Maddie's parents urge vile trolls to stop 'awful and upsetting abuse' on their own website as they back new rules BANNING criticism of decision to leave her alone in apartment

Maddie's parents urge vile trolls to stop 'awful and upsetting abuse' on their own website as they back new rules BANNING criticism of decision to leave her alone in apartment

The parents of Madeleine McCann are urging supporters to help stop trolls who continue to plague them with vile web abuse which they say is 'so awful and upsetting.'

Kate and Gerry, who face fresh agony as the police hunt into their daughter's disappearance is set to be shelved next month, have approved a set of rules to help curb the online haters.

The couple told recently how they still try to shield their 12-year-old old twins from cruel, false and libellous taunts being made against the family, which Kate describes as 'shocking, striking and quite hard to get your head round.'

Now the McCanns, whose daughter was snatched from a Portuguese holiday resort 10 and a quarter years ago, are pleading with well wishers not to post anything to encourage tormentors.

It comes as a Government launches a crackdown on online abusers. The Crown Prosecution Service has revised its guidelines and is now pressing for the growing trend in cyberspace hate to be treated as seriously as face to face abuse.

Kate and Gerry are backing a new 'Rules of the Road' on the official Find Madeleine Campaign website which promotes positive, helpful comments and is now trying to ban trolling.

The digital co-ordinator, a friend of the couple who runs the Facebook page on their behalf, states: 'Please do not feed trolls. Trolls feed on havoc and causing chaos. If we do not feed them they will starve for attention and hopefully spread their hate someplace else.'

And is bold red type the un-named web controller warns: 'Please don't post your opinion on leaving children alone. Doing so will result in you being banned. No questions asked.'

Three-year-old Maddie vanished from a Praia da Luz in May 2007. She had been left alone sleeping with her younger siblings while her parents were dining with pals in a nearby tapas restaurant.

In a TV interview to mark the milestone decade anniversary in May Kate told how the abuse has been 'shocking,' adding: 'Why would someone in a position of ignorance write that, add to someone's upset? It is so awful and upsetting and it becomes more of a talking point.'

Kate, 49, a former GP who has taken up a new medical post, told BBC presenter Fiona Bruce they have 'tried to educate Sean and Amelie a little bit because it's not just us that has fallen victim to the downside of social media.'

Although she and Gerry try avoid to social media, apart from for the Maddie campaign, Kate said: 'We are aware of things that get said because people alert us to them. Our worry is for our children.'

Heart doctor Gerry, 49, added: 'We have told them that people are writing things that are simply just untrue and they need to be aware of that. People just need to think twice before what they write.'

Among rules on their campaign page are: 'Do not use obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or excessively violent language.

'Do not harass, insult, taunt, provoke, demean or personally attack other people on the page. Be friendly even if others are not.

'Do not ask questions about the investigation.'

The web page, which is endorsed by Kate and Gerry from Rothley, Leicestershire, states: 'We ultimately have the say on content and tone. We do not ban on a whim.'

"Dr Synott called for action to be taken against the trolls, including taking away pseudonyms that allowed people to make abusive comments anonymously."

This is one of the most frustrating parts of this sorry saga. Trolls? If you follow the comments, there's no way you couldn't be aware of the discrepancies in this story. I also find it hard to believe that anyone could miss the suffering that's been inflicted on others and lives ruined by members of the Team.

I used to belong to a forum which, like many others, became a magnet for discussion of what really happened in Praia da Luz. There's this snobbery around so-called 'conspiracy theories' and it seems to be people with big egos and a narcissistic and misguided belief in their impartiality and discernment that try and get any real discussion of the facts they purport to be striving for shut down. What became apparent was that, as long as comments could be substantiated and there were no personal remarks, the threads couldn't be removed nor the commenter banned, so I only put up things which could be verified by printed sources or from their own words. 

Despite the terrible things all being true, there were still those who were angry that anyone could question anyone whose residence or belongings indicated cadaver scent, because there was a young girl missing. I managed to prevent myself being banned, but not to stop the site handing over my personal details, just for stating things that could be backed up (the quotation marks and accompanying links should have been a big giveaway). The site never confirmed it, but I did have a discussion with one of their lawyers (who said something like statements being shown to be true may (?!) a defence against libel, and in other correspondence the only question that was repeatedly evaded was whether they had already given out anyone's details without their knowledge, as they'd posted would happen). In a strange coincidence, I do happen to know that this site is terrified of Carter-Ruck, as a friend once used them to, um, reconsider their choices.

Anyway, in the very likely absence of anonymity, I'm still happy to stand by those comments. Is Dr. Synott still willing to stand by his? Presumably, despite the fact that, even after a decade, there are discrepancies which even now go unexplained, he must have the answers we seek. I'd particularly like to know how he'd assess the personality of a group of people who thought this was appropriate:

BILTON: Kate McCann is at the station for 13 hours, but from inside she and Trish text out updates. Even at this point the message is being controlled.


McGUINNESS: We were a bit naughty because we did have messages coming out of the police station which we weren't supposed to...


BILTON: How did that work.. what, the text messages?


McGUINNESS: Yeah.


BILTON: And were the texts saying? Talk us through.


McGUINNESS: Sort of updates from things that were happening.


Is it trolling to ask whether it's appropriate for a woman being questioned to assess whether she was involved in her daughter's death to be texting "updates" prior to her fellow suspect/witness's interview? Given that Kate refused to answer any questions, but Gerry did, did he have advance knowledge of what they would be and, more importantly, did one or more of their lawyers?

If this is acceptable, then apply it across the board to any suspect in any crime in the UK. 

The Portuguese Supreme Court has spoken - the McCanns have never been cleared of suspicion of their involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Through their own refusal to cooperate with the police the McCanns lost the opportunity to exonerate themselves, nor would they return at a later date to facilitate the investigation. This was their choice, they are reaping the consequences of their choice in this matter. They paid half a million of publicly donated cash to newspapers to keep the story on the front pages for a year, despite publicly admitting that this would do little to recover the child. How then can they complain about continued public interest in the case? They handed over a small fortune, again donated by the public, to private detectives with criminal records who squandered these monies. This was hidden and no effort made to seek redress, as if the public's hard earned money was of no consequence. Publicly donated funds = the right of donors to pass comment on how these have been used. Scotland Yard have spent approximately 12 million of public money with no result to date. Of course the public have a right to pass comment on this and the value for money this investigation represents. This is sabre-rattling which almost seems designed to bring a negative backlash against the McCanns. What sane journalist lauds the suggestion of censoring free speech?

+1 Phoebe, plus the potential "witholding" of Efits / information obtained by said PI's etc

If this is true, this really is the beginning of a government-controlled police-state..........."please don't post your opinion....doing so will result in you being banned" and "do not ask questions about the investigation".

Just like another member on a different thread, and as I've alluded to in previous posts, I too am not entirely convinced that this is not some very elaborate hoax to understand how people react to the given circumstances but, far more importantly, to bring in new regulation to control the masses. And if you think 10 years is a long timescale, think again.

Also think 9/11. That ushered in the War on Terror........liquids on planes, belts and shoes off at xray, immigration checks, bans on certain people entering the US, Homeland Security.....the list is long.

polyenne wrote:If this is true, this really is the beginning of a government-controlled police-state..........."please don't post your opinion....doing so will result in you being banned" and "do not ask questions about the investigation".

Just like another member on a different thread, and as I've alluded to in previous posts, I too am not entirely convinced that this is not some very elaborate hoax to understand how people react to the given circumstances but, far more importantly, to bring in new regulation to control the masses. And if you think 10 years is a long timescale, think again.

Also think 9/11. That ushered in the War on Terror........liquids on planes, belts and shoes off at xray, immigration checks, bans on certain people entering the US, Homeland Security.....the list is long.

I don't see why it has to be a 'hoax', as in it didn't happen.  The government want to cover something up with this case, I think that's clear with the dragging on of Op. Grange, security services involvement and the  production of 'proper' studies like the Synnot troll one and Gerry McCann being given a platform to talk about tougher laws and being invited to speak at inquiries and police conference etc.  .....

 .....but that doesn't exclude the possibility of the government wanting more control over freedom of speech and jumping on any opportunity to do so. Governments stay in power and cover up all their dirty little secrets by controlling the media and they always have done.

  I actually don't think people will be prosecuted for disagreeing with the official story or questioning the investigation, even with these new guidelines. The censoring effect will come from the media warning us we mustn't question the official story.

Time for another airing..


Tracey Kandohla [circa. August 2017]

Kate and Gerry are backing a new 'Rules of the Road' on the official Find Madeleine Campaign website which promotes positive, helpful comments and is now trying to ban trolling .....  Tracey Kandohla

Then I strongly recommend CMoMM - it fits all the criteria, the 'Rules of the Road', requiring McCann approval.

Horse manure!

"Now the McCanns...are pleading with well wishers not to post anything to encourage tormentors.

"It comes as a Government launches a crackdown on online abusers".



Perfect timing.

The last time the McCanns and the government joined in calling for tighter internet controls on trolls, Brenda Leyland fell soon afterwards.

Who this time?

"Among rules on their campaign page are: 'Do not use obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or excessively violent language."


Thank goodness no-one I know uses expressions like 'f***ing tosser'........


 '[size=16]He deserves to be miserable and feel fear." Does this come under any of the headings?
[/size]

ChippyM wrote:
I don't see why it has to be a 'hoax', as in it didn't happen.  The government want to cover something up with this case, I think that's clear with the dragging on of Op. Grange, security services involvement and the  production of 'proper' studies like the Synnot troll one and Gerry McCann being given a platform to talk about tougher laws and being invited to speak at inquiries and police conference etc.  .....

 .....but that doesn't exclude the possibility of the government wanting more control over freedom of speech and jumping on any opportunity to do so. Governments stay in power and cover up all their dirty little secrets by controlling the media and they always have done.

Wise words if I might say .

There are easier ways by far to gauge public reaction than concocting such a highfalutin story as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann - for a start, it's not necessary to use a living little three year old child as the focus.  No two people are alike, public reaction to any situation will never ever give a constructive indication of how the public might respond or be controlled.

The way the political agenda is progressing in the UK tells me a different story.  Over more recent years, the government has severely reduced the powers of the police with their vote catching policies - hardly indicative of moving towards a police state.  I wish the UK police had more autonomy, rather than being subjected to the restraints imposed by government control.

Quite frankly, I think the mere notion is totally bonkers.

Ah "Dr Synott" - famed for dodgy research that broke ethical guidance. 
How did the complaints go on him to the uni?

Interesting that they are trying to ban criticism of their leaving the children alone.
Because we have worked out that they probably didn't, but they are now trapped in that alibi story, and can't get out of it without revealing the truth about what happened.
And we remember it was not just the McCanns.
9 parents left 8 children, most under the age of 3, for 5 successive nights, in cold, dark, and in some cases unlocked apartments
out of sight and earshot . . .
It is NOT CREDIBLE.
But they have trapped themselves.
As they did by holding up the pyjamas in which Madeleine had been abducted . . .  err err
As they did when Kate said she hoped Madeleine was being tucked up in her blanket - which we then saw in the photos on the bed, and had to be whooshed . . . err, err
Small wonder they are trying to stop criticism, because they obviously can't reply by saying "We didn't !   ["I know that] what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Interesting that they are trying to ban criticism of their leaving the children alone.
Because we have worked out that they probably didn't, but they are now trapped in that alibi story, and can't get out of it without revealing the truth about what happened.
And we remember it was not just the McCanns.
9 parents left 8 children, most under the age of 3, for 5 successive nights, in cold, dark, and in some cases unlocked apartments
out of sight and earshot . . .
It is NOT CREDIBLE.
But they have trapped themselves.
As they did by holding up the pyjamas in which Madeleine had been abducted . . .  err err
As they did when Kate said she hoped Madeleine was being tucked up in her blanket - which we then saw in the photos on the bed, and had to be whooshed . . . err, err
Small wonder they are trying to stop criticism, because they obviously can't reply by saying "We didn't !   ["I know that] what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances

"If child neglect is their alibi, what ARE they hiding".

The above quote has been posted on Twitter on many occasions, but it says it all in a nutshell. This cover-up has gone well past finding a missing child. This is one mighty cover-up, and the world and his dog KNOW that it is. The question is, what is it?

Oh, and PROFESSOR Gerald P McCann has done fantastically well in his profession since 2009. Check it out!

"Gerry was awarded his first grant as a principal investigator, from the BHF, in 2007 to assess the role of left ventricular hypertrophy in limiting exercise capacity in AS. Several other grants were secured with colleagues and the opportunities arising from the NIHR were transformative to his career."

Can "free speech" be banned? 

I don't think so... opinion, criticism,judgement, information, knowledge, truth...oh gosh even lies as we see on a daily basis in MSM etc... 
Print, online info, tweets can be deleted, edited etc but they are still there once the word is out...it's all in the press of a button...


What and how exactly would/could the "rule" be implemented ...the powers that be would create an own goal and that couldn't happen now could it?

As for the McCanns they have continually hid behind lawyers, spent hundreds of thousands and still cannot alter the truth.... ..Amaral had it right in his book title ...the truth of the lie...

and that's the key thing, most of what we are "fed" is to twist and confuse...to try and make us believe in something that's not...

Fake news is sometimes not so much fake news ...it is such to cover up or hide the enormity of the real...all in all it's purpose is an agenda...

Confusion isn't  good......?...

This is where I, personally struggle! G. E.G. wrote - 


"And we remember it was not just the McCanns.
9 parents left 8 children, most under the age of 3, for 5 successive nights, in cold, dark, and in some cases unlocked apartments
out of sight and earshot . . .
It is NOT CREDIBLE." 

If the Tapas 9 are not complicit in the cover-up due to having the neglect of their children in common, what can it be? If it is not credible to accept that these parents could be so selfish and reckless as to leave their children unsupervised, then surely it is even more difficult to believe that they were all party to, or had knowledge of, anything such as sexual abuse as some suggest. It seems illogical to believe they were such protective parents that they would not risk leaving children unsupervised lest harm befall them, yet believe they could condone/cover-up the awful harm caused by abuse. Would they have covered up an assault on Madeleine which accidentally caused her death?  Perhaps, but it would have been an enormous sacrifice on their part. Ditto for a death by drug misuse, unless they too could have been accused of the same.

There is no proof, or even evidence, of neglect - only the word of the McCanns and their group of friends.  In the event of a tragic accident or any other situation that may have led to Madeleine's alleged disappearance, it could more easily be explained without any admission of neglect.

The McCanns and their friends were never in any danger of being prosecuted for abandoning their children - because they didn't and they know that only too well.  Hence the neglect emphasis.

The alleged holiday childcare checking system was designed to give an abductor the opportunity to abduct.  Nothing more nothing less.

I caught the end if the Nick Ferrari Show on LBC this morning as he warned a caller (talking about the neglect issue) to be careful not to accuse anyone of anything.

Did any member of this forum hear the whole show ? What was the general consensus of Ferrari and his callers ?

Phoebe wrote:This is where I, personally struggle! G. E.G. wrote - 


"And we remember it was not just the McCanns.
9 parents left 8 children, most under the age of 3, for 5 successive nights, in cold, dark, and in some cases unlocked apartments
out of sight and earshot . . .
It is NOT CREDIBLE." 

If the Tapas 9 are not complicit in the cover-up due to having the neglect of their children in common, what can it be? If it is not credible to accept that these parents could be so selfish and reckless as to leave their children unsupervised, then surely it is even more difficult to believe that they were all party to, or had knowledge of, anything such as sexual abuse as some suggest. It seems illogical to believe they were such protective parents that they would not risk leaving children unsupervised lest harm befall them, yet believe they could condone/cover-up the awful harm caused by abuse. Would they have covered up an assault on Madeleine which accidentally caused her death?  Perhaps, but it would have been an enormous sacrifice on their part. Ditto for a death by drug misuse, unless they too could have been accused of the same.

Hi Phoebe,that is one interesting question which surely deserves an answer from the famous Tapas 7/9?
But alas after Ten years of a Code of Silence and millions of pounds on Operation Grange(remember Hillsborough)that any UK Police force has not been complicit in a cognitive dissonance of what has appeared before their own eyes,yet still continue to turn the proverbial(blind Eye syndrome) on Madeleine McCann's disappearance,Why?
Have the UK Police Forces throughout the UK,been complicit to "Not Investigating" Care Homes absconders,which has now been uncovered to have been a"supply Chain" to the Paedophile facilitators to openly abuse vulnerable young adolescents?
Has as been stated,Alison Saunders was so"Alert"over Granville Janner,(Look Over Here,Franck Beck,Leicestershire Police force,Not Over There,J*nner?)yet seemingly travelled to Portugal,probably to strong arm tactics on the PJ,posible charges on Operation Grange,should there be any UK persons to be charged with"Criminal Offences"?
If there has been a "Cover Up"this would include the CCTV tapes verifying where the Majority of the Tapas 7/9 were on the early evening of the 3 May 2007,Tennis sessions,achillies injury,Gerry,but wasn't seen hobbling around when giving press announcement on their missing daughter,Madeleine, 4 May 2007?
The Tapas 7/9 will have to live with their actions they conspired to do if harm has become to Madeleine McCann?

Laid Bare has a few things to say on the "abuse" but mainly the fraudulent fund.... to be a charity or not as the case may be,.... https://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-mccanns-fraudulent-fund-and-note-of.html?m=1

I have read about people who go out for a night on the town, leaving their young children home alone unsupervised. I have also read about people who go on a weeks holiday, while leaving their young kids at home to fend for themselves. 
Usually these people are a bit dim, not the sharpest knives in the draw, and when they return home, they find the law has caught them, their stupidity has also landed them on the front page of the local rag.

Yet here we are on holiday with a gang of well educated professional people, and we are to believe that not only one couple in this small group think leaving their kids alone is within the bounds of reasonable parenting, but they all do.
What, statistically, are the chances of that being the case?

I don't know what happened on that holiday or what binds these people together, but I don't believe it was child neglect. 

In fact, I don't believe they, as a group of kids, were left alone at all, I can't see it happening. All this talk about people being banned from asking the McCanns about child neglect, just highlights that they want us to talk about child neglect.
It's a subliminal dupe.

Please do not talk about child neglect.

And here we are. Doing it!

MayMuse wrote:Laid Bare has a few things to say on the "abuse" but mainly the fraudulent fund.... to be a charity or not as the case may be,.... https://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-mccanns-fraudulent-fund-and-note-of.html?m=1

Good read.

In addition:

Linnett resigned in MAY, but is still shown on the Find Madeleine site as a director..
Accessed two minutes ago 24 AUGUST,  less than 3 months later the FALSE information is still there.

And KM is no longer a GP either. Small point and not worth pursuing, since she once was, and has passed the exams and training. . .
But it is not strictly true, nor transparent.

Since Linnett was the accountant, who one assumes took over when HaysB refused to do any more work, one wonders if this is another co-incidence, or if he realised that he would be responsible in the event of a proper investigation - and RAN. Less than a month later.     As they did from Portugal !

polyenne wrote:If this is true, this really is the beginning of a government-controlled police-state..........."please don't post your opinion....doing so will result in you being banned" and "do not ask questions about the investigation".

Just like another member on a different thread, and as I've alluded to in previous posts, I too am not entirely convinced that this is not some very elaborate hoax to understand how people react to the given circumstances but, far more importantly, to bring in new regulation to control the masses. And if you think 10 years is a long timescale, think again.

Also think 9/11. That ushered in the War on Terror........liquids on planes, belts and shoes off at xray, immigration checks, bans on certain people entering the US, Homeland Security.....the list is long.

I completely agree! This is being used as a very useful tool fr the powers that shouldnt be to see e,actly how the public reacts to sensitive material. For example Mrs May using GCHQ to delete/edit all info about her father.
Then we have hundreds of youtube " truther" channels being deleted overnight etc. 
They all thought Trump was going to be the start of a change for the better but imo hes just a puppet (bit like Reagan) reading what he's bedn told to say.


https://youtu.be/-35dEyHqKLw

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

MayMuse wrote:Laid Bare has a few things to say on the "abuse" but mainly the fraudulent fund.... to be a charity or not as the case may be,.... https://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-mccanns-fraudulent-fund-and-note-of.html?m=1

Good read.

In addition:

Linnett resigned in MAY, but is still shown on the Find Madeleine site as a director..
Accessed two minutes ago 24 AUGUST,  less than 3 months later the FALSE information is still there.

And KM is no longer a GP either. Small point and not worth pursuing, since she once was, and has passed the exams and training. . .
But it is not strictly true, nor transparent.

Since Linnett was the accountant, who one assumes took over when HaysB refused to do any more work, one wonders if this is another co-incidence, or if he realised that he would be responsible in the event of a proper investigation - and RAN. Less than a month later.     As they did from Portugal !

Indeed ...Linnet is a point not to be missed and do not believe it to be a coincidence........
 At least KM is still "medical" whatever that may be? 
Could cover a multitude, couldn't it?

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Since Linnett was the accountant, who one assumes took over when HaysB refused to do any more work, one wonders if this is another co-incidence, or if he realised that he would be responsible in the event of a proper investigation - and RAN. Less than a month later.   

If ever the Madeleine Fund Ltd Co. is legitimately investigated by the fraud squad (which I frankly doubt), Linnett would be subject to investigation the same as any other board director - past and present, including the McCanns and the auditors.  He can run but he can't hide - unless of course he's done a Reggie Perrin.

The tenth anniversary of Madeleine's alleged disappearance was a fanfare of remembrance, an historic event to herald the end of a decade of campaigning.  Whatever the future for Operation Grange, the PJ or final justice in the name of Madeleine McCann, the McCanns have reached the end of the road.  Not in terms of the law but they have outplayed their game, no more charity runs, auctions, chat shows, or pleas for donations.  I seriously doubt the facebook page support group would continue if it's wasn't to counteract negative vibes from other quarters.   They are now floundering to save face by these vapid claims of trolling etc - it's almost pathetic to witness the desperation of 2017 compared to the bare-faced confidence displayed in 2007. 

The official Find Madeleine website is never updated outside of the customary anniversary repetition every May and a few maudlin words come Michaelmas.  In my view, the website and all associated with that and the fund will dissolve at the close of this financial year - what choice do they have?  

Curtains down.

Who has brought in new rules to stop criticism of them?
I must have missed that on the news that a special rule has been brought in just for them or is it a rule banning criticim of anything and anyone?

How can a law be made to stop criticism?

The new law about people criticising.   Will we all be banged up if we criticse our MPs or any public servants?

If people want the help and/or donations from the public then surely they must realise there will be criticism if the same general public have questions they would like answered before believing everything they are told?

New laws to curb peoples free speech and scare them into silence? I have said this before, but now i am even more sure that it is not the McCanns that are really being protected. In my opinion.

Is it not simply hot air and empty threats, jumping on the bandwagon of the proposed changes?  After losing out to Amaral, having their Portuguese legal status more widely exposed and losing some of their ability to threaten and silence people? They made the choice of running away from the Portuguese Police and leaving themselves not cleared of involvement in Maddie's disappearance.
Did they really believe that their other children would not be affected as they got older? 
It's time they stopped the dictatorial behaviour and treating the public ,who have funded them since Day1, like underling fools.