Madeleine McCann: Call Off The Dogs, Kate McCann’s Tears And Fatima
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
THE TIMES page 9: “McCanns send to US for help against evidence of sniffer dogs.”
Gerry and Kate McCann have consulted lawyers working on behalf of Eugene Zapata in Madison, Wisconsin.
In October 1976, Zapata’s wife, Jeanette, went missing. Her body has never been found. Last year sniffer dogs were brought in and Zapata was charged with her murder. The case went before Judge Patrick Fielder who said the evidence – dogs had picked up the scent of a corpse in Zapata’s basement – was inadmissible. He said the dogs were unreliable.
The dogs have yet to make a comment.
DAILY MIRROR front page: “MADDY JUDGE: LET ME TELL ALL.”
Pedro Daniel dos Anjos Frias wants to “speak freely” about the case.
Pages 6 and 7: “Mum’s tears at 11am Mass.” Once again the Mirror is all eyes for Kate McCann’s eyes. She is crying.
In church, Father Keith Tomlinson narrates the parable of the Prodigal Son. An eight-year-old child called Molly Earp reads “Jesus please continue to love and protect us, until she is found.”
And then Jesus can have a rest and the police can resume normal duties…
Pages 8 and 9: “On the beach Gerry gave Maddy loads of hugs and kisses, he was a perfect dad..The next time I saw him was about midnight..I saw a man alone, desperate. He was crying and screaming her name over and over and over again.” Words from a “WAITER AT MADDIE’S LAST MEAL” before she vanished.
THE SUN front page: “Maddie ‘gag’ lift.” Friends of Kate and Gerry McCann are hopeful of being allowed to speak out and defend themselves. A judge has asked for a lifting of Portugal’s secrecy laws.
Pages 6 and 7: “AGONY TO COME.” The Sun produces a picture of Kate and Gerry McCann’s wedding day. They are holding Kate’s goddaughter Ellie. There is also a new picture of Madeleine McCann “looking angelic”. Have you seen her? Or are you watching the parents?
THE EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE. POLICE TO SEARCH SHRINE FOR BODY.” The McCanns went to Fatima. The McCanns car clocked up 1,709 miles in the fives weeks after their daughter went missing.
THE WORLD’S GREATEST NEWSPAPER Pages 2 and 3: “Hand in hand, McCanns go to family church.” The “devoutly Catholic couple” are leaving for church from their “£600,000 home”. Kate McCann is carrying Cuddle Cat.
Pages 4 and 5: “1,000 letters each day in support of the McCanns. Between 500 and 1,000 letters a day arrive at the McCanns’ home. “There are some crank letters,” says a spokesman for the family, “but that’s inevitable.”
None of these letters are believed to point to the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann.
Alex Cayles, a former neighbour of the McCanns, says “I never heard Kate or Gerry raise their voices to their children or anyone else.” Can the same be said of any parents of three very young children?
DAILY MAIL front page: a picture of Kate McCann smiling.
“MADELEINE:
• Doubt cast on sniffer dogs
• Police frontman quits investigation
• Branson funds the McCanns’ defence
• Witness’s vital new evidence”
Pages 10 and 11:2 “Maddie: Is the case crumbling?”
Chief inspector Olegario Sousa has resigned “in disgust” at the way in which fellow Portuguese officers have been briefing the media behind his back.
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE MUM ON MURDER RAP. Now cops claim to have found ‘a motive’.”
The Star says police have read Kate McCann’s diary and “claim it reveals she had a motive to kill”.
Pages 4 and 5: “DID KATE HAVE A MOTIVE?”
Well, we haven’t read the diary, but…
“The idea that Portuguese detectives are looking at my daughter’s most personal thoughts and taking them out of context is terrible,” says Kate McCann’s father Brian Healy.
Pages 6 and 7: “HUNT AT HOLY SHRINE.” Is Madeleine McCann’s body buried at Fatima, one of the Catholic Church’s holiest sites? The Star says the couple went there three weeks after their daughter went missing.
We wonder. Is she? Or is she buried in Germany, America, London or Morocco, places also visited by the McCanns?
DAILY TELEGRAPH: “New allegations against McCanns - As the McCanns begin a new campaign to clear their names, further allegations emerged over the weekend.”
Oh?
“The hire car: The Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns 25 days after Madeleine went missing. New claims centre on its high mileage. Between May 27 and July 3, it was driven 1,700 miles, with police looking into the possibility that it may have been used to dispose of a body…There were also reports that detectives were waiting for permission from a judge to seize and dismantle the car to search for ‘traces of skin’.”
THE GUARDIAN: No Maddy news today.
Madeleine McCann The Public Spectacle
Posted: 17th, September 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,074) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- susan jones on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
September 18th, 2007 at 5:58 am
Right.
I better go bathe and get to bed. Otherwise, if the newspapers are paying attention to this site, I can read the descriptions now.
“The bedraggled woman, with ill-fitting clothes (they’re called pajamas?) sat in front of the computer….when confronted, the reaction was “No speak! No speak! I’m tired!”
But that wasn’t the only thing that was different from her counterparts in Britain. She didn’t drink tea. (Shock, horror!)”
Night everyone, hope everyone has happy days/nights ahead of them. It was nice discussing things with you guys.
September 18th, 2007 at 5:49 am
(1010)
When I spoke of doing something more, I just meant really paying more attention to missing children cases, I’ll admit this one finally grabbed my attention because of all of the speculation. That is a fault of my own, the good thing is other people who contribute here do spread the word, which has brought my attention to other missing children (I believe one contributor here is particular good at this, they know who they are!).
I haven’t noticed newspapers picking up on things said here, but I’ve only been here for 2-3 days now. Hopefully some good will come out of it for the long term.
“Raising awareness is what it’s all about, none of us are exempt from that.”
Indeed.
September 18th, 2007 at 5:43 am
I suspect such people are off browsing for uncensored pictures of Hollywood starlets in sheela na gig poses too
Well, therer’s tellin ‘em…
I think She loves us really but doesn’t want to admit we’re right
Allegedly
September 18th, 2007 at 5:39 am
(1006):
I will agree with you that you weren’t off topic, as you were giving your honest response to Andrew’s comments.
“Luther was not a Catholic, no, in fact, he was the very first PROTESTANT ever I should add - & founder of the Lutheran branch of the Protestant Religion.”
Martin Luther was actually a Catholic monk before found a protestant religion, so you can see why people would call him Catholic at times and Protestant at others, because it refers to what religion he followed at certain times in his life. I’m just pointing that out, as it is easy to get mixed up or for people to use to support their own stories; a bit like how people use the fact Jesus was Jewish before embarking on Christianity and so forth.
“But if an unsuspecting person (and I presume there may be several on this forum) heard Andrew’s biased diatribe where he makes serious “allegations” that are not accurately documented nor well-founded and have been disputed by theologians for a long time now, then they too become (involuntary) unsuspecting participants of a smear campaign hauled against the Catholic Church. And, if they had not formed an opinion beforehand, after reading Andrew’s posts, they would certainly view Catholicsm as an “evil” religion - without getting a fair and balanced “true” picture of the better side and the goodness of the faith.”
We’ve been discussing such things in a legal tone where the case is concerned. The contributors to the forum state their opinions only, even if they claim to be facts (as it is easy to twist facts). I hope people realize that and take it with a grain of salt. If people read two posts and assumed Catholicism is “evil” just by that, I think those people are probably quite prejudice already or highly prone to prejudice. We can’t control how people react to everything we write or I’m sure Andrew would have hoped the true spirit of his comment was found upon you and others (it hasn’t and that is no ones fault).
“What I do have a problem with is the fact that you’re presenting a lot of misinformation here and “selling” your propaganda which reflects so negatively on Catholics to a very impressionable group of people on this form. Your information is based on very slanted journalism and is not a true picture of history.”
Contributors to the forum are not journalist and in my opinion shouldn’t be thought of as such, the journalism on this site is found by the author of the comments and rehashing of the tabloid stories at the top of the page. As for Andrew’s comments being based on slanted journalism, most of Andrew’s two comments that you’ve taken issue with involved direct quotes from the leaders. The quotes are of historical significance, yes the combination was used to prove a satirical point about a common view we see spouted on this forum, the view that because the McCanns go to church, etc. that they simply cannot be guilty of anything (concerning the case at hand). That same point was what “Faith with Reason” was making when they said that people of all religions can commit crimes. Of course, that isn’t saying that the McCanns are guilty because they are Catholic or that the Nazis practicing in Catholicism fueled what they did. The point was that religion doesn’t automatically mean you are a saintly character (as is illustrated well in other posts, but using other religions as examples). Perhaps it wasn’t a complete picture of information, but that was never his intention, you have gone out of your way because you feel passionate about an opposing view being represented, which is fine. Hopefully, your post, along with the others explaining the situation will help those prejudice, far too trustworthy, and gullible people that comments here may mislead; but somehow I suspect such people are off browsing for uncensored pictures of Hollywood starlets in sheela na gig poses.
September 18th, 2007 at 5:31 am
Right, sit down then Here’s both barrels to finally put paid to your insults, prejudice and wild claims personally directed at me for the Third time.
Or until you finally comprehend what I’m actually saying here.
My dear Mother is Catholic.
The Lady I’ve been “dating” her parents are Catholic
She’s probably a Catholic too but I didn’t ask because I don’t really care
My friend in Belfast is Catholic
Probably lots of other people I know and respect are Catholic
Please, step back and take a look at yourself, I just detect anger. It’s not attractive. Please say something rational, and more general. It’s not nice being aggressive, and uber-defensive.
Oh, and using me as your sounding board for what appears to be deep rooted problems which you may have. See a priest, I’m told it’s helpful plus he wants to listen.
September 18th, 2007 at 5:27 am
#956 Spudgun,
If Madeleine’s neck was broken I don’t think that was a planned death.
I have tried to simplify the accidental death theories.
Considering neglect, I don’t see the difference if a child wakes and has an accident than if a child is abducted. The only part that might sound better initially is not admitting the child is dead as a result of being left alone. Of course, a missing child is likely to be dead. I do believe the McCanns might be the type to hide anything that would suggest they are not perfect. My reasoning is due to their answers to the nightly routine, “like being in your garden”, “thousands would do the same”, “more dangerous in a car”… In theory??
Again, considering a planned death surely they would spend the day or do something special before they intentionally kill a child? In theory??
An accidental overdose would be an accident that could be explained if the dosage was understandable. A large dose could be explained by one parent administering and the other unknowingly does the same. My problem with that theory is Madeleine would have probably been asleep after the first dose. As for Madeleine finding pills and taking I doubt she would eat more than one thinking the tablet would taste nasty, chemical taste.
My thought, considering a death theory, is the parents could prefer to hide an accident by claiming abduction, possbily an attempt to appear victims, instead of reporting an accident. My only other theory is that something was so obvious and impossible to explain that a body was carried away and hidden.
Skinny, considering most people I would assume they would prefer to report and confront any accident, especially knowing they are also neglectful have a child alone abducted. Consider the McCanns, after observing their victim defense tendency, I don’t know. With an abduction they portray themselves as victims too.
Spudgun, NO. I don’t rule out abuse, in theory. The reason is an accident can be reported so what could be so obvious and impossible to explain? Abuse?
September 18th, 2007 at 5:20 am
Sorry Wanderer, I had to answer those spurious claims before speaking to you, rather rude of me I apologise.
I think it’s a tragedy that this circus goes on whilst kids all over the place are missing, suffering and well…
Isn’t that why we’re all here. YES
Should we do something? Yes but what. At least we aren’t buying into all this nonsense we are subjected to, it’s actually doing something. I’m “sure to gGd” the press come in here and study what we’re saying and take notes.
Not a day goes by when I don’t see a newspaper which says something “we” said 3 days previously… food for thought? So maybe some good will come out of it all some way or other for Madeleine / her memory, or other Children out there? It looks like certain Laws will be re-written or at least questioned
Raising awareness is what it’s all about, none of us are exempt from that
ALLEGEDLY
September 18th, 2007 at 5:17 am
1008 - “I’m Humour and irony based… this is painful”.
Is that what is is? Humour and irony? I know it was painful for me - you are correct there. But I failed to see the humour in anything you’ve said here on this forum.
“Please don’t humble yourself in this way further, it’s embarrassing. And you interrupted what was becoming a rather interesting Legal issue as opposed to your archaic belief in fairies”
I’m not humbling myself. And I have no reason to be embarrassed either other than wasting my valuable time responding here - to some one so arrogant and undeserving of a response. You are quite condescending. Very much so as a matter of fact. My belief in “fairies’ - no I don’t believe in “fairies” other than the one I’m dialogueing with here on this forum right now. Although, I’m not sure I really “believe” in you.
I’m “interrupting” your rather interesting legal issue? Please don’t let me stand in your way - I apologize - for I did not realize you had squatters rights on this forum. On the otherhand, you had no problem interfering here and monopolizing the forum for the last 7 pages to spew your venomous anti - Catholic propoganda.
What is the rationale behind that logic, pray tell? Actually, don’t bother. I am not the least bit interested in hearing anymore from you tonight or any other night. Good luck to you. I hope that someone puts you in your place when you go off on this subject again. Obviously, I did not finish the job here. But in hindsight, it’s only a waste of my time.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:58 am
AU REVOIR “AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS”
I refer you to comment 988, and other posters references thereafter.
I have at no time directed a personal insult at any person posting here
If you would take the time out to objectively read what everyone’s written I think it’s fair to say on reflection you are somewhat of an excitable Nature, and somehow are unable to comprehend the spirit in which I, and others have posted in.
And thank’s for flooding a whole screen out with unreadable, emotional biased, incorrect opinion, and specifically targetting me as something which you have aparrently pre-conceived idea’s of.
I’m Humour and irony based… this is painful. Please don’t humble yourself in this way further, it’s embarrassing. And you interrupted what was becoming a rather interesting Legal issue as opposed to your archaic belief in fairies
September 18th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Very good theoretical stuff! Even if it is unlikely and theoretical, it is still quite interesting to read about (for me anyway, I know some people would just state: “Ludicrous!”
Pinochet was awarded $800,000 of the taxpayer’s money for legal costs (not including the basic court costs), and he never stood trial in the UK? Wow.
I was reading a report (that seems illogical, but it is from an AOL news site), claiming that 250-262 children in the UK have gone missing since Madeleine McCann. I went to the Missing Children website, and I only counted 24 (although I realize this could just be the children taken by strangers and that numbers fluctuate). Still, 24 children missing in the UK and I’ve only heard of one apart from Madeleine. I know I should blame myself, but I think the media is a bit at fault too.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:46 am
At this juncture, I am satisfied with the responses received from Wanderer and Jocelyn and the other guy…(Faith and Reason) to a certain extent (only the part where he says “Andrew your posts WERE gratuitously offensive. Cut it out.”)
Nevertheless, I will continue to disagree with a several other statements from Faith and Reason, where he accused me of being off topic - (there was nothing off topic on my behalf, I was responding to Andrew’s anti-Catholic sentiments) and where he stated “Nazism was born and bred in Catholic Bavaria, not Protestant Prussia”..
Whereas, the truth is, Nazism was born in Protestant Bavaria, as in Nazi Germany. Don’t know if you saw this, but just the other day, a poster explained the connection between Martin Luther, the Father of Protestant Reformation, and the very influential role he played in setting the tone for Anti-semistism in Nazi Gerrmany many years later.. Allow me to bring that to the forefront to remind you of what the facts truly are in relation to Nazism.
(from Wikipedia)
“Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews,[9] the nature and consequences of which are the subject of scholarly debate. His statements that Jews’ homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated, and liberty curtailed [citation needed] were revived and given widespread publicity by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45.[10] As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial”
Luther was not a Catholic, no, in fact, he was the very first PROTESTANT ever I should add - & founder of the Lutheran branch of the Protestant Religion. In the 15th century, Luther was promoting anti-semitism which was largely responsible for influencing Nazi GERMANY (Bavaria) to invent and embrace hatred of the Jews and spread their venom throughout Europe in the 1930’s leading up to WW II. These same Germans were blaming the Jews for all their problems - as they’ve always been blamed as used as scapegoats by most of the major cultures and religions in this world. Germany is and has been since the 15th Century, a Protestant country. Austria is a Catholic country, yes, but Germany is where Nazism and Anti-Semitism was born and bred and flourished - as Faith and Reason stated, in Bavaria.
Let me be also clear on one other important thing: I do not care if anyone dislikes Catholicism. That is their perogative. Understandably, if they were not brought up with a positive acclamation or positive experiences, as I was for the most part, then it is only natural why one would not trust it. Given the abundance of negative propoganda out there regarding Catholicism today, and the current epidemic of Pedophilia cases coming to light in the U.S. none of which is helping the situation, it’s understandable that there is much prejudice and ignorance floating around on this subject today.
But if an unsuspecting person (and I presume there may be several on this forum) heard Andrew’s biased diatribe where he makes serious “allegations” that are not accurately documented nor well-founded and have been disputed by theologians for a long time now, then they too become (involuntary) unsuspecting participants of a smear campaign hauled against the Catholic Church. And, if they had not formed an opinion beforehand, after reading Andrew’s posts, they would certainly view Catholicsm as an “evil” religion - without getting a fair and balanced “true” picture of the better side and the goodness of the faith.
No, I don’t have any problem with your disdain and distrust for Catholocism; you’ve been brainwashed to hate it just like the others will soon be after reading your posts on this subject.
What I do have a problem with is the fact that you’re presenting a lot of misinformation here and “selling” your propoganda which reflects so negatively on Catholics to a very impressionable group of people on this form. Your information is based on very slanted journalism and is not a true picture of history. Your very Anglican/Protestant upbringing, has most likely led you to develop an aversion and ignorance to all things Catholic. Which includes omitting much of the altruism and charitable contributions of the Catholic faith. You are not the first, nor will you be the last I’ve heard on this subject in my lifetime. But I will continue to vehemently defend my stance. As you do with yours.
I would never come on a forum and denounce any one religion, because it is akin to standing with a megaphone in a public place, and targeting an innocent group of people along the lines of: “your family sucks and they are a bunch of hypocrites, liars and bigots and here’s all the documented propoganda to support it”.
I am sure Andrew never cared to look at it that way. But there is an insular and familial lifestyle that is inherent in the Catholic Church with its parishoners, and that is why it is so particularly hurtful when someone like Andrew comes by casting stones from every which way, spewing thinly veiled Anti-Catholic propoganda. No practicing Catholic in their right mind would sit there and accept or agree with his remarks regardless of how many links he wants to share with everyone. Digging up propoganda is like digging for sand at the beach. There’s an infinite amount to be found right in front of you - you don’t have to search too far or wide for it. If you can use a shovel, then it’s there for the taking. And that’s what Andrew has done here. Shoveled the “sand” (just because I am too polite to say otherwise!).
September 18th, 2007 at 4:40 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1209914.stm
There’s the Pinochet timeline, it’s too much to write here!
Another “Ludicrous” brainwave I recently had, was that it is an offence under UK law to assist directly or indirectly a criminal in the persuit of his crimes.
Bearing in mind “Ignorance is no defence”
Therefore contributors to the Madeleine fund have theoretically run, and continue to run the risk of being charged with aiding abeitting councilling or procuring the McCanns in the commissioning of an offence. Namely, providing moneys for the hire of the motor car used in the conveyance of the “alleged body of madeleine” and perhaps other crimes pertaining to interfering with evidence or witnesses… not likely, but theoretically possible.
(or other random stuff like that)
Think on everyone….
Also remember the legal term “Repetition is no defence” all you Gerry’s
Allegedly
September 18th, 2007 at 4:28 am
*Madeleine Fund…
“1.1 The full objects of the Fund are:
1.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
1.1.2 To procure that Madeleine’s abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
1.1.3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family.
1.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.”
So if a body is never recovered or if they simply never find the killer, the funds still can’t be used to help other children?
I’m assuming the continued financial assistance for the family can still continue.
I wonder if they could take a few years off of work to “find madeleine” and provide support for the twins, while being provided for by the fund?
September 18th, 2007 at 4:21 am
Sadly, I think you’re right about Mr. Poshpants! I suppose, if they are guilty, the only thing they’ve said that can be used against them are the statements taken by the PJ (if that is even admissible? I’m assuming it is, everything is so twisted in the law books).
Pinchoet never faced trial in the UK though, did he? I don’t really follow UK judicial events that much, so I don’t know. And in 1998, well let’s just say I was listening to the Spice Girls, revealing my age range or a really bad taste in music a bit there.
I was just searching for information on about the specific details of the Madeleine Fun now.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:00 am
I think they would have to be extradited to Portugal to face trial there. I know that if you committ an offence of Murder in Spain you can be tried in this Country, pertaining to the Pinochet case (Thatcher’s mate)
How this would fit in with Portugal is a mystery to me.
I’m thinking if a suspect is questioned in this country, UK law applies to the questioning. It’s more beneficial to the enquiry at this stage as I imagine as:
“Anything they fail to say now may harm their defence when later relied on”
I guess this is where Mr. poshpants Q.C comes in to argue that the offence was allegedly committed (whatever offence they may specify) in Portugal, therfore the UK “caution” is rendered inappropriate due to the rights of the Accused being different in the country the alleged offence was committed in, and their right to silence can not be deemed as an indication of guilt…..
wowswerrrrs I want a pay rise!
September 18th, 2007 at 3:53 am
Perhaps there will be a concert for Madeleine, somehow I think they’ll finally have to break out of the mold and come up with something better than “Live Madeleine”.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:50 am
Hmm, good questions Andrew. I’m not sure what would happen. I don’t think they can force anyone to answer any questions though.
Do you think, if the UK did take over the case, that the McCanns would be more likely to face charges than if they were tried in Portugal? The UK seems to be quite favorable to the McCanns and I have a feeling Portugal is a bit afraid of the case now.
If the government do get that heavily involved…just how far is this going to go?
There is already speculation that basic free speech (including freedom of the press), could be violated for sharing opinions about the case because it could infringe on the fair trial right.
What’s next? “The UK leaves the EU over Portugal: The EU begged, “Don’t go! We’ll just aid global warming and Portugal will be under the sea before you know it, please don’t go!”
The UK responded with the cold comment, “We’re an island nation! What twisted logic is that, you want us to be mermaids! The Atlantic is cold! We’ve had enough!”
September 18th, 2007 at 3:38 am
This is what I’m wondering now.
By having them questioned in the UK, presumably UK Law will apply therfore giving the Police and prosecution the right to draw adverse inferrence form the silence? I can’t be certain as I’m not truly versed with the UK/Portugal legalities.
One would hope that UK law applies when questioning a suspect, hopefully “forcing” them to reveal something, or perhaps even to be held in custody as a result of their answers/failure to answer
It is theoretically possible to deny bail on the grounds that they may interfere with witnesses/evidence, and due to the severity of the possible charges and resulting sentence, and possibly the fact that they may not answer bail to a Magistrate, or committ further offences whilst on bail
Go on… surely there is “A God”
Allegedly
September 18th, 2007 at 3:32 am
Yeah, I noticed people were commenting that they think they are guilty. Some of the short, sweet examples of this are:
“Sniffer dog: Woof, Woof!”
and
Cuddle Cat: Wash me! Wash me!”
But surely by signing, they won’t exclude your guilty opinion, just take your additional signature and add it to the not guilty tally.
Also, the whole disclaimer is a bit odd.
“This petition is set up to help support Gerry and Kate McCann as they battle to clear their names, in the media, at home and in Portugal. It will be used to convince the government that we believe in their innocence and to sway them to pressurise the Portuguese police to continue to look for Madeleine McCann.”
The UK in general has been very favorable to the McCanns, both with the public and the media. Will the government really get involved with a heavy hand? I thought they were trying to “work with them”.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:27 am
Wanderer… I registered my GUILTY vote
Just an opinion!
Allegedly
September 18th, 2007 at 3:09 am
I’ll go ahead and post the website for the petition:
“Gerry and Kate McCann are innocent.”
“This petition is set up to help support Gerry and Kate McCann as they battle to clear their names, in the media, at home and in Portugal. It will be used to convince the government that we believe in their innocence and to sway them to pressurise the Portuguese police to continue to look for Madeleine McCann.”
“Petition Sponsor: This petition is being launched by Phil McCann, Gerry McCann’s sister who wholeheartedly believes in the innocence of Kate and Gerry McCann and is desperate to have the search for her missing niece Madeleine McCann resume.”
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/L00kforMadeleineMcCann/
There are 966 signatures so far.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:02 am
No more Madeleine comments to boot, from the boot?
The following is about the only new thing I’m seeing in the “new” stories.
“His statement followed the news that Mr McCann’s sister, Philomena, has launched an online petition to gather signatures and support from people who are convinced that the McCanns are innocent of harming Madeleine.
She hopes the Look for Madeleine petition - at http://www. ipetitions.com - will convince the Government to put pressure on the Portuguese authorities to continue and improve the search for the four-year-old.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482391&in_page_id=1770
September 18th, 2007 at 2:12 am
There’s nothing gratuitous about my posts…
991 attempted satire/irony indeed as has been spotted by the very nimble Wanderer!
And look what conversational interest was generated. Success on every level.
Nobody can hide behind a brand or religion in my book. To claim such, is folly
978 Faith and reason… spot on with your articulation of all things nazi-catholic et al.
990 Jocelyn has got it spot on. Thanks There is good and bad in everyone…
I’m here drinking tea philosophising, provoking thoughts, and attempting to enlighten myself from everyone’s input, and in turn, hoing to possibly provoke thought or enlighten somebody else.
Free sppech all the way.
More tea anyone?
September 18th, 2007 at 1:58 am
(990)
“It just shows that no matter what religion a person belongs to, he/she is capable of killing or hurting people.”
Indeed!
(991)
Correction: In Short, the only thing Andrew
“Let’s all put the razorblades away, before you shave your heads, hurt someone, or just can’t take it anymore.”
The you addresses everyone, not just the posters I was responding to. Suspect everyone and all of that.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:57 am
PS: I’ll probably get banished to Hell now for questioning he innocence of SS Kate & Gerry, and the infallibility and unquestionability of everything Catholic - but Andrew, your posts WERE gratuitously offensive. Cut it out.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:55 am
(986) AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS:
Andrew is usually tongue-in-cheek poster, a lot of that happens on this website among both the official writers and the people who contribute to the forum. It is my belief that dear, old Andrew is not a Neo-Nazi (everyone can sigh in relief!).
In short, the only Andrew has done wrong is probably not made his satire clear enough for you (and possibly others). I’m sure he’d like to do better next time, he’s a trooper, so let’s not prepare to hang, draw, and quarter him just yet.
Obviously, it is good that you are outraged when you see Nazi propaganda quoted and you may not agree with Andrew’s usage of such things for satire, but that doesn’t make him a Neo-Nazi or someone that lives in fear of Catholics (I suspect?).
Let’s all put the razorblades away, before you shave your heads, hurt someone, or just can’t take it anymore.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Why are you guys so upset? I am sure there are very good catholics out there as many as good budhists or muslims. But we must not forget that there are bad budhists/muslims as many as bad catholics out there, too. I thought Andrew just wanted to point out that there were well-known catholics who were very evil that we’ve learned throughout history.
It just shows that no matter what religion a person belongs to, he/she is capable of killing or hurting people.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:49 am
978:
“Do not lump Catholics into the mess created by Protestants and their race for an Arayan nation. Take accountability when it’s yours”
Largely off-topic, but please get your facts right before launching your crusade.
Nazism was born and bred in Catholic Bavaria, not Protestant Prussia. The extensive complicity of the Catholic Church in Nazism and Italian Fascism (not to mention Phalangism) on every level down from Pius XII is very well documented.
Of course there were many selfless and noble catholics, lay and clerical, who died opposing the horrors of Fascism, but the Protestant churches had an equally strong, if not stronger record of opposition and martyrdom.
It’s actually struck me that there are quite a few Catholic posters here for whom a lot of the issues - even down to Kate McCann’s innocence - seem to be matters more of faith than reason.
It’s hardly surprising that Kate and Gerry are often referred to as ‘Saints Kate & Gerry’, because the implicit belief in their weird story, despite most of the mounting mass of circumstantial evidence and rational reconstruction, resembles a form of theology.
I remember how, at the outset, I and many I spoke to were often rather reluctant to say what we really thought about the saintly couple, because we were well aware that many would greet our doubts and questions as a form of heresy.
And to close the circle, that is frighteningly reminiscent of Nazi mind-control.
Yes. Really. It is.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:28 am
How can what I’ve said be deemed as neo-nazi?
That’s a bit too far out even for my liking. Read it again… think before speaking
Stop living in denial
September 18th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Yeah I agree it’s boring. Especially when Catholics, hellbent on living in Denial try to hijack what was a satirical link to Hitler and Gerry into becoming an essay.
Hitler was raised Catholic. End of story
I didnt undermine all Catholics? Or have a personal pop at anyone here. I never do. Looks like someone here had a nerve touched.
Good
Allegedly