Three university forensic psychologists say > 'Anti-McCann Trolls Cannot be Cured'

Also as someone posted earlier up thread how does anyone know whether some of the "troll" posts weren't actually paid shills?

Some of us were suspicious when Tony started getting supportive posts just before his  criminal court appearance  along the lines of good post Tony you have really made me change my mind about this case blah blah blah and as we pointed out at the time how could this possibly be used as evidence against him in a court of law as nobody knew whether the posts were genuine or not?

Fairness and a right to reply must apply imo.

Thanks Tony - This research is clearly facile  and I believe the assertion 'There is no cure for anti-McCann trolls' is incredibly crass and reductive. Firstly, a distinction needs to be made between a disruptive minority who choose to undermine and often discredit with often duplicitous motives, who get personal and  can be rightly labelled 'trolls' and a growing number of people who, in the pursuit of justice take to the Internet in the hope of justice and desire to use their collective might for the common good. These people are more appropriately referred to as Internet Sleuths or ordinary, decent people. 

If we take the case of Steven Avery in America there has been  a huge outpouring of public indignation and a real desire on the part of ordinary people to see justice served. Kathleen Zellner harnesses this - she uses Twitter to communicate with these people and she often re-tweets posts from now quite famous Internet Sleuths such as Foghaze. There has been a real appreciation of the positive contribution these people make and I find their  efforts admirable and the work they do truly inspirational. I would add your group and your efforts to this category. 

I would also add that most forums are now moderated successfully and I certainly have not found trolling to be an issue. I believe this 'research' is very low grade and and does not address the underlying causes of why people are turning away from mainstream media. It also seems to suggest by asserting there is 'no cure' for this group who are labelled trolls that it is a sickness rather than a symptom of an ailing mainstream media that appears incapable of investigative journalism. The researcher fails to acknowledge that there is such a thing as righteous anger and if inarticulate people get personal we shouldn't forget that their sentiments may be well founded even if their expression is ugly. However, I would challenge the spurious assertion that there is 'no cure'  and say actually, in the case of Madeleine McCann,  there is a 'cure' and that cure is the truth. If confidence was restored there would be less anger, mistrust and cynicism and probably a lot less trolling.

'Anti-McCann Trolls Cannot be Cured'

Conversely, can,

'PRO-McCann Trolls BE Cured'?

'Rainne @ dirndlass'?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/169572/Mccann-troll-Brenda-Leyland-driven-to-suicide-after-twitter-death-threats

Today we can disclose some of the appalling comments sent to her. The first states: “Hoping you get beaten so bad you beg for mercy, only to have gasoline thrown on you and set ablaze.”

The next adds: “You have reached the end of your torturing campaign against the McCann family, understand.”

The third message is a direct threat against her life with the sadistic author stating: “Death is waiting and watching for u @sweepyface..Do you feel it????”

The next attack was so disgusting it is unsuitable for publication.

The last message states: “Sweepyface, we’re coming for you. Do you feel us?? The decent kind folk who pray for this family and their sad loss.You go to hell *****.”

All the 'above'.... sent by PRO-McCann 'supporters'!

McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell, responding to the alleged online death threats against Brenda Leyland, said yesterday: “We will not be commenting. It is a matter for the coroner.”

Oh come on, Clarrie, you're not usually so erm, y'know........'QUIET'! (about Anti-Mc 'trolls!)

Another issue with regards 'trolling' is that it is in some people's interest to perpetuate a sense of victimhood and it is very common for certain individuals or organized groups to exploit this so they can gain sympathy or support. There was a recent case involving Scottish Nationalists were an online  petition was started that appeared to show a huge number of people in England were becoming anti-Scottish. It was nearly raised in parliament by the nationalists until it was revealed  that most of the supporters came from Scotland. We see the same thing now with the frequent spurious reporting of hate crimes. Any sophisticated research into the subject of trolling needs to recognize this. Something similar happened after the tragic death of Jo Cox, there was a deliberate attempt to use this tragedy for political gain by attempting to portray those who were on the side of remain as enlightened and pure and those on the side of leave asz a bunch of swivel-eyed loons who keep bad company. A sort of contamination if you like - but it back fired. A similar thing here with the Mccanns - you are damned by association  and it smacks of desperation. As my son said to me when I first became interested in this case, no one believes the mainstream narrative anymore and he's right. I believe it's a death rattle and it's going to get pretty shrill before the truth outs.

Hang in there, folks. The "anti-Mccanns" and the McCann "trolls" have been assessed. It's now the turn of the "pro-McCann group"

Snipped

"Dr Synott is now planning to extend the research by analysing the pro McCann camp"

This should be a corker!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-subjected-150-9960117

sallypelt wrote:Hang in there, folks. The "anti-Mccanns" and the McCann "trolls" have been assessed. It's now the turn of the "pro-McCann group"

Snipped

"Dr Synott is now planning to extend the research by analysing the pro McCann camp"

This should be a corker!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-subjected-150-9960117

I am afraid to say @ sallypelt that there is absolutely no cause for optimism here. I very much doubt whether they have any intention at all to research the 'pro-McCann camp' - and even if they did, would it produce headlines like this headline in the Mirror article tonight?:

Madeleine McCann's parents subjected to 150 abusive tweets a DAY from online trolls

Let us just pause for a good few moments to collect our thoughts on this article.

The headline will have been read by some 2-3 million Mirror readers. It is just as bad a headline as the combined efforts of Sonia Poulton and Rosalind Hutton managed to achieve with their article in the Sun two years ago, headlined: "I can be quite a bitch. I gave as good as I got. I enjoyed the wars and the spats".

The Mirror headline or similar may well appear in other British newspapers over the weekend.

Let us remember with some solemnity that it was headlines not unlike this which immediately preceded Brenda Leyland being driven to her suicide.

This wretched, seriously flawed, hugely biased University of Huddersfield research is being shamelessly used to once again represent the McCanns as innocent, heroic sufferers, persecuted by a band of obsessed, perhaps disturbed or psychotic, 'haters'. Feature-writers may write follow-up articles in the coming days reinforcing the message.

I have no doubt that forums like CMOMM will, in the minds of many members of the public, be tarred with the same brush.

After Amaral's great court victory and the Portuguese Supreme Court stating the obvious - that the McCanns were never cleared - the Mccanns were suddenly on the defensive. 

Articles like this in the Mirror wil be a significant setback to our cause, make no mistake about that

Tony Bennett wrote:

sallypelt wrote:Hang in there, folks. The "anti-Mccanns" and the McCann "trolls" have been assessed. It's now the turn of the "pro-McCann group"

Snipped

"Dr Synott is now planning to extend the research by analysing the pro McCann camp"

This should be a corker!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-subjected-150-9960117

I am afraid to say @ sallypelt that there is absolutely no cause for optimism here. I very much doubt whether they have any intention at all to research the 'pro-McCann camp' - and even if they did, would it produce headlines like this headline in the Mirror article tonight?:

Madeleine McCann's parents subjected to 150 abusive tweets a DAY from online trolls

Let us just pause for a good few moments to collect our thoughts on this article.

The headline will have been read by some 2-3 million Mirror readers. It is just as bad a headline as the combined efforts of Sonia Poulton and Rosalind Hutton managed to achieve with their article in the Sun two years ago, headlined: "I can be quite a bitch. I gave as good as I got. I enjoyed the wars and the spats".

The Mirror headline or similar may well appear in other British newspapers over the weekend.

Let us remember with some solemnity that it was headlines not unlike this which immediately preceded Brenda Leyland being driven to her suicide.

This wretched, seriously flawed, hugely biased University of Huddersfield research is being shamelessly used to once again represent the McCanns as innocent, heroic sufferers, persecuted by a band of obsessed, perhaps disturbed or psychotic, 'haters'. Feature-writers may write follow-up articles in the coming days reinforcing the message.

I have no doubt that forums like CMOMM will, in the minds of many members of the public, be tarred with the same brush.

After Amaral's great court victory and the Portuguese Supreme Court stating the obvious - that the McCanns were never cleared - the Mccanns were suddenly on the defensive. 

Articles like this in the Mirror wil be a significant setback to our cause, make no mistake about that

I am on the same page as you, Tony. I just couldn't resist being facetious. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be funny.

I have just downloaded the journal article and had a quick skim (will read it properly over the weekend) and I can't believe what I am reading. Flawed, unscientific, biased and I have just found out that because I dare to ask questions that I might meet the criteria for anti-social personality disorder.
I actually feel rather embarrassed for the authors, how it got published I don't know.
Is there any conflicts of interest that were not disclosed I wonder?

As some of you were aware i was having problems getting an electric wheelchair fr my daughter as a direct result of the cutbacks. I had been given a second hand chair from the only service left operating in my area, but the repairs to it were going to cost me at least £1000. I had to set up a go fundme page, which i now regret, but i was so panicked that my daughter was going to yet again be housebound. Anyway after a few weeks of not acheiving anywhere near enough money i admit to loosing self control and joining twitter specifically to "troll" my local MP , the snp, nicola sturgeon and the disabilities minister, as well as writing long well thought out letters. I kept it up relentlessly fr three weeks. Low and behold a phonecall from said service asking which colour we wanted a brand new chair in and that until that chair arrived a temporary one wld be arriving in the morning. So "trolling" does have its place in the world, (even if it was just to shut me up about the cutbacks), no matter how much these folk try to say we're all mad. We can't ALL be surely?

The McCanns have the press to get their message across to a very wide audience. They have the BBC who are complicit in helping them get their innocent message into the houses of the ill informed. They have celebrities who fall over themselves to back their abduction theory. They have access to lawyers paid for by donations from the public.  
Those who doubt the story only have social media and Youtube.

I don't hate the McCanns, I simply believe they know what happened to their daughter and they have covered it up, with help for those named above, and others, to conceal a crime or crimes. 

There is no evidence of an abduction, so why is it being pushed at us from every angle?

Roxyroo wrote:As some of you were aware i was having problems getting an electric wheelchair fr my daughter as a direct result of the cutbacks. I had been given a second hand chair from the only service left operating in my area, but the repairs to it were going to cost me at least £1000. I had to set up a go fundme page, which i now regret, but i was so panicked that my daughter was going to yet again be housebound. Anyway after a few weeks of not acheiving anywhere near enough money i admit to loosing self control and joining twitter specifically to "troll" my local MP , the snp, nicola sturgeon and the disabilities minister, as well as writing long well thought out letters. I kept it up relentlessly fr three weeks. Low and behold a phonecall from said service asking which colour we wanted a brand new chair in and that until that chair arrived a temporary one wld be arriving in the morning. So "trolling" does have its place in the world no matter how much these folk try to say we're all mad. We can't ALL be surely?

I looked on Dr Synnott's Twitter page and this is how he defines trolling: "Trolling is sharing or distributing commentary that is deliberately provocative in nature with the specific intention of upsetting someone." 
[size=35]Like you've just shown, sometimes we need to be provocative if we believe in truth and fairness. [/size] There's no moral component either to this definition. What if I'm in the right and the person I'm upsetting with my provocative statement is in the wrong? Really glad you got the chair for your daughter and sorry you had to fight for it. I don't know why my letters went big there but I'll leave it for emphasis and hope it doesn't sound  shouty.

I don't think anyone on this forum can be classed as a troll.  As whats_up_doc has already stated, a troll is someone who is provocative and insulting just for the attention, and they usually hide behind an id or multiple ids. Does this remind you of anyone? 

Moreover, why do so many  so called "anti-McCanns" use their real names, but I've never seen a "pro" reveal who THEY are. In fact, they will even deny who are, when someone "outs" them.

Funny old world, isn't it?

Roxyroo wrote:As some of you were aware i was having problems getting an electric wheelchair fr my daughter as a direct result of the cutbacks. I had been given a second hand chair from the only service left operating in my area, but the repairs to it were going to cost me at least £1000. I had to set up a go fundme page, which i now regret, but i was so panicked that my daughter was going to yet again be housebound. Anyway after a few weeks of not acheiving anywhere near enough money i admit to loosing self control and joining twitter specifically to "troll" my local MP , the snp, nicola sturgeon and the disabilities minister, as well as writing long well thought out letters. I kept it up relentlessly fr three weeks. Low and behold a phonecall from said service asking which colour we wanted a brand new chair in and that until that chair arrived a temporary one wld be arriving in the morning. So "trolling" does have its place in the world no matter how much these folk try to say we're all mad. We can't ALL be surely?

Well done Roxyroo . I hope the new wheelchair makes life better for both your daughter and you .

Sadly it's supposedly only those who "troll " the McCanns who are mad that appears to be the point of their "agenda " !

It's now in the Sun. Has anyone asked the authors on twitter why 'trolling' people they now call 'trolls' is appropriate research? Especially given their 'researcher' was using sarcasm, belittling etc (some might class as trolling).
Its not an appropriate way to conduct  themselves 

Actually, lets just wait until Tony compiles that letter and they can answer to their university ethics committee AND the Journal.  

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3008845/madeleine-mccanns-parents-trolls-150-tweets-a-day/

MADDIE TROLLS 
[size=36]Madeleine McCann’s parents hit by ‘150 vile tweets a DAY from online trolls’[/size]

Campaigners are urging action against keyboard warriors who hide behind pseudonyms

By Brittany Vonow
4th March 2017, 10:29 am
 
Updated: 4th March 2017, 10:59 am

Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)

Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

1
[size=15]COMMENTS[/size]
THE parents of Maddie McCann are targeted by more than 150 abusive tweets everyday – a decade on from her disappearance.
The vile comments, directed at Kate and Gerry McCann and found to be made mostly by women, were said to be “never ending” according to new research into online abuse.


PA:PRESS ASSOCIATION
4
Parents Kate and Gerry McCann have been subjected to vile abuse online, a decade on from their daughter’s disappearance
Psychologist Dr John Synott, who carried out the first study of its kind, said: “Most trolling behaviour has a lifespan of a couple of days.
“This has gone on for ten years, and you cannot see it ever ending. That is the legacy of the McCann case.
“In the physical world there are repercussions. You couldn’t get away with saying these things in the street. But in the virtual world there are no consequences.”




PA:PRESS ASSOCIATION
4
Little Maddie McCann went missing in 2008 with trolls blaming her parents
He estimated there were between 100 and 150 abusive comments directed on Twitter, Facebook and online McCann messageboards everyday.
Much of the abuse targets the parents as being responsible over the little girl’s disappearance.
Madeleine McCann vanished on May 3, 2007, when her family, from Leicestershire, were holidaying in the Algarve.
Parents Gerry and Kate had left their three children – including toddler twins Sean and Amelie – sleeping in their apartment while they dined at a nearby tapas bar.
When Kate returned to check on the kids about 10pm that evening she discovered that Maddie was not in her bed and was missing.
Dr Synott called for action to be taken against the abuse, including taking away pseudonyms that allowed people to make abusive comments anonymously.



Co-author to the report, Dr John Synott said: “It is encouraging to see ministers have called the major social media platforms to Whitehall to demand they do more to protect people online from cyber bullying and trolling or face sanctions.
“This is a step in the right direction by making these platforms responsible for negative behaviour that they unfortunately enable.”
The study, published in Computers in Human Behaviour, has been featured in an editorial headed ‘The dark side of social media’ for the prestigious journal, Nature.
In one sample of 400 McCann-related tweets obtained from 37 user accounts and containing a total of 7,600 words it found examples of abusive, often illiterate language used by trolls.


PA:PRESS ASSOCIATION
4
The little girl’s tragic disappearance has been the subject of much speculation
The theme of motherhood implied a strong female presence in the anti-McCann group, whereas earlier research has suggested that trolls are mostly male, because of frequent misogynistic sentiments.
Even researchers who attempted to speak to trolls online were targeted by bad language.
The research will now be expanded to examine people supporting the McCann parents.
Her parents Gerry and Kate McCann recently lost their latest court appeal to silence former cop Goncalo Amaral, who claims they covered up their daughter’s death in his book.
They have launched a challenge against the judges who sided with Amaral and also stated Madeleine’s parents have not been cleared of suspicion.
In a nine-page legal complaint seeking to invalidate the ruling they accuse the Portuguese judges of “contradictions” and acting “frivolously”.


PA:PRESS ASSOCIATION
4
Much of the abuse against the McCann parents come from women, research found



[size=86]h
TV detective claims Maddie McCann knew where parents were and went looking for them
The heartbroken couple may also face a fresh legal battle as they may sue over a “lunatic conspiracy theory” TV documentary which has emerged, based on Amaral’s shocking accusations.
As the tenth anniversary of Madeline’s disappearance approaches, the McCanns have slammed claims that they plan to make money from their daughter’s disappearance.
Kate and Gerry also hit out at the “insensitive” way Madeleine was drawn into hit BBC drama The Moorside – based on the fake kidnap of Shannon Matthews. [/size]

sallypelt wrote:I have dipped my toe into this threat, but haven't read it in depth, so I don't know if the answer to my question is somewhere on this thread. And my question is, is Elsevier the publishers of this article?

Elsevier is now a part of the RELX Group, known until 2015 as Reed Elsevier, with its headquarters in Amsterdam.






Revenue: 2.07 billion GBP (2015)



Copyright © 2017 Elsevier, except certain content provided by third party Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy

When persecuted scholars sought to be heard, Elsevier chose to follow its unceasing commitment to advance knowledge.

https://www.elsevier.com/

I am bumping my own post so that I can add a bit more to what I’ve already posted. I know now that Elsevier produces, inter alia, the ScienceDirect collection of electronic journals. From what I have read so far, about Elsevier, it appears that it is so easy to get “research” projects into their journals, but extremely difficult to access, due to their high access costs.

 

There are many examples of Elsevier’s practices on the internet, but this is just a taster for those who are interested in this publisher.

 

Elsevier journals: has anything changed?

Greg Martin, a number theorist at UBC (the University of British Columbia in Vancouver) doesn’t think so, so he has decided to resign from the editorial board of Elsevier’s Journal of Number Theory. His resignation letter makes interesting reading: I reproduce it here with his permission.

Dear colleagues,

I am writing to inform you of my resignation from the editorial board of the Journal of Number Theory, effective immediately. I will also be adding my name publicly to the list of people who refrain from volunteering for, or submitting manscripts to, Elsevier journals.



It has been a little over a year since the boycott against Elsevier went public. The petition at
http://thecostofknowledge.com
has been signed by thousands of mathematicians (indeed, over 13,000 researchers in total). There was a flurry of communication back and forth between Elsevier and our editorial board (and those of other journals, I’m sure). But now the dust has settled, and I must conclude that essentially nothing has changed.

Financial hardships remain in place for our libraries and institutions (even more so, as budgets tighten these days), despite all the good reasons that access to our own research should be becoming less expensive, not more. I’m sure you all know these points well; a lucid summary appears at:
https://gowers.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/elsevierstatementfinal.pdf
It is disappointing to read that statement’s “What next?” section, which proposes several levels of possible improvement to the status quo, and realize that not a single one of them is gaining significant ground.

As far as I can tell, Elsevier’s responses to our concerns ended up being limited to a slight easing off of support for legislation limiting access to our research, together with a nominal reduction in individual journal prices. Regarding the latter, however, Elsevier’s “bundling” practice remains in place, making individual journals’ prices essentially irrelevant. Their (aggressively defended) lack of pricing transparency from one institution to another also speaks volumes, in my mind, to the limits of their desire to seriously address our pricing concerns.

More recently, we were told of Elsevier’s new policy that editors would receive $60 for every article they process for the Journal of Number Theory. To me, this policy demonstrates a true inability (or unwillingness) to understand the key part of our observation that “all the work is done for free by volunteers, but access to that work is exorbitantly expensive”. We want access to be less expensive; we’re not looking for extra dough in our pockets. The most generous interpretation of this new policy’s effect is that it continues to take money away from the research community at large, but now puts some of it in the personal pockets of a small subset of mathematicians who don’t need it. (My personal reaction, to be honest, was to view this as too close to bribery not to be somewhat insulting.) But this policy uncontroversially shows, at least, the extent of Elsevier’s robust profits on its research journals.

It might well be that a commercial company such as Elsevier is simply unable to adapt to a publication model more appropriate to our 21st-century ability to easily format, store, and transmit research around the globe. This is why my resignation does not contain any condemnation of the people who work for Elsevier. But I do not wish to continue supporting a system, however entrenched, that forces our institutions to make a choice between giving up increasingly expensive research resources and throwing more and more of their educational budget into the closed coffers of commercial publishers.

Of course, any issue as complicated as this one admits a wide range of reasonable opinions and strategies, and I respect the judgment and good intentions of everyone receiving this email. However, if any of you continue to be troubled by this situation, I submit that now is as good a time as any to join me in resigning from JNT.

Sincerely yours,

 

https://gowers.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/elsevier-journals-has-anything-changed/

 

 
Is Elsevier now so desperate that they will print any project, regardless if it is only based on OPINION?



Edited to add a few comments to the above article:


Does this mean that I can submit scores of crank papers (or, if you like, papers that do not prove anything interesting/new) under a pseudonym to an editor, with whom I have an agreement to split the proceeds? Are they going to roll this system out to other journals? Sounds like the sort of system that led to Chaos, Solitons and Fractals having a massive impact factor to me.


Another JNT editor has promised a fancy dinner in Chicago for each ten papers that you submit to him. Let’s get to work!

***


The publishers play us by using our vanity. It’s a business, if we like it and we ask for more, they are OK, as long as we provide them (not especially Elsevier) with something to put in their journals, more well-known names and/or more famous universities, the better it is, because the vast majority of researchers, which are neither well known, nor working in famous universities, will do anything to publish in the same place as big guy X, or in a journal associated to big place Y.

***


I’ve recently tried to publish a mathematical physics paper in astrophysics. Three of the four astrophysics journals have page charges of $100 per page, and due to an unfavourable review, I’ve blown my chance to get published with the free one. There are other journals, but few without page charges and which publish on the topic of the paper.
It’s not a question of vanity for me. It’s a question of not being able to spend €4000 on getting one paper published. This is before I even submit, let alone anyone else tries to read it.
This isn’t a business. It’s a gang of rent seekers, living out of academics. There is no reasoning with such people. You just have to move on and start afresh.

***

Plenty more comments on this article in the link provided.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3008845/madeleine-mccanns-parents-trolls-150-tweets-a-day/

"The heartbroken couple may also face a fresh legal battle as they may sue over a “lunatic conspiracy theory” TV documentary which has emerged, based on Amaral’s shocking accusations."
----------------------------------------

Am I 'reading' this right?

"they may sue over a 'lunatic conspiracy THEORY' TV 'documentary'?

WHO 'might' they be 'suing'.........NOW?

Can one even 'sue' over 'a theory'? ('looney' or not!)

Did anyone 'sue'.....'that lunatic'.......Albert Einstein?

You know, the German-born 'theoretical physicist', who had 'a theory' about 'relativity'

Anyway, GM doesn't have 'a problem' with people 'purporting theories', does he?

Snipped from the article in The Sun -

Psychologist Dr John Synott, who carried out the first study of its kind, said: “Most trolling behaviour has a lifespan of a couple of days.
“This has gone on for ten years, and you cannot see it ever ending. That is the legacy of the McCann case.
“In the physical world there are repercussions. You couldn’t get away with saying these things in the street. But in the virtual world there are no consequences.”



Surely in the physical world, there is only repercussion if abusive language is being hurled at the person in question? 

To share opinions and state facts from police files on social media can hardly be described as abusive, so why is he making this comparison?

Gerry McCann himself stated that he and his wife Kate do not use social media, so how can they be 'trolled' if they are not participating? 

He also needs to understand the true definition of the word troll.

"Anti-McCann Trolls Cannot be Cured'
--------------------------------------

Of course they 'can'!

They can be 'cured' WHEN

1) MI5 opens the 'case files', and they find out what really happened.

2) The McCan'ts take an independent 'lie' detector test.

3) The McCan'ts, and their 'friends', return to Portugal and 'co-operate' 100% with the PJ.

4) The McCan'ts 'provide', irrefutable, 'proof' and 'evidence', beyond contestation, that an 'abduction' of their daughter, 'took place' on 3rd May 2007.

5) Etc., etc.

'MADDIE TROLLS Madeleine McCann’s parents hit by ‘150 vile tweets a DAY from online trolls’

Campaigners are urging action against keyboard warriors who hide behind pseudonyms
---------------------------------------------------

Haven't the 'campaigners' used this 'modus operandi' before, re.............BL?

She didn't 'troll or tweet' the McCan'ts at all!

PROVEN!

Will Dr John Synott investigate all other 'trolls'?

President Trump 'trolls' 
The Royal Family 'trolls'



Or is it just 'McCann trolls'?

Agreed JM. GM did say he didn't mind (big of him) people having a theory.

I understood that the McCanns didn't look at the comments on the net.

Quote from Sun...

Psychologist Dr John Synott, who carried out the first study of its kind, said: “Most trolling behaviour has a lifespan of a couple of days.
“This has gone on for ten years, and you cannot see it ever ending. That is the legacy of the McCann case.
“In the physical world there are repercussions. You couldn’t get away with saying these things in the street. But in the virtual world there are no consequences.”
End of Quote.

If I said I don't believe the McCann story to someone in the street , I would be quite in order to express my honest opinion.  To have a different viewpoint to the McCanns is not trolling.  Just because they want to silence everyone with opposing views doesn't mean we have to be quiet.

I see we have the phrase "Lunatic conspiracy theories" mentioned. This crops up when governments et alia have been rumbled.

My opinion is based on the dogs.

I think it's an exceptionally valid opinion.

No trolling involved.

Pinched from CMOMM facebewk:



Mark Maloney I wonder if MI5 brought in this guy. His University Bio states that he has done lots for the IPS Irish Police Service and others. One presumes PSNI and the persecution of British soldiers, whilst setting free convicted IRA terrorists now the ruling party in NI. All in the furthering of peace... Pmsl... A man who has not worked in the real world of psychology either. Therefore, he fits with the Blair profile and tactics.

Although, I personally agree that anonymous accounts should be banned. Yes, you heard correctly. I believe that if you don't have the guts to say something as you, then keep your mouth shut and don't say it.

However, classing people as 'Trolls,' is wrong also in equal measure. Classing someone as a Troll just for telling the facts as they stand is SOP for any dodgy outfit like MI5 and the Blair legacy. They have forgotten what the truth entails. Would they know the truth if they tripped over it.

The truth hurts only the guilty. If you have done no wrong then you would answer emphatically any accusations set before you, just to clear your name. Not block and ban from posting or commenting. That, as this alleged psychologist should know, is an aversion tactic, hiding from the truth fearing exposing ones actions by answering. AKA Guilt for something within their actions or testimony. The problem is finding out what they are guilty of and hiding by this tactic. It could be minor or it could be a major issue. The key though is not stooping to their level. Too many people are using foul language and downright libellous accusations not backed by facts. I know this is an emotive subject. I recently removed myself from a group where the members were flinging around seriously unsubstantiated opinions and using disgraceful language. The group was huge compared to this one but it indirectly confirmed the press fairy stories of trolls. One wonders how many of the group were press employees/team McCann, deliberately firing up the comments to back up their stories in the daily comics. Thus making fools of the other members. I was having no part in that pantomime.

I only realised the enormity of this case when my niece, (I have no children,) became the same age as Madeline was nearly 10 years ago. If anything happened to her, I would rip this planet apart to find her. I would use any and all my military contacts, social media and even the comics around the world to hunt for her. Any decent human being would do the same and this group shows that even non-family members have the same wish to aid the missing child investigation. No matter how small their part in the case. Therefore, the biggest question is why the authorities and team McCann call groups similar to this one Trolls. In America the Websleuths site is used by law enforcement when all else fails. So why do the British Police aka MI5, detest the existence of groups whose only existence is to find Madeline McCann and bring the perpetrators to justice, as is law. No one is above the law.

A good post, they name sling as trolls to what? Instil fear or is it their own fear of the truth coming out? As far as I can see it is not Madeleines' supporters who "mud sling" or derail comments when someone posts a fact, so not an appropriate term in my opinion............It's a case of the boot is on the other foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll


I do wish people would spell Madeleines name correctly, there has been a few lately ( blogs MSM) who are spelling it Madeline?

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/


I just love how there is so much talk in the UK media about anonymous people on Twitter trashing the McCanns; how they don't have the cajones to come into the public because of the consequences. Really?

Hello, Dr. Synott! Hello, UK Media!

Know my name? Pat Brown? The Pat Brown who writes on Twitter under....what....Pat Brown? The Pat Brown who has the blog called The Daily Profiler where she has written many articles about the McCann case under the name....ummm....Pat Brown? . Who was interviewed by a Portuguese paper as.....yes, Pat Brown. That's right, that same Pat Brown who wrote a book called  Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann under the name....yeah....Pat Brown. Who had her book pulled from Amazon because the McCanns threatened to sue them and the McCanns named the author in the lawsuit as......guess.....Pat Brown.

Pat Brown is not hard to find. Google "Criminal Profiler Pat Brown". You come up with The Pat Brown Profiling website where you can find my email and phone number. Guess how many UK journalists or others writing on the McCanns contacted me, a real person, not a anonymous troll, to discuss the McCann case and the issues surrounding it during the last ten years?





Yeah, exactly.

Oh, wait, I forgot about Anthony Summers, Looking for Madeline author, but he was just pretending to interview me as he had already included me in the troll section of his book.

In other words, there ARE people who doubt the McCann's abduction claim who have come forth publicly with their own names...even professionals and experts .....but the UK media is not interested interviewing them as it might let the public know that not only a sardine munching deplorable Portuguese retired police detective and some loony Twitter trolls question the McCann's innocence. There are also people who do crime analysis for a living who find that the McCanns should be considered suspects and believe Scotland Yard is conducting a sham investigation on behalf of someone, but not the citizens of the UK or Madeleine.

While there are certainly some trolls out there on Twitter who act rather badly concerning the McCanns, there are also many rational people who simply have a hard time swallowing the McCanns' protests and the biased "news" stories put out by the UK press.

I am Pat Brown. I am one of them. I'm waiting for your call.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

March 4, 2017

Good for Pat Brown! 

Calling the Sun, Mirror, Daily Mail, Sky News or any MSM 
Journalist, you have a prime opportunity to get the McCanns on front page news again.............. You can fill your quota? 

ready.................

steady........................................

.......................

Google is in on the act for "trolls"? 
They have a new "perspective" rolling out in 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/23/google-fights-online-trolls-with-new-tool/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_google-720a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.3fa2ad74c817

I'm not a troll. I'm just curious, and rather than believe what i've been told, or read in the media, i'd rather look at the evidence myself and make up my own mind. Doesn't make me a hater or a troll. I just like checking things out for myself. I like mysteries. I've researched a few subjects that have sparked my interest and no doubt i will research other things too. People are curious...

MayMuse wrote:Google is in on the act for "trolls"? 
They have a new "perspective" rolling out in 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/23/google-fights-online-trolls-with-new-tool/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_google-720a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.3fa2ad74c817

Also this.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/03/02/how-researchers-tried-to-understand-one-of-twitters-oldest-trolling-groups/?utm_term=.0cb98c1a1eb9#comments

jeanmonroe wrote:'MADDIE TROLLS Madeleine McCann’s parents hit by ‘150 vile tweets a DAY from online trolls’

Campaigners are urging action against keyboard warriors who hide behind pseudonyms
---------------------------------------------------

Haven't the 'campaigners' used this 'modus operandi' before, re.............BL?

She didn't 'troll or tweet' the McCan'ts at all!

PROVEN!

These campaigners are they paid campaigners or voluntry campaigners?