Re: How many more false sightings will there be of Madeleine McCann? (ARTICLE)

by aliberte2 06.03.10 5:02

Autumn wrote:And what exactly is it we are not understanding about the McCanns?

"We"?
Do you Also Believe that Only Guilty People Show Offense When Accused of Crimes They Didn't Commit?
Even that Sentence was Beyond Stupid to Type.

by aiyoyo 06.03.10 6:40

aliberte2 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
bellatrix wrote:[TBH I finding your post quite insulting.I have never "hunted in packs" nor am I paid to post nor do I class myself as a pro or anti.I do realise you have a lot on your plate at the moment so I hope a break from here will help.x

May I ask, why take offence if you are not guilty.

Because it's an Untrue, Unfair Accusation?
Seriously?
You don't Take Offense When People Accuse You of Things You didn't Do?
No Wonder You Can't Understand the McCanns.

The thing is: I dont see you or anyone been picked out in particular.
Unless I missed it - point me to it then!

Jkh hasnt named people, so why are you conceding guilt?

And, btw what has this got to do with the mccanns?
What is there to understand or not understand about the mccanns?
Isnt this about Madeleine? Honestly, the direction you carry on...., no wonder you imagined all sorts.

by justagrannynow 1 06.03.10 6:47

Well it looks as though everybody had a good night. lol!

Seriously though, I understand what Jill is getting at, and I think the posters expressing surprise do too. There is more than one way of being impolite and several posters IMO are overstepping that line. Long sections of some threads consist of a couple of pro posters slapping each other on the back, ready to stifle any attempt at discussing an alternative view. It is almost like nagging and is equally draining, to the point where I, on more than one occasion, have just moved off despite feeling that I would like to have joined in. It is not as strong as intimidation. That, IMO is easier to detect and cope with. This feels like being henpecked into submission. Just look at the threads where Tony Bennett has posted something if you want to see what is meant by " hunting in packs".
This is Jills forum. She makes the rules and sets the standards and all who post here should accept that. There is one rule, " keep it civil". IMO nagging and bullying, ( ever so politely of course) are not civil.

by hedge 06.03.10 10:12

Crumbs this thread is a bit Sad

by bellatrix 06.03.10 11:04

aiyoyo wrote:
bellatrix wrote:[TBH I finding your post quite insulting.I have never "hunted in packs" nor am I paid to post nor do I class myself as a pro or anti.I do realise you have a lot on your plate at the moment so I hope a break from here will help.x

May I ask, why take offence if you are not guilty.

AFAIU, jkh was only making a point with the pros or those pros disguised as fence sitters how she wants her forum to be.

AFAIAC, as a member I considered myself a guest anyway.

Because it generalises that all pro's are the same,bit like generalising that all anti's are pitchforkers.

by bellatrix 06.03.10 11:14

vaguely1 wrote:
jkh wrote:
bellatrix wrote:
jkh wrote:You Pro's can spout Gerry's mantra all you like, but I'm not a Pro or on the fence. I've made my opinion about them quite clear on here and on my blog and nothing any of you have said has made me change my mind. It's made me think, yes, but not change my mind.

I support Goncalo Amaral and his view of what happened based on the British police dogs which the British police, not Amaral, suggested were taken to PDL. That's why I spent so much time putting this blog together:

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

This case needs to be reopened so that the truth can be known and the perpetrators brought to justice, but until that happens then I will continue to believe in the dogs and not the rotting meat and dirty nappies excuses.

I'm sure you all have other forums where you can discuss how innocent the McCanns are, but this isn't one of them.

Does that mean only one opinion is allowed on here? I thought you said debate was good? (Confused-as always lol!)

Debate is good, but you Pro's hunt in packs and surround your victim til they lose the will to live.

Many members have given up posting here because of it. Which, I suppose, is what you're paid to do to shut us all up.

It might be worth people remembering that this forum is a place for the 'Anti's' and MF members and everyone else are just guests here, even those under instructions from Carter Ruck like Mike Gunnill.

The Pro's will be first out the door before the rest of us.

Jill,

Please could you delete my account.

I think I would be considered a pro here and I don't want to post amongst people who think I'm paid to post.

I'd also rather be somewhere that I'm considered a member, not a guest.

thank you.

I hope you stay vaguely,you always make me smile with your posts x

by vaguely1 06.03.10 11:19

Thank you Bellatrix - I'll be here until I get deleted.....I have an inability to stay away from forums by choice.

by justagrannynow 1 06.03.10 11:23

I was upset when I read this. Vaguely is someone who is able to debate sensibly, with humour. The forum wouldn't be the same without her. thumbsup

by whoknowsthetruth 06.03.10 12:04

The thing is both sets of groups hunt in packs, always have done, always will do. Maybe they do not hunt in packs delibertly, but in the good days of the 3 As board the Anti's certainly did hunt in packs and they still do on theMissing Madeleine board. It seems though away from that board there are not that many Anti's left on board, they do seem to be dwindling in size, maybe they have seen evidence that suggests that they were wrong, maybe they have got bored with it all.
maybe it seems the Pro's are hunting in packs because there are more Pro's than Anti's, if tjere are more then it looks like they are hunting. But surely to stifle debate is saying that Amaral was wrong because those that supported him went on about Free Speech and all that. Just my thoughts this is by the way.

by **Jill Havern** 06.03.10 12:46

When I referred to the Pro's disrupting the forums, I meant the hardened ones like Muratfan/Majic/ Crazytony/ Rosiepops/Nessling/Eddie who kept registering here under different usernames and causing problems by posting porn links and spamming the forum.

The majority of Pro's on this forum are welcome, but there are still those, like the ones who spammed this forum the other night with obscene allegations that I gave my mother AIDS and saying that's what she died of that, to my mind, give the regular Pro's a bad name. I don't have a problem with people believing the abduction scenario who want to express their point of view, but I do have a big problem with people coming here just to make this place uncomfortable for those who the forum was created for - the MF members and Anti's who were banned and had nowhere to debate.

I do not see Anti's doing anything remotely like that on Pro forums. I don't see bunches of Anti's invading Pro forums specifically to target one of two members like they do here with Tony and myself - mainly because they're too busy researching and discussing the files, which is what we should all be doing if we want to see justice for Maddie. Whereas hardened Pro's like Muratfan seem to spend their time stalking Anti's and causing all kinds of problems for them. Why do they do that? Do they not see that their behaviour reflects badly on the McCanns? I associate the McCanns, rightly or wrongly, with people like muratfan.

There are many Anti's left, actually, most of them on MM or MCF - where discussions about the Madeleine Foundation are not allowed, hence this forum. The anti's who do attack do it on their own forum, I've yet to see them invade Pro forums and spam it as this one was the other night.

This forum is unbalanced but I'm not going to let it be taken over and turned into a Pro forum. Those who are banned from here from now on won't be able to get back in because member registration is closed. I've had to take drastic action before and I'll keep doing it if necessary.

by justagrannynow 1 07.03.10 8:29

whoknowsthetruth wrote:The thing is both sets of groups hunt in packs, always have done, always will do. Maybe they do not hunt in packs delibertly, but in the good days of the 3 As board the Anti's certainly did hunt in packs and they still do on theMissing Madeleine board. It seems though away from that board there are not that many Anti's left on board, they do seem to be dwindling in size, maybe they have seen evidence that suggests that they were wrong, maybe they have got bored with it all.
maybe it seems the Pro's are hunting in packs because there are more Pro's than Anti's, if tjere are more then it looks like they are hunting. But surely to stifle debate is saying that Amaral was wrong because those that supported him went on about Free Speech and all that. Just my thoughts this is by the way.

For the sake of brevity, I'll use the terms pros and antis.

I would agree that the numbers of antis on forums do seem to be dwindling, but I suspect that it is because they feel stifled by the relentless campaign undertaken by the McCanns to eliminate any criticism of themselves, or debate of alternatives to their insistence that Madeleine was abducted. Many times I have seen forum members post their goodbyes because they have become convinced that the Mccanns will never be held to account and decide to abandon the campaign and get on with their own lives. However, this does not mean that they have changed their original suspicions that Madeleine was not abducted, and, IMO the parents realise this.
Since the Amber alert trip to Brussels, I have been amazed by the change in the appearance and demeanour of Kate Mccann. She seems to be genuinely afraid when giving interviews, tense and hyperventilating, a far cry from the days up to the Brussels trip. IMO this has more to do with the realisation that their activities in the legal field, plus the efforts of their PR teams have not been successful in winning the hearts and minds of the general public. All the private investigators they have employed have been a joke, and I refuse to put an IMO here, the media use "disappeared" rather than "abducted" these days, and I gather that events such as the 1,000 days bash was not supported as much as they had hoped. Part of me is saddened to witness the pressure they are undoubtedly under, but Madeleine is still missing and those of us who do not believe that the holiday group have been honest about what happened in PDL continue to concentrate on trying to get answers to how this child disappeared.
As for pros and antis on forums, sadly, too often, Madeleine Mccann is used as a tool in forum wars. Posters score points off each other, post pornography and treat the disappearance of Madeleine a some sort of game. What happens on forums is not that important. It is how the general public perceive the case which is, and I do not believe that the general public have been taken in by the activities of the McCann supporters since May 2007.

by vaguely1 07.03.10 9:01

I don't think the general public have been taken in by the activities of the McCann supporters (I don't know what the activities are, but I'll run with it, for the sake of the argument) or by the anti-McCann lobby.

We're in our own microcosm where we think that any of this actually interests people. It's very difficult to comprehend that actually nobody cares any more.

by justagrannynow 1 07.03.10 9:26

I can only read UK papers online, but I get the impression that the number of negative comments are increasing whenever an article about the Mccann case appears. Do you think it is the antis with a trembly finger ? Genuine question as here in rural France I have nobody to discuss the case with so I am in my very own super super microcosm.

by vaguely1 07.03.10 9:34

justagrannynow 1 wrote:I can only read UK papers online, but I get the impression that the number of negative comments are increasing whenever an article about the Mccann case appears. Do you think it is the antis with a trembly finger ? Genuine question as here in rural France I have nobody to discuss the case with so I am in my very own super super microcosm.

There's always a call to arms given out when an article appears. It's always astonishes me that an article appears, call to arms given, then sit back and discuss how the comments section shows public opinion has swung. Of course there are members of the public who will pass comment in either direction, but the spamming of comments sections has been a big part of forum life.

Same as holding polls on 3A where there was back slapping for an anti result (like it could ever be anything else), or for the same matter, polls on a pro forum.

by justagrannynow 1 07.03.10 9:48

vaguely1 wrote:
justagrannynow 1 wrote:I can only read UK papers online, but I get the impression that the number of negative comments are increasing whenever an article about the Mccann case appears. Do you think it is the antis with a trembly finger ? Genuine question as here in rural France I have nobody to discuss the case with so I am in my very own super super microcosm.

There's always a call to arms given out when an article appears. It's always astonishes me that an article appears, call to arms given, then sit back and discuss how the comments section shows public opinion has swung. Of course there are members of the public who will pass comment in either direction, but the spamming of comments sections has been a big part of forum life.

Same as holding polls on 3A where there was back slapping for an anti result (like it could ever be anything else), or for the same matter, polls on a pro forum.

Oooops, time for a cup of tea I think. big grin

I believe you, but am now feeling sad and left out because I have never left a media comment.
What is sadder, I have never been asked to !!!

by vaguely1 07.03.10 9:55

Well that's good.

thumbsup

by vaguely1 07.03.10 10:34

Gran, just looking around at previous comments made on same subject and apparently MCF and MM forums are still doing the comments campaigns.

You could maybe have a browse around there if you really wanted to see one of these in action.

by justagrannynow 1 07.03.10 11:59

vaguely1 wrote:Gran, just looking around at previous comments made on same subject and apparently MCF and MM forums are still doing the comments campaigns.

You could maybe have a browse around there if you really wanted to see one of these in action.

Will do vaguely :flower:

by vaguely1 07.03.10 12:07

I'm sure the same happens with any special interest forums from football to forestry. I don't think it's limited to the Madeleine forums.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.03.10 12:12

vaguely1 wrote:
justagrannynow 1 wrote:I can only read UK papers online, but I get the impression that the number of negative comments are increasing whenever an article about the Mccann case appears. Do you think it is the antis with a trembly finger ? Genuine question as here in rural France I have nobody to discuss the case with so I am in my very own super super microcosm.

There's always a call to arms given out when an article appears. It's always astonishes me that an article appears, call to arms given, then sit back and discuss how the comments section shows public opinion has swung. Of course there are members of the public who will pass comment in either direction, but the spamming of comments sections has been a big part of forum life.

Same as holding polls on 3A where there was back slapping for an anti result (like it could ever be anything else), or for the same matter, polls on a pro forum.

It's worth re-examining this article from way back in September 2007, which refers to the one-and-only genuine attempt there ever was to gauge public opinion on the Madeleine McCann case. Whether opinion has shifted just because the PJ investigation was shelved and no-one charged is open to doubt:

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

From prime suspects to hounded victims - how parents turned the media tide· Ex-BBC reporter plays central role in campaign

· Benefactors step in to fund world-class legal team

Esther Addley, Paul Hamilos in Praia da Luz, Brendan de Beer The Guardian, Saturday 22 September 2007

Less than a week ago a Sunday paper published the results of an opinion poll into the public's attitudes to Kate and Gerry McCann. For a couple who had enjoyed unprecedented global support following the apparent abduction of their daughter Madeleine in May, its findings were chilling. Only 20% of respondents said they thought they were completely innocent and 48% said they believed the McCanns could have been involved in their daughter's death.

The poll followed 10 terrible days for the couple in which they had been named as suspects in Madeleine's disappearance and confronted by evidence allegedly "proving", among other things, that traces of their daughter's DNA had been found in the rear of their hire car.

They were, says a friend, "going through absolute torture", the most remarkable publicity campaign of recent times having spiralled out of control.

Six days after the Sunday Times poll the McCanns remain suspects in the investigation, and their daughter is still missing. But the past week has seen a striking turnaround in their campaign. On Wednesday it was announced that they would not, for the time being, face further questioning, after the Portuguese attorney general ruled that local police had not gathered enough evidence.

Earlier, Clarence Mitchell, a former BBC reporter who assisted the couple on behalf of the Foreign Office in May and June, announced he had given up his job to work as their spokesman, believing them "innocent victims of a heinous crime".

Most significantly perhaps, the couple have amassed a world-class team of British and Portuguese lawyers, bolstered this week by the president of the Portuguese bar. As a front page headline in the Daily Mirror put it earlier this week: 'The Tide Turns'...

REST OF ARTICLE SNIPPED

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

And let's not forget that after the McCanns were interviewed on a Spanish TV programme, 70% thought they were lying:

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

80% in the U.K. and 70% in Spain.

That's a consistent result

by Ruby 07.03.10 12:19

A recent mail online item which invited comments had an anti comment green ticked 1755 times... are there that many being called to comment, do you think? If so, just how many 'anti-McCanns' are there as presumably, some would be occupied elsewhere and unable to get on the internet at a minute's notice.

Example: And a small child shouldn't have to beg for her parents to fulfil their legal obligation to stay and look after her and her siblings.
- derek, uk, 19/2/2010 14:37
Click to rate Rating 1755

by vaguely1 07.03.10 12:29

Ruby, have you too, like Gran spent all this time on the Madeleine forums and never seen the call to arms process in action?

How much it skews the results I have no idea. I was just commenting that it happens. Also instructions on how to make multiple comments/place multiple votes etc are given out, or were early days.

I just find it an interesting phenomenon.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.03.10 12:29

Ruby wrote:A recent mail online item which invited comments had an anti comment green ticked 1755 times... are there that many being called to comment, do you think? If so, just how many 'anti-McCanns' are there as presumably, some would be occupied elsewhere and unable to get on the internet at a minute's notice.

Example: And a small child shouldn't have to beg for her parents to fulfil their legal obligation to stay and look after her and her siblings.
- derek, uk, 19/2/2010 14:37
Click to rate Rating 1755

And that 'plus 1755' figure is a net figure, which will include those who gave that particular comment a negative rating:

e.g. Plus 1955, Negative 200, Net 1755.

In any event, it's way, way higher than any 'plus' figure ever seen on the 'Daily Mail' website previously. That's good evidence that suspicion of the McCanns goes much, much wider than a few hundred people on the forums

by vaguely1 07.03.10 12:39

to what end.

Let's assume these 1755 people are all genuine single identity posters, if it makes you feel better.

How will this find Madeleine and/or secure a conviction? Which is ultimately what everyone wants.

ETA, if the entire country believed the McCann's to be involved would this be seen as a positive thing because it punishes the McCanns (something you consider hasn't yet happened) or is there actually a concrete result that will aid conviction and locate Madeleine which I'm not seeing?

open question.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.03.10 12:59

vaguely1 wrote:to what end.

Let's assume these 1755 people are all genuine single identity posters, if it makes you feel better.

How will this find Madeleine and/or secure a conviction? Which is ultimately what everyone wants.

We are discussing the state of public opinion, not either (a) how to find Madeleine nor (b) how to secure a conviction.

If we want to find Madeleine, perhaps you could ask Dave Edgar to tell us if he is still 'convinced' (his words) that Madeleine is being kept in a prison lair in the 'lawless hills around Praia da Luz'.

Perhaps you could also ask Mitchell, Edgar and Cowley which of the now-16 abductors and abductresses we should be looking for - I've got 16 artists' sketches sitting on my computer at the moment.

The Renault Scenic might offer clues as to where to find Madeleine...

...cadaver scent
...body fluids
...clump of hair
...high mileage
...Michael Wright says there was a horrible smell they couldn't get rid of
...a neighbour saw the boot left wide open night and day for weeks on end

by vaguely1 07.03.10 13:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:to what end.

Let's assume these 1755 people are all genuine single identity posters, if it makes you feel better.

How will this find Madeleine and/or secure a conviction? Which is ultimately what everyone wants.
We are discussing the state of public opinion, not either (a) how to find Madeleine nor (b) how to secure a conviction.

If we want to find Madeleine, perhaps you could ask Dave Edgar to tell us if he is still 'convinced' (his words) that Madeleine is being kept in a prison lair in the 'lawless hills around Praia da Luz'.

Perhaps you could also ask Mitchell, Edgar and Cowley which of the now-16 abductors and abductresses we should be looking for - I've got 16 artists' sketches sitting on my computer at the moment.

The Renault Scenic might offer clues as to where to find Madeleine...

...cadaver scent
...body fluids
...clump of hair
...high mileage
...Michael Wright says there was a horrible smell they couldn't get rid of
...a neighbour saw the boot left wide open night and day for weeks on end

I meant find her dead or alive. I have previously asked on other threads the question about why altering public opinion matters but nobody seems to have an answer for it and I am genuinely interested in the reasons for wanting to do so.

The actual thread relates to sightings of Madeleine, rather than public opinion.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.03.10 13:18

vaguely1 wrote:I have previously asked on other threads the question about why altering public opinion matters but nobody seems to have an answer for it...

I'll tell you who would be able to give you an answer to that very good - if I may so so - question.

Clarence Mitchell.

The former Head of the 40-strong government's Media Monitoring Unit.

Whose job, he boasted, was 'to control what comes out in the media'.

And who's been the McCanns' chief public relations spokesman for the best part of three years.

And who now works part-time for Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law.

And is about to help former News of the World Editor Andy Coulson to 'spin' the Conservatives' election campaign so they will form the next government.

I've stuck with this campaign partly because the media are on one side of this debate and the majority of public opinion is on the other - not the first time this has happened in the last two or three decades

by vaguely1 07.03.10 13:23

No, see I understand the reasons for it on that side of the coin. It's one or two reasons:

1) They're as guilty as sin and want to stay out of prison.

or

2) They need the public to know that they were not involved in her disappearance and need help to get her back.

It's the other side of the coin I'm confused about.

by aiyoyo 07.03.10 13:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:I have previously asked on other threads the question about why altering public opinion matters but nobody seems to have an answer for it...
I'll tell you who would be able to give you an answer to that very good - if I may so so - question.

Clarence Mitchell.

:

Altering public opinion is CM's department.

Ours is to find out the Truth, what really happened to MBM!

by vaguely1 07.03.10 13:38

aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:I have previously asked on other threads the question about why altering public opinion matters but nobody seems to have an answer for it...
I'll tell you who would be able to give you an answer to that very good - if I may so so - question.

Clarence Mitchell.

:

Altering public opinion is CM's department.

Ours is to find out the Truth, what really happened to MBM!

Okay, but I'm still not understanding how releasing leaflets and books will find out the truth of what happened to Madeleine.
I understand how a call to review or re-open the case might.