Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 464 comments are related to the topic:
the McCanns recieving recieving vile internet abuse !!
the McCanns recieving recieving vile internet abuse !!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 464
|
By:
Even more strange that Mitchell could have taken 'gardening leave' but chose to resign from his job in full, to assist the McCanns.
|
|
By:
This question of why the McCann's get a hard time is an interesting one. I think it is because we are part of the internet age where people share opinions freely and those opinions help form a narrative which is at odds from the one which the press would usually seek to portray. In the old days there were few of the red flashing lights relating to the parents and so they would have had unlimited sympathy because they are photogenic, middle class, together and associated with the caring professions. People could in theory relate to them as individuals and a family unit.
The problem is this goodwill was squandered by their and especially Gerry's odd behaviour and by the simple fact that they were grossly negligent parents. People can make all the excuses they want for them but you simply don't go out night after night leaving babies especially when one of them has become traumatised by the experience. And that sadly is the one true actual fact which we have to go on at the moment. |
|
By:
if people want to carry on like parrots repeating themselves cmat for their own self satisfaction reasons berating the parents for 9 millionth time then so be it. Though I think the sane ones amongst us can agree there is very little else to add now.
|
|
By:
Well cheerio SH as I would imagine you don't want to be labelled a parrot by repeating that.
|
|
By:
true but I am replying to nonsense whilst others are repeating it
 |
|
By:
Eeternal. "Gerry's odd behaviour"? What did (or didn't) he do that was odd?
|
|
By:
oh please... not again
 |
|
By:
I'm beginning to see what SH is getting at
|
|
By:
I would consider it odd behaviour for a doctor to use profanities in front of other peoples children when they are on their way to a holiday which Gerry himself says he is not there to enjoy himself. It shows a lack of self control around children at best.
|
|
By:
Nice way for the children to start there holiday when Gerry replies to a question with a feck off in front of them all on the bus before they have even started their holiday. Who on here would use profanities in front of other peoples children. The fact that none of the other parents pulled him on his behaviour shows what an outfit this group were.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
I would expect someone to know wether a window had been opened and wooden shutters forced up. Or not.
To make a statement that this had occurred, when in fact it had not, is more than a change or correction imo. |
|
By:
With three small children inside I would suggest you would know exactly the state of windows and doors when you left the apartment and if this was a nightly occurence you would know the routine as you would have weighed up the consequencies and likelyhood of their getting out or someone getting in.
|
|
By:
Steamship 23 Nov 14 22:15
Can I just ask fellow forumites what you thought of the Crimewatch reconstruction that showed Madeline asking Kate on the morning of the disappearance "where mummy and Daddy were the night before" as she woke up crying. I cannot understand why the police felt they needed to show that to viewers as it clearly leads you to think the McCann's did something or at least makes me think it was bad leaving your children but the fact that your eldest woke up crying for you the night before and she tells you this and you do the same thing 12 hours later. Why show British viewers that? The only answer is to enhance the abduction theory. Once again, there is zero evidence to suggest that such a conversation with the child took place. It is designed to strengthen the abduction case as it is much better to be thought of as being feckless and selfish parents than anything worse. It also worth noting that this supposed conversation came to light at the same time that one of their tapas friends claims of seeing the abductor with the child was dismissed by plod. This original "sighting", fortuitously by one their mates, gave rise to the abduction hysteria. Until hard evidence is produced, this case is a disappearance and not an abduction. |
|
By:
maybe they stretched a few truths because they realised how it may have looked,a natural reaction, or maybe they just couldn't remember.
|
|
By:
maybe they stretched a few truths because they realised how it may have looked,a natural reaction, or maybe they just couldn't remember
No maybes SH they lied, pure and simple. A horrible selfish couple. |
|
By:
scandanavian_haven
24 Nov 14 17:35 maybe they stretched a few truths Superintendent Nipper - Ron, did you kill Jack McVitie? Ronnie Kray - No, I like his digestives though. |
|
By:
Make your mind up scandinavian. One minute they are squeaky clean with nothing to be ashamed of and now they are telling lies and thus potentially obstructing the investigation.
|
|
By:
I don't ever remember saying they are squeaky clean with nothing to be ashamed off.
When you change a statement, you are in your own mind making corrections, and at the same time, you don't change your evidence unless you are advised to by your representatives which they clearly must have been, when they made their initial statements, do you think after finding out they just lost a child they were thinking clearly? I think not. Obstructing evidence - maybe looking at the diabolical way in which the initial investigation was carried out and handling of the crime scene should attain more focus. Their cowboy operation botched it from the beginning. |
|
By:
i said on here at the time that i thought the whole crimewatch show pointed the finger at the macaans in a subtle way and the bloke used in the reconstruction of the irish sighting was an absolute dead ringer for gerry macaan,but others on here said it was old footage they,d seen before,it was the ist time i,d seen it
|
|
By:
You seem to be doing the same as they did. You've made a clear and unequivocal statement that they lied because they realised how it may look. Which at the very least seems to be evidence that they thought about a story, instead of thinking about what actually happened and then having thought about the story giving the most accurate story to help expedite any investigation they gave the one which would present them in the best light instead of pulling up trees in order to find their daughter.
I may be being uncharitable here but I don't feel particularly charitable to them because they left babies alone while they gave it the big one. Had they been a she and had that she been a single mum on benefits she would have been mullered for her negligence. Havng said that I do also feel very sorry for them if she has been abducted because despite what happened no parent deserves to go through their pain. |
|
By:
Only they can answer truly on why, but like I said, they must have been advised to change their statements, we can all speculate and the reasons.
and had that she been a single mum on benefits she would have been mullered for her negligence Are you actually for real? what exactly have you been reading the last few years, they've received nothing but vile bile for leaving their kids alone. This thread alone is a good reflection of it. |
|
By:
That was the point I was making earlier. People refuse to be dictated to be by the news barons and think for themselves because of the internet. My point was that a single mum would have been buried in the papers and the papers have been very supportive of the McCann's. And yet they did somethign incredibly irresponsible. That isn't a suggestion that if Maddie was indeed abducated that they deserved it. Just that they were grossly irresponsible and have got a free pass with the press.
|
|
By:
I'm not at all sure that the press's interest in this is to support the McCanns. That may have been their position initially because it sold papers.
|
|
By:
Woman from Birmingham (name not revealed for legal reasons)
Went to Oz to see her boyfriend. Left her 14 year old son in charge of the other kids. He phoned his grandparents. They phoned Social Services. Kids not left alone. Kids not in in any danger. She did it once. She got a suspended prison sentence Strange world. |
|
By:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2846183/Father-left-sick-toddler-daughter-car-outside-chemist-ran-buy-Calpol-charged-NEGLECT-spend-year-trying-clear-name.html
|
|
By:
.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2846183/Father-left-sick-toddler-daughter-car-outside-chemist-ran-buy-Calpol-charged-NEGLECT-spend-year-trying-clear-name.html |
|
By:
why posts that on here cmat, any excuse to resurrect this thread
|
|
By:
I don't need an excuse to bring a thread back.
|
|
By:
scandanavian_haven
why posts that on here cmat, any excuse to resurrect this thread Surely it's relevant to this thread. |
|
By:
You need to move on with your life cmat imo
|
|
By:
If only poor Madeleine could do the same.
|
|
By:
People will possibly get off the mccanns backs when they admit, without excuses, that they failed Maddie miserably as parents.
|
|
By:
Admit to whom?
|
|
By:
to defend a prosecution for starters.
|
|
By:
naydam
Admit to whom? Hazard a guess. |
|
By:
naydam
 |
|
By:
This is getting incredibly sad
|
|
By:
akabula • November 28, 2014 10:37 PM GMT
People will possibly get off the mccanns backs when they admit, without excuses, that they failed Maddie miserably as parents. it would help, to the world |