My McCann Thoughts blog not blogging any more

jeanmonroe wrote:Being a tad 'fik'

i just created a twit account.

How do i get to 'post' on #AskBrunt thingy?

In pretty basic plain english, please.

Thx, in advance.

Jean, if you follow Martin Brunt you will see his replies and will be able to view the questions. It's finished now

Just noticed on his blog that he has put the DNA article back, but not the book reviews. What difference does it make now anyway, with all the copies now out there, and his real name used? He might just as well repost them, and continue, but I suspect he has been intimidated and the reviews of any remaining chapters would be far less potent being written by a frightened individual. So well done to whoever it was who emailed, phoned or went round with a lawyer in tow or a couple of 'heavies' wearing trench coats and dark glasses. You've silenced one voice but there are plenty more out there still asking the same questions.

In my opinion.

Richard Phillips has posted a new blog today:

 
Friday, October 3, 2014
TROLLS
 
Before I return to analysis of evidence in McCann case I thought I would write a short post inspired by the recent internet troll saga in the McCann case.
 
TROLLS
First let me make my position crystal clear:
 
No one should feel it is their right to ridicule, insult, harass or make untrue or unprovable accusations about anyone, either on the internet, in newspapers on TV/radio or anywhere else. Freedom of speech is a right that carries with it responsibilities. No one should abuse this right.
 
 
There is absolutely no doubt that, for want of a better phrase, "internet trolls" comment on the McCann case. These people "infect" social media & the internet in general with inappropriate and occasionally highly offensive material. Trolls on both sides of the debate engage in these tactics. Anyone reading #mccann on twitter can quickly see the daily attempts by trolls on both sides to provoke, insult and attack the other.
 
Trolls who claim to support the McCann's clearly attempt to provoke more and more outrageous comments from their opponents. Once they succeed they then re-post these comments in a forlorn attempt to claim the moral high ground. These McCann supporting trolls also cherry pick items from the evidence and claim it "proves" their point while at the same time ignoring evidence that suggests the opposite. They insult anyone who questions their opinion, sometimes disgracefully invoking mental health issues. They present strawman arguments (effectively lying) in an effort to discredit their opponents position. They are rude, intolerant, aggressive and spiteful. Most claim to do this to support the McCann family, but how can their actions do anything of the sort? Pouring petrol on a fire doesn't put it out. If the McCann's are aware of their actions, it is hard to imagine they are not, they must surely be appalled by what they see.
 
Trolls, some of whom claim to support Madeleine, by claim that the evidence proves her parents are guilty of some crime (anything from negligence to murder) are equally shameful. For example there are large numbers of photoshopped images circulating. Some are obviously photoshopped and meant in jest (albeit often in very poor taste), but others are circulated as if they are genuine and can create an entirely false impression. Cherry picked items of evidence, often inaccurately quoted, are posted along with claims that this proves the McCann's guilt. Suggestions that there may be innocent explanations for these are ignored or ridiculed. They frequently accuse the McCann parents of various criminal acts, none of which can be proved & occasionally one will make an outrageous threat to harm the McCann family in some way. To claim that these actions are in any way supporting a missing child is ridiculous and offensive.
 
Facebook groups, Blogs and forums are similarly infected by these trolls. In my opinion none of the trolls has a genuine interest in any of the following:
 
1. Finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
2. Supporting the McCann family over the loss of their daughter.
3. Finding Madeleine.
 
So I make this appeal to the trolls on both sides. STOP! If you write a tweet or post which only has as it's only purpose insulting, provoking or accusing someone else don't post it.
 
If you want to why not START, engaging in a proper discussion and analysis of the evidence. Accept your own shortcomings & the shortcomings of others and try to improve the overall level of understanding about this case and perhaps others. DON'T be taken in by propaganda from either side. READ the PJfiles http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ & RESEARCH other relevant information, such as interviews, press articles and background information using all means available to you.
Above all KEEP AN OPEN MIND & be receptive to different opinions and ideas.
 
Finally, NEVER forget that at the heart of this case is a missing girl who was almost 4 years old when she vanished & would be 11 now. She is more important than your petty point scoring and childish insults and games. Her disappearance remains an as yet unsolved mystery. At the time of publishing this blog anyone who claims different is a liar.
 
 
EVERYONE ELSE
 
Not everyone who comments on the McCann case online is a troll. There are people, who do seem to have a genuine interest in The McCann case. They fall into several categories
 
1. Those with a genuine interest in finding out what happened to Madeleine.
 
Some think the balance of evidence supports the abduction hypothesis, some think that it supports anything but the abduction hypothesis, some are genuinely undecided, but all seem to share a genuine interest in the mystery and choose to spend their leisure time discussing the evidence and various hypotheses to explain Madeleine's disappearance.
 
2. Those who campaign for missing people & children.
 
Usually these people believe that Madeleine was abducted, or take the view that it is better to believe this unless it is proven otherwise.
 
3. Those who are concerned about paedophilia and government cover-ups in the UK & who think the McCann case is an example of one or both.
 
Often referred to as "conspiraloons" such people are very important in a democracy. Usually they are completely mis-guided, but every now and again they shed light on something that really needs to be uncovered. Unfortunately they can be over zealous in their words and actions which gives more fuel for the McCann supporter trolls to throw on the flames.
 
4. Those with a casual interest in the case.
 
Posted by Richard Philips at 12:34 PM No comments:


http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.co.uk/

I agree with Richard that posts should be level-headed and  reasoned.

Don't accuse, Ask questions. 

You can't be done for asking questions.

Offer opinions based on reasoning and critical thinking.

I do wonder if he thinks Amaral is a troll though based on his latest post?

Doug D wrote:Richard Phillips has posted a new blog today:

 

I haven't got a clue who that bloke is or thinks he is but I find that effort intensely patronising.

I agree with Richard Phillips - there is an angry and bad mannered set of posters/tweeters in both camps.
Once a poster descends into rudeness, their credibility is gone.  

I must admit to descending into sarcasm sometimes - it`s hard not to when the info handed out by the likes of MSM and CM is so utterly stupid and patronising - it`s as if they think the public are kiddies.

Uwas just wondering with £6000 being spent a day how much longer will this go on for?
My opinion, those who don't mind, they should contribute more tax towards it.
Maybe those trolls will stop once and for all.

How long two more years?? Why aren't we told

Until Amaral case is sorted & PJ close the case again
----------------------------------------------------

Surely you mean until the PJ 'ARCHIVE' the 'case' again?

For up to another 20 YEARS, i believe.

'archived' pending any new, relevent and pertinent, information or evidence, being discovered.

The PJ NEVER 'closed' the case at any point, no matter what the McCann's and their 'supporters' try to tell the world.

The case into Madeleine McCann's 'disappearance' has NEVER BEEN CLOSED, by the PJ, at any time.

ISTBC, of course.

And what mother, in this world, would ever ALLOW a case into her 'abducted' child, to be 'closed' or 'archived'?

Oh, hang on.............

Thank you Jean. Yes I'm sure you are right.

"No one should feel it is their right to ridicule"

I beg to differ. That is a fundamental right. There is a world of difference between ridiculing someone and threatening their person. You would have to drag nearly every stand up comic off the stage if ridiculing were to be outlawed.

Richard started out well, but now reads like a wet blanket, trying to sound like his old self, but failed to and now meekly seems to be making an effort to be 'fair' where none is required. He has been 'castrated' so his writings are now worthless.

In my opinion.

I agree.

His critique of the book was analytical and reasonable, but incomplete and shall remain so it seems.

I await his continued analysis of DNA with interest. Will he complete this ? 

Somehow I doubt it.

This blog was analysis, not harrassment or even dissent. It was balanced and fair IMO.

But clearly it could not  be allowed to stand.  Poor UK.

Okeydokey wrote:"No one should feel it is their right to ridicule"

I beg to differ. That is a fundamental right. There is a world of difference between ridiculing someone and threatening their person. You would have to drag nearly every stand up comic off the stage if ridiculing were to be outlawed.

Yes.. if someone is being ridiculous or proposing something ridiculous then you have the right to ridicule it.

It's called free speech.

A lot of social change in Britain came from the power of satire (sadly missing from the MSM these days).

I feel Richard has been pressured.

New blog from Richard Phillips up on:

http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.co.uk/

Yeah, but he hasn't reinstated the book chapters and he's running scared. 'They' have got to him. In my opinion.

He reported in his blog that "men in Suits" had contacted him
He shut down the blog for a time, and it seems now to be a shadow of its former self.

Some years ago TB was threatened by "Men in Suits" (C-R) and told to desist and refrain.
He didn't.
He was sentenced to imprisonment and threatened with bankruptcy

Dr Amaral was threatened by "Men in Suits' and told to desist and refrain.
He didn't.
The final stage of the case is pending

The late Brenda reported that "Men in Suits" had contacted her, and that she was being stalked by Brunt, and challenged him to make contact.
He did.
She is dead.

Is there a pattern emerging ?
Who is next ?

Pat Brown has a blog on which people are being invited to post their details and the fact that they do not agree with the McCann/Carter-Ruck/Mitchell versions of events
- or indeed ANY of the versions, and to invite anyone who wants to sue, prosecute, harrass, intimidate or threaten, to do their worst.
So far over 70 people have done so.  
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2014
We are in the Secret Madeleine McCann Troll Dossier
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com.es/
And so far Carter-Ruck have not bothered getting out of bed.   (No money in the piss-pot, you understand)

Okeydokey wrote:"No one should feel it is their right to ridicule"

I beg to differ. That is a fundamental right. There is a world of difference between ridiculing someone and threatening their person. You would have to drag nearly every stand up comic off the stage if ridiculing were to be outlawed.

You've reminded me of this 1999 case - as reported in The Guardian:

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

Preacher wins freedom of speech

• The Guardian, Saturday 24 July 1999 22.53 BST
  

A woman's arrest for preaching vehemently on the steps of Wakefield cathedral led to a ringing defence of freedom of speech yesterday by a high court judge.

Lord Justice Sedley insisted that this freedom encompassed "the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and provocative". He invoked the classical Greek philosopher Socrates and warned against state attempts to control unofficial ideas.

"Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having", he declared. "... A police officer has no right to call upon a citizen to desist from lawful conduct."

He allowed an appeal by Alison Redmond-Bate of Leeds against her conviction by magistrates for obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty by her preaching. The conviction had been upheld by a crown court.

Faith Ministries, a Leeds fundamentalist group, has a history of court appearances for outspoken preaching in public places.
 
The group, set up in Britain 10 years ago, sees its role as "evangelical ministry". American groups using the same title are dedicated to "holding forth, contending for and propagating the word worldwide".

In 1997 two of the British group's male members served three weeks in prison after four arrests for obstruction while shouting "sinners" at drinkers leaving pubs in York.

In the same year, in what was said to be the first criminal charge brought against street preachers this century, Ms Redmond-Bate, then aged 24, and her father Alan, then 51, the group's founder, were found guilty of wilful obstruction after allegedly "unsettling" a York crowd by warning people not to turn their backs on God.

Yesterday the high court heard that a crowd of more than 100 gathered and shouted "bloody lock them up" and "shut up" when Ms Redmond-Bate, her mother and another woman preached on the cathedral steps.

A police officer fearing a breach of the peace asked the women to stop. Ms Redmond-Bate continued when her colleagues were arrested.

Lord Justice Sedley said Leeds crown court had wrongly concluded that "lawful conduct can, if persisted in, lead to conviction for wilful obstruction of a police officer.

"This proposition has no basis in law," the judge said. Only if there was "a reasonable apprehension" that lawful conduct would provoke violence by interfering with the rights of others was an officer empowered to take steps to prevent it.

In Ms Redmond-Bate's case there was no lawful basis for the arrest as "nobody had to stop and listen". But if they did so they were "as free to express the view that the preachers should be locked up or silenced as [Redmond-Bate] and her companions were to preach".

Mr Justice Sedley said it had been suggested that a speaker could not be accused of a breach of the peace "so long as what she said was inoffensive". 
 
He ruled: "This will not do. Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence.

"From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas."

Lord Justice Sedley's reputation as a legal liberal stretches back to his work as a barrister in the 1970s.

Last night John Wadham, director of the civil rights group Liberty, said: "We might not agree with everything the defendant said, but this is what makes our support for her right to say it so important."

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


In case there is any doubt about where I personally stand, I agree that some of Brenda Leyland's tweets were unnecessarily unpleasant, and did not serve well the cause she espoused - nor do I support, as reported above, Christians allegedly shouting 'sinners' at late night drinkers (that wasn't Christ's way of doing things).

I simply upload this article so that we can all consider Lord Stephen Sedley's very wise words in this case

A case from the LAST Century !

I am sure someone will be able to show that nearly a seventh of the way through this one, everything is different.


[And just as an irrelevant aside.
Wadham, was of Liberty,
the group that campaigned for PIE, (Think Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt - if you are not already feeling sick )
the group which supported miners' picketing outside their own areas of work - AKA using violence to prevent people who wished to go to work from doing so ]

PeterMac wrote:He reported in his blog that "men in Suits" had contacted him
He shut down the blog for a time, and it seems now to be a shadow of its former self.

Some years ago TB was threatened by "Men in Suits" (C-R) and told to desist and refrain.
He didn't.
He was sentenced to imprisonment and threatened with bankruptcy

Dr Amaral was threatened by "Men in Suits' and told to desist and refrain.
He didn't.
The final stage of the case is pending

The late Brenda reported that "Men in Suits" had contacted her, and that she was being stalked by Brunt, and challenged him to make contact.
He did.
She is dead.

Is there a pattern emerging ?
Who is next ?

Pat Brown has a blog on which people are being invited to post their details and the fact that they do not agree with the McCann/Carter-Ruck/Mitchell versions of events
- or indeed ANY of the versions, and to invite anyone who wants to sue, prosecute, harrass, intimidate or threaten, to do their worst.
So far over 70 people have done so.  
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2014
We are in the Secret Madeleine McCann Troll Dossier
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com.es/
And so far Carter-Ruck have not bothered getting out of bed.   (No money in the piss-pot, you understand)

I am one who has not only stood on the parapet i have bright clothing and flashing neon signs pointing me oit to any interested parties.

I am still awaiting anyone in a suit, or just clothed ( in the rudey nudey would be a bit off putting) to come visiting or any interesting letters etc to turn up.

if they leave it too long i may have eaten the oreos and key lime pie cookies  :)

PeterMac wrote:He reported in his blog that "men in Suits" had contacted him
He shut down the blog for a time, and it seems now to be a shadow of its former self.

Some years ago TB was threatened by "Men in Suits" (C-R) and told to desist and refrain.
He didn't.
He was sentenced to imprisonment and threatened with bankruptcy

Dr Amaral was threatened by "Men in Suits' and told to desist and refrain.
He didn't.
The final stage of the case is pending

The late Brenda reported that "Men in Suits" had contacted her, and that she was being stalked by Brunt, and challenged him to make contact.
He did.
She is dead.

Is there a pattern emerging

post deleted

pleader wrote:

PeterMac wrote:He reported in his blog that "men in Suits" had contacted him
He shut down the blog for a time, and it seems now to be a shadow of its former self.

Some years ago TB was threatened by "Men in Suits" (C-R) and told to desist and refrain.
He didn't.
He was sentenced to imprisonment and threatened with bankruptcy

Dr Amaral was threatened by "Men in Suits' and told to desist and refrain.
He didn't.
The final stage of the case is pending

The late Brenda reported that "Men in Suits" had contacted her, and that she was being stalked by Brunt, and challenged him to make contact.
He did.
She is dead.

Is there a pattern emerging ?

TB didn,t desist and refrain but he did start to attack viciously the evidence of the Smith family.

He  labeled anyone who disagreed with his view of Smithman a troll.

He banned any poster who persisted with this viewpoint.

Yes I see a pattern,Do you?

Hmmm...I notice you haven't given any constructive criticism regards Peter Mac's post, instead you chose to use your time to attack TB.


Do you have anything to say regards Brenda's untimely death? The possible consequences of Martin Brunt showing up when he did or the fact that Brenda's comment, printed in the mainstream media, was in fact quite unobtrusive compared to a few on Twitter who are prolific with their vitriolic comments. Why didn't they doorstep them? Why did they choose Brenda? Ask yourself 'pleader' why they didn't have the guts to doorstep someone who would give them their money's worth.


Brenda was a scapegoat. She paid with her life and you have nothing to say about that?

Doug D wrote:New blog from Richard Phillips up on:

http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.co.uk/

Good article.

It's apparent his interest to do the chapter-to-chapter review has weaned off.
Who can blame him? It must get so tiresome after x number of chapters to find the rest of the book is just more of the same -- dishonest account.
After 7 chapters of in-depth review of the complete bullocks it must get boring to attempt to continue to analyse and write an in-depth review knowing it would just be more of the same thing.
It would be easier just to say the authors' claim of 'definitive' account is just definitive dishonest account from cover to cover.

The one thing I notice is unlike Kate & Gerry who went on tour to Europe to promote Kate's bewk, S&S were not proactive in promoting their bewk outside of UK.

R.I.P.Brenda Leyland

It may be pertinent to note that he was apparently 'stopped' before he got to the chapters relating to the dogs and subsequent DNA analysis, which he would have presumably tied in with his own DNA articles.

pleader wrote:

PeterMac wrote:He reported in his blog that "men in Suits" had contacted him
He shut down the blog for a time, and it seems now to be a shadow of its former self.

Some years ago TB was threatened by "Men in Suits" (C-R) and told to desist and refrain.
He didn't.
He was sentenced to imprisonment and threatened with bankruptcy

Dr Amaral was threatened by "Men in Suits' and told to desist and refrain.
He didn't.
The final stage of the case is pending

The late Brenda reported that "Men in Suits" had contacted her, and that she was being stalked by Brunt, and challenged him to make contact.
He did.
She is dead.

Is there a pattern emerging ?

TB didn,t desist and refrain but he did start to attack viciously the evidence of the Smith family.

He  labeled anyone who disagreed with his view of Smithman a troll.

He banned any poster who persisted with this viewpoint.

Yes I see a pattern,Do you?

Pleader may I suggest you post this on Smithman thread as its not appropriate here.

Doug D wrote:It may be pertinent to note that he was apparently 'stopped' before he got to the chapters relating to the dogs and subsequent DNA analysis, which he would have presumably tied in with his own DNA articles.

Very pertinent.
They don't like the dogs, especially after St Katherine had published the stuff about Zapata. Even S&M failed to gloss over it, and had to admit that he had changed his plea,
though they were dishonest enough to NOT follow through about his confession and final proof that the dogs had been correct in every detail.
The DNA stuff would have been interesting, especially since we also recall that Brunt reported the 100% match to Madeleine's DNA in the hire car i the famous video, still on YouTube.

He might then have moved on to what S&M did NOT talk about.
Weather - which proves that there were no slamming doors and whooshing curtains
Weather, again - which shows that the Last Photo was NOT taken on 3/5/7, but more probably on Sunday 29/4

Not surprising therefore that he was stopped and threatened.
But by whom ?

PeterMac wrote:

Doug D wrote:It may be pertinent to note that he was apparently 'stopped' before he got to the chapters relating to the dogs and subsequent DNA analysis, which he would have presumably tied in with his own DNA articles.

Very pertinent.
They don't like the dogs, especially after St Katherine had published the stuff about Zapata. Even S&M failed to gloss over it, and had to admit that he had changed his plea,
though they were dishonest enough to NOT follow through about his confession and final proof that the dogs had been correct in every detail.  
The DNA stuff would have been interesting, especially since we also recall that Brunt reported the 100% match to Madeleine's DNA in the hire car i the famous video, still on YouTube.

He might then have moved on to what S&M did NOT talk about.
Weather - which proves that there were no slamming doors and whooshing curtains
Weather, again - which shows that the Last Photo was NOT taken on 3/5/7, but more probably on Sunday 29/4

Not surprising therefore that he was stopped and threatened.
But by whom ?

Do we know he was threatened,it may have been someone from OG who felt he was getting too close,but there again that may be complete bull.