Re: Latest interview with Dr Amaral - copied from Joana Morais - with thanks

by Newintown 13.06.14 16:52

CynicAl wrote:
Newintown wrote:
flamingboy wrote:
Garrincha wrote:Hello CynicAl - I reckon you’re not here to make friends but you really do seem to want to influence people. If so, you might reconsider your manner of approach. It’s certainly not working for me

Poppycock. Contributors, members and observers alike can decide for themselves as to whether they want or wish to be 'influenced'. Not Al.

No offence, by the way, just a straight answer to comment, that was uncalled for, and needed challenging.

I don't want to sound cynical, but you and CynicAl both sound the same in your postings. You both also appear at the same time on the this particular debate. Two persons or one? One replying to one's self, or two friends trying to disrupt the board (again).

Hmmm, now let me guess.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is unsurprisingly what we call a 'Conspiracy Theory'.

flamingboy and I can both confirm this 'Conspiracy Theory' to be unfounded and utter twaddle. Rather predictable, however, Newintown, a fan of wild conspiracy theory, will not be satisfied with this and will continue to believe exactly what he.she wants, since it requires neither evidence nor reason.

Oh dear, have I hit a raw nerve. Oh well, never mind, just write a few more posts inflating your own ego.

by ultimaThule 13.06.14 16:54

Hicks wrote:
Then please explain how Mitchel could possibly know that in the coming months Madeleine wouldn't suddenly turn up, alive or not?

This is something of a $64,000 question in that either Mitchell was made privy to information which led him to believe Madeleine would not turn up unexpectedly, or he was offered a long term contract whereby, regardless of whether or not the child was found, he would continue to be employed by non-uncle Brian Kennedy who, the public was led to believe, was picking up the tab for his services.

by aiyoyo 13.06.14 16:54

Popping in,

Sorry to say but cynical you're so full of yourself. People don't like your verbose bullying style and have a right to say so and they did. So, get over it yourself.

I find your remark to Aquila as well as to other posters rude and they deserve an apology from you.

All this condescending verbose about there being no conspiracy is doing people's heads in.
Unless you know that as a FACT as clear as the sun rises in the East, then it is only your opinion, and everyone's opinion is as valid as yours.
Intellectual and democratic debate is not about putting others down to make your point.

by Guest 13.06.14 16:56

CynicalAl and Flamingboy have left the building. Warnings were ignored and the thread continually disrupted.

by endgame 13.06.14 17:00

candyfloss wrote:CynicalAl and Flamingboy have left the building. Warnings were ignored and the thread continually disrupted.

Bravo!

by Bishop Brennan 13.06.14 17:01

candyfloss wrote:CynicalAl and Flamingboy have left the building. Warnings were ignored and the thread continually disrupted.

Latest interview with Dr Amaral - copied from Joana Morais - with thanks - Page 29 Redcar10

by tiny 13.06.14 17:03

Nobody can say this site is boring,thats for sure big grin

by Garrincha 13.06.14 17:05

Glad to hear of action by admin but why did it take so long?

by ShuBob 13.06.14 17:06

So I can re-enter the thread.

Phew!

by aiyoyo 13.06.14 17:07

Bishop Brennan wrote:
candyfloss wrote:CynicalAl and Flamingboy have left the building. Warnings were ignored and the thread continually disrupted.

That is a pretty referee.

by Guest 13.06.14 17:09

Garrincha wrote:Glad to hear of action by admin but why did it take so long?

Doh............Because we have to be fair Garrincha, everyone is given a fair chance, and fair warning, it is a shame because CynicalAl did make some good points, lost in a mountain of words, but there you go, they were give a fair chance.

by Newintown 13.06.14 17:11

aiyoyo wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:
candyfloss wrote:CynicalAl and Flamingboy have left the building. Warnings were ignored and the thread continually disrupted.

That is a pretty referee.

Oh, I thought it was supposed to be CynicAl looking in the mirror, CynicAl and Flamingboy being one and the same. Duh! big grin

I'm not into football so it didn't register with me, until I read your comment.

by Guest 13.06.14 17:12

aiyoyo wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:
candyfloss wrote:CynicalAl and Flamingboy have left the building. Warnings were ignored and the thread continually disrupted.

That is a pretty referee.

I think that's candyfloss. roses

by Woofer 13.06.14 17:13

If you actually read some of his/her posts, they say nothing - its just empty verbiage from someone who doesn`t know as much as they make out - someone who probably gets off on visiting forums and showing off. He/she never once put forward rational reasons for the mystery, just battered everyone elses.

by Hicks 13.06.14 17:16

@ CynicAL, no sorry, that won't do this time. Imagine being in Mitchel's shoes for a moment. You have a reasonably good job being employed by her Majesty's government. Suddenly out of the blue the opportunity comes along to be where it's at again, in front of the camera's. Surely if you put yourself in Mitchel's head you would think to yourself...umm... wonder what millage is in this? Could be a flash in the pan, the child could be found next week and then game over.

It is highly illogical that Mitchel would jump into the unknown. I say he didn't.

by Liz Eagles 13.06.14 17:19

Hicks wrote:@ CynicAL, no sorry, that won't do this time. Imagine being in Mitchel's shoes for a moment. You have a reasonably good job being employed by her Majesty's government. Suddenly out of the blue the opportunity comes along to be where it's at again, in front of the camera's. Surely if you put yourself in Mitchel's head you would think to yourself...umm... wonder what millage is in this? Could be a flash in the pan, the child could be found next week and then game over.

It is highly illogical that Mitchel would jump into the unknown. I say he didn't.

Amazingly Clarrie left his post in the government at a salary of £70k and went to work for the McCanns at a salary of....have a guess....£70k (not paid for by the Fund of course but by anonymous benefactors).

by endgame 13.06.14 17:26

Woofer wrote:If you actually read some of his/her posts, they say nothing - its just empty verbiage from someone who doesn`t know as much as they make out - someone who probably gets off on visiting forums and showing off. He/she never once put forward rational reasons for the mystery, just battered everyone elses.

In a nutshell Woofer.

by Newintown 13.06.14 17:33

aquila wrote:
Hicks wrote:@ CynicAL, no sorry, that won't do this time. Imagine being in Mitchel's shoes for a moment. You have a reasonably good job being employed by her Majesty's government. Suddenly out of the blue the opportunity comes along to be where it's at again, in front of the camera's. Surely if you put yourself in Mitchel's head you would think to yourself...umm... wonder what millage is in this? Could be a flash in the pan, the child could be found next week and then game over.

It is highly illogical that Mitchel would jump into the unknown. I say he didn't.
Amazingly Clarrie left his post in the government at a salary of £70k and went to work for the McCanns at a salary of....have a guess....£70k (not paid for by the Fund of course but by anonymous benefactors).

It wouldn't surprise me if CM and the McCanns already knew each other as GM and CM were both involved with the Labour Party.

CM has stated that the first time he met GM was at Leicestershire Police Station and they both flew back to Portugal together the next day, what a strange meeting place, at a police station. I doubt he would say that he already knew the McCanns through their involvement in the Labour Party, that may look suspicious to a lot of people. Why Leicestershire Police Station, had CM already started his job with them and he was there with GM finding out if any evidence had been passed to the Leicestershire Police from the general public

Perhaps he took on the job whether the McCanns were innocent or found guilty of Madeleine's "disappearance" as they would need a spokesperson in either case to stop them opening their mouths and putting both feet in it and incriminating themselves, although they have done that on several occasions even with £70k a year Mitchell.

Whoever is/was paying his wages should ask for a refund.

by Liz Eagles 13.06.14 17:38

Perhaps it would be good to see Clarrie's P45 to see the date he actually left his governmental post.

by aiyoyo 13.06.14 17:48

aquila wrote:
Hicks wrote:@ CynicAL, no sorry, that won't do this time. Imagine being in Mitchel's shoes for a moment. You have a reasonably good job being employed by her Majesty's government. Suddenly out of the blue the opportunity comes along to be where it's at again, in front of the camera's. Surely if you put yourself in Mitchel's head you would think to yourself...umm... wonder what millage is in this? Could be a flash in the pan, the child could be found next week and then game over.

It is highly illogical that Mitchel would jump into the unknown. I say he didn't.
Amazingly Clarrie left his post in the government at a salary of £70k and went to work for the McCanns at a salary of....have a guess....£70k (not paid for by the Fund of course but by anonymous benefactors).

No one knows for sure who took care of his salary.
There were only reports that BK paid him initially, but later on the Fund had to fork out his pay and till now still keep him on retainer fee.

It makes no business sense for BK to pay him just to be spokesperson to McCanns; as how does benefit BK's business.
When you think about it, no normal innocent parents would pay through the nose for a PR representative either when the money can be put to good use for proper PIs instead of wasting on a mouthpiece. Gerry proves well capable of giving brilliant performances according to Kate, so why not speak for themselves.

by aiyoyo 13.06.14 17:53

aquila wrote:
Perhaps it would be good to see Clarrie's P45 to see the date he actually left his governmental post.

Do MI5 agents pay tax?
What would they state as their job - "secret service" ?
Do they have to state the nature of their secret service ?

by jeanmonroe 13.06.14 17:57

aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote:
Perhaps it would be good to see Clarrie's P45 to see the date he actually left his governmental post.

Do MI5 agents pay tax?
What would they state as their job - "secret service" ?
Do they have to state the nature of their secret service ?

If i told you that, i'd have to 'kill' ya!

by ultimaThule 13.06.14 18:02

aiyoyo wrote:
< snip >

Do MI5 agents pay tax?
What would they state as their job - "secret service" ?
Do they have to state the nature of their secret service ?

Those who are employed by MI5, MI6, etc, are classed as civil servants and, as such, income tax, national insurance, pension contrbutions etc, is deducted from their salaries at source.

by Liz Eagles 13.06.14 18:08

ultimaThule wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
< snip >

Do MI5 agents pay tax?
What would they state as their job - "secret service" ?
Do they have to state the nature of their secret service ?

Those who are employed by MI5, MI6, etc, are classed as civil servants and, as such, income tax, national insurance, pension contrbutions etc, is deducted from their salaries at source.

Clarrie was a Civil Servant and therefore would have a P45 to show what date he actually left his employment.

by aiyoyo 13.06.14 18:10

ultimaThule wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
< snip >

Do MI5 agents pay tax?
What would they state as their job - "secret service" ?
Do they have to state the nature of their secret service ?

Those who are employed by MI5, MI6, etc, are classed as civil servants and, as such, income tax, national insurance, pension contrbutions etc, is deducted from their salaries at source.

You don't say UT, and I thought the Queen does not pay tax! dude.

Log in for more topics