Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

UK paedophile probed over Madeleine

576 replies

loopylou6 · 22/05/2009 08:22

here
thoughts?

OP posts:
Rhubarb · 27/05/2009 17:28

izy, I've not read all your posts so forgive me, but your tone seems quite, well, aggressive. You are demanding things from posters. No-one has the true facts in this case, no-one was there. It's all speculation so no-one can come up with evidence. Any thread about the McCann is fraught with speculation and amateur detectives/psychologists. It's not pleasant, but this being a free country an' all, I'm afraid there is little you can do to stop the debate.

IF's post was quite concillatory. I didn't read her previous ones, but if you just read that it sounded like she was trying to placate you. Obviously failed. But try counting to 10 before you post, or, and this might be a bit of a loony idea, don't post on McCann threads if they are going to upset you.

MrsGuyOfGisbourne · 27/05/2009 17:36

Rhubarb - well said!

izyboy · 27/05/2009 17:36

Rhubarb you see you are presuming aggression because I am disagreeing with you, but infact all I am really doing is pointing out when people are assuming things.

izyboy · 27/05/2009 17:37

..and you see you will have MrsG's support because she doesn't like it when people point out that some of these assumptions may well be libelous.

scarletlilybug · 27/05/2009 17:38

"No-one has the true facts in this case, no-one was there. It's all speculation so no-one can come up with evidence." Precisely.

And it's speculation about a real family, with a real missing child. Not a film, a book or a soap opera.

izyboy · 27/05/2009 17:40

There was actually no need for FA to placate me if that is what she was doing, because she much like yourself, would be assuming that I needed it!

Rhubarb · 27/05/2009 17:44

And you, are presuming that I am presuming that you are disagreeing with me!

All this presuming is giving me a headache...

izyboy · 27/05/2009 17:46

This is the thing scarlet, speculation and assumption can lead to conclusions that are absolutely unfounded. In theory this is not harmful until placed in context.

As you say this is not a soap opera plot it is about real people - draw your own conclusions as to whether 'speculating' is immoral/libelous or not in this context

izyboy · 27/05/2009 17:48

Best to just have a lie down then Rhubarb.

izyboy · 27/05/2009 17:51

It is easy to tie yourself in knots when 'assuming', 'presuming' and 'wondering' without real conclusive 'facts' and evidence. What we do know is that nobody has been brought to trial and we should 'assume' innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

Tamarto · 27/05/2009 17:52

The way i see it is people who accuse others with very little reason, cannot moan when people question what they say, family or not.

It sits very uneasily with me that public money is being used to accuse people and name them. As people keep saying innocent until proven guilty, shame they didn't think of that when Robert Murat? was being splashed all over the press.

Shame they are not thinking about it now, especially as with the McCanns this man has been questioned already by the police and ruled out.

noddyholder · 27/05/2009 17:52

The 2 men they sent to Germany have no police powers in the UK never mind in Germany.The german police have called them clowns and timewasters after they admitted they thought Maddie had not been transported out of portugal or taken by a paedophile.What a sham.They should just press for the case to be re opened and investigated by real police not these pay as you go detectives

izyboy · 27/05/2009 18:04

Tomarto, the Mccanns, Robert Murat and the recent suspect have all suffered trial by media - they have all been treated similarly in this regard over the course of this investigation, does that make it right? This is why it is important to keep in mind that people are innocent until proven guilty in this country. Does speculation help us to remain impartial and maintain that rite?

izyboy · 27/05/2009 18:06

sorry 'right' and those are open questions, not just for you Tom.

MrsGuyOfGisbourne · 27/05/2009 18:06

Noddy - if they asked for the case to be re-opended, the police would quite legitimately ask Mrs Mac to answer those questions she refused to answer. She did admit then that refusing to answer them was hindering the search for her daughter , so apparently not in too much of a hurry for them to solve the crime.

izyboy · 27/05/2009 18:09

So when MrsM 'admits' to something this is open to more speculation, better to keep your mouth shut then.

noddyholder · 27/05/2009 18:27

I saw that she was asked whether her refusal to answer had hindered the investigation and she said yes. Why this never made the written press is beyond me I still think someone high up is protecting them

Longtalljosie · 27/05/2009 18:34

Cheer up Izy, there's nothing we can do. I've argued till I'm blue in the face on similar issues before. Oddly, it seems even if you explain that someone's clearly in breach of the law they just argue harder that they should be able to say what they want. Before blaming the media for what they've just said.

It does depress me, though, when I see things I remember were thoroughly discredited at the time popping up like fact-zombies on the internet, be they discredited studies, conspracy theories, or just invective.

I love Mumsnet but I do wonder if In The News will be the death of it someday. People just seem so determined to get it into trouble.

Longtalljosie · 27/05/2009 18:36

Well in that case noddyholder, where did you see it? Some really reputable source, I'll be bound

noddyholder · 27/05/2009 18:37

There is nothing libellous here Pure tittle tattle we are all gossipping housewives with nothing better to do

Longtalljosie · 27/05/2009 18:37

Oh - actually, if it's one of those conspiracy websites, don't post a direct link

Longtalljosie · 27/05/2009 18:38

Right - so because you're a housewife - you can't libel someone? I think I missed that on my law course.

noddyholder · 27/05/2009 18:42

I saw it on youtube along with a multitude of footage of the 2 of them umming and aahing their way through questions.The womans hour one was spectacular if you get the chance!Who made you their official spokes person they already have one of those on teh payroll.Don't read if you don't like.They are only being accused of being neglectful as far as I have read.The quote from the german head of police is on the web for all to see

MrsGuyOfGisbourne · 27/05/2009 18:47

Noddy - absolutely! Let me pour you another cuppa! And do have a biccy.
They are clearly spitting feathers desperately hoping for something libellous - but... no dice... I'm sure the media monitoring unit has been watching us tho' - they need to justify their 26k spondulicks...
BTW - Goncalo Amaral has been on TV today - wweren't they intending to 'sue' him ??

noddyholder · 27/05/2009 18:48

They will never sue him.They will come up with some BS because the day they are questioned in a court of law its game over imvho of course.