Re: Game over?

by Cristobell 28.03.14 16:59

plebgate wrote:
tiny wrote:Theres no way that the mccanns are shielding someone,they and the tapas lot are up to their necks in this.
IMO Mr. would certainly not take so much flak as he is/has by shielding someone. Why would he use up so much money in legal fees if someone else could be arrested, charged and found guilty - plenty money still left in bank then?

Agree with both posts. I spent a while trying to absolve the Tapas 7, but it is impossible. They have all made statements that are nonsensical and are backing each other above and beyond 'friendship', in 7 years they haven't told the truth, and SY are going to extraordinary lengths and using a great deal of taxpayers money to find out what happened to that child on that holiday, that they are so determined to keep to themselves?

I agree Plebgate, Gerry and Kate wouldn't protect anyone else, heck they wouldn't even protect their own kids!

by plebgate 28.03.14 17:00

We are not disagreeing ChippyM, we are giving our observations from what we have seen and read. I am not a child expert or anything like that, but from the little I have read, the outgoing, loud child we have been told about by all of the family (not just the parents) doesn't sound like many abused children who seem to be withdrawn and very shy. We all have our own opinions and many of us are going to disagree on some aspects of the case, but what many of us agree with is that the story told STINKS. Truth WILL out in the end imo.

ETA - my red highlights, well that sounds as clear as mud but hope readers get my drift. lol.

by Cristobell 28.03.14 17:14

ProfessorPPlum wrote:***Off topic
Apologies for *almost* starting another PhotoShop war. I was interesting to hear the argument to see if there was anything new or substantive and from my perspective there wasn't. I appreciate the reply. Jrob, both Amelie's arms are parallel to each other, a natural state of affairs especially since she's either palms-down on the pool edge or she's holding the pool edge. The only thing I agree looks odd is the sunglasses reflection but you only have to watch Derren Brown or Dynamo or similar to know that our powers of observation can be very easily wrong.
***On topic

I've been mighty impressed by discipline of 'Statement Analysis' that this case has introduced me to (thanks also to some of our great contributors like Hobs and one or two others). Based on statement analysis and the PJ evidence (including the inconsistencies in their stories) it seems clear that GM, KM, DP and MO (at LEAST) are equally involved in this. The question of course keeps coming back: what would make a group of individuals commit the crime of simulating an abduction? The answer can only be 'the need to cover up a bigger crime'.

We don't know what that 'bigger crime' (if such a crime took place) was. I personally feel a bit uncomfortable when people expound lengthy and specific theories ("DP did this and then maybe the McCs had to do that...") but I recognise that there is a place for this speculation - at least for us in the comfort of our armchairs.

The longer this goes on and the more carefully we're encouraged to analyse their words (in YouTube videos, interviews, articles and Exhibit KH1 & 2) the more I'm inclined to err on the side of the truth that guilty liars leak between their deliberate constructions. Paedophilia, sedation, falls, death and body: these things have been leaked to us by the McCanns themselves.

One of the things that struck me from the outset in this case was how completely unnatural it is to run back from discovering your child has gone missing shouting the solution. People finding themselves in the shock of such a loss don't close down options that way because - quite obviously - a bad guess and going in the wrong direction could literally cause the death of your beloved child. The McCann's insistence from the first alleged shout that MM was not only abducted but abducted by paedophiles was then (for GA and his team) and still is (or should be to any decent investigator) the most important indicator that the parents are not telling the truth. If your child vanished, you would scream "She's not here! She's gone! I can't find her? Has anyone seen her? Where could she be?" You would call the police, you would look EVERYWHERE again and again and again. You would NOT insist on a single particular answer to the riddle. What we see from the McCs behaviour from the off is that the convincing people that their child has been abducted by a paedophile is a higher priority than finding her.

And if that's true, the next question is: why 'paedophile'? Is it because in their own mind only paedophiles take children? Are they drawing from some statistical likelihood that any stranger abduction will be perpetrated by a paedophile? Or are they hedging a bet - so that if MM's body is ever found and bears the marks of sexual abuse it should be attributed to the (obviously paedophile) abductor?

If little but the leaked stuff is true, then it uncomfortably points to the death of a child who was being sexually abused, possibly involving the use of sedation. It points to equal involvement between a number of the adults to cover this up. If this is what we have seen and continue to see, then it won't be because of some complicated 'double-jeopardy' involving even bigger, unrelated, crimes it will be for the simpler and more sordid reason we suspect but struggle to accept.

I'm mightily impressed by your post Professor Plum - I read it twice smilie

I'm uncomfortable because you take us to areas we wish to avoid, but it is indeed bizarre that the McCanns themselves raised the subject of paedophilia immediately they discovered Maddie missing. That would be the last thing in most parents minds, until they hear the very worst, they picture finding the child sitting in a police station drinking cocoa. Not, 'oh it must have been one of those paedophiles who take children, someone get me a priest'.

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched about Jeremy Bamber. They did a reconstruction which showed Bamber when the police arrived and how forceful he was in establishing HIS story, that his sister had murdered the family, and they should concentrate on that. It was if he were trying to control the police investigation from the off.

by Newintown 28.03.14 17:18

plebgate wrote:We are not disagreeing ChippyM, we are giving our observations from what we have seen and read. I am not a child expert or anything like that, but from the little I have read, the outgoing, loud child we have been told about by all of the family (not just the parents) doesn't sound like many abused children who seem to be withdrawn and very shy. We all have our own opinions and many of us are going to disagree on some aspects of the case, but what many of us agree with is that the story told STINKS. Truth WILL out in the end imo.

I must say by the videos I've seen of Madeleine she is not outgoing or loud, she seems to be very hesitant, shy, almost subservient in her actions and looks to the camera, as if she is afraid to make a move without approval.

I don't remember ever seeing a video of her when she is loud, dancing, laughing, been very naughty, exuberant. The only one I can recall, which lasted just a few minutes, is when she was wearing a pink fairy outfit, she looked happy then, bless her little soul.

Where are all the masses of videos of Madeleine playing party games at children's parties, getting very excited and boisterous, and squealing with delight. Until I see them I won't be convinced that Madeleine was outgoing and loud.

by nglfi 28.03.14 17:20

Cristobell wrote:
plebgate wrote:
tiny wrote:Theres no way that the mccanns are shielding someone,they and the tapas lot are up to their necks in this.
IMO Mr. would certainly not take so much flak as he is/has by shielding someone. Why would he use up so much money in legal fees if someone else could be arrested, charged and found guilty - plenty money still left in bank then?
Agree with both posts. I spent a while trying to absolve the Tapas 7, but it is impossible. They have all made statements that are nonsensical and are backing each other above and beyond 'friendship', in 7 years they haven't told the truth, and SY are going to extraordinary lengths and using a great deal of taxpayers money to find out what happened to that child on that holiday, that they are so determined to keep to themselves?

I agree Plebgate, Gerry and Kate wouldn't protect anyone else, heck they wouldn't even protect their own kids!

How can both be true, do you believe the Tapas 7 are involved in something that the McCanns aren't? Otherwise, if it is a case of Tapas 9 rather than Tapas 7, then they must all be protecting each other about something, either Madeleine's death or something else.

by Cristobell 28.03.14 19:44

nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
plebgate wrote:
tiny wrote:Theres no way that the mccanns are shielding someone,they and the tapas lot are up to their necks in this.
IMO Mr. would certainly not take so much flak as he is/has by shielding someone. Why would he use up so much money in legal fees if someone else could be arrested, charged and found guilty - plenty money still left in bank then?
Agree with both posts. I spent a while trying to absolve the Tapas 7, but it is impossible. They have all made statements that are nonsensical and are backing each other above and beyond 'friendship', in 7 years they haven't told the truth, and SY are going to extraordinary lengths and using a great deal of taxpayers money to find out what happened to that child on that holiday, that they are so determined to keep to themselves?

I agree Plebgate, Gerry and Kate wouldn't protect anyone else, heck they wouldn't even protect their own kids!
How can both be true, do you believe the Tapas 7 are involved in something that the McCanns aren't? Otherwise, if it is a case of Tapas 9 rather than Tapas 7, then they must all be protecting each other about something, either Madeleine's death or something else.

I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. Why would you think I am now trying to absolve the McCanns of blame?

That the McCanns are involved, is a given. As for the Tapas 7, my thoughts on them have changed considerably.

by nglfi 28.03.14 19:55

Cristobell wrote:
nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
plebgate wrote:
tiny wrote:Theres no way that the mccanns are shielding someone,they and the tapas lot are up to their necks in this.
IMO Mr. would certainly not take so much flak as he is/has by shielding someone. Why would he use up so much money in legal fees if someone else could be arrested, charged and found guilty - plenty money still left in bank then?
Agree with both posts. I spent a while trying to absolve the Tapas 7, but it is impossible. They have all made statements that are nonsensical and are backing each other above and beyond 'friendship', in 7 years they haven't told the truth, and SY are going to extraordinary lengths and using a great deal of taxpayers money to find out what happened to that child on that holiday, that they are so determined to keep to themselves?

I agree Plebgate, Gerry and Kate wouldn't protect anyone else, heck they wouldn't even protect their own kids!
How can both be true, do you believe the Tapas 7 are involved in something that the McCanns aren't? Otherwise, if it is a case of Tapas 9 rather than Tapas 7, then they must all be protecting each other about something, either Madeleine's death or something else.
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. Why would you think I am now trying to absolve the McCanns of blame?

That the McCanns are involved, is a given. As for the Tapas 7, my thoughts on them have changed considerably.

I don't think that at all, from reading your posts I know you want justice for Madeleine and to get to the bottom of this. I was just trying to reconcile the two opinions given above, ie that the Macs are not shielding anyone, yet the Tapas 7 are not telling the truth and are hiding something (which of course I agree with). To my mind the Macs are involved in the same thing as the Tapas 7 and so I tend to think of them as the Tapas 9, ie they all have the same thing to hide, which may be just what happened to Madeleine or something else as well. Therefore, Gerry and Kate are shielding themselves and someone else IMO.
I'm curious as to how your thoughts on the Tapas 7 have changed?

I guess I don't understand Tiny's original statement that there's no way the McCanns are shielding anyone, they and the Tapas 7 are up to their necks in it, the two are mutually exclusive to me. If they are up to their necks in anything then they are shielding the Paynes et al. My apologies if my post didn't come across that way! :)

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 19:55

Cristobell wrote:
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. ...........

Really ? How ?

by Cristobell 28.03.14 19:58

aiyoyo wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. ...........

Really ? How ?

Stay on topic Aiyoyo please, these personal attacks are becoming tedious.

by plebgate 28.03.14 20:01

nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
plebgate wrote:
tiny wrote:Theres no way that the mccanns are shielding someone,they and the tapas lot are up to their necks in this.
IMO Mr. would certainly not take so much flak as he is/has by shielding someone. Why would he use up so much money in legal fees if someone else could be arrested, charged and found guilty - plenty money still left in bank then?
Agree with both posts. I spent a while trying to absolve the Tapas 7, but it is impossible. They have all made statements that are nonsensical and are backing each other above and beyond 'friendship', in 7 years they haven't told the truth, and SY are going to extraordinary lengths and using a great deal of taxpayers money to find out what happened to that child on that holiday, that they are so determined to keep to themselves?

I agree Plebgate, Gerry and Kate wouldn't protect anyone else, heck they wouldn't even protect their own kids!
How can both be true, do you believe the Tapas 7 are involved in something that the McCanns aren't? Otherwise, if it is a case of Tapas 9 rather than Tapas 7, then they must all be protecting each other about something, either Madeleine's death or something else.
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. Why would you think I am now trying to absolve the McCanns of blame?

That the McCanns are involved, is a given. As for the Tapas 7, my thoughts on them have changed considerably.
I don't think that at all, from reading your posts I know you want justice for Madeleine and to get to the bottom of this. I was just trying to reconcile the two opinions given above, ie that the Macs are not shielding anyone, yet the Tapas 7 are not telling the truth and are hiding something (which of course I agree with). To my mind the Macs are involved in the same thing as the Tapas 7 and so I tend to think of them as the Tapas 9, ie they all have the same thing to hide, which may be just what happened to Madeleine or something else as well. Therefore, Gerry and Kate are shielding themselves and someone else IMO.
I'm curious as to how your thoughts on the Tapas 7 have changed?

I think you may not have understood my post - in that Mr. & Mrs. are not shielding anyone outside of the holiday group. I thought it was pretty clear from Tiny's original post.

by Cristobell 28.03.14 20:06

nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
plebgate wrote:
tiny wrote:Theres no way that the mccanns are shielding someone,they and the tapas lot are up to their necks in this.
IMO Mr. would certainly not take so much flak as he is/has by shielding someone. Why would he use up so much money in legal fees if someone else could be arrested, charged and found guilty - plenty money still left in bank then?
Agree with both posts. I spent a while trying to absolve the Tapas 7, but it is impossible. They have all made statements that are nonsensical and are backing each other above and beyond 'friendship', in 7 years they haven't told the truth, and SY are going to extraordinary lengths and using a great deal of taxpayers money to find out what happened to that child on that holiday, that they are so determined to keep to themselves?

I agree Plebgate, Gerry and Kate wouldn't protect anyone else, heck they wouldn't even protect their own kids!
How can both be true, do you believe the Tapas 7 are involved in something that the McCanns aren't? Otherwise, if it is a case of Tapas 9 rather than Tapas 7, then they must all be protecting each other about something, either Madeleine's death or something else.
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. Why would you think I am now trying to absolve the McCanns of blame?

That the McCanns are involved, is a given. As for the Tapas 7, my thoughts on them have changed considerably.
I don't think that at all, from reading your posts I know you want justice for Madeleine and to get to the bottom of this. I was just trying to reconcile the two opinions given above, ie that the Macs are not shielding anyone, yet the Tapas 7 are not telling the truth and are hiding something (which of course I agree with). To my mind the Macs are involved in the same thing as the Tapas 7 and so I tend to think of them as the Tapas 9, ie they all have the same thing to hide, which may be just what happened to Madeleine or something else as well. Therefore, Gerry and Kate are shielding themselves and someone else IMO.
I'm curious as to how your thoughts on the Tapas 7 have changed?

I guess I don't understand Tiny's original statement that there's no way the McCanns are shielding anyone, they and the Tapas 7 are up to their necks in it, the two are mutually exclusive to me. If they are up to their necks in anything then they are shielding the Paynes et al. My apologies if my post didn't come across that way! :)

Apologies for any misunderstanding nglfi.

by Newintown 28.03.14 20:09

Cristobell wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. ...........

Really ? How ?
Stay on topic Aiyoyo please, these personal attacks are becoming tedious.

From the posts I've read over the past week or so you seem to have made yourself the administrator of this forum Cristobell. Well in actual fact you seem to have taken over the whole forum with your numerous postings putting people in their place.

I'm not very good at posting and I find it quite daunting, but for any new members I think your attitude over the past week or two would put any new member off from posting.

I think it's about time that admin stepped in and had a word with you before you completely wreck the whole forum with your dogmatic views.

by tiny 28.03.14 20:11

.I meant the mccanns are not shielding anyone out side of this group of 9

by nglfi 28.03.14 20:15

plebgate wrote:
nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
plebgate wrote:
tiny wrote:Theres no way that the mccanns are shielding someone,they and the tapas lot are up to their necks in this.
IMO Mr. would certainly not take so much flak as he is/has by shielding someone. Why would he use up so much money in legal fees if someone else could be arrested, charged and found guilty - plenty money still left in bank then?
Agree with both posts. I spent a while trying to absolve the Tapas 7, but it is impossible. They have all made statements that are nonsensical and are backing each other above and beyond 'friendship', in 7 years they haven't told the truth, and SY are going to extraordinary lengths and using a great deal of taxpayers money to find out what happened to that child on that holiday, that they are so determined to keep to themselves?

I agree Plebgate, Gerry and Kate wouldn't protect anyone else, heck they wouldn't even protect their own kids!
How can both be true, do you believe the Tapas 7 are involved in something that the McCanns aren't? Otherwise, if it is a case of Tapas 9 rather than Tapas 7, then they must all be protecting each other about something, either Madeleine's death or something else.
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. Why would you think I am now trying to absolve the McCanns of blame?

That the McCanns are involved, is a given. As for the Tapas 7, my thoughts on them have changed considerably.
I don't think that at all, from reading your posts I know you want justice for Madeleine and to get to the bottom of this. I was just trying to reconcile the two opinions given above, ie that the Macs are not shielding anyone, yet the Tapas 7 are not telling the truth and are hiding something (which of course I agree with). To my mind the Macs are involved in the same thing as the Tapas 7 and so I tend to think of them as the Tapas 9, ie they all have the same thing to hide, which may be just what happened to Madeleine or something else as well. Therefore, Gerry and Kate are shielding themselves and someone else IMO.
I'm curious as to how your thoughts on the Tapas 7 have changed?
I think you may not have understood my post - in that Mr. & Mrs. are not shielding anyone outside of the holiday group. I thought it was pretty clear from Tiny's original post.

Indeed, it wasn't clear to me. I took the words at face value. I think an important part of this whole case is the 'pact' mentioned by David Payne and so I was surprised to see someone post that they didn't think Gerry could be protecting anyone, and subsequently I understood Cristobell's post to be referring to anyone at all, rather than anyone outside the holiday group.

by Cristobell 28.03.14 20:17

Newintown wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. ...........

Really ? How ?
Stay on topic Aiyoyo please, these personal attacks are becoming tedious.

From the posts I've read over the past week or so you seem to have made yourself the administrator of this forum Cristobell. Well in actual fact you seem to have taken over the whole forum with your numerous postings putting people in their place.

I'm not very good at posting and I find it quite daunting, but for any new members I think your attitude over the past week or two would put any new member off from posting.

I think it's about time that admin stepped in and had a word with you before you completely wreck the whole forum with your dogmatic views.

This thread is entitled Game Over, but it would appear there are a few who would rather discuss me, than the topic of this thread.

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 20:18

Cristobell wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. ...........

Really ? How ?
Stay on topic Aiyoyo please, these personal attacks are becoming tedious.

Attack ? WTF!

It was only a question. So you refused to answer a simple question by going in attack mode instead ?

Don't mislead people into thinking you were campaigning if you cannot substantiate you claim.

by Cristobell 28.03.14 20:22

There are people on the net, I met 7 years ago when we all began posting about the Madeleine McCann case. They are still around now, and can substantiate my claims, OK?

Now can we return to topic?

by nglfi 28.03.14 20:23

Cristobell wrote:This thread is entitled Game Over, but it would appear there are a few who would rather discuss me, than the topic of this thread.

I want to discuss the case smilie

I was interested in where this discussion started to lead, as in the exact nature of the involvement of the Tapas 7. Why exactly would they cover up for Kate and Gerry? Was it simply the case that they felt guilty at also leaving their kids alone, or did they also sedate them, or is there yet more involvement in something completely unrelated to Madeleine?

I've always wondered if the allegations of swinging were anything more than tabloid gossip. I'm sure I've heard Amaral mention it. But I still don't see that as enough of a reason to cover up a corpse disposal.

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 20:26

Cristobell wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. ...........

Really ? How ?
Stay on topic Aiyoyo please, these personal attacks are becoming tedious.

From the posts I've read over the past week or so you seem to have made yourself the administrator of this forum Cristobell. Well in actual fact you seem to have taken over the whole forum with your numerous postings putting people in their place.

I'm not very good at posting and I find it quite daunting, but for any new members I think your attitude over the past week or two would put any new member off from posting.

I think it's about time that admin stepped in and had a word with you before you completely wreck the whole forum with your dogmatic views.
This thread is entitled Game Over, but it would appear there are a few who would rather discuss me, than the topic of this thread.

Cristobel, You do like listening to yourself don't you....going on and on and on and on.... ?

Why not answer question to the point instead of being defensive by attacking ?

As you pointed out correctly this is "Game Over" thread, NOT Cristobel "Take Over' thread if I may be permitted to say so.

P.S. You started this.

by Newintown 28.03.14 20:27

Cristobell wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. ...........

Really ? How ?
Stay on topic Aiyoyo please, these personal attacks are becoming tedious.

From the posts I've read over the past week or so you seem to have made yourself the administrator of this forum Cristobell. Well in actual fact you seem to have taken over the whole forum with your numerous postings putting people in their place.

I'm not very good at posting and I find it quite daunting, but for any new members I think your attitude over the past week or two would put any new member off from posting.

I think it's about time that admin stepped in and had a word with you before you completely wreck the whole forum with your dogmatic views.
This thread is entitled Game Over, but it would appear there are a few who would rather discuss me, than the topic of this thread.

You obviously didn't read my post Cristobell, which is typical when you're so tied up with yourself. Yes, I know the post is called Game Over, but the whole forum should be renamed "Game Over, because Cristobell's word is final and nobody else can have an opinion".

You are getting very boring and pretentious.

by mariola 28.03.14 20:30

Newintown wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. ...........

Really ? How ?
Stay on topic Aiyoyo please, these personal attacks are becoming tedious.

From the posts I've read over the past week or so you seem to have made yourself the administrator of this forum Cristobell. Well in actual fact you seem to have taken over the whole forum with your numerous postings putting people in their place.

I'm not very good at posting and I find it quite daunting, but for any new members I think your attitude over the past week or two would put any new member off from posting.

I think it's about time that admin stepped in and had a word with you before you completely wreck the whole forum with your dogmatic views.
This thread is entitled Game Over, but it would appear there are a few who would rather discuss me, than the topic of this thread.

You obviously didn't read my post Cristobell, which is typical when you're so tied up with yourself. Yes, I know the post is called Game Over, but the whole forum should be renamed "Game Over, because Cristobell's word is final and nobody else can have an opinion".

You are getting very boring and pretentious.

you are disrupting the thread.why?

by Guest 28.03.14 20:32

I expect many here are getting tired of threads being disrupted - everyone here is entitled to have their say, you may or may not agree, but please discuss the posts and not the poster. As to how many posts people make, what has that got to do with anything? Some days some posters seem to be more prolific than others, doesn't mean they are taking over the forum.

Back to topic please!! No more of this disruption........thanks.

by Newintown 28.03.14 20:35

mariola wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. ...........

Really ? How ?
Stay on topic Aiyoyo please, these personal attacks are becoming tedious.

From the posts I've read over the past week or so you seem to have made yourself the administrator of this forum Cristobell. Well in actual fact you seem to have taken over the whole forum with your numerous postings putting people in their place.

I'm not very good at posting and I find it quite daunting, but for any new members I think your attitude over the past week or two would put any new member off from posting.

I think it's about time that admin stepped in and had a word with you before you completely wreck the whole forum with your dogmatic views.
This thread is entitled Game Over, but it would appear there are a few who would rather discuss me, than the topic of this thread.

You obviously didn't read my post Cristobell, which is typical when you're so tied up with yourself. Yes, I know the post is called Game Over, but the whole forum should be renamed "Game Over, because Cristobell's word is final and nobody else can have an opinion".

You are getting very boring and pretentious.
you are disrupting the thread.why?

I'm distrupting the thread, duhhhhhh!!!!!

Have a word with Cristobell; haven't you noticed she's taken over the whole forum, and is stopping anyone having an opinion other than her own.

I think aiyoyo will agree with me, or haven't you being keeping up to date with the previous pages on this topic, if not read through them.

by canada12 28.03.14 20:36

candyfloss wrote:I expect many here are getting tired of threads being disrupted - everyone here is entitled to have their say, you may or may not agree, but please discuss the posts and not the poster. As to how many posts people make, what has that got to do with anything? Some days some posters seem to be more prolific than others, doesn't mean they are taking over the forum.

Back to topic please!! No more of this disruption........thanks.

It's been proven over and over again that whenever we stray too close to the truth on a thread, there are attempts to derail it, and in some cases, get it locked.

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 20:38

Cristobell wrote:There are people on the net, I met 7 years ago when we all began posting about the Madeleine McCann case. They are still around now, and can substantiate my claims, OK?

Now can we return to topic?

How convenient of you to evade the question by trying to digress the issue !

You are evading the your claim aren't you ?

Posting about Madeleine case is not the same as 7-long year of campaigning as you put it !

I don't care who you said can come out to substantiate your claim, and until I see them coming out to support your claim showing evidence where and how you campaigned for 7 years, I see this as fob-off-the-question nonsense.

You made the claim you substantiate it ! If you can't, stop misleading people, it's as simple as that.