Comments on: Madeleine McCann In The News

By: barbara

barbara — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:45:44 +0000

Hi,
I totally agree with Julie. It is good to see that no further disreputable comments have been posted.
I for one do not suspect the parents in the least. I hold Madeline and her parents and all their friends and family in my prayers. Not only can they not grieve for t heir loss but they have to put up with idiots like Horace and Jim.
I hope you two are ashamed of yourselves.

By: Julie

Julie — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:00:29 +0000

Hi
I am new to these discussions although not new to the sad ordeal which the McCanns are having to endure. The living hell, which they wake up to every day. I just wanted to direct my comments at Horace and Jim.
I wonder what it is about your own lives which make you so vicious and full of venom and hatred, toward a couple (McCanns), who have to live with the fact, that their daughter is missing? I wonder would you feel such hatred, if your own children were missing? I doubt it. I find it inconceivable, that you sit there in your ivory towers, making a narrow minded judgement, about something you have never experienced. There but for the grace of God. You just have to look at the photos of the McCanns, particularly Kate, to see the sheer desolation in her eyes. Her soul is lost. Are you both so ignorant that you cannot see that? I have just returned fro the Algarve and I can tell you now that the loss is tangible. I, like any other decent and moral human being, hold the little girl in my thoughts and prayers daily. So get a grip.

By: pmihc

pmihc — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:07:40 +0000

Jim, your message contradicts itself. You’re not interested in my views, but the McCanns need to be exposed. To whose view, then, do they “need to be exposed”? If the McCanns “need to be exposed,” then you are interested in the views of those looking at them. Consider what the word “exposed” means.

As I said, if I have a bleeding-heart view, it is one temporarily created by the tone and content of your message. Instead of exposing the McCanns as dross, _you_ changed a fence-sitter into a bleeding heart. (Temporarily of course: I don’t surrender logic to feeling permanently.)

Horace, it seems as if your message was intended to express “just what you feel” in which case you had no reason to read and reply to my message: I indicated that if you were just expressing what you felt then my comments were not addressed to you.

By: Horace

Horace — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:43:34 +0000

Damn you Jim - beat me to the punch by a minute.
You’re right though. These people forfieted the right to sympathy the moment they thought it was more important to tell us about what they ate and what they wore, rather than getting of their publicity seeking arses and looking for her.
So sorry Pmihc, it’s not nastiness or hatred - it’s just what I feel.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:40:26 +0000

Nope - not interested in your bleeding heart views. They are dross who need to be exposed as such.

By: Pmihc

Pmihc — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:28:52 +0000

Horace and Jim, if you post here to vent anger and hatred against the McCanns I don’t have anything particular to say to you and you need not read any more of this message.

If, however, you are posting to try to influence people’s ideas about the McCanns, you might be interested in how you have influenced mine. I’m a fence-sitter, and I have two responses to your posts. One is logical and rational, the other emotional.

The logical, rational one is that your posts say something about you and nothing about them and that therefore your posts don’t influence my ideas at all.

The emotional one is that after reading your posts I feel an instinctive pity for the McCanns. That’s not logical since what you say and feel has no bearing on them at all, but my revulsion at you results in greater sympathy for them; I feel as if I want to defend them from you.

I just thought you might like to know one fence-sitting person’s reaction to your posts if indeed you are attempting to influence anyone’s reaction. Of course, I’m just one person and it’s possible everyone else reading your posts is swayed by them to share your feelings towards the McCanns.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:42:28 +0000

Personally I would piss on them whatever their situation, trying to dilute their mistakes by asking us to join in some collective grieving fiasco.
Fuck ‘em.

By: Horace

Horace — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 06:06:15 +0000

No - but I wouldn’t piss on the McCanns even if they were on fire

By: Long distance runner

Long distance runner — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:40:25 +0000

That’s right Gerry, this is a grown up forum - where people spit on others who have fallen by the wayside.

Would it make you feel good about yourself then Ted to spit on a druggie?

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:55:16 +0000

Gerry - fuck off please, this is a grown up forum.

By: Gerry

Gerry — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:51:03 +0000

Why has nobody picked up that John Peel clearly faked his death the other year? It’s a scandal.

By: liz

liz — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:34:14 +0000

what about his history, his odd movements and missing files on his computer, cell calls that were traced to him but “never made”, now the police have found an email relating to “that english girl” mark my words, he knows something

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:29:54 +0000

Guilty until proven innocent? Interesting new concept from the hanging and flogging vigilantes.

By: liz

liz — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:28:08 +0000

Robert Murat should never have been released the first time and then maybe this missing child would have been found by now

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:23:27 +0000

I think you live in a dream world Runner - if she had asked most people they would have spat on her. Still if you go up and say “can I have some money because I neglected my children and now one is missing” that’ll be fine and dandy.
Funny old world of double standards isn’t it?

By: pixie girl

pixie girl — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:23:26 +0000

robert murat is back in for questioning

By: Long distance runner

Long distance runner — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:10:51 +0000

The difference is that Debbie Clifton pretended the money was for the McCann fund, for the McCanns to spend, when in reality it was, as we know, to fund her drug habit.

On the other hand the McCann fund is “legit” because the McCanns have been completely open about the fact that the money is for them, and furthermore, for them to spend how they wish. No questions asked. In fact, no questions allowed!

Can’t help wondering if they’ve approached “Sir Bob” yet to ask him to help with the fundraising.

I can just picture him on prime time tv - “Just send us the MONEY!!!”

Poor Debbie should have just gone to people and said “Very sorry, but I’m a hopeless addict and I can’t pay me bills. Please help me out ….”

She’d have probably got more than two pounds bloody 70p.

By: queen b

queen b — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:04:06 +0000

mmm enough money for a G & T at Tappas

By: Anorak

Anorak — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:25:04 +0000

£2.70?

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:22:41 +0000

How come Debbie Clifton gets jailed for asking for a couple of quid and yet the parents are lauded as they fleece the British public of upwards of £1 million. Seems like the girl was only jumping on an already speeding bandwagon.
Bring it on you sad acts.