Game over?

Oi..I'm the belligerent one on this forum...get in the queue...know your place...stop having the last word...that's my job...  

Seriously though, I don't think there was a bunch of celebrities on the phone to their agents saying 'I want to help this poor couple' do you?

  

kevmack wrote:

mouse wrote:I agree that in the past there was a different attitude to paedophillia, that has all changed now and these types of attitudes are no longer acceptable.  Yes, Esther Mcvey has deserted the McCanns publicly and as such her private opinion means not a jot, but I doubt that the high flying Ms McVey will have any time at all for her old chum Kate.  As for Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman etc that is also moot, he has been out of power for over 3 years and neither he, nor his party are likely to see power again for quite some time, so yet again their opinions, beliefs etc are invalid 

As for  J K Rowling, she initially gave a small bit of vocal support, but very quickly distanced herself completely, so I don't even know why you are mentioning her name.  The McCanns got a lot of sympathy in the early days, but that all evaporated and none of these high flyers have had anything to do with the McCanns since 2007, so I really don't know why people continue to bang on about them

---------------------------------------------


KevMac - but in the past paedophillia was just as illegal - I don't buy all those arguments about 'back in the day, people thought differently" If it was so different why did a group like PIE have to form to try to lower the legal age of consent. It was wrong then as it is now - some just wish it wasn't. and sadly I believe they are quite a strong force to be reckoned with. And still are...


And just because these famous VIPs don't publically support anymore - do we now have to just forget they ever did? I certainly won't forget those who rallied round the MC's, putting others down for daring to ask the questions we all wanted an answer to - Why did they leave their kids on their own? I do however believe some like David Beckham, the England Ruby Manager (Forgive me I don't remember his name) who were there purely in those first days/weeks to get the message out that a little girl was missing..genuinely got sucked in. The others.....And didn't JK offer a reward? A little more than Verbal I'd say.

Homosexuality used to be illegal, but attitudes changed on that and now it is not! So you are really just creating a straw man argument, what certain people did or supported 30 odd years ago has absolutely no relevance today.

As for forgetting how the celebs gave support, you're clearly not a very forgiving person are you?  All of these people gave an instant knee jerk reaction to what they believed was an abduction of a young child, they soon realised they were wrong and said nothing more on the matter.  Do you think they should be hounded and harried for one misjudgment for ever more?  Dragged into a sordid case because they made appeals and supported the parents in the first few weeks of what has turned out to be a 7 years (and counting) saga.  Lots of people pledged support towards a reward in the event the kidnapper(s) were apprehended and Madeleine returned safely, but that didn't happen, so it can be assumed their money is still safely in their pockets, but you seem to want to have them held to account for adding their voice, albeit we believe in a misguided way, to support the search for a missing child in the first few weeks of her disappearance...come to think of it, I wouldn't want you on a jury either, if, god forbid those accused had made an error of judgment in their past, you'd have them sentenced to life!

mouse wrote:

You didn't really answer any of my questions in answer to yours. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Though I don't understand why you brought up homosexualty. I'm fully aware of its illegality years ago, and right now homosexuality is accepted and is legal as it very right should be. What are saying about paedophilia? 

As for me being unforgiving - if you read my post you will see that I don't lump into the category of MC Supporters those that naturally went with their heart in the early days/weeks in supporting the campaign for missing Madeleine. But I'm damned if I'll forgive those who campaigned in support of the parents,after being informed of the circumstances, rounding on all those who questioned their parenting skills. Those who supported them knowing full well that they left 3 children below the age of 4 on their own for most nights of their hols to go out dining. Then rounded on those who wanted answers by coming out with statements like 'their for the grace of god', ' we all do it etc...' No we don't....And I don't forgive those supported in the Mccanns in their neglectful behaviour.

kevmack wrote:

mouse wrote:

You didn't really answer any of my questions in answer to yours. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Though I don't understand why you brought up homosexualty. I'm fully aware of its illegality years ago, and right now homosexuality is accepted and is legal as it very right should be. What are saying about paedophilia? 

As for me being unforgiving - if you read my post you will see that I don't lump into the category of MC Supporters those that naturally went with their heart in the early days/weeks in supporting the campaign for missing Madeleine. But I'm damned if I'll forgive those who campaigned in support of the parents,after being informed of the circumstances, rounding on all those who questioned their parenting skills. Those who supported them knowing full well that they left 3 children below the age of 4 on their own for most nights of their hols to go out dining. Then rounded on those who wanted answers by coming out with statements like 'their for the grace of god', ' we all do it etc...' No we don't....And I don't forgive those supported in the Mccanns in their neglectful behaviour.

That's because I already answered your question a couple of posts ago.  The view on paedophillia is very different now, still illegal and now in no way, shape or form, tolerated, the recent court cases and investigations, many of which are still ongoing, should make that obvious.  As is the likes of Harriet Harman and Patricial Hewitt, who have been publicly denounced for their (decades ago) support of PIE.  No right thinking person supports these views anymore.

And many of those early supporters, who went with their hearts (or the thought of good publicity) made their exit PDQ as more information emerged and I've already given my opinion of the sofa queens...bunch of stupid idiots, but they don't dare come out now and say it is okay to leave young children when you go out on the lash, these things were all said years ago and apart from wee idiot, Lorraine who I think is the last celeb to fawn over the McCanns, all of the rest of them have deserted the cause as well.  And at the end of the day, they are just pointless media clowns, whose opinions don't make any difference, I don't even think they've been on the sofa with Lorraine since SY turned the review into an investigation.  But as for not forgiving them for their views in 2007, I have never cared about what they think, I'm not alone either, most people with a small bit of intelligence can see that they are vacuous, pointless people and as such, I, and many others, have not been influenced by them in any way, so as far as I am concerned I don't have anything to forgive them for!  They didn't do me any harm, they just annoyed me a bit, so I think it is a bit extreme to "never forgive them" when the reality is that their telly careers are mostly washed up anyway, and they will fade into obscurity and when the SHTF in terms of SY making arrests, they can sit there, all alone, with their consciences, meanwhile, mine is clear..ergo, I am not so unforgiving!

So you've made your point - I've made mine. As I said - we'll have to agree to disagree on this. As I feel that some supporters are really not vacuous, and have ulterior motives for their support. Not just fame, but as you obviously labelled them all the same - we are at a cul-de-sac on this matter.

kevmack wrote:

So you've made your point - I've made mine. As I said - we'll have to agree to disagree on this. As I feel that some supporters are really not vacuous, and have ulterior motives for their support. Not just fame, but as you obviously labelled them all the same - we are at a cul-de-sac on this matter.

Well yes, I do think they are all vacuous and as for what ulterior motive the likes of Lorraine Kelly could have totally escapes me, so we will definitely have to agree to disagree on that one!

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Whoever it was who asked what the Snow White video is, here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WaNMPZJ1jw

I remember seeing this on 4th May 2007 on the BBC's news report of Madeleine going missing so it was available very early on. I don't think there can have been any dubious voiceover which was deleted because it seems to be in a hall of some kind and not in a private house.

j.rob wrote:I think lots of people felt sympathy for them at the beginning (myself included) in a kind of 'there but for the Grace of God' way. Having used the Mark Warner baby listening service once on a holiday when my children were young, I felt that what the McCanns did (or claimed they did) was not THAT different to the baby listening whereby a nanny or two would patrol the corridors of the hotel listening out for any crying. I remember the hotel was quite chaotic and someone could easily have walked past reception unchallenged, plucked a few babies or children from their beds while the nanny was walking along another corridor  and left pretty much any way they liked - through a window, door, probably even past reception. I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid, even if the child had been crying. The whole scene was quite chaotic but it would never have occurred to me (as indeed the McCanns have claimed they felt) that someone would actually steal one of my children. And I presume all the other people using the service when we did (and there were many) felt the same. So from that point of view I had some sympathy.

I even still believed the McCanns when I read Kate's dreadful book, Madeleine. I only became suspicious when I saw the news coverage of Tony Bennett being sued by the McCanns and I wondered why someone who had appeared to have nothing material to gain from whistle blowing would do so. It piqued my interest. As someone who has fought a few battles against establishment 'closing of ranks', and who has been shocked by the level of corruption and sleaze seen in many institutions, I decided to explore further. Apart from anything, I really object to so much public money being used to cover up wrongdoing and evade justice, plus protect reputations that don't deserve to be protected.

I have always found it extraordinary that, from the very beginning, the McCanns and their friends would claim that Madeleine was stolen by a paedophile, probably part of a network. Why would they say that given that they have publicly stated that abduction of children by strangers is so rare that they never considered it to be a risk at all? Kate writes in her book that she would never have left the children without a babysitter if she had felt there was even the slightest risk. Yet the moment they find Madeleine 'missing' they immediately jump to this 'zero risk' conclusion. There is no logic to this. This is the only 'proof' that you need that the abduction story is a hoax, imo. The Portugese police obviously clocked this from the very beginning. 

When I think back to the Mark Holiday when I used the baby listening service, if I had gone back to the room and found one of the children not there, that would probably be one of the last things I would have thought had happened, at least in the first instance. The most likely explanation would be that they had gone off to find us, or gone to reception or the creche maybe. Or gone to another room where friends were staying. Or someone (not necessarily the nanny even) had heard crying or commotion and had taken them to the creche or reception. Or even that there had been an accident and someone had heard a commotion and crying and they were taken to receive first aid.

But then my children weren't sedated as I believe that Madeleine and the twins were. And I didn't hang around the Mark Warner play area filming other people's children and having flippant conversations about paedophiles and how people were too paranoid. 

I think it is very suspicious that the McCanns and their friends cited paedophilia as the reason for Madeleine 'being taken' and I think it is a huge red flag. Sexual abuse is not that uncommon - as a cursory glance at the statistics will bear out - and it tends to run in families. It can also be 'hidden' behind facades of, for instance, religion or professional 'respectability' or positions of power and trust which are abused. Abusers have hidden behind the 'respectability' of the church, law, medicine, politics, education, 'celebrity' and so on.

Unfortunately, sometimes adults who wish to pray on children will chose jobs, professions and/or voluntary work/charity work that grants them access to children - especially vulnerable ones. Jimmy Saville is a good example. Plus look at what was going on at the Casa Pia - the children were being abused by paedophiles including, for instance, a television presenter, a lawyer and a diplomat. No doubt the children were carefully selected to be the ones with the least family support.

mouse wrote:

kevmack wrote:

So you've made your point - I've made mine. As I said - we'll have to agree to disagree on this. As I feel that some supporters are really not vacuous, and have ulterior motives for their support. Not just fame, but as you obviously labelled them all the same - we are at a cul-de-sac on this matter.

Well yes, I do think they are all vacuous and as for what ulterior motive the likes of Lorraine Kelly could have totally escapes me, so we will definitely have to agree to disagree on that one!

But I didn't mention LK - we probably share an opinion on her, she's not one of my faves lets just say. 

I don't know why you keep on bringing up subjects and names I haven't mentioned. I said 'some' supporters, not all.

tigger wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Whoever it was who asked what the Snow White video is, here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WaNMPZJ1jw

I remember seeing this on 4th May 2007 on the BBC's news report of Madeleine going missing so it was available very early on. I don't think there can have been any dubious voiceover which was deleted because it seems to be in a hall of some kind and not in a private house.

The book tells us that Jon Corner had already distributed photographs of Maddie by 8 in the morning and done so according to the US protocol for Missing and exploited children. So that video was in that lot as well?
That is - apart from Corner being so amazingly well informed on a US protocol - incredibly early.
He must have done all that in between the 25 or so phone calls between him and Kate which iirc, were between 02.00 and 07.00.
Jolly lucky he had all that material to hand as well, I'd be hard put to find photographs of my nieces and nephews, a video shot with a very flattering lens, dressed up like Snowwhite - very lucky to have that with that coloboma in place and everything.

I do feel rather insulted from time to time by the fifty or so impossible things I'm asked to believe before breakfast by TM.

canada12 wrote:I'll be careful how I say this...

I still believe (and have believed for a very long time) that the "cover up" has to do with the activities the Gaspars described in their statements regarding David Payne.

Mr. Amaral has again discussed this same activity very recently in his latest tv interview regarding the case, and I strongly suspect that if anything that has been alleged were able to be proved, you'd have the reason why it was imperative that Madeleine's body not be found and you'd have the motivation behind the good doctors not wishing to be found out.

Everything else is pure spin and diversion.

ETA: It wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover that there are people in high places who may have a connection to the above, hence the level of protection afforded the group.

kevmack wrote:

mouse wrote:

kevmack wrote:

So you've made your point - I've made mine. As I said - we'll have to agree to disagree on this. As I feel that some supporters are really not vacuous, and have ulterior motives for their support. Not just fame, but as you obviously labelled them all the same - we are at a cul-de-sac on this matter.

Well yes, I do think they are all vacuous and as for what ulterior motive the likes of Lorraine Kelly could have totally escapes me, so we will definitely have to agree to disagree on that one!

But I didn't mention LK - we probably share an opinion on her, she's not one of my faves lets just say. 

I don't know why you keep on bringing up subjects and names I haven't mentioned. I said 'some' supporters, not all.

So what other supporters are you talking about?  You said you couldn't forgive all of those who supported the McCanns with soundbites like there for the grace of god go I etc (and J Rob just gave an excellent example previously as to why that is perfectly forgivable)   The only people who have done anything "unforgivable" in my eyes are the parents themselves, everyone else is just collateral damage imo

aquila wrote:

tigger wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Whoever it was who asked what the Snow White video is, here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WaNMPZJ1jw

I remember seeing this on 4th May 2007 on the BBC's news report of Madeleine going missing so it was available very early on. I don't think there can have been any dubious voiceover which was deleted because it seems to be in a hall of some kind and not in a private house.

The book tells us that Jon Corner had already distributed photographs of Maddie by 8 in the morning and done so according to the US protocol for Missing and exploited children. So that video was in that lot as well?
That is - apart from Corner being so amazingly well informed on a US protocol - incredibly early.
He must have done all that in between the 25 or so phone calls between him and Kate which iirc, were between 02.00 and 07.00.
Jolly lucky he had all that material to hand as well, I'd be hard put to find photographs of my nieces and nephews, a video shot with a very flattering lens, dressed up like Snowwhite - very lucky to have that with that coloboma in place and everything.

I do feel rather insulted from time to time by the fifty or so impossible things I'm asked to believe before breakfast by TM.

I was waiting for Jon Corner's name to be mentioned. I'm glad you got there before me tigger and I've underlined the part of your post that sums up a lot of stuff.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Tigger: the broadcast I saw was probably the one at 6 p m so I don't know when the Snow White video was first shown.

It's certainly very quick for any broadcasts to have been made before 8 a m in respect of a child who was most likely to have just wandered off.  

kevmack wrote:That's still much quicker than Madeleine's case...reported missing (to the Portuguese police) at 10.40(?) In the UK media by midnight and as you said, in April's case she was seen by multiple witnesses getting into Bridger's car and of course sadly, they still didn't find her

aquila wrote:

kevmack wrote:That's still much quicker than Madeleine's case...reported missing (to the Portuguese police) at 10.40(?) In the UK media by midnight and as you said, in April's case she was seen by multiple witnesses getting into Bridger's car and of course sadly, they still didn't find her

Madeleine's picture released to the UK press within in a couple of hours.

AndyB wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:I Feel a bit uneasy with the allegations of accusing people of child sex abuse.  The Gasper statements are indeed disturbing but don't prove child abuse was taking place.  I can't see any reason why the government or police would want to cover this up.

Operation Fairbank was established as a scoping exercise after Tom Watson MP had disclosed the existance of "a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10". This resulted in a full investigation, Operation Fernbridge, that has yet to arrest anyone other than Z list celebrities. Perhaps what caused Grange to be upgraded to a full investigation came not from the case files but instead came from Operation Fernbridge. Perhaps the difference between SY  the PJ is that SY have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10, whereas the PJ have no such restriction. Of course for this to be the case there has to be a connection between paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10 and the Maddie case. I will leave it to others to decide if they see evidence of such a connection.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It was only a few hours with April.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5697-missing-april-jones-aged-5feared-abducted-in-wales?highlight=april+jones

The first post with a newspaper report was just after midnight - less than five hours after she went missing.