pap Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 No, I went on twitter and looked at #McCann and read some stuff for myself. I never referred to any one specific poster. Well, it's worth doing so. This is a woman that was labelled a vile internet troll and was the foundation of many of the stories, found dead in a hotel. She wasn't trolling anyone, just offering her opinions. The McCanns aren't even on Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 Well, it's worth doing so. This is a woman that was labelled a vile internet troll and was the foundation of many of the stories, found dead in a hotel. She wasn't trolling anyone, just offering her opinions. The McCanns aren't even on Twitter. I don't really see what you are trying to get from me? Basically I said there are some nasty people that seem to get a kick out of directing some vile stuff at people online. Do you dispute/take issue with this? I can't help but feel you are looking for deeper meaning in what was a pretty nothing comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 I don't really see what you are trying to get from me? Basically I said there are some nasty people that seem to get a kick out of directing some vile stuff at people online. Do you dispute/take issue with this? I can't help but feel you are looking for deeper meaning in what was a pretty nothing comment. Bit of research, maybe? You made the point about a Sky News reporter doorstepping some troll. The precise "troll" you meant appears to be nothing but. The issue I've got is a normally intelligent bloke parroting a headline of someone else's making, then saying he was talking about something wider anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 Bit of research, maybe? You made the point about a Sky News reporter doorstepping some troll. The precise "troll" you meant appears to be nothing but. The issue I've got is a normally intelligent bloke parroting a headline of someone else's making, then saying he was talking about something wider anyway Come on pap, it's quite clear I'm not intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 Come on pap, it's quite clear I'm not intelligent. Sorry, should have qualified. Intelligent for an art monkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 Ha art monkey. I like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 An interesting and balanced take on this tragedy by Claire Hardaker in The Guardian. She concludes: Ultimately, individuals who troll or become obsessed with conspiracy theories can be driven by many factors – boredom, loneliness, a need for validation – and we cannot discount the possibility of mental health problems. At times, their behaviour may border on loathsome, but a news team with a high-profile journalist at the helm is not the way to bring about justice. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/was-brenda-leyland-really-a-troll-mccanns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 (edited) An interesting and balanced take on this tragedy by Claire Hardaker in The Guardian. She concludes: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/was-brenda-leyland-really-a-troll-mccanns She needs to get the definition of trolling before making any assertions about those that may engage in it. Contrary to many reports, Brenda Leyland didn't send a single message to the McCanns, because the McCanns don't have Twitter. Instead, a bunch of people who detest conspiracy theories (sound familiar?) and those that engage in them set up a website to target those critical of the McCanns, naming and "shaming" those critical to the McCanns. They likely drove her to her death, helped by the compliant Sky News and Martin Brunt. Go "Team Narrative". Thank fúck no-one listens to you. Edited 6 October, 2014 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 We've reached a pretty poor state when people get sufficiently worked up over twitter/facebook/whatever comments to actually top themselves because of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 We've reached a pretty poor state when people get sufficiently worked up over twitter/facebook/whatever comments to actually top themselves because of them. Gone way beyond that at that stage. The full media circus was upon her, and she tweeted that Martin Brunt had been following her himself. Zero proof of trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 Gone way beyond that at that stage. The full media circus was upon her, and she tweeted that Martin Brunt had been following her himself. Zero proof of trolling. Fair enough, but I meant generally. I only heard the bare bones of this one on the radio earlier, but hardly a week goes by when some teenager hasn't overdosed because of online abuse or bullying. And I never understand why they don't just close their fucking facebook or twitter account and get some real friends instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 She needs to get the definition of trolling before making any assertions about those that may engage in it. Contrary to many reports, Brenda Leyland didn't send a single message to the McCanns, because the McCanns don't have Twitter. Instead, a bunch of people who detest conspiracy theories (sound familiar?) and those that engage in them set up a website to target those critical of the McCanns, naming and "shaming" those critical to the McCanns. They likely drove her to her death, helped by the compliant Sky News and Martin Brunt. Go "Team Narrative". Thank fúck no-one listens to you. Read the quote again, this time carefully: Ultimately, individuals who troll or become obsessed with conspiracy theories can be driven by many factors – boredom, loneliness, a need for validation – and we cannot discount the possibility of mental health problems. At times, their behaviour may border on loathsome, but a news team with a high-profile journalist at the helm is not the way to bring about justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 (edited) Read the quote again, this time carefully: It wasn't relevant the first time, still isn't relevant now. Your interesting and balanced take couldn't even get the definition of trolling down correctly. Neither can you, it'd seem. You've been on here countless times before and tried to depict conspiracy theorists as people who'll take their madness personal. That'll go after the families of those involved to get some truth which just isn't apparent. Doesn't it bother you a little bit that the sort of behaviour that drove Brenda Leyland to her death is basically what you've attempted to do here on several occasions? Drag someone's name through the mud in order to break them? How did you know that these people you were accusing of having mental health issues didn't actually have them? If you genuinely believe that such people are crazy and unbalanced, isn't your brand of verbose character assassination going to be potentially dangerous to your victim? Or do you just not care? Thing is, as we all know, these kind of bullies collapse when the direction of scrutiny is reversed, don't they? Not so much fun when it's your own name, I guess. Edited 6 October, 2014 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 The tragedy is that a woman has been hounded to her death by the media for expressing her opinion. No abuse was directed at The McCanns personally, and essentially the decision of a TV producer to get a cheap "hate story" out of her actions put her in the middle of a circus that she couldn't cope with. Clearly there was some kind of underlying mental health issue as she seemed to be pretty obsessive over this, but ultimately there were no direct threats - just opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 People on the Internet who are obsessed with conspiracy theories are definitely not mental. Definitely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 The tragedy is that a woman has been hounded to her death by the media for expressing her opinion. No abuse was directed at The McCanns personally, and essentially the decision of a TV producer to get a cheap "hate story" out of her actions put her in the middle of a circus that she couldn't cope with. Clearly there was some kind of underlying mental health issue as she seemed to be pretty obsessive over this, but ultimately there were no direct threats - just opinions. .... and had also committed no crimes. No real doubting her interest; the vast majority of her tweets were about the subject. There have already been some nasty little ideas dovetailing this development. Home Secretary May wants to come down on anyone that "damages democracy" (whatever the f**k that means), and we've long had the legal double standard whereby a murderer gets due process but a terrorist doesn't. The group that was set up was called McCann Hate Exposed. For whatever reason, they decided that collecting a dossier of those critical to the McCanns was an important thing to do, and went about naming and shaming. Site was taken down this week following Brenda Leyland's death. There is presently no evidence that this group is directly linked to the McCanns. "Find Madeleine" does have form for this sort of online action, though. Action against vile content was going on as long ago as 2008. http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/02/maddie-htfm-cyber-warriors-promoting.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 .... and had also committed no crimes. No real doubting her interest; the vast majority of her tweets were about the subject. There have already been some nasty little ideas dovetailing this development. Home Secretary May wants to come down on anyone that "damages democracy" (whatever the f**k that means), and we've long had the legal double standard whereby a murderer gets due process but a terrorist doesn't. The group that was set up was called McCann Hate Exposed. For whatever reason, they decided that collecting a dossier of those critical to the McCanns was an important thing to do, and went about naming and shaming. Site was taken down this week following Brenda Leyland's death. There is presently no evidence that this group is directly linked to the McCanns. "Find Madeleine" does have form for this sort of online action, though. Action against vile content was going on as long ago as 2008. http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/02/maddie-htfm-cyber-warriors-promoting.html It's a freedom of speech issue, and it's worrying that these kind of groups are being targetted when it's quite a widely held opinion that the McCanns were implicated in their daughter's disappearance. It's not like they're some radical Anarchistic sect - they're probing into a very well known case that has been in the news for the better part of a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 The tragedy is that a woman has been hounded to her death by the media for expressing her opinion. No abuse was directed at The McCanns personally, and essentially the decision of a TV producer to get a cheap "hate story" out of her actions put her in the middle of a circus that she couldn't cope with. Clearly there was some kind of underlying mental health issue as she seemed to be pretty obsessive over this, but ultimately there were no direct threats - just opinions. Exactly as I was saying. Someone on here, judging by his apoplectic (and presumably narcissistic) reaction, seems to have concluded I was talking about him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 (edited) Did this British Leyland bro actually top herself then? They didn't mention bout that on The News. Edit: RIP Edited 6 October, 2014 by Bearsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 It's a freedom of speech issue, and it's worrying that these kind of groups are being targetted when it's quite a widely held opinion that the McCanns were implicated in their daughter's disappearance. It's not like they're some radical Anarchistic sect - they're probing into a very well known case that has been in the news for the better part of a decade. Yup, freedom of speech being characterised as trolling by a mendacious media. As you say though, this is a broad issue that most people have an opinion on, and many of those people don't have favourable opinions towards the McCanns and/or the probity of the investigation. Operation Grange alone has cost over 7m of tax-payer money and hundreds of man years of effort. It's a singular amount of money for one family. The public is entitled to have an opinion. Most of them do, and judging by the activity on the #mccann hashtag today, many are alarmed at the freedom of speech implications, with some justification. This case makes a mockery of the idea of the press' role in protecting freedom of speech, regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 Exactly as I was saying. Someone on here, judging by his apoplectic (and presumably narcissistic) reaction, seems to have concluded I was talking about him... You weren't saying anything. You were quoting an author brave enough to write an article about internet trolls without actually knowing what they are. She's merely pulling the same old memes from the bag. Lonely. Bored. Mental. Bung it all onto that conspiracy theorist label, and assign it to anyone that questions anything. Fair play to you both; shining examples of our "exception-is-the-rule" age. You both present the most extreme in any group as representative of the whole, but you're no better than the simple-minded EDL racist that goes shopping worldwide for the worst Islamic extremism he can find so he can pretend it is happening in Britain. Maybe you should go on a march. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 (edited) She was obviously ashamed of what she tweeted hence the suicide. Very sad, but she was obviously a bit unstable mentally. Sky should be careful about cases like these but if you believe in freedom of speech you shouldn't have a problem with the media reporting what you say. Tweeting "‘Q ‘how long must the Mccanns suffer’ answer ‘for the rest of their miserable lives’." to a couple who have had their child kidknapped/murdered is Trolling IMO. Edited 6 October, 2014 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 6 October, 2014 Share Posted 6 October, 2014 Well, put it this way. If he'd put anything untrue in his video, he'd have had the McCanns legal team on his arse. Seriously, what is the matter with you? How is that even an argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 Seriously, what is the matter with you? How is that even an argument? It wasn't. I was responding to Gemmel's query about the reliability of Richard D Hall's film. Thanks for your contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 I do like the way Pap always references Richard D Hall's name in connection with that video, as if that name lends the film credence or gravitas. There is certainly a sense of awe when Pap drops his name. One Google search on Richard D Hall, and here's the very first search result. Ladies and gentlemen, Richard D Hall. Email sent by Richard D. Hall to Prime Minister David Cameron on 1/10/2014 Dear Mr Cameron, In your recent U.N. speech you said, "The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot and the 7/7 London attacks were staged" In this statement, regarding the 7/7 bombings you are accusing me and thousands of British people of being liars. This is a demonstrably libellous statement. I challenge you to a public debate on a subject which you have brought to light, which is, "were the London bombings a staged event?". Having made such statements, you surely should back up the statements with evidence, and then be challenged on your evidence in public. If you do not debate this issue in public and with those you accuse of being liars, then your actions are that of a dictator. I await your response, Richard D. Hall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 I know, I know. Would seem like low hanging fruit to the McCann's fearless legal team, eh? EDIT: (Did Dave ever say yes ? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 Now here's some trolling. https://twitter.com/dirndllass At this point, a weaker debater would probably try to imply that anyone supporting the McCanns is exactly the same. Let's just say there are some nasty people in the world. Scroll down a little for the "love". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 It's a freedom of speech issue, and it's worrying that these kind of groups are being targetted when it's quite a widely held opinion that the McCanns were implicated in their daughter's disappearance. It's not like they're some radical Anarchistic sect - they're probing into a very well known case that has been in the news for the better part of a decade. No its not. You are using the word targetted is a sensential way. Its one set of people who think one way probing another set of people who think in a different way. If you don't mind one set probing why have a problem with the other set doing it. Afterall they are just unmasking people, surley that shouldn't be a problem should it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 No its not. You are using the word targetted is a sensential way. Its one set of people who think one way probing another set of people who think in a different way. If you don't mind one set probing why have a problem with the other set doing it. Afterall they are just unmasking people, surley that shouldn't be a problem should it. C'mon now. They started a site called McCann Hate Exposed. It was a group of people on the Internet that deliberately collected information on targets and went after them. Nothing sensational to say that this was a targeted operation. The media have reported this entire case with a shameful degree of pre-judgment and obfuscation. The reporting around the "vile internet trolls" is just yet another example. The McCann Hate Exposed group delivered their complaints to the police on the 9th September. The OB weren't interested, so they took their dossier to the media instead. The site has been taken down since the death of Brenda Leyland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 The McCann Hate Exposed group delivered their complaints to the police on the 9th September. The OB weren't interested, so they took their dossier to the media instead. The site has been taken down since the death of Brenda Leyland. Probably worth sticking to facts Pap A spokesman for Scotland Yard said today: 'We can confirm we have received a letter and documentation on 9 September which was passed to officers from Operation Grange [the police review into Madeleine's disappearance]. 'They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family.' Detective Inspector Michael Kilkenny of the Metropolitan Police told the campaign group: 'In consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service and the McCann family, the material will now be assessed and decisions made as to what further action, if any, should be undertaken. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2777145/Police-probe-trolls-sending-hate-messages-McCanns-Detectives-investigate-given-dossier-catalogues-remarks-including-death-threats.html#ixzz3FSvDTALu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 Probably worth sticking to facts Pap A spokesman for Scotland Yard said today: 'We can confirm we have received a letter and documentation on 9 September which was passed to officers from Operation Grange [the police review into Madeleine's disappearance]. 'They are assessing its contents and consulting with the CPS and the McCann family.' Detective Inspector Michael Kilkenny of the Metropolitan Police told the campaign group: 'In consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service and the McCann family, the material will now be assessed and decisions made as to what further action, if any, should be undertaken. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2777145/Police-probe-trolls-sending-hate-messages-McCanns-Detectives-investigate-given-dossier-catalogues-remarks-including-death-threats.html#ixzz3FSvDTALu Fair enough, but I'm right up to now - and the dossier was given to the media. My point is that they've had this a month and haven't generated any arrests from it. If they do, then fair play, I'll say that the police were interested. Doubt it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 Fair enough, but I'm right up to now - and the dossier was given to the media. My point is that they've had this a month and haven't generated any arrests from it. If they do, then fair play, I'll say that the police were interested. Doubt it, though. Desperate stuff. You said (in your faux chav-speak) 'the OB weren't interested, so they took their dossier to the media instead.' This requires that you had inside knowledge that the police rejected the dossier, and that following that decision 'they' took it to 'the media'. But you know none of that, do you. You're just guessing - and making guff up to try to avoid being wrong. You must also be claiming inside knowledge of police procedures and of the investigation itself to imply that a month is long enough to deduce the police investigation's 'lack of interest'. But you don't have such knowledge. You know nothing of the sort. More generally, your vilification of the McCanns renders you absurd. No one would deny that the McCanns were highly irresponsible to leave their child alone in the way they did. But to endorse and regurgitate such a highly emotive hate campaign against them years after the event only shows that you are attracted to the story simply because of your fatal addiction to conspiracy theories. Re the quoted comments about conspiracy theorists being, in your words, 'Lonely. Bored. Mental.' (By the way, you missed out: desperately seeking validation): none of this was aimed at you, your predictably hysterical reaction notwithstanding. You are not a conspiracy theorist. You think you are, or strive your absolute best to be one, but you're not. You merrily but dully repeat; you contribute nothing. At least when a conspiracy theorist gets 'creative' and crudely turns bloody hands orange, that's contributing something. If you want to be a conspiracy theorist, you'll have to do some actual work - but you're a long way short of that. Alternatively, you could accept you're wrong (far more than) once in a while and acknowledge that. The above is a good example. Tell us you were wrong. And while you're at it - and appear to have suddenly (albeit selectively) discovered the human quality of empathy - try to summon up the basic decency to admit you were wrong to claim that Lee Rigby and his family conspired in the 'staging' of his murder. Say sorry. It's easy. The world won't collapse - even though you evidently feel yours will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 Now here's some trolling. https://twitter.com/dirndllass At this point, a weaker debater would probably try to imply that anyone supporting the McCanns is exactly the same. Let's just say there are some nasty people in the world. Scroll down a little for the "love". Sweet Jesus - there are some very disturbed people out there!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 Desperate stuff. You said (in your faux chav-speak) 'the OB weren't interested, so they took their dossier to the media instead.' This requires that you had inside knowledge that the police rejected the dossier, and that following that decision 'they' took it to 'the media'. But you know none of that, do you. You're just guessing - and making guff up to try to avoid being wrong. You must also be claiming inside knowledge of police procedures and of the investigation itself to imply that a month is long enough to deduce the police investigation's 'lack of interest'. But you don't have such knowledge. You know nothing of the sort. More generally, your vilification of the McCanns renders you absurd. No one would deny that the McCanns were highly irresponsible to leave their child alone in the way they did. But to endorse and regurgitate such a highly emotive hate campaign against them years after the event only shows that you are attracted to the story simply because of your fatal addiction to conspiracy theories. Re the quoted comments about conspiracy theorists being, in your words, 'Lonely. Bored. Mental.' (By the way, you missed out: desperately seeking validation): none of this was aimed at you, your predictably hysterical reaction notwithstanding. You are not a conspiracy theorist. You think you are, or strive your absolute best to be one, but you're not. You merrily but dully repeat; you contribute nothing. At least when a conspiracy theorist gets 'creative' and crudely turns bloody hands orange, that's contributing something. If you want to be a conspiracy theorist, you'll have to do some actual work - but you're a long way short of that. Alternatively, you could accept you're wrong (far more than) once in a while and acknowledge that. The above is a good example. Tell us you were wrong. And while you're at it - and appear to have suddenly (albeit selectively) discovered the human quality of empathy - try to summon up the basic decency to admit you were wrong to claim that Lee Rigby and his family conspired in the 'staging' of his murder. Say sorry. It's easy. The world won't collapse - even though you evidently feel yours will. Guess you don't understand the meaning of "fair enough". For the record, you're right. Apart from the complete lack of arrests in a month, I have no evidence that the OB weren't interested - and ceded that if they do arrest someone, I'll happily admit I'm wrong. So far though, no arrests. Perhaps you'd like to point to where I've vilified the McCanns before going any further, or indeed, express a view of your own instead of constantly attacking the views of others. What do you have to say about the McCanns and their unique treatment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 Sweepyface feat. MC Cann is my new DJ name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 Sweepyface feat. MC Cann is my new DJ name Masonic hard house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 7 October, 2014 Share Posted 7 October, 2014 yeah i play hard house, sadcore & death metal. Mostly sadcore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 C'mon now. They started a site called McCann Hate Exposed. It was a group of people on the Internet that deliberately collected information on targets and went after them. Nothing sensational to say that this was a targeted operation. The media have reported this entire case with a shameful degree of pre-judgment and obfuscation. The reporting around the "vile internet trolls" is just yet another example. The McCann Hate Exposed group delivered their complaints to the police on the 9th September. The OB weren't interested, so they took their dossier to the media instead. The site has been taken down since the death of Brenda Leyland. Targeting implies that a focus of attention could be directed anyway but is deliberately direct on one group. The fact that by their very existence the McC HE group are opposed to the actions of anti-McCann posters they will of course direct their focus on them. So 'targeting' is a redundant term and therefore is imo sensationalist. Anyway that's a side issue, what is your problem with the McC HE group lawfully getting together a dossier. You seem to be in favour of citizen action but not this one. The police might not find any incidents where charges can be brought but that is just one standard, the criminal one. There are other standards such as common decency, which will be tested by public opinion through the media. If you type something then you have to be prepared for it to be examined and you have to be prepared to be unmasked and stand by your comments or hold your hands up. Why do you have a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 Guess you don't understand the meaning of "fair enough". For the record, you're right. Apart from the complete lack of arrests in a month, I have no evidence that the OB weren't interested - and ceded that if they do arrest someone, I'll happily admit I'm wrong. So far though, no arrests. Perhaps you'd like to point to where I've vilified the McCanns before going any further, or indeed, express a view of your own instead of constantly attacking the views of others. What do you have to say about the McCanns and their unique treatment? Again, a mealy-mouthed, grudging admission, compounded with evident ignorance of the range of actions available to the police when considering possibly criminal behaviour. 'Arrests' are not the only benchmark of whether the 'OB' [sic] are 'interested'. By setting the benchmark that high you're fishing for a conclusion that suits you, rather than has any bearing on reality. Added to this is your depressing double-hypocrisy. A complaint from you about someone being outed sits ill with your chronic addiction to 'outing' people on here. I'm not really thinking of your silly obsession with me, but with Barry Sanchez, and that sad affair in the pub. So to be clear: you can't in good faith be obsessed with the identity of people, gleefully outing them when you have the chance, and then condemn others who do the same. Secondly, you are prepared to condemn a self-styled defence group (darkly hinting - predictable again - at a conspiracy) but not those sick-minded enough to wish slow painful deaths (etc) on the McCanns. For what it's worth, I think the Sky reporter (who did not actually name the woman nor name the village in which she lived) should not have doorstepped her; nor should other media outlets have completed the circle in identifying her and her home. The public interest defence for doing so was simply too weak. And once more: when can we expect your apology for Lee Rigby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 Again, a mealy-mouthed, grudging admission, compounded with evident ignorance of the range of actions available to the police when considering possibly criminal behaviour. 'Arrests' are not the only benchmark of whether the 'OB' [sic] are 'interested'. By setting the benchmark that high you're fishing for a conclusion that suits you, rather than has any bearing on reality. Added to this is your depressing double-hypocrisy. A complaint from you about someone being outed sits ill with your chronic addiction to 'outing' people on here. I'm not really thinking of your silly obsession with me, but with Barry Sanchez, and that sad affair in the pub. So to be clear: you can't in good faith be obsessed with the identity of people, gleefully outing them when you have the chance, and then condemn others who do the same. Secondly, you are prepared to condemn a self-styled defence group (darkly hinting - predictable again - at a conspiracy) but not those sick-minded enough to wish slow painful deaths (etc) on the McCanns. For what it's worth, I think the Sky reporter (who did not actually name the woman nor name the village in which she lived) should not have doorstepped her; nor should other media outlets have completed the circle in identifying her and her home. The public interest defence for doing so was simply too weak. And once more: when can we expect your apology for Lee Rigby? For someone that asks a lot of questions, you're not in a habit of answering many. I still feel the same way about all of the conspiracy theories I've mentioned, so expect no apology from me on any of them. That you keep bringing them up in hopes of a cheap victory on unrelated topics shows how bankrupt (one note gives you too much credit) you've become as a poster. Art imitating life? Still no view on the McCanns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 Pap still no apology re Lee Rigby from you either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 Pap still no apology re Lee Rigby from you either The only regret I have on that is timing. I'm not going to apologise for anything else. Incidentally, I don't know if you remember, but Verbal and co left that thread "out of decency". How very "decent" of them to keep bringing it up when bereft of other points. If there is anyone that should be apologising, it's those that would cynically exploit the incident in futile attempts to win unrelated mongboard arguments. This is a thread about the McCanns, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 Targeting implies that a focus of attention could be directed anyway but is deliberately direct on one group. The fact that by their very existence the McC HE group are opposed to the actions of anti-McCann posters they will of course direct their focus on them. So 'targeting' is a redundant term and therefore is imo sensationalist. Anyway that's a side issue, what is your problem with the McC HE group lawfully getting together a dossier. You seem to be in favour of citizen action but not this one. The police might not find any incidents where charges can be brought but that is just one standard, the criminal one. There are other standards such as common decency, which will be tested by public opinion through the media. If you type something then you have to be prepared for it to be examined and you have to be prepared to be unmasked and stand by your comments or hold your hands up. Why do you have a problem with that. So let's get this straight. A group of people on the Internet form up, then target a bunch of people that are critical to the McCanns, then go after them - but it's sensationalist to call their behaviour "targeting". The fact that the group's raison d'etre was targeting critics doesn't diminish that whole targeting part. In fact, it makes it worse. It's premeditated, and in many instances - quite threatening. One of the main McCann shills threatened Brenda Leyland with someone knocking at her door, and that it had happened before. We either need to accept that the whole campaign was targeted or find a new definition for sensationalism. The latter isn't as hard as you'd imagine, btw - we got a new definition for troll this week, after all. I don't have a problem with anyone collecting a dossier. It's really how that information is applied that matters. The dossier was given to the McCanns, who then inexplicably gave it to the team investigating Madeleine's disappearance. The police saw no reason to act in the month it had the information, so someone evidently saw fit to raise it through the media instead, which has already attempted to play a huge role in forming opinions on the McCanns. It is one of the most striking examples of how the media misrepresents known facts. Examples include speculation treated as fact. Almost every newspaper story about the McCanns mentions the "fact" that she was abducted, despite there being no evidence of this. Similarly, Brenda Leyland was reported to have sent her messages to the McCanns and labelled a troll, impossible as neither McCann is on the social network. We're only now seeing a couple of insightful articles exploring the question of whether she was really a troll, after the woman is dead. Almost nothing has been reported of the pro-McCann shills issuing death threats, etc. Most people can identify with this case, parents especially. The only positive arising from Brenda Leyland's death is that the very small cabal of pro-McCann opinion formers have now been exposed, so to your last point, I don't have a problem with transparency, as long as it works both ways. The ideal media would report truth no matter how uncomfortable. The uncomfortable truth is that the media have worked to protect the McCanns from proper scrutiny from 2007 to today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 Almost every joke on sickipedia about the McCanns/Maddie is based on the premise that they were responsible. And there are loads of them. That has to say something about the actual public perception of the case, or the jokes wouldn't be credible and wouldn't get scored up. It sounds to me like the lady protesting too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 The only regret I have on that is timing. I'm not going to apologise for anything else. Incidentally, I don't know if you remember, but Verbal and co left that thread "out of decency". How very "decent" of them to keep bringing it up when bereft of other points. If there is anyone that should be apologising, it's those that would cynically exploit the incident in futile attempts to win unrelated mongboard arguments. This is a thread about the McCanns, btw. Your theories about Rigby were disgusting, I think anyone is fully entitled to bring them up again to put your ramblings into context so people know who they are dealing with. In the theme of this thread I expect there is no way you would come out with these theories if challenged on national TV. Like the sad person who killed herself you only air these views under the cover of an anonymous internet avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 Your theories about Rigby were disgusting, I think anyone is fully entitled to bring them up again to put your ramblings into context so people know who they are dealing with. In the theme of this thread I expect there is no way you would come out with these theories if challenged on national TV. Like the sad person who killed herself you only air these views under the cover of an anonymous internet avatar. I seem to remember it was you that kept asking for them. Also, I've never been anonymous. Anyone on this site can find out who I am immediately. https://twitter.com/papingu I don't hide behind anonymity, nor will I ever go screaming to the mods on a Saturday night because someone has tied my posts to my identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 I seem to remember it was you that kept asking for them. Also, I've never been anonymous. Anyone on this site can find out who I am immediately. https://twitter.com/papingu I don't hide behind anonymity, nor will I ever go screaming to the mods on a Saturday night because someone has tied my posts to my identity. No, you made your usual comments implying that there was a big conspiracy (look at the hands, the hands!) so I pushed you for details because I knew they wouldn't stand any sort of scrutiny. What you came up with was one of the dumbest things I have ever read on here, and that is saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 No, you made your usual comments implying that there was a big conspiracy (look at the hands, the hands!) so I pushed you for details because I knew they wouldn't stand any sort of scrutiny. What you came up with was one of the dumbest things I have ever read on here, and that is saying something. I don't consider your opinion to be significant, so fill your boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 I don't consider your opinion to be significant, so fill your boots. Why don't you just admit you were wrong about Rigby and apologise like a man? It was one of the most open and shut murder cases I have ever read about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 8 October, 2014 Share Posted 8 October, 2014 Why don't you just admit you were wrong about Rigby and apologise like a man? It was one of the most open and shut murder cases I have ever read about. Take your anonymous troll act someplace else, aintforever. I'd suggest the thread you left out of decency. I won't be bullied into a different opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now