Maddie McCann

This topic contains 135 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by  mufc 3 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 81 through 100 (of 136 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1737002
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    I’ve always said you need your head examined. Glad you have realise you need a brain transplant.

    I do admire your persistence, stoking away at the ashes of a dead fire hoping for a spark to reignite the flames.

    #1737300

    mufc
    Participant
    • :

    Its a new series linked to this thread, anyway its dead now. As for the brain transplant, waiting list is really long and I can’t afford to go private.

    #1737538

    Sean the sailor
    Participant
    • :

    Lads what ever happened to wonderful gas and Paxman?

    #1737543
    D1rtyH4rry
    D1rtyH4rry
    Participant
    • :

    Sean – wonderfuel gas is really poorly I believe. So may not be back. I Hope and pray that he makes a full recovery and returns to these boards with both barrels.

    Pax was chased away with pitch forks and torches for being a witch.

    #1737564

    Sean the sailor
    Participant
    • :

    Ah sorry to hear that harry

    I k ow he had given up the smokes and all

    Hope the chap makes a full recovery

    #1737585

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    Really sad to hear about Gas. Get well mate.

    #1737802
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    I read a newspaper article about the new series. It says the authors conclude it was a planned abduction because there is evidence pointing that way. It cites 2 examples of this “evidence”.

    [1] Man seen looking up at the appartment
    [2] Bogus charity collectors in the area

    That tells me all I need to know about the authors & the series. The “scout” lets himself be seen casing the appartment. And why do the authors think the bogus charity collectors are involved in an abduction as opposed to it being a common scam to pocket donations.

    Its fair to assume that whatever happened, there is nobody with knowledge who could grass. The only people who know are those who would be subject to severe charges. That rules out charity collectors and low level potential grasses.

    #1740093
    Jay belfast
    Jay belfast
    Participant
    • :

    Havent been on in a long time but watched the netflix series and had to come on see if this thread had been kicked off again.

    I see it has a little but see little has changed with Mcguffin still spouting nonsense on the subject lol the series never said those two examples you list were evidence at all. They, being the investigators themselves, said these were lines of enquiry they were interested in (among many many others) not that they were proof or evidence of abduction.

    Series was half decent but drags in the later episodes a little.

    #1740099
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    Mcguffin still spouting nonsense

    I said …….

    I read a newspaper article about the new series. It says the authors conclude it was a planned abduction because there is evidence pointing that way. It cites 2 examples of this “evidence”.

    You comment …….

    the series never said those two examples you list were evidence at all.

    The newspaper article was about an interview with the authors on the series. How am I talking nonsense? Are you disputing the article reported what I said? Or are you saying its nonsense to say the 2 examples are not valid evidence on which to make that conclusion.

    My point was if thats the mindset and thought process of the authors it must reflect on the quality of the series.

    Your post is a perfect example of how meaningful discussion is doomed from the outset because of posters like jay.

    1] You are insulting (spouting nonsense) without saying what it is that is nonsense.
    2] You are factually wrong because you did not read or understand my post. I never said the series yet you accuse me of talking nonsense for saying the series said that.

    btw – the report was from an Irish newspaper so if the Irish had it all arse about face then that may not be a surprise.

    #1740114
    Jay belfast
    Jay belfast
    Participant
    • :

    Lol it’s either one of two things. 1 the article is wrong or 2 you’re portraying whats in the article incorrectly. The series does not say those are “evidence” of an abduction they talk about them as potential lines of inquiry.

    So i’ll rephrase either you or the article are spouting nonsense.

    Either way you chose to pick a newspaper article to put across the opinion you wanted to give and then hide behind it. Then subsequently write off anything in the series because of it, highlighted by “That tells me all I need to know about the authors & the series”

    So you choose to watch hours of a documentary by a guy who believes in all types of conspriacy theories including crop circles but choose not to watch a documentary which mainly consists of interviews from all the lead protagonists and either dismiss it completely based on a newspaper article or twist a newspaper article in order to dismiss it.

    Have a link to the newspaper article? My bet is it doesnt say what you claim it does!

    Casual racism at that bottom of your post should we just let go?!

    #1740127

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    Good to see you posting again Jay.

    I’ve got Netflix but have not watched the series because I find the whole thing just too depressing.

    I hope and pray that somehow Maddie is alive and that one day she will be reunited with her family. ps hope to see you back posting on the footie.

    #1740133
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    The two authors featured in Netflix’s eight part documentary ‘The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann’ have said they believe ‘her abduction was planned’.

    Speaking on Ireland AM this morning, Anthony Summers said he believed the disappearance of the then three-year-old was a “planned abduction”:

    “The evidence says that the apartment was being watched during that week. There was a man seen standing looking up at the apartment and that there was some sort of an operation going on.

    “There had been phoney charity collectors coming around to that apartment just before the McCanns and to other residents saying they were collecting for a charity orphanage …it didn’t exist…there was no such orphanage.

    https://www.breakingnews.ie/showbiz/authors-in-madeleine-mccann-documentary-living-in-waterford-believe-her-abduction-was-planned-912416.html

    So i’ll rephrase either you or the article are spouting nonsense.
    1] We can rule me out since I’ve proved I accurately reported what the article said.
    2] We can rule out the media since it comes from a radio interview and there will be audio to prove the media accurately reported what was said.

    That leaves us with the authors. And if they are talking nonsense then it only goes to support my point that the documentary doesn’t seem to be worth watching.

    And since you have seen the documentary, do mind sharing with the forum any new information or insight you got from the documentary? Anything we have not debated at length in this topic ?

    As for racism, don’t be daft. Do you even know what racism is ? Define it then.

    #1740145
    Jay belfast
    Jay belfast
    Participant
    • :

    Maybe written another way you’ll see the racism….”the report was from a Black newspaper so if the Blacks had it all arse about face then that may not be a surprise”

    Authors featured in the netflix documentary….featured!!! They did not write the documentary nor direct it! There were others “featured” that didnt agree with that theory. For example, Amaral is on the documentary and still stated it was the mccanns. Robert murat is featured heavily and his very critical of the friends and accuses of them of trying to frame him.

    So it seems i forgot option 3 you didnt understand what you were reading.

    There wasnt a lot in the documentary we hadnt touched on before but there is loads of fresh interviews with many of the key ppl I found interesting and a lot of footage i hadnt seen before. There was a lead portugese journalist who said amaral and the pj leaked her false information. There was an admission by amaral that his documentary had exaggerations/made up events. Interviews with the dog guy saying their evidence was worthless by itself. It gave more background into why the mccanns often stormed out of interviews etc. Good interviews with one of the mccanns financial backers.

    #1740165
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    Maybe written another way you’ll see the racism
    But it wasn’t written another way was it. Perhaps if you saw what was written instead of morphing whats written into something else you would see sense and heaven forbid humour.

    Authors featured in the netflix documentary
    Interviewing people directly involved in the case or technical experts is to be expected. BUT getting the views of “authors” – especially those with nonsensical logic – tells me the documentary is of dubious quality.

    There wasnt a lot in the documentary we hadnt touched on before
    PRECISELY !!

    There was a lead portugese journalist who said amaral and the pj leaked her false information.
    If the information was false it was not a leak.

    Now this would make for an interesting documentary, all the politics & pressure behind the investigation. The UK government, Mitchell, the McCanns PR machine, the pressure on the Portuguese government etc.

    It gave more background into why the mccanns often stormed out of interviews etc.
    The McCanns have made it clear they are not cooperative with anything that to their mind doesn’t help with the investigation into an abduction or fundraising. But they fail to see that not addressing the many questions people have about them and their friends only increases speculation & suspicion.

    #1740181

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    Once bitten twice shy Jay.😊

    #1740210
    Jay belfast
    Jay belfast
    Participant
    • :

    “Maybe written another way you’ll see the racism” all i did was replace one word in yours (irish to black) to highlight the racism element.

    “Authors featured in the netflix documentary”
    Two Authors who have investigated extensively on the subject, who we have no reason to believe carry bias are not relevant people to interview?! Considering the rest of the “cast” have skin in the game you would think this would add balance to the programme.

    “There wasnt a lot in the documentary we hadnt touched on before”
    Yes there wasnt a whole of new evidence but as I say extra details on the evidence, fresh in depth interviews and collection of previously unseen footage (for me at least) made it worth watching.

    “There was a lead portugese journalist who said amaral and the pj leaked her false information.”
    If the information was false it was not a leak

    What???? They leaked information that turned out to be inaccurate/untrue. Whether its untrue or factual it’s still a leak. Illegal in portugal to discuss aspects of an ongoing case as well.

    There is lots on the politics and pressure on both the mccanns, the pj, the portugese gov, british gov, press etc

    “It gave more background into why the mccanns often stormed out of interviews etc.”

    It was illegal for the mccanns to discuss aspects of the case but the interviewers continually asked them specifics….so they understandably got frustrated.

    You made your mind up on it from one newspaper review. An irish paper which in words wouldnt be surprised if they had it all “arse about face” and you were more than happy to completely dismiss the whole documentary and anything said in it because of it.

    Just watch it and draw your own conclusions. Basing your opinion on a report you think could be “arse about face” is just a fairly lazy and niave way and to form your opinions. Bit like taking daily star transfer rumours as gospel!

    #1740376
    steveosnakeeye
    steveosnakeeye
    Participant
    • :

    Mac, let’s not be silly and don’t disappoint as someone who’s posts I generally like to read

    Of course it’s was racist, it was casual racism, inferring that thx Irish are think, perpetuating the “the think mick” thoughts of yesteryear….

    It would be like saying …. my girlfriends ex is black…. well you won’t fulfil her sexually then …..

    #1740748
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    @jay – Regarding racism, see my reply to steve.

    Two Authors …… who we have no reason to believe carry bias
    There is potential reason. The McCanns have a history of taking action against anybody who promotes the theory they were responsible. The McCann theory is the the planned abduction one. The government was even pressured to limit thhe scope of Operation Grange to the planned abduction theory.

    Authors are in it for the money. Given they are not going to say they have no idea whatsoever (probably the honest option) the safest option is to go along with the abduction theory.

    Considering the rest of the “cast” have skin in the game you would think this would add balance to the programme.
    From what I’ve read most of the cast were on team McCann or British police who are not really in a position to challenge the official line. Balance is giving equal time to all theories. And they could ask the public for their views.

    Yes there wasnt a whole of new evidence
    Let’s cut to the chase. Would you recommend people watch the series given there is nothing new there.

    Let’s be honest. The series is made for American audience who would know little about the case (just as Brits know little about the JonBenét Ramsey case – which has similarites). The series has nothing new (for those of us who are well read on the topic). Why should anybody waste their time watching this when there are plenty of other things to watch or do.

    Whether its untrue or factual it’s still a leak.
    Explain why it is a leak if no confidential information is revealed. You can argue its wrong or violates a rule but thats not what you said. Can you prosecute somebody for breach of official secrets act when no secrets were revealed.

    It was illegal for the mccanns to discuss aspects of the case but the interviewers continually asked them specifics….so they understandably got frustrated.
    Not sure if it is. I’ll fact check that. And they had no problem giving information the police told them not to give (eg releasing MM photo). They seem to get frustrated when they dont like the question and dont have an answer.

    And if true, why could they not simply tell the interviewer they are unable to answer because of the law. My god, they have the Prime Ministers spin doctor as their PR mentor.

    You made your mind up on it from one newspaper review.
    Not true. Because I posted about 1 item doesn’t mean that’s the sum total of my research. You are, once again, making an assumption then basing an accusation on your assumption. I’ve read many reviews about the series. They all seem to the say the same …. nothing new or special,

    Basing your opinion on a report you think could be “arse about face” is just a fairly lazy and niave way and to form your opinions.
    It is lazy and naieve of you to assume all I read is one article.

    Bit like taking daily star transfer rumours as gospel!
    Not gospel but I don’t write them off. Sports journos do have their sources and if you read between the lines, there often is something behind the speculation (eg agent trying to sell his client).

    #1740751

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    @jay Regarding racism, see my reply to steve.

    Perhaps more pertinent is Stevo’s most recent response to you Mac.

    “Of course it’s was racist, it was casual racism, inferring that the Irish are thick, perpetuating the “the thick mick” thoughts of yesteryear….”

    #1740752
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    @steveosnakeeyes – You are being silly. Yes no argument I made a quip based on demographic stereotypes. You are trying to spin that into racism. Brendan O’Carroll as Mrs Brown plays the foul mouthed eejiot Irish woman. Are you going to suggest he or his show is racist?

    Perhaps you can argue its alright if a member of that demograpic says it but not if somebody else does. The different rules for different people argument.

    It would be like saying …. my girlfriends ex is black…. well you won’t fulfil her sexually then …..
    Its more like me saying …… if you’re girlfriend is from Essex you won’t fulfil her sexually then.

    Yes if you change whats said it could be different kettle of fish but thats like saying if your auntie had a dick she’d be your uncle.

Viewing 20 posts - 81 through 100 (of 136 total)

You must be logged in to reply this topic.