Re: The McCanns Mark 1000 Days

by vaguely1 18.01.10 18:14

Autumn wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:Gaspars statement, that's the one who saw david payne circling his nipple and sucking his finger, and she said she thought these were the actions of a person who would watch child pornography.

I take it for exactly what it is.

I saw David Walliams do it on TV a while back......what should I make of that?

The social worker who thought she'd seen DP before - but then had full access to her files and never got back to anyone with anything.... Nothing to make of that.

I'm still a little bit shaken with this thread - apologies for not answering before, I thought it was a rhetorical question.

Well I am more than a little shaken that you have been so dismissive of the serious concerns raised in the Gaspars' statements and am shocked at your David Walliams comparison.

Okay.

by Pascal 18.01.10 18:42

Autumn. I'm not letting this go. You have made a huge balls up with your ridiculous comparisons. For goodness sake stop backpedaling and please have some respect and retract your comments.

Ian Brady and Myra Hindley were cold blooded, child torturing murderers. They even recorded the acts for posterity. The mother of one of the victims had to endure it all in court. She never recovered. What an insult to her memory. I was in my pram at the time they committed those heinous acts. The second wave of the publicity in the eighties, when I was in my twenties was enough. It re-ignited the publicity around the case which along with the Bulger and West cases must be considered as the worst this country has seen.

I'm actually stunned. Is this what the MF is all about then? Or is it just your twisted notions. Because it is twisted Autumn. Do you think rants like those will help Mr Amaral?

I'm anti abduction theory but would rather eat my own hair than be associated with such grotesque ideas of what the McCanns represent to you.

I dislike them intently, but thank Christ some of us know where to draw a line.

by Autumn 18.01.10 18:47

Pascal, I refer you to my earlier post. As for those who kill children, they should all rot in hell for the rest of their miserable worthless lives. For the record, I am not a member of the MF.

As for what the McCanns represent to me, don't even go there.

by Autumn 18.01.10 18:47

Double post, sorry.

by Cath 18.01.10 18:52

deleted. don't want to interrupt your fight.

Autumn admit you're wrong and drop it.

by Pascal 18.01.10 18:55

I think we have well and truly got the gist of your feelings Autumn. A pity then that you have little consideration for the feelings of others here.

by Autumn 18.01.10 18:59

Inyx wrote:deleted. don't want to interrupt your fight.

Autumn admit you're wrong and drop it.

There is no fight and, as far as I am concerned, the matter is closed.

by Pascal 18.01.10 19:01

no retraction then?

by Ruby 18.01.10 19:24

vaguely1 wrote:
Ruby wrote:vaguely 'I saw David Walliams do it on TV a while back......what should I make of that?'

David Walliams specialises in grotesque and inappropriate characterisations... they're meant to shock, not represent real life. I have shown the Gaspars' statement to many people of all ages and they have all recoiled in discomfort.

Maybe they were shocked you were wondering around with a copy of a police statement in your hand Ruby. (Edited to add:) There are a lot of people, members of the public, who are not used to police statements, and have no idea of the sheer number, or content of statements that the police will have in relation to serious crimes. Most members of the public are lucky to be shielded from the reality of these situations.

So when one person does it it's meant to shock, not represent real life, yet when another does it it's accepted as the opposite.

If you can tell me how rubbing your nipple is linked to child pornography I'll be happy to take on board what you say.

I think when accompanied by his other action and while talking about whether his friend's preschool daughter 'would do this' it's pretty dodgy, but that's just me then, as you were

by vaguely1 18.01.10 19:40

to be pedantic "Saying something like".

It's the wording that makes all the difference. Had Mrs Gaspar have stated for a fact this was what was said then it would have a different impact on my thoughts than it does.

I would like to think that if she was certain of what was said she would have contacted the authorities at the time. I don't know her reasons for not having done so.

I hope that makes sense?

ETA: I think what I'm trying to say is why would you have any contact with a person who you thought was a paedophile. It's madness.

by Autumn 18.01.10 19:41

Ruby wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:
Ruby wrote:vaguely 'I saw David Walliams do it on TV a while back......what should I make of that?'

David Walliams specialises in grotesque and inappropriate characterisations... they're meant to shock, not represent real life. I have shown the Gaspars' statement to many people of all ages and they have all recoiled in discomfort.

Maybe they were shocked you were wondering around with a copy of a police statement in your hand Ruby. (Edited to add:) There are a lot of people, members of the public, who are not used to police statements, and have no idea of the sheer number, or content of statements that the police will have in relation to serious crimes. Most members of the public are lucky to be shielded from the reality of these situations.

So when one person does it it's meant to shock, not represent real life, yet when another does it it's accepted as the opposite.

If you can tell me how rubbing your nipple is linked to child pornography I'll be happy to take on board what you say.

I think when accompanied by his other action and while talking about whether his friend's preschool daughter 'would do this' it's pretty dodgy, but that's just me then, as you were

Maybe we should stand outside the star studded event waving placards giving links to the Gaspars' statement. Afterall, very few of the general public are aware of the contents of the Police Files and would, I am sure, be sickened and shocked on reading the Gaspars' statement.

by nemesis/muratfan 18.01.10 20:46

MaryB wrote:I wouldn't be keen to support any charity associated with them until the case is solved.

You mean unlike giving money to a CONVICTED LIAR, the same one who is facing more than two criminal charges.

by vaguely1 18.01.10 21:12

Autumn wrote:
Ruby wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:
Ruby wrote:vaguely 'I saw David Walliams do it on TV a while back......what should I make of that?'

David Walliams specialises in grotesque and inappropriate characterisations... they're meant to shock, not represent real life. I have shown the Gaspars' statement to many people of all ages and they have all recoiled in discomfort.

Maybe they were shocked you were wondering around with a copy of a police statement in your hand Ruby. (Edited to add:) There are a lot of people, members of the public, who are not used to police statements, and have no idea of the sheer number, or content of statements that the police will have in relation to serious crimes. Most members of the public are lucky to be shielded from the reality of these situations.

So when one person does it it's meant to shock, not represent real life, yet when another does it it's accepted as the opposite.

If you can tell me how rubbing your nipple is linked to child pornography I'll be happy to take on board what you say.

I think when accompanied by his other action and while talking about whether his friend's preschool daughter 'would do this' it's pretty dodgy, but that's just me then, as you were

Maybe we should stand outside the star studded event waving placards giving links to the Gaspars' statement. Afterall, very few of the general public are aware of the contents of the Police Files and would, I am sure, be sickened and shocked on reading the Gaspars' statement.

Do you think that this would help achieve justice in this case Autumn? And do you think it would help the funds of the charities who are included in this event?

I personally rue the day when untrained and unqualified members of the public wave around speculative witness statements to other untrained and unqualified members of the public.

One of these days one of those speculative statements may be describing the actions of you, or I, or people who are dear to us. And undoubtedly those untrained and unqualified members of the public will dribble at the scandal of it all too.

But I'm sure it's a great idea apart from that.

by twinkle 18.01.10 21:45

vaguely1 wrote:
Ruby wrote:vaguely 'I saw David Walliams do it on TV a while back......what should I make of that?'

David Walliams specialises in grotesque and inappropriate characterisations... they're meant to shock, not represent real life. I have shown the Gaspars' statement to many people of all ages and they have all recoiled in discomfort.

Maybe they were shocked you were wondering around with a copy of a police statement in your hand Ruby. (Edited to add:) There are a lot of people, members of the public, who are not used to police statements, and have no idea of the sheer number, or content of statements that the police will have in relation to serious crimes. Most members of the public are lucky to be shielded from the reality of these situations.

So when one person does it it's meant to shock, not represent real life, yet when another does it it's accepted as the opposite.

If you can tell me how rubbing your nipple is linked to child pornography I'll be happy to take on board what you say.

I would be interested in the link here.

by twinkle 18.01.10 21:51

The comparison between the McCanns and the moors murderers is quite hard to stomach for me.
To hold this view would mean that you think the McCanns planned in advance to kill their own daughter.

by Autumn 19.01.10 1:53

twinkle wrote:The comparison between the McCanns and the moors murderers is quite hard to stomach for me.
To hold this view would mean that you think the McCanns planned in advance to kill their own daughter.

Moita Flores: The only thing that was proven was there was NO ABDUCTION

by aliberte2 19.01.10 2:53

But the Prosecutor stated That that Wasn't Proven and Flores is Not an Impartial Witness. IMHO his Nasty Attitude did Amaral no Favors, nor the Fact that he allegedly Has a Madeleine TV special in the Works.

by vaguely1 19.01.10 7:57

Autumn, you place so much faith in the words of others - but only when they speak our mind.

We can all spend all day trumping each other with partial sentences from the libel case - but it doesn't get any nearer finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine.

by Cath 19.01.10 8:14

According to the AG there's no evidence either way.
Turns it all into a matter of opinion.

by Ruby 19.01.10 8:42

But the UK police, including Scotland Yard, shared the Portuguese police's belief that Madeleine is dead. Are you accusing them of not knowing what they're talking about?

by Kololi 19.01.10 15:34

Autumn wrote:
twinkle wrote:The comparison between the McCanns and the moors murderers is quite hard to stomach for me.
To hold this view would mean that you think the McCanns planned in advance to kill their own daughter.

Moita Flores: The only thing that was proven was there was NO ABDUCTION

Hi Autumn
Ok so it was proven that there was no abduction.

Where has it been proven that Mr and Mrs McCann allowed their pervery mates to do unthinkable things to Madeleine and where was it proven that Mr and Mrs McCann stole, abused, tortured, murdered and then buried the bodies of child victims? Apples and pears I am afraid and even though they are not a couple that endear me to them, I can not see how you can liken them to the likes of Myra Hindley - sorry.

Take care

by Pascal 19.01.10 16:43

I don't think anyone of sound mind could liken the McCanns to Hindley and Brady.

It's daft arguments like this that weaken the debate against abduction and give the more extreme McCann supporters ammunition to tar us all with the same toilet brush.

Kololi, you make a lot of sense and I thank you for your posts.

by Autumn 19.01.10 17:24

Autumn wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:I'm sure those charities will benefit greatly. This is good news.

Well, imo, it isn't good news that these charities feel the need to align themselves to Rothley's very own ...................... in order to raise money.

by Autumn 19.01.10 17:34

As you can see, I have amended my original post.

To get back on topic, who will be attending this event?

A few likely attendees -

Fiona Philips
Fern Britton
Tony Parsons
Lorraine Kelly

by Pascal 19.01.10 17:40

You didn't amend this Autumn. https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/mccann-case-f3/the-mccanns-mark-1000-days-t356-15.htm

Log in for more topics