Sue

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Short memories people short memories > > Why exactly did you ask for that thread to be > deleted sue can you remember? > > What is Likely to be different this time? xxxxxxx As I have already said above (short memories?), I asked for it to be deleted because a troll registered on the forum specifically to post on the thread and make accusations which were almost certainly libellous. Given the propensity of the McCanns to set Carter Ruck on people, and given this country's libel laws (set to change thank goodness) I didn't want the forum involved in any sort of trouble, or to give admin any grief. OK? ETA: And I'd quite like an answer to the questions I asked you above :)

That's weird, I'm with Orange and I haven't had any problems today. And I'm just down the road from Foxie :)

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with you Sue, SJ is being harsh ( or > fatherly :) ) xxxxxx Thanks Mick Mac. Glad he (or she) isn't my father :)) ETA: Though come to think of it, my father was equally patronising on occasion - when I was a child.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue. You were directly responsible for the removal > of the previous thread. Some people don't have to > read every thread but moderators and admin do > > You can surely see this thread will end up in the > same place. You said yourself at the start of this > one you weren't going to get sucked in again but > you surely have > > Learn the lessons from last time. Heed your own > advice. Listen to people telling you to let it go xxxxxx Eh? I asked for the removal of the previous thread myself, and I didn't start this one. I have been very careful not to get drawn in by the likes of certain posters who I will not name, so what do you think I have been sucked into, exactly? Why am I not allowed to state facts - not theories - which are in the public domain elsewhere? Why are people so keen to lay into me, when other posters are continuing to post on the topic? If you want the thread to disappear, then why don't you tell people the reason and delete it, or ask that it be deleted? What exactly have I said that is so terrible? Please can you give me some examples. Thanks. ETA: If you intend to close all discussion on this case, then can I suggest that you have a forum rule that no cases of child disappearance can ever be discussed here, just so that everybody is quite clear :)

Nobody is forcing anybody else to read this thread or to contribute to it, LondonMix. There are many press articles and forum threads which I have no wish to read because of their content, but I don't feel the need to slag off the people who do write them and contribute to them!

Sorry to have missed the point, Mick Mac :( But I'm still not quite sure what your point is? Sorry to be dim. Anybody "could" be taken at any time, of course, but the point of a reconstruction would have been to identify the window (no pun intended) of opportunity when Madeleine "could" have actually been taken on the night of her apparent disappearance. ETA: Whether she had been watched/targeted or whether it was opportunist, or whatever.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My personal view is that this child had been > watched and could have been taken at some point or > other. It wasn't necessarily an opportunist > kidnap. > xxxxxxx Well, if the people concerned had returned for a reconstruction of their movements that evening, as requested by the Portuguese Police, perhaps that "some point or other" when she "could" have been taken could have been determined.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue - Personally I feel sad for the McCann family. > Yes they left their children asleep in what was > supposed to be a safe environment, but I have > known some parents who have done the same. I would > not say it was neglect. > > They will carry the pain forever, but there is no > accounting for the actions of a peodophile and to > allocate part of the blame to the family is wrong. > > > You can't be with your children 100% of the time. > There will always be opportunities for people like > this who target a particular child. You just have > to protect your children as best you can - but > mainly hope that you are not the unlucky ones like > the McCanns. xxxxxx Mick Mac, there is to the best of my knowledge no evidence at all that a paedophile was involved, unless you know otherwise? And sorry to disagree with you, but this was very clearly neglect. Three children under four were apparently left in an unlocked room out of sight and earshot of the parents. The parents could have hired a babysitter. They chose not to. They also had no baby alarm. The unlocked apartment was near a road and a swimming pool. One door led to a flight of steps (downwards). The floor of the apartment was stone or tiled - very hard, anyway, should a small child fall onto it. Whatever the intervals of checking which took place, a couple of minutes is sufficient for a small child to have an accident of some kind or to choke. Or just to wake up in terror after a nightmare with no adult in the room. That was hardly a "safe environment". So yes, I would say it was neglect. And you could describe it as "unlucky", but if you leave your children alone night after night in those conditions then you make your own bad luck, really, don't you? ETA: And Ratty, actually it wasn't "close by". Well, depending on what you mean by close by, of course. I'm sure you can google a map of the area showing the relative positions of the McCanns' apartment and the Tapas bar where they were eating.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Annette Curtain Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I want to kick these :)) :) > > > But Annette, that would be active-aggressive... xxxxxx :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)):)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)):)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)):)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)):)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) Kick away! Enjoy! Plenty more where those came from!

Voyageur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue - god help you too..... xxxxxxx Care to explain what you mean by that? Thanks :)

Voyageur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > > Evidence presented via the media natch - like > > all > > > of us I have no other knowledge base. > > > > xxxxxx > > > > Many of the official police files are given in > the > > second of the links I posted in my first post > on > > this thread. > > > > There is also further information in the first > > link I posted. > > > > That is some kind of knowledge base. > > > > I wouldn't rely on the media for "evidence" if > I > > were you :)) > > I believe the balanced and informed views of > experts with access to me data than we could dream > of (as opposed to forum pundits) as reported in > the media :-D xxxxxxxx Eh? You think that the media base what they print on anything other than what they think will sell papers? If you believe what the media report, God help you!

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not going to be drawn into pointless arguments > this time. > > > Yeah right. xxxxxx It depends what you mean by pointless. What do you mean by pointless? I think I made my position quite clear. ETA: I find criticism of my posts on here purely because I'm making them pretty pointless and boring, tbh. But if it entertains you, do by all means continue :)

> > Evidence presented via the media natch - like all > of us I have no other knowledge base. xxxxxx Many of the official police files are given in the second of the links I posted in my first post on this thread. There is also further information in the first link I posted. That is some kind of knowledge base. I wouldn't rely on the media for "evidence" if I were you :))

Let's just wait and see what the outcome is from the investigation, shall we? I'm not being drawn into entering any further discussion with you on this subject, DJKQ.

Voyageur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Still really hope that Madeline and any > other missing kids are found - can't imagine > anyone else thinking otherwise. xxxxxx Who has ever suggested that anyone hopes any missing kids won't be found? Not me. Voyageur, what evidence exactly are you talking about in your post? I don't understand.

Well hopefully after all this time there will soon be some kind of resolution. It has all been going on long enough. I do not normally read about cases like this, in fact I go out of my way not to as I find them very upsetting, particularly where children are involved. I do not believe that I am either ghoulish or icky, but for some reason this case has continued to interest me. Well, I do know what sparked my interest in the first place, but I'm not going to risk another full-on attack by the forum police for saying what it was :( Anyway, hopefully as I say there will soon be some kind of closure.

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I took no pleasure from the last sick thread about > this. I didn?t goad you, just asked you to drop > it several times, as did other people. > xxxxxxx You told me that I was sick, amongst other things, for daring to suggest that some things in the case were not as they had been portrayed. Perhaps you have forgotten. And why do you think I would "drop" something just because you (or others) thought I should? What do you think gives you the right to police what I post? And why has this turned into some kind of meta-thread about a past thread? Bizarre.

Chillaxed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope, the one Sue refers to above where she went > toe to toe with DJKQ for 9 pages. No idea how to > link threads and maybe shouldn't if it was deleted > for legal reasons. xxxxxx Yes that was the one, and I have no wish to repeat the soul-destroying experience. I was ripped to shreds by a number of people (some of whom subsequently apologised) for posting facts which were already in the public domain. It all became very personal and some very nasty verging on offensive comments were made about me. Sadly some people will always believe what they want to believe, and others will pursue their own irrelevant agendas regardless of the subject matter of the thread. Human nature, innit. The thread was either deleted or blocked (is that the technical term, can't remember, anyway nobody able to post on it again) at my request (I started the thread in the first place). I requested the deletion because of the afore-mentioned troll, who made probably libellous accusations instead of sticking to facts, and could have got the forum into trouble, especially considering the litigious nature of the persons under discussion.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Chillaxed, consider yourself lucky the other one > is gone forever, though like japanese knotweed it > is a persistent little sod. xxxxxxx For someone who has been urging others to "just walk away", you yourself also seem to be a "persistent little sod" on this thread, El Pibe :)

Chillaxed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fook me, just read the other thread on this. > > Not sure whether I'm more or less informed on the > case now. xxxxx What other thread? The previous thread which was on this forum a year or so back turned into a repetitive head-against-a-brick-wall farce, and was eventually deleted - if memory serves, after a newly registered troll started posting stuff which was almost certainly libellous.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > let it go people, just walk away, xxxxx Like you are, you mean? :))

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Sue, this is a very good article on why cadaver > dogs can not be relied upon as hard evidence > without supporting forensic evidence (of which > none has been found in the McCann case), xxxxxxx Forensic evidence has been found in the McCann case, and is part of what Scotland Yard has been looking at. I was hoping that you would stay off this thread, particularly in view of what admin has recently said to both of us, but if you intend to continue the "discussion" of the previous thread which was deleted, please at least get your facts right. Thanks. ETA: And I really have no wish whatsover to continue yet again to attempt to convey the difference between "indicative evidence" and "conclusive evidence" That's why in Scotland there is a possible verdict of "not proven" as opposed to "not guilty".

UncleBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Doesn't anyone care? xxxxxx Yes, I do. I care about any child who appears to have at the very least been neglected, and I cannot understand why so very much public money has now been spent on this particular one child amongst thousands who are missing around the world. But in previous "discussions" on this forum, the usual suspects have been more keen to have a pop at me than to discuss substantive facts in any meaningful or logical way. The Portuguese police were obliged to shelve this case because the main people concerned refused to return to Portugal for a reconstruction which would have moved things forward, plus one of the main people concerned refused to answer 48 questions. These are facts. There are other facts which are in the public domain and in the links I posted above. Not all the available evidence has been released by the Portuguese police, however. Let us hope that the two police forces between them can now find out exactly what happened. Chick - you were one of the people who seemed to take great pleasure in goading me on the previous thread, which eventually had to be deleted. The definition of schadenfreude is "Pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune". If you are suggesting that I derive pleasure from the disappearance and probable death of a little girl - not yet four - who was left alone by her parents night after night in a dark, unfamiliar, apparently unlocked apartment in a foreign country with her two younger siblings, where any accident could have befallen any of them, you are sick. I have two grandchildren. And if you are suggesting that I derive pleasure from her parents' misfortune, I would suggest that "misfortune" is a strange word to apply to people who neglected their children and then did not co-operate with the police investigation into the disappearance of one of them. And Uncle Ben, you appear to be stirring.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "So far as I know, two highly respected dogs..." > > There's something wonderfully Alan partridge about > this statement. xxxxxx I am actually Alan Partridge in female form :)

Fair enough, but the discussion on this thread seems to be about different issues. What I meant was that I have no wish to rehash the "discussion" on the previous thread, and I don't suppose anybody else has either. Sorry if I didn't make that clear :) Congratulations on your "easy win" though, quids :)) ETA: And actually, at the point of the comment made about my number of posts, I'd made exactly one more than Uncle Ben. Hardly a statistically significant difference, I suggest :)