General Chat

Sorry Supercrutch please verify just who is vilifying you......disagreeing yes but vilifying as to " speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner " not at all.

Personally I spent the weekend enjoying my family time not searching the web 24/7 or writing to the authorities but each to their own.....that's not belittling anyone just noting we're all different.

I think its good we all don't think the same
How boring the world would be if we did :-D

No one is vilifying you that I can see. How odd that you should think so.

I don't think you are vilifying me because we don't agree, that would be silly.

^^^^^^ that is unfortunately very true.

For those of you who still wish to vilify me, perhaps if you had spent the weekend reporting an unauthorised photo of Sean McCann being posted on the www to New Scotland Yard in order to get it removed (again) I may listen to you.

Also if you had correspondence from the Home Office (as I have) asking for an explanation as to why Kerry Needham had not been afforded a small percentage of what the McCanns had received I'd listen.

Armchair critics are great aren't they?

Unfortunately, facts for some don't matter........

But why would anyone want to read the book of a disgraced detective convicted of perjury and falsifying police documents?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/102810/McCann-detective-guilty-of-perjury

It's also worth noting that his defence for publishing his allegations was not that they were true, but that the law allowed freedom of speech.

Lawyers always win......but there'd be no case if everyone stopped buying books off all parties involved.

The only people who have come out this case undamaged
Is the Lawyers
who are laughing all the way to the bank
With this libel case and many others connected
They have made obscene amounts of money from both sides

On the back of a little girl who is missing
They should be hanging their heads in shame :-( :-(

Oh I'm not worried it's just childish and unnecessary as it stops the flow of the discussion, and infers something was said that was rude or hurtful which it wasn't. I've been RR'd before and so know it's someone bored with their day :-D

Don't worry about it
Most of us have been RR ed at some point
Me more than most lol ;-) ;-) ;-)

Most are reinstated so maybe yours will be too

I had no idea the second one had been RR'd obviously someone has a problem with something I wrote albeit over a day late...again nothing in the thread that was worthy of RRing in all honesty can't even remember what it said.....

Oh well it is a Friday after all maybe someone was bored and this is their way of "having a discussion"...I await my remaining comments RRing before the day is out.....

SNATCHES
The Golden RR finger Statue from Sue

and gives it to Caroline for having two posts RR ed on one thread :-D

Sorry if that was a dig at me I never even tried to think who might have RR'd me as it didn't deserve to be RR'd so I won't waste time and energy trying to solve the mystery.

If I RR I tell people it was me.

I don't hide behind a computer screen.

The main point though is EVEN IF the poor child died there no one has been charged let alone prosecuted except in the general public of the chattering classes. With no proof whatsoever the parents are being condemned .....said it before and I'll say it again IF they had enough proof they would have prosecuted them for at least their version of manslaughter and the other children would be in care.......but nothing.....and because the parents reacted differently than some think they would react; and none of us know how we'd react until it happened to us; it's been decided in the high court of the chattering classes they're guilty as not charged.
Now watch this get RR'd again !!

I don't know anything at all about Roman law so I don't think I can make any comment on the case at all.

Absolutely nothing in law that prevents him from doing so. Same goes for Pat Brown and Kate McCann and you believe which versions you choose to.

I find it quite odd that he was able to publish that book.

In a nutshell Sharron.... Snr Amaral published a book based on the evidence which was collected by the Portuguese police force in the early days of the investigation.

The McCanns sought and won an injunction to have the book withdrawn from sale.

Snr Amaral appealed and won the right to publish his book and have the confiscated ones returned.

The McCanns then sued him for distress and stated that his publishing of his book diverted efforts away from searching for Madeleine (as he and many others deduced the child had died in 5a). This was backed up by the UK police dogs and their indication of a death in the apartment.

Their appeal was thrown out by the courts this week and the compensation of 500,000 Euros to the McCanns has been negated.

I have been following this thread but will not comment on the content because I don't understand what is being said.