Re: 50 facts about the Maddie case that the British media are not telling you

by Judge Mental Fri 24 Dec - 4:47

One is terribly shocked to note that the abduction theorists seem to constantly post libellous comments referring to Amaral. Do they also libel Mark Harrison and Lee Rainbow in the same way?

by **Tony Bennett** Fri 24 Dec - 5:59

RAW NERVE TOUCHED

The latest from PFA2...

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:48 pm Message to Tony Bennett

You have copied and pasted my first post in its entirety at Jill Havern's forum without my permission. As you claim to have a legal background, you should know that this breaches my intellectual property rights under the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act.

I give you 24 hours to remove my post. Alternatively, I give my permission for you quote me provided you include a hyperlink to the source (this thread)*. If you fail to compy with this polite request then I will lodge a complaint with your web host. I am very serious about this. I have made two such complaints in the past and on both occasions, the web hosts were very helpful. I do not mind being quoted as long as the quote is sourced and linked. That is Fair Use. I do not give my permission for you to steal my post in its entirety.

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

* Well, Dr Kate McCann's book is going to be 'very truthful', and in the light of Jayelles being 'very serious' (and of course the webhosts concerned reported as having been 'very helpful', what choice have I got, bearing in mind the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, but to comply immediately?

Link to hysterical McCann-believer nonsense by jayelles, bluj1515, honestbroker and preciousramotse here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Phew! Just made it within the 24 hours limit!

by **Jill Havern** Fri 24 Dec - 6:18

Are these the same people who steal your posts Tony so that they can poke proverbial sticks at you? huh

by **Tony Bennett** Fri 24 Dec - 6:35

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:Are these the same people who steal your posts Tony so that they can poke proverbial sticks at you?

Er...Yes.

by Phantasia Fri 24 Dec - 9:12

Please forgive me ( I am a lowly n00b, and haven't yet been able to read everything in here...lol) if this has been posted before:

A couple of the strangest things in the 'abduction', in my opinion. were right at the beginning.

1) Why did Kate say "They've taken Madeline" ??? Surely anyone would say 'Madeline's gone'....or 'I can't find Madeline'. What did she mean by they?
Rather as though they had hatched this plan earlier......

2) Why did we hear no more about the woman in the next villa, who said that she heard Madeline crying for her 'mummy' and that Madeline had wandered off and hidden at other bed-times, and Kate had screamed and shouted at the child.

3) There were road-works a few yards from the villas....were they ever uncovered?

by littlepixie Fri 24 Dec - 9:16

The lady who lived in the apartment above the McCanns and heard a child crying gave an official Police statement.

Link to statement

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by kangdang Fri 24 Dec - 9:26

Jaycelles needs to read up on intellectual property and the internet.. laughat

by **Tony Bennett** Fri 24 Dec - 9:37

More from Jayelles on PFA2.

May I make it crystal clear that the following posts, copied and pasted verbatim from theMcCann-believer forum, PFA2, are all the intellectual property of the said Jayelles, save one from ~~Nigel Nessling of Ipswich~~ vee8:

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

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:16 pm Dear Tony,

Try again. You really don't want to play games here. One of my previous complaints resulted in the forum being taken offline for several days (web hosts do take copyright complaints seriously). I'm happy to be quoted as long as a link accompanies the quotes (and I mean in the same post). I do not think a microscopic link is very adult. I'd like one the same sized font as the rest of the post please.

PS, You might want to check out the date and time on my post. If you think you "just made" the 24 hour deadline by responding within the first 10 minutes, then it doesn't say an awful lot for your perspective.

Alternatively, you can remove my posts entirely. I know the procedures to follow.

BTW, the only nerve you have touched is that of breaching the correct protocol. I have an academic background and I place high value in Fair Use and proper sourcing.

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:30 pm

In my experience, web hosts are very obliging about removing material which breaches copyright, Where they take a dim view is when it is clear that the initial request to comply with fair use has been ignored or refused by the culprit. It was on such an occasion that the host took a forum offline.

I have never had to file a DCMA takedown, but I know someone who did and the forum in question was taken offline permanently.

I have proof that Tony Bennett saw my request within 10 mins of me making it. So far he has a) failed to reduce my post to fair usage quotes b) failed to provide a link within the actual post he copied. To boot, his response has been to steal another post in its entirety and add a ridiculously small link to it. This is mounting evidence that he is not taking my request seriously and I will use it if I have to take my complaint to Jill Havern's web host.

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:33 pm

Incidentally, I always request that posts of mine which are copied in their entirety without a courteous link to the source be removed. If I want to make a post in a particular forum, I would join it and make the post. I like my posts to be read in context.

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:47 pm

Dear Tony,

Er no. I have never copied and pasted any post of yours in its entirety without so much as a courteous link to the source. This is a polite personal request for you to reciprocate in the name of intellectual and academic civility.

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:52 pm

I see there's a forum on the forum to file a complaint with the administrator. Not sure what good that would do. Fortunately, forumotion have a procedure for litigation issues.

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] » Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:17 pm

I'm not as knowledgeable about the forums and characters as others. Is Go Get Em Goncalo = Jill Havern? I have lodged a complaint with the forum administrator as this is the correct protocol in the lead up to an official legal complaint.

I gave TB 24 hours to respond thinking this was a reasonable amount of time to allow him to see my request. Since I have proof that he saw it within minutes of my making it, I think it's reasonable for him to respond sooner rather than within seconds of my "deadline", but I understand he has a history of responding to deadlines at the 11th hour.

For the record, I'm not seeking to take their forum down - only to have Fair Use applied to my intellectual property as is my legal right but I understand forumotion is a free forum host and in my experience, they are more likely to take a forum down rather than deal with hassle.

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] » Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:20 pm

I've just noticed that Tony Bennett has not only copied and pasted my post - he has altered it too. He has inserted a word which places a different meaning on what I said. That's actually more serious.

Jayelles wrote: I'm not as knowledgeable about the forums and characters as others. Is Go Get Em Goncalo = Jill Havern? I have lodged a complaint with the forum administrator as this is the correct protocol in the lead up to an official legal complaint.

I gave TB 24 hours to respond thinking this was a reasonable amount of time to allow him to see my request. Since I have proof that he saw it within minutes of my making it, I think it's reasonable for him to respond sooner rather than within seconds of my "deadline", but I understand he has a history of responding to deadlines at the 11th hour.

For the record, I'm not seeking to take their forum down - only to have Fair Use applied to my intellectual property as is my legal right but I understand forumotion is a free forum host and in my experience, they are more likely to take a forum down rather than deal with hassle.

REPLY: Yes it is Jay. No one would miss it except Bennett - nowhere much tolerates him now.

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] » Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:40 pm I suggest you stop being Mr Nice guy and make a formal complaint. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] » Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:44 pm

vee8 wrote: I suggest you stop being Mr Nice guy and make a formal complaint. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.

[NOTE FOR THE RECORD - THE FOLLOWING IS JAYELLES SPEAKING:] Agreed. I have the proof that he's seen my request. I'm going to bed now. If he hasn't complied by the time I get up in the morning, I'll make it official. I'm not hanging around whilst he plays silly beggars.

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] » Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:47 pm

Final note for Tony. This is what I'm asking you to do just so that it's clear.

The ORIGINAL post you copied and pasted on page 3 of the thread in question - I want it removed. Alternatively, you may quote from it provided you do NOT change my words but if you choose this option, you should provide a link to the original post here so that readers can see the entire post within its context.

I also request that you remove my other post which you copied and pasted in its entirety on page 4 of the thread. If you want to quote, fine but a sensiblly sized font for the link please.

Incidentally, I get up at 7.30am.

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] » Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:54 pm

Incidentally, the Goon prattles on about how no-one has refuted the 50 "facts" and completely avoids the issue that the onus is not upon the McCanns or their supporters to endlessly disprove their (the antis') fairy tales but for them to provide sources and proof of their accusations in the first instance.

In the same way, they deny the McCanns the presumption of innocence.

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

Jayelles wishes me to link to the thread where his intellectual property is posted, and I quote him/her: "If you want to quote, fine but a sensiblly [sp.] sized font for the link please".

OK, here goes:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One more thing.

Merry Christmas, Jayelles

by kangdang Fri 24 Dec - 9:46

Jayelles wrote: I'm not as knowledgeable about the forums

Nor is 'it' knowledgeable about the copyright and intellectual property it seems. Here Jeycelles [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** Fri 24 Dec - 9:49

kangdang wrote:Jaycelles needs to read up on intellectual property and the internet...

Be careful, kangdang, be very careful.

Jayelles has accused me of removing a word from his/her posting, an accusation I believe to be untrue by the way.

S/he said: "I've just noticed that Tony Bennett has not only copied and pasted my post - he has altered it too. He has inserted a word which places a different meaning on what I said. That's actually more serious".

kangdang, I see you have added a letter (c) to his/her name.

I know it's only one letter, whereas my offence was supposed to be one word...

...but to alter a username?

Unheard of.

It could even be a breach of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

Well, you never know.

by kangdang Fri 24 Dec - 9:58

I'm tempted to scan and upload the ICT legislative awareness leaflet I produced for kiddies several years ago...

by **Tony Bennett** Fri 24 Dec - 10:05

Phantasia wrote:Please forgive me (I am a lowly n00b, and haven't yet been able to read everything in here...lol) if this has been posted before:

A couple of the strangest things in the 'abduction', in my opinion, were right at the beginning.

1) Why did Kate say "They've taken Madeleine" ??? Surely anyone would say 'Madeline's gone'....or 'I can't find Madeline'. What did she mean by they?
Rather as though they had hatched this plan earlier...

Phantasia, to get back on topic after the interruption by Jayelles, this quote of Kate McCann's is unsubstantiated. There is no clear evidence that she actually said this - and many of us think she did not. If you have time to look at all the contradictions between the statements made by various members of the 'Tapas 9' group (some in the '50 Facts' leaflet and others discussed elsewhere here), you'll rapidly see that whole chunks of what this group say about what happened on the day Madeleine disappeared simply cannot be regarded as true.

2) Why did we hear no more about the woman in the next villa, who said that she heard Madeeline crying for her 'Mummy' and that Madeline had wandered off and hidden at other bed-times, and Kate had screamed and shouted at the child.

I'll be brief.

The woman was Mrs Pamela Fenn, aged I think 82 at the time, who occupied a flat above the McCanns' apartment, G5A. She said she heard a girl crying 'Daddy, Daddy' (not 'Mummy') for 75 minutes continually between 10.30pm and 11.45pm. She said that the crying stopped when she heard a door open and close. She recalls this happening on the evening of Tuesday 1 May, twOdays before the day Madeleine was reported missing. The disappearance of Madeleine is a massive subject. All I will say here is that it is not by any means certain that the child heard crying was Madeleine, nor is it certain that the child was crying 'Daddy, Daddy', I don't want to open up too many conundrums at once so will leave that there.

I am not sure if it was Mrs Fenn or another witness who said that Madeleine had been seen wandering off from her parents one evening and hiding in the bushes. Indeed, I am not absolutely sure whether that story was ever confirmed. Perhaps someone esle on this forum can help?

Nor am I sure, I'm afraid, if it was Mrs Fenn who heard Madeleine (or another child) screaming on another occasion.

As you may know, the McCanns themselves said that on the morning of the day she was later reported missing, Madeleine is supposed to have said that she and Sean were crying the previous night when her parents were not there. Dr Kate McCann later claimed that it was merely 'a passing remark' and said Madeleine laughed it off and went off happily and playing after making that remark. There is doubt about this account too.

3) There were road-works a few yards from the villas...were they ever uncovered?

I think there is a note on the police files to say that all these road works were checked the morning after Madeleine was reported misisng. The McCanns themselves have repeatedly insisted most adamantly that they knew 'instantly' that Madeleine had been abducted - and they totally ruled out Madeleine wandering off, as they said she would not have had the strength to open either door to the apartment.

Please, if you, or anyone else here has some basic questions about this very complex case, do not hesitate to ask, we'll do our best to help answer them

by Phantasia Fri 24 Dec - 10:14

Thank you for the reply.

.....I know that there were many discrepancies in what people were reported as having said, at the time I avidly read Gerry's online diary. (Which disappeared after a while) and copied a load from it, and from other sources (like statements from the mother of Kate for example), to keep, as I had a feeling it would all be taken away at some point....I then bought a new pc and neglected to copy lots of my 'saved' files over, so I have lost all the strange things I noted back at the time. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I was very pleased to find this site, although it was Jo Yeats I was searching google for, so the Madeline discussion is a bonus! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Tony Bennett** Fri 24 Dec - 10:29

Phantasia wrote:Thank you for the reply. I know that there were many discrepancies in what people were reported as having said, at the time I avidly read Gerry's online diary...and copied a load from it, and from other sources (like statements from the mother of Kate for example), to keep, as I had a feeling it would all be taken away at some point...I then bought a new pc and neglected to copy lots of my 'saved' files over, so I have lost all the strange things I noted back at the time. I was very pleased to find this site, although it was Jo Yeates I was searching google for, so the Madeline discussion is a bonus!

Phantasia, at the end of the 'Fifty Facts' leaflet is a list of sources for further reading and research:

Published by ‘The Madeleine McCann Research Group’Further reading:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The first one of those, if you really want to read them, has ALL of Dr Gerald McCann's blogs.

The third one down, mccannfiles, run by Gloucestershire resident Nigel Moore, is regarded by most of us as the 'encyclopaedia' or 'research library' of what might be termed the 'McCann-sceptic movement'. There's not much that isn't there.

Parts of the case are analysed in depth on the Madeleine Foundation site and the other two sites mentioned also carry much discussion.

by cyclist Sun 2 Jan - 4:07

Deleted.

I have a message for you, 'cyclist'.

On yer bike!

A reminder to all posters: The central purpose of this forum is to help solve what the McCanns' own spokesperson, Clarence Mitchell, last year called 'the complete mystery' of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

And you never came here with that purpose in mind.

by theolivebranch Sun 2 Jan - 5:06

Is it the intention that this excellent collation of facts is to be printed in hard copy and distributed. If it is I would like to contribute to the printing costs.

by **Tony Bennett** Sun 2 Jan - 5:16

theolivebranch wrote:Is it the intention that this excellent collation of facts is to be printed in hard copy and distributed. If it is I would like to contribute to the printing costs.

The Madeleine McCann Research Group has taken soundings and overall there is strong support for publishing this document as an A4 leaflet.

Although I understand no final decisions have been taken, a 4-page A4 leaflet could be produced for around 3p. a copy (£3 per 100), depending on the quantity.

One of the group will make an announcement about this in the next 4 weeks at the most.

It is felt that, unlike e.g. Goncalo Amaral's thesis 'The Truth About A Lie' and our '60 Reasons', there is zero risk of any libel action or injunction or other action etc. to try to halt publication of 'Fifty Facts' - as they are self-evidently a series of facts, rather than comment. People can form their own judgments about these 50 facts.

In passing, it is interesting to note that the best that the McCann-believer side of the debate can offer in answer to 'Fifty Facts' is to claim that they are 'tired old speculative newspaper stories'.

Classic wishful thinking on their part!

In fact, the quotes are directly from the mouths of the McCanns, their 'Tapas 9' mates, and their highly-paid professional advisers.

Strange that no journalist has put them all together before?

by theolivebranch Sun 2 Jan - 5:42

Tony Bennett wrote:
theolivebranch wrote:Is it the intention that this excellent collation of facts is to be printed in hard copy and distributed. If it is I would like to contribute to the printing costs.
The Madeleine McCann Research Group has taken soundings and overall there is strong support for publishing this document as an A4 leaflet.

Although I understand no final decisions have been taken, a 4-page A4 leaflet could be produced for around 3p. a copy (£3 per 100), depending on the quantity.

One of the group will make an announcement about this in the next 4 weeks at the most.

It is felt that, unlike e.g. Goncalo Amaral's thesis 'The Truth About A Lie' and our '60 Reasons', there is zero risk of any libel action or injunction or other action etc. to try to halt publication of 'Fifty Facts' - as they are self-evidently a series of facts, rather than comment. People can form their own judgments about these 50 facts.

In passing, it is interesting to note that the best that the McCann-believer side of the debate can offer in answer to 'Fifty Facts' is to claim that they are 'tired old speculative newspaper stories'.

Classic wishful thinking on their part!

In fact, the quotes are directly from the mouths of the McCanns, their 'Tapas 9' mates, and their highly-paid professional advisers.

Strange that no journalist has put them all together before?

Thankyou for your reply Tony, and incidentally all the very best to you and yours for 2011. I will keep my eyes skinned then for an announcement.

by listener Sun 2 Jan - 6:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
Strange that no journalist has put them all together before?

I find the total absense of any kind of investgative journalism by the UK press in this case most odd.
I suspect they are heavily gagged.
I pushed a friend of mine on the subject and got 'stone-walled'. He has now retired but was the Editor of a quite well circulated paper and also chaired the PCC (Press Complaints Commision).
Most odd indeed [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Tony Bennett** Sun 2 Jan - 6:39

listener wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Strange that no journalist has put them all together before?
I find the total absence of any kind of investgative journalism by the UK press in this case most odd.
I suspect they are heavily gagged.

Let us never forget that in an interview with L'Espresso in September 2007, the McCanns' chief public relations officer, Clarence Mitchell, boasted of his job as Head of the Labour government's 40-strong Media Monitoring Unit that: "My job is to control what comes out in the media".

by listener Sun 2 Jan - 6:50

The MMU appear to have had a good grip on this case and there was a lot of 'high level' involvement right from the start.
It appears that they are being kept busy with Mr. Assange at present!

P.S. A very Happy New Year to all [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Judge Mental Sun 2 Jan - 7:02

listener wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Strange that no journalist has put them all together before?

I find the total absense of any kind of investgative journalism by the UK press in this case most odd.
I suspect they are heavily gagged.
I pushed a friend of mine on the subject and got 'stone-walled'. He has now retired but was the Editor of a quite well circulated paper and also chaired the PCC (Press Complaints Commision).
Most odd indeed [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It rather looks as if 'the press' will be out of a job much sooner than they currently anticipate, should they not pull up their socks and withdraw their labour from the unscrupulous newspaper owners and start their own newspapers. (Only to become as power hungry as their forebears, no doubt.)

The fact is, that we do not have a free press, and the handful of propaganda merchants who currently own the media are too busy using the money they make off the backs of a gullible public, to feather their nests and fund new Government legislation with which to make their nests yet more feathery. This money further lines their pockets in all other areas of their '''business'' lives, and it is the public who help to pay for all this. The Murdochs of the world must have noticed that the smart people read the news directly from the internet these days. This is because the smart people know that the quickest way to find out any details concerning current news stories, is to visit social net-working sites. This is where we find the citizens, families, friends and neighbours who are close to a story. People who are already on the spot, and with their ear to the ground.

So, what do we do when we find out that we have not been given the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? What does it matter if lives are ruined because of conjecture, lies and fabrications? The press have never told the truth in its entirety and nor can the veracity of their sources always be accounted for. So what is the difference between internet investigative journalism and the sort of ''investigative journalism'' we have seen in the McCann case? Very little from one's own observations. Very little indeed.

Not one journalist has taken Assange's lead, or come out of the closet with their own blog to say that they have read the police files, and wish to defend Amaral and the millions of people on the continent who are outraged that the UK authorities are allowing this case to drag on day after day and year after year. A three years old child is alleged to have been stolen from her bed and British police officers have stated far more hurtful and unhelpful things than have ever been stated by any posters on the internet.

Simon Hare had some of the most perfect opportunities to speak to people who have studied the case since Madeleine disappeared and could have shown him the most important areas of the case, which motivates them to campaign for justice for Madeleine. Yet he went on to make a quite disgraceful programme, which was about as informative to the public as Carter Ruck's Trafigura injunction!

by Judge Mental Sun 2 Jan - 7:08

Judge Mental wrote:
listener wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Strange that no journalist has put them all together before?

I find the total absense of any kind of investgative journalism by the UK press in this case most odd.
I suspect they are heavily gagged.
I pushed a friend of mine on the subject and got 'stone-walled'. He has now retired but was the Editor of a quite well circulated paper and also chaired the PCC (Press Complaints Commision).
Most odd indeed [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It rather looks as if 'the press' will be out of a job much sooner than they currently anticipate, should they not pull up their socks and withdraw their labour from the unscrupulous newspaper owners and start their own newspapers. (Only to become as power hungry as their forebears, no doubt.)

The fact is, that we do not have a free press, and the handful of propaganda merchants who currently own the media are too busy using the money they make off the backs of a gullible public, to feather their nests and fund new Government legislation with which to make their nests yet more feathery. This money further lines their pockets in all other areas of their '''business'' lives, and it is the public who help to pay for all this. The Murdochs of the world must have noticed that the smart people read the news directly from the internet these days. This is because the smart people know that the quickest way to find out any details concerning current news stories, is to visit social net-working sites. This is where we find the citizens, families, friends and neighbours who are close to a story. People who are already on the spot, and with their ear to the ground.

So, what do we do when we find out that we have not been given the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? What does it matter if lives are ruined because of conjecture, lies and fabrications? The press have never told the truth in its entirety and nor can the veracity of their sources always be accounted for. So what is the difference between internet investigative journalism and the sort of ''investigative journalism'' we have seen in the McCann case? Very little from one's own observations. Very little indeed.

Not one journalist has taken Assange's lead, or come out of the closet with their own blog to say that they have read the police files, and wish to defend Amaral and the millions of people on the continent who are outraged that the UK authorities are allowing this case to drag on day after day and year after year. A three years old child is alleged to have been stolen from her bed and not been found. The parents and their friends will not answer questions. British police officers have stated far more hurtful and unhelpful things than have ever been stated by any posters on the internet, and yet the parents have said nothing about this, yet proceed to hound Amaral.

Simon Hare had some of the most perfect opportunities to speak to people who have studied the case since Madeleine disappeared and could have shown him the most important areas of the case, which motivates them to campaign for justice for Madeleine. Yet he went on to make a quite disgraceful programme, which was about as informative to the public as Carter Ruck's Trafigura injunction!

by listener Sun 2 Jan - 10:27

I bow to your literary abilities m-lud. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

As we are now posting about Murdoch, Press and general ‘sheparding’ – may I post this video? Please remove/move if inappropriate.

His last four words seem most relevent/appropriate in this case!

by Judge Mental Sun 2 Jan - 11:17

listener wrote:I bow to your literary abilities m-lud. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

As we are now posting about Murdoch, Press and general ‘sheparding’ – may I post this video? Please remove/move if inappropriate.

His last four words seem most relevent/appropriate in this case!

Excellent video. listener. One agrees wholeheartedly that it is up to us. The Tories want to abolish the Nanny State, and this means they believe we no longer need nannying.

Who's the Daddy now? thinking

by listener Sun 2 Jan - 11:46

The problem is - as I see it - that most people watch strickly, corrie and similar, as an 'escape' and are missing real life - it will kick them in the ass, but they might not know it!

by **Tony Bennett** Sun 2 Jan - 11:53

listener wrote:The problem is - as I see it - that most people watch strickly, corrie and similar, as an 'escape' and are missing real life - it will kick them in the ass, but they might not know it!

YES. We are losing the ability to distinguish fact from fiction, truth from lies, the real from the pretend and the counterfeit. They should teach this sort of thing to children from the primary school upwards. TV and films have much to answer for - and the mainstream print media these days

by Judge Mental Sun 2 Jan - 11:57

listener wrote:The problem is - as I see it - that most people watch strickly, corrie and similar, as an 'escape' and are missing real life - it will kick them in the ass, but they might not know it!

It is perhaps for the best, listener. Ignorance is bliss after all. Allegedly. Many people would feel a lot better for not having known the details of the McCann case. However, one has always felt forced to tell them big grin

by listener Sun 2 Jan - 12:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
listener wrote:The problem is - as I see it - that most people watch strickly, corrie and similar, as an 'escape' and are missing real life - it will kick them in the ass, but they might not know it!
YES. We are losing the ability to distinguish fact from fiction, truth from lies, the real from the pretend and the counterfeit. They should teach this sort of thing to children from the primary school upwards. TV and films have much to answer for - and the mainstream print media these days

Tony (Mr, Bennett), you have posted previously that you do not have/watch TV.
I do - and sadly feer that its media content nowadays has made us more 'American'