McCann's attempt to shut down CONTROVERSY Facebook Group

by **HiDeHo** 27.06.13 2:28

Here is a post from today in the (Open) CONTROVERSY group, referencing what has been happening.

Immediately after posting, we started having members posting claiming that facebook had a complaint and required them to take down all pictures of Madeleine or the McCanns!

Sunday night my Admin ID HiDeHo and a reserve account were DEACTIVATED, meaning that all my graphics and posts had disappeared off the group.

We have been receiving more than 100 member applications a week...today we had 80+ new members join. We are nearly 1700 members.

We focus on giving the opportunity for everyone to view the files and form their own opinions...It appears we may be a threat....

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

Will they succeed or is this a last effort to try to gain control?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Lizzy Hideho Taylor

THE McCANNS WANT CONTROVERSY SHUT DOWN!

"Friends of the McCanns called on Facebook to remove the offensive messages and shut down the group." (Daily Star June 22nd 2013)

They want YOUR freedom of discussion REMOVED. WHY?

Will they succeed?

Will you click on this page one day and it will be GONE?

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?

My HiDeHo Facebook account was DEACTIVATED in an effort to PREVENT what?

There are efforts to DISCREDIT me personally. My personal details INCLUDING MY BUSINESS WEBSITE are being sent via TWITTER. WHY?

Am I THAT important? NO!.....but CONTROVERSY IS!

We HAVE made a difference reaching untold amounts of people that until now, have not had the opportunity of viewing the OFFICIAL PORTUGUESE FILES so they can form their OWN opinions on what happened to little Madeleine.

The UK press are PREVENTED from publishing the TRUTH from the files that were released to the PUBLIC in 2008! WHY?

Do they think that by discrediting me that no-one will read CONTROVERSY?

I can live with being called all the names under the sun. I can live with being called an 'old hag', in fact I sometimes look in the mirror and think the same! I can live with my business website being broadcast to the world, in fact maybe I can consider it a form of advertising that may bring new leads!

I know for SURE that if anyone DOES read it, my credibility will benefit!

One thing they CAN'T do, is take away my PASSION for the TRUTH.....THAT IS WHY I AM HERE!

All I want is the ONE THING that Kate fears the most.......for the UK to learn the TRUTH.

According to the files, Madeleine DIED in the apartment.

If that is the case, dear little Madeleine has not had the dignity of a proper burial. I want to see her laid to rest in PEACE.

I want her family to have the opportunity to grieve the little girl they loved so much

I want the WORLD to have the opportunity to grieve the little girl that STILL means so much to us all.

THAT is why CONTROVERSY is so IMPORTANT!

THAT is why we MUST NOT be SILENCED...We need EVERYONE's SUPPORT!

They HAVE managed to silence ONE MAN....Tony Bennett faces a PRISON SENTENCE if he discusses the case...He is the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD who cannot EVER speak on Maddie's behalf....BUT WE CAN!

DON'T LET THE McCANNS SILENCE YOU!

CONTROVERSY MUST STAY!

by sheila.edwards 27.06.13 4:33

Well, what a tado, loads of people have seen you videos! this kind of thing will possibly make them more popular! hope you ok take CARE:spin:They had a lot of trouble before recent ones with facebook I read when people were being sent messages from fund site or something as if they had clicked liked but had not and some were young people under 18yrs etc.

by aiyoyo 27.06.13 5:51

It's a shame all your hard work is gone.

When they go through that length to shut down controversy something is not right.
They have the damn cheek to take their freedom of speech for granted yet deprived others of it.
By the same token, until the case is solved, their website is also controversial and should also be shut down.
They shouldn't be allowed to peddle the abduction story while the case is still undergoing review/investigation, especially when they were not eliminated and Police looking at all possibilities.

Had there been clear indication and public proclamation that Police are only looking at the abduction theory and searching for the abductor, then fair enough, but that is not the case.

by AndyB 27.06.13 6:21

What have Facebook themselves had to say by way of explanation?

by bobbin 27.06.13 7:17

I enclose this thread which I started the other day. Is there an implication here, that no one is permitted to demand the removal of information already in situ.
The McCs have ‘claimed’ Abduction.
They have not proven this, nor has a Court proven it.
It is as much an ‘un-proven’ theory as any other ‘purported theory.’
Until they go to court for their claim to be ‘verified’ they have no more grounds than any other moving creature on this earth to control what may or may not be seen. AIMO.
The following article is the “legal decision to be considered” for relevance to the ‘right or wrong’ of the removal of HiDiHo’s work.
New EU ruling on Internet sensitive information
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7299-new-eu-ruling-on-internet-sensitive-information?highlight=EU+ruling :: Welcome :: McCann Case: latest news
New EU ruling on Internet sensitive information
bobbin on Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:14 pm
The following article might have important and interesting implications regarding reporting of the Madeleine McCann case, or indeed on any information held on cached pages, even after removal by 'owners'. On the face of it, it looks as if 'post dated censorship' will not be enforceable.
bobbin

quote
"Google does not have to delete sensitive information, says European court

European court of justice adviser says Google is not obliged to delete content even when it damages an individual's reputation.

Juliette Garside
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 25 June 2013 13.43 BST

European court of justice
The European court of justice, where judges were asked to rule on whether Google should be treated under law as a publisher of information or simply a host. Photograph: Image Broker/Rex Features

Google is not obliged to delete personal information from its search results, even when that information damages an individual's reputation, an adviser to the European court of justice has decided.

In a long-running case about the "right to be forgotten" by search engines, judges have been asked to rule on whether Google should be treated under law as a publisher of information or simply a host.

The case is based on a complaint by Mario Costeja, a Spaniard who made a Google search of his name and found a newspaper announcement from 15 years earlier saying a property he owned was up for auction because of non-payment of social security contributions.

Costeja asked for the sensitive information to be deleted from Google's search results, arguing that his debts had been repaid and it was disproportionate that information that could damage his reputation with clients, employers or friends was so prominent so long after the event. One of Spain's top courts upheld his complaint, deeming Google to be making money out of Costeja's personal data, and the case was referred to the European court of justice in March last year after Google challenged the decision.

Niilo Jääskinen, an advocate general of the European court of justice, said that companies operating in the European Union must adhere to national data protection legislation, but that did not oblige them to remove personal content produced by others.

"Requesting search engine service providers to suppress legitimate and legal information that has entered the public domain would entail an interference with the freedom of expression," the court said, in a statement communicating Jääskinen's opinion.

"Search engine service providers are not responsible, on the basis of the Data Protection Directive, for personal data appearing on web pages they process."

The court is not bound by the advocate general's opinion, but in the majority of cases judges follow the recommendations. The case is not due to conclude before the end of 2013.

Google says it will remove defamatory or illegal information, but that it should not be asked to censor material published by third parties.

In a blogpost on Tuesday, Bill Echikson, Google's head of free expression in Europe, said: "In this case we're simply challenging the notion that information that is demonstrably legal – and that continues to be publicly available on the web – can be censored. People shouldn't be prevented from learning that a politician was convicted of taking a bribe, or that a doctor was convicted of malpractice. In order to achieve all the social, cultural and economic benefits of the internet, it must be kept free and open."

The problem arose because under Spanish law, details of the repossession of Costeja's home were required to be published in a newspaper. Costeja asked for both Google and the newspaper to remove the information from their archives, but the Spanish courts decided the newspaper was not obliged to purge its archive and that only Google had a case to answer.

The Spanish data protection authority has brought 180 such cases to Google, asking for information on individuals to be deleted. While public notices are used to censure individuals in Spain and elsewhere, the internet has magnified their impact, by making the notice available not to a small number of readers buying a newspaper on one particular day, but any reader in the world for as many years as the notice remains archived online.

In his opinion, published on the court's website, Jääskinen declared: "The rights to erasure and blocking of data … do not confer on the data subject a right to address himself to a search engine service provider in order to prevent indexing of the information relating to him personally, published legally on third parties' web pages, invoking his wish that such information should not be known to internet users when he considers that it might be prejudicial to him or he wishes it to be consigned to oblivion." end quote

by AndyB 27.06.13 7:30

I don't think it's a question of the McCanns, or anyone else for that matter, having the right to demand the removal of any Internet content. If they have been involved in the removal of HiDeHos account it will have been by exercising the same right that all of us have: The right to go to a solicitor (e.g. Carter Ruck) and pay them to write threatening letters.

The use of the libel laws to suppress freedom of speech is a huge problem in this country but unfortunately there is no political appetite to do anything about it. Having said that Im still hopeful that HiDeHos problems are technical rather than anything more sinister

by deafoldbat 27.06.13 7:34

sheila.edwards wrote:
Well, what a tado, loads of people have seen you videos! this kind of thing will possibly make them more popular! hope you ok take CARE:spin:They had a lot of trouble before recent ones with facebook I read when people were being sent messages from fund site or something as if they had clicked liked but had not and some were young people under 18yrs etc.

This may explain the Facebook influence of the McCanns:
blog by Spudgun

by bobbin 27.06.13 7:35

AndyB wrote:I don't think it's a question of the McCanns, or anyone else for that matter, having the right to demand the removal of any Internet content. If they have been involved in the removal of HiDeHos account it will have been by exercising the same right that all of us have: The right to go to a solicitor (e.g. Carter Ruck) and pay them to write threatening letters.

The use of the libel laws to suppress freedom of speech is a huge problem in this country but unfortunately there is no political appetite to do anything about it. Having said that Im still hopeful that HiDeHos problems are technical rather than a yet hint more sinister

In saying this you are over-riding the latest EU ruling, as would be Carter-Muck or anyone asking them to write one of their poisonous letters.
What do you think of the 'implications' of this new ruling, not whether the former route of suppression was a poison penning from CR or otherwise.

by AndyB 27.06.13 7:44

At the risk of sounding pedantic it was the European Court not the EU but I don't think Ive over-ridden anything. As I understand it, the ruling related to whether Google could report finding content that already existed. It was nothing to do with the right to publish in the first instance but Im happy to be corrected by others with better knowledge of the law

by **PeterMac** 27.06.13 7:59

Why would they do this if they had nothing to hide ?

by plebgate 27.06.13 8:07

They can't shut everybody up and I am also sorry to hear about this.

What a way to be living their lives everyday and all because they wanted to cater to their own needs before putting their children first on that holiday.

Shame on them for leaving their children alone resulting in little Maddie disappearing. Shame, shame, shame and then they join Hacked Off to try and shut everybody up.

Jog on the pair of them and their cronies (paid or not).

Excellent work H-D-H.

They do seem to be very rattled by what you have and are doing. thumbsup

by Guest 27.06.13 8:54

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

#wlfind #Assange #Guardian #CENSORSHIP EXPOSED!

The Guardian how transparent are they ?

David Leigh has made some very unpleasant snide remarks today on twitter toward Julian Assange, he is acting like a child ,so lets take a closer look at David Leigh and what he believes is in the publics interest.

The Guardian claim to be the ones who EXPOSED hackgate but that is not strictly true ,Steve Nott back in 1999 went to the Sun and the Mirror News Group telling how easy it was to listen into voicemail. The story was spiked even though Steve was paid by Oomagh Blackman ? The Guardian certainly have no interest in Steve or his story , now, why would that be surely it is in the publics interest to know just how long hacking has been going on and that it is not just contained in the Murdoch Empire.

Next, the McCanns, who ask for donations to search for their child told a very strange story about her alleged abduction..a story that made no sense. One would imagine the Guardian, who have the very best journalists would have realized pretty early on that the McCanns were not quite what they seemed, instead of helping the investigation they did everything they could to sabotage it, refusing to answer police questions and not returning for the reconstruction resulted in the case being shelved. Information once again kept from the public and instead of reporting the truth, the British press only published what the McCanns wanted them to say.

Lets move on, after the shelving of the investigation ,the police files were released to the public, they explained in detail why the McCanns were made arguidos (suspects) in the disappearance of their daughter...once again the Guardian ,along with the rest of the 'free' British press thought it not in our best interest to be informed ,even though the public were donating large amounts of money !

Most, if not all British journalists have the police files to publish in their respective newspapers, this includes police witness statements and one in particular that would have stopped most people in their tracks, or at least certainly led them to ask questions of the McCanns and their group. I leave here for you to read a statement about Dr.David Payne and Madeleines father (an alleged paedophile incident) and ask you, to ask David Leigh from the Guardian, why he did not think this information was in the publics interest and to also ask him why this, what may have been vital information was held back for several months by Leicester Police from the PORTUGUESE investigation !!!! ..more importantly he, as an investigitve journalist, did not see fit to ask the very same question , a three year old child is missing for heaven sake?.. The British press are not 'free' to do as they wish , but Julian Assange is and I have no doubt inside those snide jabs from David Leigh there is a little bit of jealousy and envy otherwise why did he not publish the police files that show the McCanns in a very different light and maybe achieved the scoop of his lifetime...THE TRUTH of what really happened to little Maddie ...AND the truth is he cannot , because the McCann case is a Goverment cover-up and David Leigh takes his orders like all other British journalists NOT to go anywhere near the truth !

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

The statemant The GUARDIAN's David Leigh will never publish but Julian Assange would.

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

Will nobody break rank and expose the McCann's and all their companions for what they are? Why is the truth of what happened to Madeleine being kept under wraps? The Britsh public have a right to know, in fact the whole world has a right to know

by Lostfridge 27.06.13 9:03

With regard to HideHos account being closed,that it simply pro groups complaining to Facebook on the grounds that HideiHo is not a real name!. Facebook ask you to verify your account via phone and prove its your real name. Obviously HideHo cant do that so the account is closed and all posts, photos under that account gone. I've left all such groups and couldn't recommend any of them either, sorry but there are some creepy people on BOTH sides that frequent FB groups and twitter, who will take your information, hack your accounts if you don't play along. Its a shame as Controversy is a great group but too many wolves in sheep's clothing. I would rather just keep up to date on real news and wait for justice to run its course.

by sheila.edwards 27.06.13 9:26

All that trouble McCanns had when sent young teenagers the fund links via facebook instead of usual emails. They sent links to people WHO HAD NOT EVEN CLICKED FACEBOOK LIKE BUTTON, never mind fund button, probably linked in to all this IMO. im sure so many parents Complained at the time as so concerned re childerens saftey that fund had to send out new links to there fund stating yes it is not safe to answer stranger links and advised them to check with their parents ! None of this seem right to me.Cant be much fun and may spoil ours ! If they send one of there links to my granddaughter I will teach her how to press facebook Block button pronto,before she learns how not to press donate via facebook.

by **HiDeHo** 27.06.13 9:37

You are correct about the name issue...I had two admin accounts and both were deactivated. I can produce government documents to show my name, which I will do, but you may note it is not Facebook initiated.

As claimed in the Daily Star on Saturday the McCanns are behind trying to close the group down and Facebook eliminating all photos was due to a COMPLAINT.

1+1 = SCARED!

by margaret 27.06.13 9:58

HiDeHo wrote:You are correct about the name issue...I had two admin accounts and both were deactivated. I can produce government documents to show my name, which I will do, but you may note it is not Facebook initiated.

As claimed in the Daily Star on Saturday the McCanns are behind trying to close the group down and Facebook eliminating all photos was due to a COMPLAINT.

1+1 = SCARED!

I think it's hilarious that since SY released the news that a couple went into 5a to soothe a crying Maddie before she disappeared was released the Mccanns daren't appear in the media but have become underhand and turned their attention to the FB group instead.

The numbers have been growing steadily for a while now and you're getting too important. Well done!

by Lostfridge 27.06.13 10:16

Sorry, I don't think for a minute is was the Mccanns themselves making the complaint to Facebook.

by sheila.edwards 27.06.13 10:32

oh well, they can jog off anyway I think to, and take CM with them:spin:

by Cristobell 27.06.13 11:32

Lostfridge wrote:Sorry, I don't think for a minute is was the Mccanns themselves making the complaint to Facebook.

Kate and Gerry are very much involved in the troll campaign to stamp out opposition and promote their Fund, be in no doubt about it. The trolls express the same opinions and often the same phrases used by the mccanns themselves both in Kate's book and in numerous interviews. They have been in total control of their campaign from the start.

by DIBarlow 27.06.13 12:24

Cristobell wrote:
Lostfridge wrote:Sorry, I don't think for a minute is was the Mccanns themselves making the complaint to Facebook.
Kate and Gerry are very much involved in the troll campaign to stamp out opposition and promote their Fund, be in no doubt about it. The trolls express the same opinions and often the same phrases used by the mccanns themselves both in Kate's book and in numerous interviews. They have been in total control of their campaign from the start.

That bold bit is excellent news Cristobell.
They were in 'total control' of the 'Timeline(s)' and their fairytale from the start, and look what a bodge they made of that.

by Guest 27.06.13 12:38

Lostfridge wrote:Sorry, I don't think for a minute is was the Mccanns themselves making the complaint to Facebook.

Kate & Gerry never said the shutters had been jemmied.

Kate never said she'd been in contact with 6 corpses.

I agree that Kate & Gerry did not themselves complain to facebook - they have minions for that.

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

by lynsi001 27.06.13 12:47

bobbin wrote:I enclose this thread which I started the other day. Is there an implication here, that no one is permitted to demand the removal of information already in situ.
The McCs have ‘claimed’ Abduction.
They have not proven this, nor has a Court proven it.
It is as much an ‘un-proven’ theory as any other ‘purported theory.’
Until they go to court for their claim to be ‘verified’ they have no more grounds than any other moving creature on this earth to control what may or may not be seen. AIMO.
The following article is the “legal decision to be considered” for relevance to the ‘right or wrong’ of the removal of HiDiHo’s work.
New EU ruling on Internet sensitive information
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7299-new-eu-ruling-on-internet-sensitive-information?highlight=EU+ruling :: Welcome :: McCann Case: latest news
New EU ruling on Internet sensitive information
bobbin on Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:14 pm
The following article might have important and interesting implications regarding reporting of the Madeleine McCann case, or indeed on any information held on cached pages, even after removal by 'owners'. On the face of it, it looks as if 'post dated censorship' will not be enforceable.
bobbin

just because YOU have no evidence that an abuction happened does not mean that madeleine wasnt abducted you have no idea what evidence SY or the McCanns have, nor do any of us let them finish there investigation, them hate groups do no good and can you imagine how Madeleine would feel if she happened to come across one of them or any or even seen some of the comments on any of these forums.

by deafoldbat 27.06.13 12:55

lynsi001 wrote:

just because YOU have no evidence that an abuction happened does not mean that madeleine wasnt abducted you have no idea what evidence SY or the McCanns have, nor do any of us let them finish there investigation, them hate groups do no good and can you imagine how Madeleine would feel if she happened to come across one of them or any or even seen some of the comments on any of these forums.

????????????????????? Reading the "Truth of the Lie" or the official police files would be a useful start for you, perhaps?

by AndyB 27.06.13 13:04

lynsi001 wrote:

just because YOU have no evidence that an abuction happened does not mean that madeleine wasnt abducted you have no idea what evidence SY or the McCanns have, nor do any of us let them finish there investigation, them hate groups do no good and can you imagine how Madeleine would feel if she happened to come across one of them or any or even seen some of the comments on any of these forums.

[/quote]
It's not just the lack of evidence of an abduction that's the problem though. It's
a) the impossibility an abduction happening given the statements made by all the witnesses at the time and since
b) the evidence that she died in the apartment
c) the Portuguese police, who have seen all the evidence that SY have, concluding that there was no abduction

Groups or people that speak freely about where their interpretation of the facts takes them are not "hate groups". Who or what do you believe they hate and why?

by Guest 27.06.13 13:05

The new e-book is also good for a start.

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

I can't speak for all other forums but this one certainly isn't motivated by hate.