What is a pro or an anti?

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:@jodel

There is that Pro and Anti thing again - why does it bother you much that you mention it in virtually every Post? Surely each issue has its own merits or otherwise?


qv also my Post at 18.49 today.

Hint: look at the thread title.

tigger wrote:This is my last post to Jodel (which actually means Yodelling in my language), I understand you are a social worker.

The tone and content of your posts remind me awfully of 'Clare in the community' on radio four. You'd be a natural.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:@jodel

There is that Pro and Anti thing again - why does it bother you much that you mention it in virtually every Post? Surely each issue has its own merits or otherwise?


qv also my Post at 18.49 today.

Hint: look at the thread title.

Thankyou, but as the first responder to the OP and one who at that time and repeatedly since has clearly stated my disdain for such generalised classification (ie Not slavish agreement to a polarised point of view) I am still wondering why a fence-sitter should be so exercised by the concept of Pro and Anti.

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

jodel wrote:

I believe that life is complicated and we cannot expect it to meet all our desires. Sometimes things will happen that are confusing and upsetting because it conflicts with our basic desires. When that happens it is time to reflect on whether other people maybe have a better understanding of the situation than we as individuals do.

I will give you an example- I have believed since the first few weeks after Stephen Lawrence was killed that in all probability the group who stood accused were probably guilty of the killing. I did not feel that I needed to campaign for their trial even though it was not brought by the Prosecutor as I understood that the evidence was insufficient. In the fullness of time, evidence was found and two have been convicted.

Stephen Lawrence's parents insisted on launching a private prosecution which failed spectacularly and could have excused the accused permanently

I believe that mature and reflective adults should be capable of considering potential explanations and interpreting it as best they can. When this conflicts with actions taken by other people or organisations they should reflect on why that maybe, avoiding paranoia and cultish behaviour- this goes for Pros and Antis.

My view is that given all the information currently in the public domain, the Portuguese Prosecutor was probably right- not enough evidence to advance any criminal case.

Thank you for your reply but you haven`t really expressed your feelings on this case. It is as if you don`t have any. That`s why I asked about your gut feelings. I believe many of us here are `mature and reflective adults` who do consider explanations for suspicious behaviours; I certainly do. The human condition is to reflect and to discriminate or else we wouldn`t survive. And it is because we are able to discriminate that we are able to determine that certain things in this case just `aint right. Your answers to all comments have been in `legal speke` which is fair enough but surely even a legal minded person has gut feelings about innocence or guilt and I`m asking if you do?

As regards the comparison with the Stephen Lawrence case, I think I can see the point you`re making, i.e. that passionate actions desirous of justice can sometimes hinder the outcome. I would agree that in certain circumstances a `do nothing` approach brings eventual justice; call it Karma if you like.

I have no gut feeling about what happened in this case. I do feel that the continued dogged posting on both sides so long after the event is a little sad- neither side is likely to discover anything new and reading both pro and anti forums, all I see is people reinforcing their own set of prejudices. I had lost interest in the case until the McCanns showed up on the Leveson enquiry which brought me back to reading the forums to see what had changed in a couple of years. To my total lack of surprise, nothing had really changed.

You are being somewhat dogged here, yourself, considering that you only registered today. So, if you think all this posting so long after the event is sad, why are you here and why have you racked up so many posts since you joined today? What's your purpose in being here?

I was interested in the possibility of discussing the case openly without rancour. I have been entirely polite, unemotional and scientific and have only made true statements. It seems that this causes some posters here some problems.

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:@jodel

There is that Pro and Anti thing again - why does it bother you much that you mention it in virtually every Post? Surely each issue has its own merits or otherwise?


qv also my Post at 18.49 today.

Hint: look at the thread title.

Thankyou, but as the first responder to the OP and one who at that time and repeatedly since has clearly stated my disdain for such generalised classification (ie Not slavish agreement to a polarised point of view) I am still wondering why a fence-sitter should be so exercised by the concept of Pro and Anti.

I am fascinated how people can be so certain about a case that has so much uncertainty- that goes for Pros and Antis.

jodel wrote:

kitti wrote:'insufficient'....very significant word, jodel.....whilst you walk back to the dark side perhaps you could pass your Findings to your mates and stipulate that 'insufficient' doesnt mean 'no evidence'.

I did not say that it was 'not evidence', I said that it was not acceptable in court hearings as evidence; there is a difference.

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

jodel wrote:

Lioned wrote:

My paranoia thinks you have been here before under a different user name,certainly the days of 'fence sitters' is long over as you well allude to in your post.

I have not been here before but did post on Mirror, Sky, Bar Arguido and 3Arguidos in earlier times.

So, who were you on 3Arguidos?

I posted as aldente.

Thank you. I don't recall that name.

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

jodel wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:@jodel

There is that Pro and Anti thing again - why does it bother you much that you mention it in virtually every Post? Surely each issue has its own merits or otherwise?


qv also my Post at 18.49 today.

Hint: look at the thread title.

Thankyou, but as the first responder to the OP and one who at that time and repeatedly since has clearly stated my disdain for such generalised classification (ie Not slavish agreement to a polarised point of view) I am still wondering why a fence-sitter should be so exercised by the concept of Pro and Anti.

I am fascinated how people can be so certain about a case that has so much uncertainty- that goes for Pros and Antis.

marxman wrote:To be honest, I found Yodel to be polite and courteous,
and delivered his/her points in a methodical and clear way.
I do not agree with most of these points but I'm prepared
to listen and to compare these views with other equally
well thought out viewpoints.
However, I would suggest that Yodel is on a fishing trip,
casting a rod amongst a pool of 'fishy' fishes, testing the
waters ahead of something pending.
I was also on 3A's and for the life of me I can't recall
her handle either.

Iris wrote:

marxman wrote:To be honest, I found Yodel to be polite and courteous,
and delivered his/her points in a methodical and clear way.
I do not agree with most of these points but I'm prepared
to listen and to compare these views with other equally
well thought out viewpoints.
However, I would suggest that Yodel is on a fishing trip,
casting a rod amongst a pool of 'fishy' fishes, testing the
waters ahead of something pending.
I was also on 3A's and for the life of me I can't recall
her handle either.

Neither can I.

tigger wrote:I'm afraid that - along with many doctors, solicitors, second hand car salesmen and estate agents, social workers come low on my list of people to befriend. I get the impression that this a a lady who likes to lecture, to stand in front of a class full of 'dogged posters' to teach them this unemotional and scientific approach. Well, for someone who modestly says that she has been entirely polite, unemotional and scientific and has only made true statements it is a grave mistake to assume the people one is posting replies to are of a lower standard of intelligence and training than oneself.

What need is there of discussion if only true statements are made? Come on members! This is what we've all been waiting for all these years.
Although for someone who apparently hasn't read the official files to assume superior knowledge is IMO a little - over confident?

pennylane wrote:Dismissing a long list of alarming red flags, and boiling them all conveniently down to 'neglect,' that 'many people are guilty of' is pretty much what the McCanns and their paid mouthpiece have been desperately peddling these past 5 years!

marxman wrote:

Iris wrote:

marxman wrote:To be honest, I found Yodel to be polite and courteous,
and delivered his/her points in a methodical and clear way.
I do not agree with most of these points but I'm prepared
to listen and to compare these views with other equally
well thought out viewpoints.
However, I would suggest that Yodel is on a fishing trip,
casting a rod amongst a pool of 'fishy' fishes, testing the
waters ahead of something pending.
I was also on 3A's and for the life of me I can't recall
her handle either.

Neither can I.

Hi Iris do you remember me from 3As?

The End Is Nigh wrote:

pennylane wrote:Dismissing a long list of alarming red flags, and boiling them all conveniently down to 'neglect,' that 'many people are guilty of' is pretty much what the McCanns and their paid mouthpiece have been desperately peddling these past 5 years!

Although, by definition, no responsible parent has ever neglected their youngsters in the manner we are told was extant in May 2007.

Iris wrote:

marxman wrote:

Iris wrote:

marxman wrote:To be honest, I found Yodel to be polite and courteous,
and delivered his/her points in a methodical and clear way.
I do not agree with most of these points but I'm prepared
to listen and to compare these views with other equally
well thought out viewpoints.
However, I would suggest that Yodel is on a fishing trip,
casting a rod amongst a pool of 'fishy' fishes, testing the
waters ahead of something pending.
I was also on 3A's and for the life of me I can't recall
her handle either.

Neither can I.

Hi Iris do you remember me from 3As?

I remember EVERYBODY.

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

kitti wrote:'insufficient'....very significant word, jodel.....whilst you walk back to the dark side perhaps you could pass your Findings to your mates and stipulate that 'insufficient' doesnt mean 'no evidence'.

I did not say that it was 'not evidence', I said that it was not acceptable in court hearings as evidence; there is a difference.

I think this is a bit of a myth jodel.

The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine team’s reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility.

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

kitti wrote:'insufficient'....very significant word, jodel.....whilst you walk back to the dark side perhaps you could pass your Findings to your mates and stipulate that 'insufficient' doesnt mean 'no evidence'.

I did not say that it was 'not evidence', I said that it was not acceptable in court hearings as evidence; there is a difference.

I think this is a bit of a myth jodel.

The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine team’s reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility.

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

kitti wrote:'insufficient'....very significant word, jodel.....whilst you walk back to the dark side perhaps you could pass your Findings to your mates and stipulate that 'insufficient' doesnt mean 'no evidence'.

I did not say that it was 'not evidence', I said that it was not acceptable in court hearings as evidence; there is a difference.

I think this is a bit of a myth jodel.

The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine team’s reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility.

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

I can only quote what is laid down in the police standards which I presume is law as I haven't followed any other cases, however if I'm not mistaken the report by Martin Grimes does state cases where the dogs detections have led to crimminal convictions.

AnnaEsse wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

ELI wrote:

jodel wrote:

I did not say that it was 'not evidence', I said that it was not acceptable in court hearings as evidence; there is a difference.

I think this is a bit of a myth jodel.

The standards required to become operational are laid down by the ACPO sub-committee on police dogs and are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that training and licensing reflects the most appropriate methods & standards. These records may be discoverable in court proceedings and may become evidence of the canine team’s reliability, the type and amount of training that the team has experienced before and after certification and all confirmed operational outcomes can be used as a factor in determining their capability and credibility.

Perhaps you could provide a reference for a British case where any evidence from any dogs has been admitted as evidence.

I can only quote what is laid down in the police standards which I presume is law as I haven't followed any other cases, however if I'm not mistaken the report by Martin Grimes does state cases where the dogs detections have led to crimminal convictions.

If those police standards state that something may become evidence, that is enough. There is no need then to find individual cases.