To think that today's news offers a glimmer of hope

[boringnickname]

here that Madeleine could still be alive. I have always thought the worse but this being bought up again now seems to be quite out of the blue and i can't help but hope.

I know its bad form, but i just wanted to share the glimmer

Probably scared of being Carter Rucked (sorry if already mentioned, but can't read half the posts).

Well, I don't expect a reply from Mumsnet HQ but if anyone had read my post and can enlighten me how I breached the guidelines I would be most grateful.

I just think it is incredibly unlikely that she is still alive, and I fail to understand the dogged resistance to this idea from some quarters. The likelihood she is out there somewhere waiting to be found is minuscule.

I think people are sceptical because there's an element of 'protesting too much', a lot of stuff that doesn't add up, and the parents don't come across that well in the media/interviews etc.

But this legalistic imposition is really, really not helping their cause. They would probably have heaps more sympathy if they didn't seek to stamp out any random suggestion that all wasn't as they stated at the time. It just looks so bad to be chasing the rats round with the baseball bat in this manner.

If they're telling the truth then they really could use some better media management, because so far it's been crap.

By all means do point out 'facts' and ask questions, but own the consequences of that, including admitting (if it is the case) that all that pointing and asking adds up to suggesting the McCanns had a hand in their daughter's disappearance.

The media was completely different 20-30 years ago. As you say there was no internet.

If people had "thoughts/wonderings" about those DC 20 years ago they would have been said in the pirvacy of their own homes. They would not have been plastered all over the internet on forums which are owned by someone else.

"I can't help noticing that some innocuous posts have been pulled. Why?"

HelenMN has answered that question. It is very simple.

If you post 1.anything implying the McCanns are involved in their DDs abduction or 2. anything "beyond the pale" or breaking Talk guidlines, it will be deleted.

Eldritch, we would be "more outspoken" but apparently that's not allowed on here. I pointed out a fact and asked a question which got deleted, so pointless having a go about it really. I don't believe the McCanns and I'm sure my post will be deleted for saying as much.

But Eldritch, pointing out 'facts', by which I mean linking to legitimate media sources on the public record, doesn't appear to be allowed. I have no idea what happened in this case, nor any particular opinion or suspicion. It is the way in which it has been and continues to be censored that interests me. It does smack, as I mentioned earlier, of an injunction of some sort. The rat and bat analogy applied by Flightty is a very good one.

eldritch if you put up facts or ask questions the post gets deleted..so there is no point

as for your comment as to ppl being accusatory on here...i have not seen one post that says it was x, y or z

and as for your armchair detective comments they made me laugh...if it wasnt for the likes of ppl who see discrepencies in cases and pointing them out to lawyers/ solicitors etc (look at derek bentley sister et al) they wouldnt be any quashed convictions or miscarriages of justice...

I'm genuinely not having a go, so I am sorry that is the impresson you got, bandb. I just don't like it when posters (not looking at you necessarily) are 'prepared to wound but afraid to strike' as the saying goes.

If you post 1.anything implying the McCanns are involved in their DDs abduction or 2. anything "beyond the pale" or breaking Talk guidlines, it will be deleted.

I haven't seen any postings which cover either of these points. Maybe MN HQ needs to rewrite their guidelines?

Eldritch, while I appreciate your sentiment regarding disingenuousness, neither my feelings, or yours or anyone else's have any bearing on this discussion. sure, some of us may have formed opinions on what we can see - the impressions we get from watching these people and so on. It's immaterial.

what we ought to be allowed to discuss, I think, unless they would cause any risk to the investigation etc. are the facts of the case, the content of the files and interviews. Not in terms of 'I didn't like the way he looked at the camera' or 'I think he is lying' but in terms of what was said, what could have happened, and so on.

None of us can possibly know whether these people are hiding anything or not. but the factual stuff is out there to see and therefore linking to it or commenting on it might reasonably be allowed, don't you think?

LaVolcan you haven't seen any posts hinting that the McCanns might be responsible for their DDs disappearance?? You must be reading a different thread.

Then who Eldritch? I didn't say a single accusatory thing. I mentioned things that at the time made me wonder about specific things, but I also said the site holding all the case info had overtones of seeing monsters where there were none. Pretty balanced view, not casting aspersions on anyone. I have repeatedly said I have no opinion. Yet my posts were deleted as if I had done.

This conversation right now is not even about who did it! It's about the whitewashing of even talking about. And comments even discussing this are being deleted. It's scary, disappointing, and yes, MM own their site and can keep/delete whatever content they like. But they are only doing it because of the libel, which seeks to censor any opinion outside of the purported orthodoxy of this case.

I don't understand why they won't do a reconstruction. Surely, there's a possibility it could jog a memory and if nothing else it would be publicity. If they did it, would it count as new evidence and get the case reopened?

Oops crowface I expect your post might now get deleted ...

Blimey I got deleted again

Mumsnet appears rather spooked by this all!

LaVolcan you haven't seen any posts hinting that the McCanns might be responsible for their DDs disappearance?? You must be reading a different thread.

I am not sure why you single me out here, but no I haven't seen that, so I must be reading a different thread. I have seen people say they don't know what happened, including me, and expressing bewilderment at the contradictions in the case.

For what it's worth, I think it's mighty convenient for the Government that this case is filling the papers right now. Stops people noticing a double dip recession for a starter.

Only explanation that would make any sense to me is that they feel the way the Portuguese police treated them, influenced the subsequent media portrayal in such a negative way that it would be detrimental to their cause. I mean, if people have no sympathy/dislike them then they are less likely to send donations.

lavolcan i wondered that too..i must be looking at another thread also...i remmeber when ben needham was taken and it was so sad..just like mm

but there wasnt all this censorship

I think LaVolcan that you have uncovered a whole new conspiracy theory of government smoke screening. Nice work!