amusing story of a chap who fraudulently claimed to have started an airline, when in fact the entire thing was a less than elaborate deception.

The relevance to this thread is that one of the people he convinced to work for him was BBC Look North journalist Jim Knight, who lost £15,000 of his own money as a result. My entire opinion of BBC journalists is informed by this episode.

by Woofer 31.12.13 19:06

I always (outwardly) take people at face value as well, although I do keep my con-person radar going at the same time. Its no good showing hostility where none has been shown.

As time went on, there were a few alarm bells set off that OTH was merely on a wind-up, especially when he said on another thread that GA couldn`t sue the MSM for libel in this country because he had no reputation in this country to be defamed because no one knew him.