POTS AND KETTLES?!
They 'clearly enjoy media attention anyway.'
Are you a complete imbecile, or are you on some kind of wind up?
The McCanns are courting media attention to keep their lost daughters' profile at the forefront of everyones minds, in the hope that someone, somewhere, will recognise her image and come forward with information which will lead to her recovery.
They're not after cheap publicity to put themselves in the spotlight, they're just trying to get their kid back.
WHAT IS IT ABOUT THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND???????!!!!!!!!
The McCann's are back!
-
algarve addick
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Rather discredited, I fear
Keith,
You said in response to me
"I can't say I ever read newspapers, let alone tabloid ones"
And to RoddersUK
"When are going to stop believing in exactly what the tabloids tell you to think..? "
And to JamesW
"I think you need to take a break from reading the tabloids, they tend to blunt one's ability to see through spin"
You also said
"I said I don't read the tabloids, that doesn't mean I've never ever read a tabloid.
This about sums you up, really. Holding forth as you do with tabloid views full of insinuations that have appeared in numerous tabloids and then slagging off anyone who disagrees with you, as being taken in by the tabloids.
Anyway, you have so totally discredited yourself in this series of posts, I'll leave you alone now.
Bye for now.
You said in response to me
"I can't say I ever read newspapers, let alone tabloid ones"
And to RoddersUK
"When are going to stop believing in exactly what the tabloids tell you to think..? "
And to JamesW
"I think you need to take a break from reading the tabloids, they tend to blunt one's ability to see through spin"
You also said
"I said I don't read the tabloids, that doesn't mean I've never ever read a tabloid.
This about sums you up, really. Holding forth as you do with tabloid views full of insinuations that have appeared in numerous tabloids and then slagging off anyone who disagrees with you, as being taken in by the tabloids.
Anyway, you have so totally discredited yourself in this series of posts, I'll leave you alone now.
Bye for now.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Fantasy land
Hi Keith,
You said
"I can't say I ever read newspapers, let alone tabloid ones"
Then you say
'Ever' doesn't mean the same thing as 'never' Mr Johnson.
Best not to carry on digging.
The basic point is that you dont seem to have a clue what is in the tabloids. You give the impression, without having read them of course, that they are all in favour of the McCanns and that is what has taken in Rodders, JamesW and myself. Obviously this is totally wrong because a lot of the tabloids have been hostile to the McCanns.
Most of your response about me being angry with you is your fantasy. My first response to you on the subject was to have a good laugh at your straightlaced comments on families going on holiday together and the whole thing about swingers.
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=225530&t=225448
My second response was to take the various sections of your message, separate them out and debate whether they were correct or not.
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=225535&t=225448
I apologise if I was too blunt in my comments, but if something is complete rubbish, I tend to write that that is the case.
I note that none of your responses address my comments made in my messages, but indulge in your fantasies about why I am angry with you.
Not much point continuing with this non-debate, really!
You said
"I can't say I ever read newspapers, let alone tabloid ones"
Then you say
'Ever' doesn't mean the same thing as 'never' Mr Johnson.
Best not to carry on digging.
The basic point is that you dont seem to have a clue what is in the tabloids. You give the impression, without having read them of course, that they are all in favour of the McCanns and that is what has taken in Rodders, JamesW and myself. Obviously this is totally wrong because a lot of the tabloids have been hostile to the McCanns.
Most of your response about me being angry with you is your fantasy. My first response to you on the subject was to have a good laugh at your straightlaced comments on families going on holiday together and the whole thing about swingers.
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=225530&t=225448
My second response was to take the various sections of your message, separate them out and debate whether they were correct or not.
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=225535&t=225448
I apologise if I was too blunt in my comments, but if something is complete rubbish, I tend to write that that is the case.
I note that none of your responses address my comments made in my messages, but indulge in your fantasies about why I am angry with you.
Not much point continuing with this non-debate, really!
Re: The McCann's are back!
'Also if the McCanns had since "answered" all the questions asked by the police and still posted on the website, they would have sued the arses off the people who are running it. After all, this is their policy for all, "Unbelievers!"'
Jim Slip is incorrect here. The Portuguese police have said that there are no longer any unanswered questions, but so far the McCanns have not had a policy of suing websites. Their lawyers have apparently cautioned them against this, as website owners would in many cases not have the resources to pay any libel damages that might be awarded. Shutting websites down is also difficult, as race hate websites have often demonstrated by springing up again within 24 hours of being shut down.
Jim Slip is incorrect here. The Portuguese police have said that there are no longer any unanswered questions, but so far the McCanns have not had a policy of suing websites. Their lawyers have apparently cautioned them against this, as website owners would in many cases not have the resources to pay any libel damages that might be awarded. Shutting websites down is also difficult, as race hate websites have often demonstrated by springing up again within 24 hours of being shut down.
UK Babe Channels - <http://www.babechannels.co.uk>
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Keith - Your questions answered
Keith,
I do not know whether the McCanns were involved in the death of their daughter. Got that?
What this post is about is lies and innuendo. Got that?
Here goes.
You said
"I fail to understand how suing newspapers and police officers, using money donated by well-meaning people who thought they were funding a search fund"
I am not entirely sure but I suspect this is a lie.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 439634.ece
This link states that the McCanns do not want to use the main fund to support legal cases. They are considering setting up a legal fund for that purpose. Even if this did not happen, in my opinion it is justifiable to use donated money to bring legal cases. The Madelaine fund is there to raise money to keep the case alive. It can hardly function from a fund-raising point of view if they allow hundreds of scurrilous lies to be printed in the press e.g. the McCanns sold Maddy because they were hard up etc etc.
"A successful libel case won't do anything to bring back your missing child. These things generate publicity, but what an expensive way to go about it."
This strikes me as incorrect. If you have stories suggesting the McCanns are swingers etc, sedated their children and sold Maddy, I would have thought the McCanns would have to respond. Otherwise they would have found their position totally undermined. If you had lost a child and been crucified in the press, wouldnt you want lawyers to sue the press if they had been printing lies?
"I don't understand how seeking a ruling in the USA to render Met Police sniffer dog evidence inadmissible, something which could be used to actually trace a missing child maybe, could be a constructive thing to do."
This is a smear. You suggest that they were totally against the use of sniffer dogs. Not so, sniffer dogs were used throughout the early part of the operation. To understand more about why they did this. Read the following link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -case.html
In summary, they had been declared suspects and feared they were being fitted up by the Portuguese police.
The judge in the American case decided "that the evidence was no more reliable than "the flip of a coin" and could not be put before a jury." The McCanns lawyers believed
"But given that we understand the central plank of what the police are alleging involves sniffer dogs, this is important and relevant, and will be raised with the police and brought to the judge's attention."
If you thought you were about to be charged with a murder wouldnt you try to defend yourself?
You said
"I don't understand how failing to participate in a reconstruction or failing to answer the questions asked by the people looking for your child could be seen as anything other as obstructive and unhelpful. If Kate Mc Cann gave full and frank answers to the 48 questions then these would be in the public domain by now and we could all read them. Perhaps you have a link to them?"
YOur belief that all the McCann answers from this case are sure to be on the Internet is touchingly naive. Its a bit like saying Oh that Vanessa George case finished yesterday I'll read everything she said to the police on the web now. Really?
Secondly it is my understanding that the McCanns did not refuse to take part in the reconstruction (untelevised and due to take place a year after the event) their friends did.
With regard to this whole issue of trust between the McCanns, their friends and the Portuguese police. I would like to draw your attention to the following - obviously not the most reliable copper!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... dence.html
You said
"Lastly I don't understand why these parents don't admit some culpability for creating ideal conditions in which they could lose their child in the first place."
This is a smear and a lie. Read the following link -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6692161.stm
in it the McCanns admit that no-one could feel more guilty than they do for leaving their kids unattended. In short they clearly admit some culpability.
Separately in this thread you have made insinuations about the McCanns and their swinger friends all going together to a swinger resort.
I would be very careful in what you say. Express Newspapers paid ?550,000 damages to the McCanns for around a hundred unfounded lies and smears including
A further article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann were involved in ?swinging? or wife-swapping orgies.? Express Newspapers admitted these stories were completely untrue.
Fortunately for you, the lawyers have left websites alone. Otherwise, if you weren't too careful, your piggy bank could have been a tad empty this Xmas.
Cheers
I do not know whether the McCanns were involved in the death of their daughter. Got that?
What this post is about is lies and innuendo. Got that?
Here goes.
You said
"I fail to understand how suing newspapers and police officers, using money donated by well-meaning people who thought they were funding a search fund"
I am not entirely sure but I suspect this is a lie.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 439634.ece
This link states that the McCanns do not want to use the main fund to support legal cases. They are considering setting up a legal fund for that purpose. Even if this did not happen, in my opinion it is justifiable to use donated money to bring legal cases. The Madelaine fund is there to raise money to keep the case alive. It can hardly function from a fund-raising point of view if they allow hundreds of scurrilous lies to be printed in the press e.g. the McCanns sold Maddy because they were hard up etc etc.
"A successful libel case won't do anything to bring back your missing child. These things generate publicity, but what an expensive way to go about it."
This strikes me as incorrect. If you have stories suggesting the McCanns are swingers etc, sedated their children and sold Maddy, I would have thought the McCanns would have to respond. Otherwise they would have found their position totally undermined. If you had lost a child and been crucified in the press, wouldnt you want lawyers to sue the press if they had been printing lies?
"I don't understand how seeking a ruling in the USA to render Met Police sniffer dog evidence inadmissible, something which could be used to actually trace a missing child maybe, could be a constructive thing to do."
This is a smear. You suggest that they were totally against the use of sniffer dogs. Not so, sniffer dogs were used throughout the early part of the operation. To understand more about why they did this. Read the following link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -case.html
In summary, they had been declared suspects and feared they were being fitted up by the Portuguese police.
The judge in the American case decided "that the evidence was no more reliable than "the flip of a coin" and could not be put before a jury." The McCanns lawyers believed
"But given that we understand the central plank of what the police are alleging involves sniffer dogs, this is important and relevant, and will be raised with the police and brought to the judge's attention."
If you thought you were about to be charged with a murder wouldnt you try to defend yourself?
You said
"I don't understand how failing to participate in a reconstruction or failing to answer the questions asked by the people looking for your child could be seen as anything other as obstructive and unhelpful. If Kate Mc Cann gave full and frank answers to the 48 questions then these would be in the public domain by now and we could all read them. Perhaps you have a link to them?"
YOur belief that all the McCann answers from this case are sure to be on the Internet is touchingly naive. Its a bit like saying Oh that Vanessa George case finished yesterday I'll read everything she said to the police on the web now. Really?
Secondly it is my understanding that the McCanns did not refuse to take part in the reconstruction (untelevised and due to take place a year after the event) their friends did.
With regard to this whole issue of trust between the McCanns, their friends and the Portuguese police. I would like to draw your attention to the following - obviously not the most reliable copper!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... dence.html
You said
"Lastly I don't understand why these parents don't admit some culpability for creating ideal conditions in which they could lose their child in the first place."
This is a smear and a lie. Read the following link -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6692161.stm
in it the McCanns admit that no-one could feel more guilty than they do for leaving their kids unattended. In short they clearly admit some culpability.
Separately in this thread you have made insinuations about the McCanns and their swinger friends all going together to a swinger resort.
I would be very careful in what you say. Express Newspapers paid ?550,000 damages to the McCanns for around a hundred unfounded lies and smears including
A further article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann were involved in ?swinging? or wife-swapping orgies.? Express Newspapers admitted these stories were completely untrue.
Fortunately for you, the lawyers have left websites alone. Otherwise, if you weren't too careful, your piggy bank could have been a tad empty this Xmas.
Cheers
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Get anger management Mr Johnson
Dear Keith,
In order to give yourself a break from psycho-analysing me, I have answered your questions.
I apologise in advance if the use of words such as lie and innuendo offend your tender sensibility.
This is my last word on this thread.
I have spent more than enough time on you today, wouldnt you agree?
CHeers
In order to give yourself a break from psycho-analysing me, I have answered your questions.
I apologise in advance if the use of words such as lie and innuendo offend your tender sensibility.
This is my last word on this thread.
I have spent more than enough time on you today, wouldnt you agree?
CHeers