the McCanns

[Verbal]

I've left the crap out at the top but I think this is probably libel.

 

I know you can't justify these claims, so it's just unsubstantiated defamation. Congrats on that.

 

It's certainly not libel, and absolutely not unsubstantiated. The broader point though is that the sheer volume of crap about the McCanns out there on the net is only there because of the obsessive, malevolent scribblings of conspiracy theorists. Just as with Lee Rigby, the Boston bombing, 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Holocaust, and any other public tragedy in which people have lost their lives, these conspiracy theorists will trample over anyone, especially the victims, in claiming their bizarre theories. You in particular have no hesitation in doing this with your Lee Rigby guff. It's why I keep asking you to apologise. It's a relevant question on any conspiracy thread - and this is, above all, a conspiracy thread.

 

So: do you stand by the 'no blood Bazza' claim? Do you want to apologise for your Lee Rigby claims?

 

Conspiracy theories by their nature lead their adherents into some very dark places of their own making. It would be far better, as I said earlier, for you to take a break and get some fresh air. And far, better, don't you think, just on the off-chance that the McCanns are completely innocent of the awful charge of murder, that you and the rest of your 'theorists' leave them the **** alone?

[pap]

It's certainly not libel, and absolutely not unsubstantiated. The broader point though is that the sheer volume of crap about the McCanns out there on the net is only there because of the obsessive, malevolent scribblings of conspiracy theorists. Just as with Lee Rigby, the Boston bombing, 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Holocaust, and any other public tragedy in which people have lost their lives, these conspiracy theorists will trample over anyone, especially the victims, in claiming their bizarre theories. You in particular have no hesitation in doing this with your Lee Rigby guff. It's why I keep asking you to apologise. It's a relevant question on any conspiracy thread - and this is, above all, a conspiracy thread.

 

So: do you stand by the 'no blood Bazza' claim? Do you want to apologise for your Lee Rigby claims?

 

Conspiracy theories by their nature lead their adherents into some very dark places of their own making. It would be far better, as I said earlier, for you to take a break and get some fresh air. And far, better, don't you think, just on the off-chance that the McCanns are completely innocent of the awful charge of murder, that you and the rest of your 'theorists' leave them the **** alone?

You have just called me a Holocaust denier by association. I defy you to produce evidence, anywhere, to support that allegation. Reduced to libellous name calling. Top stuff.

[buctootim]

I've left the crap out at the top but I think this is probably libel.

 

No thats not libel. Writing that these people with their lives destroyed are crisis actors, thats libel.

 

[Verbal]

You have just called me a Holocaust denier by association. I defy you to produce evidence, anywhere, to support that allegation. Reduced to libellous name calling. Top stuff.

 

I said you were flirting with it, which you were. One of your character flaws is an inability to read sufficiently attentively. On the question of libel, I wonder if you appreciate the absurd irony of accusing me of libel while you happily do so with the McCanns (they have won every libel case they've taken out where newspapers have claimed they've had any responsibility for the murder of their own child). And you also are content to libel me and now others with claims that I/we are paid against of the state, all sent along to disrupt you (good grief, get a grip of your deluded self). You've also libelled the family of Lee Rigby, the 'crisis actors' in his killing and the crisis actors in Boston. There's no end to the libels you're prepared to commit in order to feed your obsessive fantasies.

 

So I ask again: do you apologise for your claims on the Lee Rigby thread?

[pap]

I said you were flirting with it, which you were. One of your character flaws is an inability to read sufficiently attentively. On the question of libel, I wonder if you appreciate the absurd irony of accusing me of libel while you happily do so with the McCanns (they have won every libel case they've taken out where newspapers have claimed they've had any responsibility for the murder of their own child). And you also are content to libel me and now others with claims that I/we are paid against of the state, all sent along to disrupt you (good grief, get a grip of your deluded self). You've also libelled the family of Lee Rigby, the 'crisis actors' in his killing and the crisis actors in Boston. There's no end to the libels you're prepared to commit in order to feed your obsessive fantasies.

 

So I ask again: do you apologise for your claims on the Lee Rigby thread?

You cannot even support that accusation.

 

Still libel.

[Bearsy]

Pap backs so many long-shots that sooner or later he's gonna get one right. When it turns out that George Bush bombed the trade centres or the moon doesn't exist or whatever it was, he's gonna rub his self in all ur collective faces, which will be forever slick with sticky egg type substances.

 

I look forward to this day! Keep fighting the good fight, mad-papster!

[CB Fry]

I said you were flirting with it, which you were. One of your character flaws is an inability to read sufficiently attentively. On the question of libel, I wonder if you appreciate the absurd irony of accusing me of libel while you happily do so with the McCanns (they have won every libel case they've taken out where newspapers have claimed they've had any responsibility for the murder of their own child). And you also are content to libel me and now others with claims that I/we are paid against of the state, all sent along to disrupt you (good grief, get a grip of your deluded self). You've also libelled the family of Lee Rigby, the 'crisis actors' in his killing and the crisis actors in Boston. There's no end to the libels you're prepared to commit in order to feed your obsessive fantasies.

 

So I ask again: do you apologise for your claims on the Lee Rigby thread?

In fairness I am being paid by the Government to post on here, specifically to destabilise Pap. Well, I say Government, its just agency work. I guess it's the Government originally.

 

Anyway, it is a nice little sideline for me. Should pay for a family holiday in Croatia next year. And it's looking like it's opened a few doors. Adecco have come back to me with a couple of new job offers. One is hounding out a Jew-conspiracy pro-gun lobby nut from a popular Carp Fishing forum. Decent money, although I need to learn a bit about competition angling first.

[buctootim]

In fairness I am being paid by the Government to post on here, specifically to destabilise Pap. Well, I say Government, its just agency work. I guess it's the Government originally.

 

Anyway, it is a nice little sideline for me. Should pay for a family holiday in Croatia next year. And it's looking like it's opened a few doors. Adecco have come back to me with a couple of new job offers. One is hounding out a Jew-conspiracy pro-gun lobby nut from a popular Carp Fishing forum. Decent money, although I need to learn a bit about competition angling first.

 

[sadoldgit]

Are they suspects now?

 

I mean, I'm just ignorant and you work for the CPS and everything, so you must know this stuff.

 

Are they suspects now?

 

I think, without doubt, you are the most objectional poster on here (and you have some competition). I pity you. You seem to get some sort of pleasure out of slagging people off on an internet forum. Clearly you have no life.

 

Further to your question, they have been suspects and there is nothing stopping them becoming suspects again. The very fact that they left three young children in an apartment alone tells you something about what kind of people they are, but you seem to have no problem with that do you?

 

Still, child abductors walk into unlocked houses and take children all the time don't they so of course the McCanns are blameless.

 

Dribblers. How old are you?

[sadoldgit]

MCCANNS 'ARE HIDING A BIG SECRET'

 

Sunday October 28 2007

 

By John Stalker

 

 

 

I have watched the investigation into the Madeleine McCann case drag on for six months.

 

 

 

One thing above all worries me: Why have the McCanns and the seven other members of their group - the Tapas Nine - remained so silent? My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up.

 

 

 

Unlike other high-profile cases I have worked on, not one of them has been prepared to break ranks or really come out and support each other. After all this time and pressure, I cannot believe that nobody wants to speak.

 

 

 

Their answer has always been no comment but there is surely some division between them. So what are they hiding? I have a real suspicion that we are not being told the whole truth.

 

 

 

There is something else there, some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about.

 

 

 

While they continue to refuse to talk it is unlikely that we will find out what it is for a very long time but one thing is certain - it will eventually come out.

 

 

 

The sad fact is that we still have a missing girl and I believe the investigation will be focusing on the theory that she is dead.

 

 

 

The likeliest scenario is that her abductor panicked when he realised the attention the case was creating and killed her days after snatching her.

 

 

 

My fear now is that unless we find her body or her killer strikes again we will never know what really happened to that tiny child.

 

 

 

My instinct, based on years of policing similar cases, is that we are looking at an abduction where the child was targeted in the days before her disappearance.

 

 

 

On the night she vanished it is likely that her abductor simply spotted his opportunity and struck while he could.

 

 

 

I have been horrified by the abject failure of the Portuguese detectives to adhere to basic principles of policing.

 

 

 

The investigation does not seem to have taken a step forward from where it was in the first week after she went missing. I cannot believe that the Portuguese only sent selected DNA samples to the forensic science lab in Birmingham.

 

 

 

There is absolutely no sense in that whatsoever. To fully evaluate poor-quality DNA traces, as we believe these were, forensic experts need to see the whole picture.

 

 

 

In the past, when I have dealt with traces of bodily fluids, it is very difficult to establish how they got to be where they were.

 

 

 

All DNA is highly transferable and that is the most likely explanation for the alleged traces found in the McCanns' hire car and on her mother's clothing. Robert Murat, the other suspect, was seen close to the apartment the day after Madeleine disappeared and freely admits having helped police as a translator.

 

 

 

If he was in that apartment, or anywhere near it, ther is no doubt he would have transferred some of Madeleine's or the twins' DNA on to his clothing.

 

 

 

I don't believe for one minute that Kate and Gerry McCann or their friends are capable or guilty of having murdered the four-year-old.

 

 

 

All the criticism of Kate and Gerry and their friends has been completely out of order. They are extremely intelligent and articulate people and, just because they have never visibly cracked in public to the extent that they are beaten, does not mean that they are guilty of anything sinister.

 

 

 

Yes, they have had more doors opened for them than other people would have in similar circumstances, but their main aim is to discover what happened to Madeleine. That should be the aim of all concerned.

 

 

 

But my gut instinct still forces me to wonder: What is the secret that the Tapas Nine are so carefully hiding?

 

 

 

This is what Stalker had to say a few months after the incident. You dont have to be a genius to work out that he thinks that there is something not quite right here. He is being careful in what he says. For example, how many child abductors would walk into an apartment thinking that there would be children alone there. Unless they have intel that the parents were not home it just is very unlikely to happen. Although he is supportive of the McCanns at that point, this was way before the stories started coming out and showed cracks. I have been looking for something more recent from him but no joy so far.

[CB Fry]

I think, without doubt, you are the most objectional poster on here (and you have some competition). I pity you. You seem to get some sort of pleasure out of slagging people off on an internet forum. Clearly you have no life.

 

Further to your question, they have been suspects and there is nothing stopping them becoming suspects again. The very fact that they left three young children in an apartment alone tells you something about what kind of people they are, but you seem to have no problem with that do you?

 

Still, child abductors walk into unlocked houses and take children all the time don't they so of course the McCanns are blameless.

 

Dribblers. How old are you?

 

They are not suspects now. They won't be in a years time, or in five years time.

 

You and your little scumbag community can carry on spreading lies, misquotations and general hate about them, but none of it will change that fact.

 

And please do point me in the direction of a quote from me about my opinion of how and why they left their children that night for you to come to you little conclusion I have "no problem with it".

 

But that's how you work, isn't it? A lie, an assumption, a judgement. Based on f uck all.

 

Yeah, carry on. Call me objectionable. I see what you do and need no approval from your sort.

[buctootim]

....."I don't believe for one minute that Kate and Gerry McCann or their friends are capable or guilty of having murdered the four-year-old.

 

All the criticism of Kate and Gerry and their friends has been completely out of order. They are extremely intelligent and articulate people and, just because they have never visibly cracked in public to the extent that they are beaten, does not mean that they are guilty of anything sinister."

 

Which part of that is not categoric enough for you?

Edited 19 October, 2014 by buctootim
doh

[CB Fry]

You've 'inadvertently' left out the rest of that same interview SOG. It goes on:

 

" I don’t believe for one minute that Kate and Gerry McCann or their friends are capable or guilty of having murdered the four-year-old.

 

All the criticism of Kate and Gerry and their friends has been completely out of order. They are extremely intelligent and articulate people and, just because they have never visibly cracked in public to the extent that they are beaten, does not mean that they are guilty of anything sinister.

 

Yes, they have had more doors opened for them than other people would have in similar circumstances, but their main aim is to discover what happened to Madeleine. That should be the aim of all concerned."

In fairness he left in the bit about Stalker saying he thinks the child was abducted. Which is kinda what the McCanns think. But SOG in his world of "things that don't add up" skimmed over that bit.

[buctootim]

In fairness he left in the bit about Stalker saying he thinks the child was abducted. Which is kinda what the McCanns think. But SOG in his world of "things that don't add up" skimmed over that bit.

 

Yep, I didn't read his whole post and thought wrongly he had used the shorter misrepresentative version which appeared in the Daily Mail, thereby changing the whole sense of the piece.

[hutch]

In the interest of balance, I don't think many people actually think that the McCanns or their tapas friends actually murdered Madeleine, just that they know more about what happened to her than they are letting on. Stalker doesn't say anything (in the quoted parts) to dispel that.

[buctootim]

In the interest of balance, I don't think many people actually think that the McCanns or their tapas friends actually murdered Madeleine, just that they know more about what happened to her than they are letting on. Stalker doesn't say anything (in the quoted parts) to dispel that.

 

I think there i more than a touch of this involved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis . People aren't good at accepting tragedy without someone to blame. There is also an element of some people wanting more public weeping by the McCanns, the middle class professional stiff upper lip didnt play well with them

[CB Fry]

In the interest of balance, I don't think many people actually think that the McCanns or their tapas friends actually murdered Madeleine, just that they know more about what happened to her than they are letting on. Stalker doesn't say anything (in the quoted parts) to dispel that.

I think I direct my derision at the bright sparks droning on about cadaver dogs etc suggesting at least one of K or G know for a fact she's dead.

[pap]

In the interest of balance, I don't think many people actually think that the McCanns or their tapas friends actually murdered Madeleine, just that they know more about what happened to her than they are letting on. Stalker doesn't say anything (in the quoted parts) to dispel that.

Precisely, and in line with the team of detectives that decided to name them as arguidos. The usual process for determining guilt or innocence was avoided. This is why I don't understand the implicit resistance to a trial from those that assure us there is no evidence.

 

Over 10m of taxpayers money has been spent on an investigation that has yielded nowt. Cost can no longer be a consideration.

[CB Fry]

Precisely, and in line with the team of detectives that decided to name them as arguidos. The usual process for determining guilt or innocence was avoided. This is why I don't understand the implicit resistance to a trial from those that assure us there is no evidence.

 

Over 10m of taxpayers money has been spent on an investigation that has yielded nowt. Cost can no longer be a consideration.

 

They're going on trial for what, exactly? Not sure that "Knowing more than they are letting on" is not, in itself, something you can go on trial for. Of course I don't work for the CPS like SOG does so what do I know?

 

All this evidence we apparently have points to what exactly?

[pap]

They're going on trial for what, exactly? Not sure that "Knowing more than they are letting on" is not, in itself, something you can go on trial for. Of course I don't work for the CPS like SOG does so what do I know?

 

All this evidence we apparently have points to what exactly?

Whatever charges the PJ decided to bring after the outcome of a completed investigation. I agree with you that the status quo makes the precise charge difficult to find. However, in other cases where kids are missing and death is a possibility, investigators will typically work until they know one what the charge is and whether a case can be brought to trial.

 

The case files show that the both the investigation was deliberately hampered throughout, especially when it came to questions that may implicate the McCanns.

 

As a parent, I still can't get past Kate's refusal to answer those 48 questions. I'm not trying to assert that of proof of anything, just that I do not understand the decision to choose self-preservation over information that could save her child's life.

Edited 19 October, 2014 by pap

[aintforever]

 

As a parent, I still can't get past Kate's refusal to answer those 48 questions. I'm not trying to assert that of proof of anything, just that I do not understand the decision to choose self-preservation over information that could save her child's life.

 

She refused to answer those questions because the mickey mouse police force who failed to find her daughter tried to pin it on her.

 

Which questions out of the ones asked would have saved her child's life?

[aintforever]

MCCANNS 'ARE HIDING A BIG SECRET'

 

Sunday October 28 2007

 

By John Stalker

 

 

 

I have watched the investigation into the Madeleine McCann case drag on for six months.

 

 

 

One thing above all worries me: Why have the McCanns and the seven other members of their group - the Tapas Nine - remained so silent? My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up.

 

 

 

Unlike other high-profile cases I have worked on, not one of them has been prepared to break ranks or really come out and support each other. After all this time and pressure, I cannot believe that nobody wants to speak.

 

 

 

Their answer has always been no comment but there is surely some division between them. So what are they hiding? I have a real suspicion that we are not being told the whole truth.

 

 

 

There is something else there, some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about.

 

 

 

While they continue to refuse to talk it is unlikely that we will find out what it is for a very long time but one thing is certain - it will eventually come out.

 

 

 

The sad fact is that we still have a missing girl and I believe the investigation will be focusing on the theory that she is dead.

 

 

 

The likeliest scenario is that her abductor panicked when he realised the attention the case was creating and killed her days after snatching her.

 

 

 

My fear now is that unless we find her body or her killer strikes again we will never know what really happened to that tiny child.

 

 

 

My instinct, based on years of policing similar cases, is that we are looking at an abduction where the child was targeted in the days before her disappearance.

 

 

 

On the night she vanished it is likely that her abductor simply spotted his opportunity and struck while he could.

 

 

 

I have been horrified by the abject failure of the Portuguese detectives to adhere to basic principles of policing.

 

 

 

The investigation does not seem to have taken a step forward from where it was in the first week after she went missing. I cannot believe that the Portuguese only sent selected DNA samples to the forensic science lab in Birmingham.

 

 

 

There is absolutely no sense in that whatsoever. To fully evaluate poor-quality DNA traces, as we believe these were, forensic experts need to see the whole picture.

 

 

 

In the past, when I have dealt with traces of bodily fluids, it is very difficult to establish how they got to be where they were.

 

 

 

All DNA is highly transferable and that is the most likely explanation for the alleged traces found in the McCanns' hire car and on her mother's clothing. Robert Murat, the other suspect, was seen close to the apartment the day after Madeleine disappeared and freely admits having helped police as a translator.

 

 

 

If he was in that apartment, or anywhere near it, ther is no doubt he would have transferred some of Madeleine's or the twins' DNA on to his clothing.

 

 

 

I don't believe for one minute that Kate and Gerry McCann or their friends are capable or guilty of having murdered the four-year-old.

 

 

 

All the criticism of Kate and Gerry and their friends has been completely out of order. They are extremely intelligent and articulate people and, just because they have never visibly cracked in public to the extent that they are beaten, does not mean that they are guilty of anything sinister.

 

 

 

Yes, they have had more doors opened for them than other people would have in similar circumstances, but their main aim is to discover what happened to Madeleine. That should be the aim of all concerned.

 

 

 

But my gut instinct still forces me to wonder: What is the secret that the Tapas Nine are so carefully hiding?

 

 

 

This is what Stalker had to say a few months after the incident. You dont have to be a genius to work out that he thinks that there is something not quite right here. He is being careful in what he says. For example, how many child abductors would walk into an apartment thinking that there would be children alone there. Unless they have intel that the parents were not home it just is very unlikely to happen. Although he is supportive of the McCanns at that point, this was way before the stories started coming out and showed cracks. I have been looking for something more recent from him but no joy so far.

 

It's obvious he is pretty certain the McCanns didn't do it.

[aintforever]

In the interest of balance, I don't think many people actually think that the McCanns or their tapas friends actually murdered Madeleine, just that they know more about what happened to her than they are letting on. Stalker doesn't say anything (in the quoted parts) to dispel that.

 

"Their answer has always been no comment but there is surely some division between them. So what are they hiding? I have a real suspicion that we are not being told the whole truth.

 

There is something else there, some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about."

 

You don't have to be Sherlock f*cking Holmes, this is a bunch of people who left their kids alone and went out on the p!ss. They are obviously not saying everything because they don't want to be charged with child negligence. I wouldn't be surprised if none of the trips to check up on the kids actually happened and whilst Madeline was being abducted Kate was noshing off one of the tapas 7 in the bogs.

[CB Fry]

Whatever charges the PJ decided to bring after the outcome of a completed investigation. I agree with you that the status quo makes the precise charge difficult to find. However, in other cases where kids are missing and death is a possibility, investigators will typically work until they know one what the charge is and whether a case can be brought to trial.

 

The case files show that the both the investigation was deliberately hampered throughout, especially when it came to questions that may implicate the McCanns.

 

As a parent, I still can't get past Kate's refusal to answer those 48 questions. I'm not trying to assert that of proof of anything, just that I do not understand the decision to choose self-preservation over information that could save her child's life.

As a parent, if I was being accused of being involved in my own daughters abduction and/or death, I would take legal advice and if that advice told me to not answer questions I would do just that.

[CB Fry]

"Their answer has always been no comment but there is surely some division between them. So what are they hiding? I have a real suspicion that we are not being told the whole truth.

 

There is something else there, some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about."

 

You don't have to be Sherlock f*cking Holmes, this is a bunch of people who left their kids alone and went out on the p!ss. They are obviously not saying everything because they don't want to be charged with child negligence. I wouldn't be surprised if none of the trips to check up on the kids actually happened and whilst Madeline was being abducted Kate was noshing off one of the tapas 7 in the bogs.

This is pretty much the size of it.

[pap]

She refused to answer those questions because the mickey mouse police force who failed to find her daughter tried to pin it on her.

 

That's not remotely reasonable, unless you're using the fact that no-one eventually got charged as your evidence.

 

I remember reading articles from the time. I saw the smears against the PJ, the attempts to make them look like keystone cops - but beyond vague and tired accusations of the Portuguese plod being feckless Mediterranean types looking for an instant result, I never saw anything more concrete. Are you saying that there is evidence that the PJ tried to frame the McCanns?

 

Which questions out of the ones asked would have saved her child's life?

 

Interesting question.

 

I think you have a valid technical point. At that point, the Portuguese cops had her well in the frame for knowing something; most of the questions centre on discrepancies or gaps in her initial accounts, a bit of background knowledge and her reactions to the sniffer dog evidence. Being cynical about those questions, I'd say that a few of them were designed to make her look bad. The information about timing, search parties, medical conditions and/or medication is all directly relevant to the search. The rest is clearly geared at resolving the differences in her accounts and catching her out.

 

There's a "but" after the next quote.

 

As a parent, if I was being accused of being involved in my own daughters abduction and/or death, I would take legal advice and if that advice told me to not answer questions I would do just that.

 

Even if you knew you were innocent and had the heavyweight support of your government back home?

 

Under those circumstances, you'd have a degree of confidence that there would not be any evidence on you. Even if PC Johnny Foreigner were thinking of fitting you up, the degree of support and scrutiny would make it difficult to stick. Your main problem isn't being accused. It's that no-one is out searching. If it were me, I'd answer all of those questions to get it out of the way and re-focus efforts on a search, even at the risk of getting fitted up.

 

To aintforever's earlier point about the relevance of the questions to the search, while few were directly relevant - the PJ were unlikely to resume searching when Kate was being questioned as an arguido in custody, so in that sense, they're all relevant.

[aintforever]

That's not remotely reasonable, unless you're using the fact that no-one eventually got charged as your evidence.

 

I remember reading articles from the time. I saw the smears against the PJ, the attempts to make them look like keystone cops - but beyond vague and tired accusations of the Portuguese plod being feckless Mediterranean types looking for an instant result, I never saw anything more concrete. Are you saying that there is evidence that the PJ tried to frame the McCanns?

 

John Stalker: "I have been horrified by the abject failure of the Portuguese detectives to adhere to basic principles of policing."

[pap]

John Stalker: "I have been horrified by the abject failure of the Portuguese detectives to adhere to basic principles of policing."

That is a long way from evidence of fitting up.

[Gemmel]

pap - genuine question.

 

Is there any major event within the last 15 years that you believe to be a genuine situation, with no political interference, skulduggery or duping from any third party?

[CB Fry]

That is a long way from evidence of fitting up.

If there's one thing Pap swears by, it's evidence.

[aintforever]

That is a long way from evidence of fitting up.

 

No but it's a valid reason why Kate McCann would not answer their questions when they were accusing her of killing her own daughter.

 

The portuguese police are a joke and they obviously didn't like the McCanns making this aware to a worldwide audience. Plus there is the locals wanting rid of them because of the effect on tourism. I wouldn't be surprised if that dog evidence was just made up to get shot of them - if it was then it worked.

[pap]

pap - genuine question.

 

Is there any major event within the last 15 years that you believe to be a genuine situation, with no political interference, skulduggery or duping from any third party?

 

Interesting question, Gemmel.

 

I don't really want to use this thread to widen discussion into other areas, particularly other topics that people might consider to be conspiracy theories, but I did spend some time considering your question and can't really provide a complete response without providing a couple of examples from the news. The proposed action in Syria last year is one, if only because we're taking such a different course now. We were told that Assad was definitely responsible, that we had to go in and prop up the rebels that were currently fighting Assad's forces. A year later, we're sending planes in to bomb the same people the likes of William Hague advocated fighting beside, AFTER we got special dispensation for the EU to flog them arms. There was no evidence that Assad ordered the chemical attacks, and as was said at the time, it made no sense for him to order them. The US had already flagged chemical weapons attacks as a red line ahead of time, Assad was winning. The only thing his regime had to gain by orchestrating the attacks was international condemnation and/or action.

 

Zoom back to 2003, and it's a depressingly similar situation. Military action being called for on the back of unproven and/or disputed evidence, with the whole thing turning out to be a lie afterward. That's over a million people dead as a result, most moral authority lost into the bargain. 2014. Western media tells the world that MH370 has crashed in the sea, based on no evidence. Tells the world that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces, again without credible evidence.

 

 

We live in an age where presentation beats evidence. Even open campaigns like referenda are run with a huge degree of spin and skulduggery, so it's not like you need to put on a tinfoil hat to see evidence of a controlled and biased media.

 

Personally, I reckon every news story is worth whacking through the bullshít and agenda filter.

[hypochondriac]

Interesting question, Gemmel.

 

I don't really want to use this thread to widen discussion into other areas, particularly other topics that people might consider to be conspiracy theories, but I did spend some time considering your question and can't really provide a complete response without providing a couple of examples from the news. The proposed action in Syria last year is one, if only because we're taking such a different course now. We were told that Assad was definitely responsible, that we had to go in and prop up the rebels that were currently fighting Assad's forces. A year later, we're sending planes in to bomb the same people the likes of William Hague advocated fighting beside, AFTER we got special dispensation for the EU to flog them arms. There was no evidence that Assad ordered the chemical attacks, and as was said at the time, it made no sense for him to order them. The US had already flagged chemical weapons attacks as a red line ahead of time, Assad was winning. The only thing his regime had to gain by orchestrating the attacks was international condemnation and/or action.

 

Zoom back to 2003, and it's a depressingly similar situation. Military action being called for on the back of unproven and/or disputed evidence, with the whole thing turning out to be a lie afterward. That's over a million people dead as a result, most moral authority lost into the bargain. 2014. Western media tells the world that MH370 has crashed in the sea, based on no evidence. Tells the world that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces, again without credible evidence.

 

 

We live in an age where presentation beats evidence. Even open campaigns like referenda are run with a huge degree of spin and skulduggery, so it's not like you need to put on a tinfoil hat to see evidence of a controlled and biased media.

 

Personally, I reckon every news story is worth whacking through the bullshít and agenda filter.

 

You didn't answer the question, all you did is give some examples of conspiracies.

[pap]

You didn't answer the question, all you did is give some examples of conspiracies.

 

I gave an answer to the question if you read between the lines. If everything is worth putting through a bullshít agenda filter, then everything is worth questioning.

 

If Gemmel's question is "has there ever been a news story that you believe is 100% accurate and a proper account of the truth", then generally, and especially on the big stuff, it's a no. That's not to say that these accounts are worthless, but at the same time, neither should they be pored over like they've arrived in tablet form, fresh from Mount Sinai.

[hypochondriac]

I gave an answer to the question if you read between the lines. If everything is worth putting through a bullshít agenda filter, then everything is worth questioning.

 

If Gemmel's question is "has there ever been a news story that you believe is 100% accurate and a proper account of the truth", then generally, and especially on the big stuff, it's a no. That's not to say that these accounts are worthless, but at the same time, neither should they be pored over like they've arrived in tablet form, fresh from Mount Sinai.

 

So your answer to the question:

 

 

Is there any major event within the last 15 years that you believe to be a genuine situation, with no political interference, skulduggery or duping from any third party?

 

Is no. No wonder you think everything is a conspiracy! Do you realise how strange that makes you come across?

 

[Whitey Grandad]

So your answer to the question:

 

 

Is there any major event within the last 15 years that you believe to be a genuine situation, with no political interference, skulduggery or duping from any third party?

 

Is no. No wonder you think everything is a conspiracy! Do you realise how strange that makes you come across?

 

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that there's a conspiracy but everybody manipulates the media to their own ends, including the media themselves. Take everything with a pinch of salt and try to see the angle that they're coming from.

[sadoldgit]

....."I don't believe for one minute that Kate and Gerry McCann or their friends are capable or guilty of having murdered the four-year-old.

 

All the criticism of Kate and Gerry and their friends has been completely out of order. They are extremely intelligent and articulate people and, just because they have never visibly cracked in public to the extent that they are beaten, does not mean that they are guilty of anything sinister."

 

Which part of that is not categoric enough for you?

 

My apologies if I left anything out. I thought I had got it all. I had only seen a few quotes of this interview before so was interested to read the full piece and agree that Stalker was not attaching blame to the McCanns but what interested me was that he also clearly thinks that we havent been told the truth as yet.

 

I was charged with an offence a few years ago and gave a number of statements. There was no deviation in my version of events. I answered all of the questions put to me because I was clear that I had nothing to hide. No no comments at all and I gave statements willingly. The person bringing the charges against me also gave a number of statements but in each case some details of their version of events changed significantly. The case was dropped on the morning before the trial because the person withdrew the allegations. Their barrister even stood up in court and berated the CPS (I wasn't working for them then) for even bringing the charges against me! My point is that if you stick to the truth you will not get tripped up and end up looking guilty even if you are not.

 

I completely understand the points about not implicating themselves and remaining silent for good reason, but by refusing to answer questions and by changing their stories all they did was help to hamper the search for and investigation into the child's disappearance.

 

I know that we are all different but if that was me (and I think many parents would act in the same way) I would have been out on the streets that night looking for her. I would have gladly taken a lie detector test. I would have gladly given up statements whenever requested and would have urged my friends to do likewise.

 

I take the point about the Tapas 7 being worried about being seen as bad parents but we clearly know that anyway. The lady who lives about the McCanns apparently heard a child crying from their apartment for 75 minutes the night before and the claims that there were half hourly checks are probably bogus. We know at least that they were all very selfish people and only seemed concerned with having a good time themselves. What is more important, their reputations of the investigation in Maddy's disappearance?

 

If I was the parent of a missing child I would be doing my utmost to ensure that anyway with information that would help the investigation co-operated fully. We can debate the effectiveness of sniffer dogs all day long. We can give up theories only why Maddy's blood samples were found in the boot of a car hired 25 days after she vanished. What continues to bother me is the way that some stories have changed or have been discredited - not least Kate's description of the bedroom as she found it that night and stories of how the shutters had been jemmied open when there no sign of them being interfered with.

 

"They are extremely intelligent and articulate people." Why then do they have so much trouble getting the details of what they saw and did that night to tally?

[hypochondriac]

It doesn't necessarily mean that there's a conspiracy but everybody manipulates the media to their own ends, including the media themselves. Take everything with a pinch of salt and try to see the angle that they're coming from.

 

I agree with not blindly believing everything in the media and looking at the source of information. I don't agree with seeing a conspiracy in everything such as the Boston marathon crisis actors or the orange hands thing like pap does. That just makes him look mental.

[pap]

So your answer to the question:

 

Is there any major event within the last 15 years that you believe to be a genuine situation, with no political interference, skulduggery or duping from any third party?

 

Is no. No wonder you think everything is a conspiracy! Do you realise how strange that makes you come across?

 

Yeah, I'd probably prefer that people stuck to my account of my feelings. Better written for a start.

 

Before we whack the straight-jacket on, maybe you'd like to point to a news story of international importance that contains absolutely no spin or agenda.

[hypochondriac]

Yeah, I'd probably prefer that people stuck to my account of my feelings. Better written for a start.

 

Before we whack the straight-jacket on, maybe you'd like to point to a news story of international importance that contains absolutely no spin or agenda.

 

Huge difference between a news story with an agenda and a worldwide conspiracy such as 9/11 was a fake, as was the Boston bombing and Lee rigby attack.

[pap]

Huge difference between a news story with an agenda and a worldwide conspiracy such as 9/11 was a fake, as was the Boston bombing and Lee rigby attack.

 

I'm interested. Qualify the differences.

 

To me, the tactics in the media are the same. The key point of difference is how seriously the events you mention are taken. All the other charges, such as the triumph of spin over evidence, are still in place.

[hypochondriac]

I'm interested. Qualify the differences.

 

To me, the tactics in the media are the same. The key point of difference is how seriously the events you mention are taken. All the other charges, such as the triumph of spin over evidence, are still in place.

 

One is journalists exaggerating the details in a story perhaps but getting it broadly accurate or putting their own slant on a story in order to sell papers. The others are giant conspiracy theories that would have to involve potentially thousands in the conspiracy and involved a huge number of processes to even make it slightly believable. If you can't see the difference between the two then it's not worth explaining.

[pap]

One is journalists exaggerating the details in a story perhaps but getting it broadly accurate or putting their own slant on a story in order to sell papers. The others are giant conspiracy theories that would have to involve potentially thousands in the conspiracy and involved a huge number of processes to even make it slightly believable. If you can't see the difference between the two then it's not worth explaining.

 

Ah, so the only real difference is whether someone else labels the event a conspiracy theory. Right-ho!

 

Where does our invasion of Iraq fit into all of this, then? Giant conspiracy involving willfully lying to the British public, key whistle-blower found dead. If David Kelly hadn't have spoken out, it's very likely that those events would have been another giant, difficult-to-understand conspiracy. As it is, we got proof that David Kelly was telling the truth. The dossier had been sexed up, much of the justification was lifted verbatim from a fkn students' dissertation.

 

If your main objection is that "good" governments like ours would never do bad things, then you probably need a history lesson, particularly in relation to us Brits.

[Verbal]

I'm interested. Qualify the differences.

 

To me, the tactics in the media are the same. The key point of difference is how seriously the events you mention are taken. All the other charges, such as the triumph of spin over evidence, are still in place.

 

What do you think goes on in 'media' news rooms? Do you think a memo goes around telling reporters what to say on a story? If so, what do these mysterious memos say, and who are they from exactly? If not, what is 'spin' on a particular story, how is it 'spun', and why? Are we back with the 'Israeli' ownership of worldwide media? Have you ever been near a newsroom? Do you think that intelligent people can't seek out their own news sources, or weight one against another (say, NBC vs Vice, or the NY Times vs The Guardian?). What was The Guardian's and the NY Times' establishment-serving 'spin' in breaking Wikileaks and Snowden? What was the Washington Post's 'spin' in revealing Watergate? What was the 'spin' attached the The New Yorker's and Sy Hersh's breaking of the Abu Ghraib story? And so on, and on.

 

And finally, what earthly use are people like you who uncover absolutely nothing (despite fantasising otherwise), and evidently believe that the 'media' exists as some conspiratorial monolith into which can be wrapped all 'conspiracies', Zionist plots, and the supposed machinations of a British middle class couple with no particular 'establishment' connections, whose mistakes and tragic loss are leapt upon by pitchfork-waving sociopaths?

 

And can we have that apology for your vicious garbage about Lee Ribgy?

[pap]

What do you think goes on in 'media' news rooms? Do you think a memo goes around telling reporters what to say on a story?

 

Same thing that goes on in any large organisation. People get approval for the work they do, especially when that work is public facing and could affect the reputation of the organisation. I believe that newspapers have people like editors to decide that sort of thing, whereas it'd be a not-as-sexily-titled line manager for the rest of us.

 

What do you reckon? Is print and broadcast media is a meritocratic guardian of democracy, in which every altruistic journalist is allowed to publish whatever he or she desires, without any kind of copy approval at all?

 

Probably not, especially if the lurid accounts of entirely unreasonable editors that appear in Street of Shame are halfway accurate. Would you go against your editor's wishes and publish a story for the good of the people regardless? If so, how would you manage that exactly?

 

So while we all enjoyed your "seamless" segue-way into the unrelated conspiracy stuff, it's really more about how large organisations operate than anything else.

[buctootim]

My apologies if I left anything out. I thought I had got it all. I had only seen a few quotes of this interview before so was interested to read the full piece and agree that Stalker was not attaching blame to the McCanns but what interested me was that he also clearly thinks that we havent been told the truth as yet.

 

"They are extremely intelligent and articulate people." Why then do they have so much trouble getting the details of what they saw and did that night to tally?

 

As Itaintforever said they probably were covering up something - just not anything to do with her abduction or killing. You have to remember they were all (not just the McCanns) facing the possibility of being charged with child neglect or abandonment for leaving their children unattended. They probably lied to cover up how long they left them for and whether they were sober enough to make good judgements.

[Verbal]

Same thing that goes on in any large organisation. People get approval for the work they do, especially when that work is public facing and could affect the reputation of the organisation. I believe that newspapers have people like editors to decide that sort of thing, whereas it'd be a not-as-sexily-titled line manager for the rest of us.

 

What do you reckon? Is print and broadcast media is a meritocratic guardian of democracy, in which every altruistic journalist is allowed to publish whatever he or she desires, without any kind of copy approval at all?

 

Probably not, especially if the lurid accounts of entirely unreasonable editors that appear in Street of Shame are halfway accurate. Would you go against your editor's wishes and publish a story for the good of the people regardless? If so, how would you manage that exactly?

 

So while we all enjoyed your "seamless" segue-way into the unrelated conspiracy stuff, it's really more about how large organisations operate than anything else.

 

The only thing these mealy-mouthed evasions say is that you have no idea what goes on in a newsroom, and no idea how journalists work.

 

What orders was Sy Hersh taking from the New Yorker when he wrote his expose of Abu Ghraib? How did two junior reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, get their stories past hugely sceptical senior editors at the Washington Post? Who told Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger how to shoot Restrepo? Who gives orders, exactly, to crazily fearless reporters like Jeremy Scahill? Who, exactly, sets their agenda? Do you even know who ANY of these guys are? Let alone how they work? Go on, give us specifics, not your cop-out, ignorant arm-waving 'oh we all know how...'

 

And when can we expect your apology for Lee Rigby?

[notnowcato]

Keep going Pap, you're like the Jerry Sadowitz from c.1987

 

If only people had listened to that "mental" as Hypo so succinctly puts it.

[pap]

The only thing these mealy-mouthed evasions say is that you have no idea what goes on in a newsroom, and no idea how journalists work.

 

What orders was Sy Hersh taking from the New Yorker when he wrote his expose of Abu Ghraib? How did two junior reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, get their stories past hugely sceptical senior editors at the Washington Post? Who told Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger how to shoot Restrepo? Who gives orders, exactly, to crazily fearless reporters like Jeremy Scahill? Who, exactly, sets their agenda? Do you even know who ANY of these guys are? Let alone how they work? Go on, give us specifics, not your cop-out, ignorant arm-waving 'oh we all know how...'

 

And when can we expect your apology for Lee Rigby?

 

Yawn. For the uninitiated.

 

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

 

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

 

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

 

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

[buctootim]

The only thing these mealy-mouthed evasions say is that you have no idea what goes on in a newsroom, and no idea how journalists work.

 

He doesn't really have any idea how Government works either. His posts on D notices (now DA notices) a while ago demonstrated that.