The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann

Needlessly copying reams of previous comments doesn't help either!

jassi wrote:No reason why you should be. You just have a tiresome way of expressing yourself, particularly with that silly smiley at the end of nearly every post.

well, you've toned down a bit and no, there's no reason why i should be but that sure bothers a few on here. as for the emoticon, just try pretending it's not there.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Needlessly copying reams of previous comments doesn't help either!

well, not everyone needs help, i'll grant you that.

As I have explained on the other forum, Marky suffers from the as yet incurable condition "inappropriate-smiley-iconism-usage".

As with conditions like Tourette's syndrome, we all need to do our best to ignore any outbursts.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:As I have explained on the other forum, Marky suffers from the as yet incurable condition "inappropriate-smiley-iconism-usage".

As with conditions like Tourette's syndrome, we all need to do our best to ignore any outbursts.

and for 'outbursts' read 'non-conforming alternate opinion'.

I think you mean 'alternative' opinion Marky... but that's the trouble... you don't express your own opinions very often, just sneer at other people's. Why not put your own point of view, and let people argue or dispute with you? The way you carry on, signature smirk and all, makes you appear to me to be getting a primitive buzz out of being a WUM, aka a wind-up merchant. Of course that is merely MY opinion.

comperedna wrote:I think you mean 'alternative' opinion Marky... but that's the trouble... you don't express your own opinions very often, just sneer at other people's. Why not put your own point of view, and let people argue or dispute with you? The way you carry on, signature smirk and all, makes you appear to me to be getting a primitive buzz out of being a WUM, aka a wind-up merchant. Of course that is merely MY opinion.

Not only yours, I suspect.

jassi wrote:

comperedna wrote:I think you mean 'alternative' opinion Marky... but that's the trouble... you don't express your own opinions very often, just sneer at other people's. Why not put your own point of view, and let people argue or dispute with you? The way you carry on, signature smirk and all, makes you appear to me to be getting a primitive buzz out of being a WUM, aka a wind-up merchant. Of course that is merely MY opinion.

Not only yours, I suspect.

and i suspect you are correct. my opinions are here if you care to look but given the slow moving nature of this case they are few and far between. the apparent eagerness of some to jump on whatever bandwagon is flavour of the month is quite worrying and let's face it, it's the poulton issue that this is all about. how some of you can be almost convinced she's on the verge of some dramatic revelation in a case two police forces have so far yet to do is head shaking to say the least and therein lies the problem. i'm raining on your parade and you don't like it but instead of arguing, disputing or whatever, the reaction i get is the one i expect from those who either don't like what they hear or have no counter or both.

shame really.

but because the sun is shining and i'm in a good mood, this case has a 50/50 chance of reaching a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. my guess is the child died sometime around the time of her disappearance. the fact that the 'crime scene' was heavily compromised by the family and friends before the police arrived was not a good start. the behaviour of the family in the following weeks was strange. the fact that the met during the crime watch show this year effectively trashed the family and friends timelines is significant. that blood spatter was found in the apartment which appeared to have undergone a good clean is eyebrow raising. the reaction of the cadaver dog is telling but all of this is indicative only of what i think both police forces believe happened. what's been going on the last couple years is the met starting at the outer perimeter and working their way inward. the process of elimination but unless they can uncover some irrefutable proof there may never be a definitive conclusion.

Since you never agree with anyone's opinion here Marky - two things occur to me. 1) Why don't you go to other forums where your contrary opinions would be most welcome and 2) Why Admin allow the majority of members here to be constantly irritated by you day after day.

Well we should judge Sonia Poulton on her knowledge and efforts when her documentary comes out.At least as a genuine 'commentator/investigative journalist' she has the courage to come out as herself wether she be right or wrong eventually.
Unlike blacksmith who even with the help of his finest and cheapest blended still has not the courage to come out from behind his keyboard.
How some still maintain some kind of romantic notion that a group of like minded and knowledgable intellectuals meet covertly from time to time to discuss this case and agree to sanction the release of his great literary works is the biggest wonder really.
Mon 26th Jan 2015 come on John ?

winjoy wrote:Since you never agree with anyone's opinion here Marky - two things occur to me. 1) Why don't you go to other forums where your contrary opinions would be most welcome and 2) Why Admin allow the majority of members here to be constantly irritated by you day after day.

you should pay more attention. i have agreed with a number of other posters but it does seem that only 100% is acceptable to some and it seems from your post that you do not entertain any opinion other than that with which you approve and i'm damn glad you've taken the trouble to conduct a poll indicating the number of posters is in the majority.

Sonia Poulton is most certainly a journalist and one in every sense of the word, she has done much to try and raise awareness of the VIP historical abuse cases. You have to ask  yourself how many other so called journalists have put their heads above the parapet to ask questions for instance about the coverup in the McCann case, about the way Brenda Leyland was targeted. Sonia has done that when others have remained silent all towing the party line, quite frankly she puts the other journalists to shame.

cherry1 wrote:Sonia Poulton is most certainly a journalist and one in every sense of the word, she has done much to try and raise awareness of the VIP historical abuse cases. You have to ask  yourself how many other so called journalists have put their heads above the parapet to ask questions for instance about the coverup in the McCann case, about the way Brenda Leyland was targeted. Sonia has done that when others have remained silent all towing the party line, quite frankly she puts the other journalists to shame.

what makes you think it's a cover up?

Its been well documented Marky the interference of the British government in this case, involvement of the secret services from the beginning, Government spokesman etc., If you remember the British Ambassador had concerns about Mccanns behaviour and the Government took no notice.

cherry1 wrote:Its been well documented Marky the interference of the British government in this case, involvement of the secret services from the beginning, Government spokesman etc., If you remember the British Ambassador had concerns about Mccanns behaviour and the Government took no notice.

there was certainly some over eager behaviour first by blair, probably trying to redeem himself in the eyes of the public and then by brown, keen to be seen as an all round good guy but this was just self serving behaviour by polititions at the expense of a pretty blonde girl. i'm not sure that the government took no notice of the concerns of the consul because by mid august, when eyes began to turn towards the mccanns, they advised them to tone down their appeals and began to distance themselves. none of this spells cover up.

You don't normally have secret services involved when a child goes missing or government spokesman, etc so we will have to agree to disagree on this one Marky

cherry1 wrote:You don't normally have secret services involved when a child goes missing or government spokesman, etc so we will have to agree to disagree on this one Marky

not sure about secret services being involved but mitchell was offered by brown and he had designs beyond being the head of media monitoring and like blair and brown was simply putting self interests at the top of his menu. set up his own agency if i remember right, so things kinda worked out okay for him, thanks to a pretty blonde girl. cover up? can't see it. why? well, that's the question isn't it. why.

I think the question is who else is being protected here

cherry1 wrote:I think the question is who else is being protected here

ah yes, the shadowy individual who left shortly thereafter by private airplane if i remember right or was it a big boat harboured near by. there were so many theories being bandied about in those days and championed by posters who claimed to be 'in the know' it was hard to know what was myth or what. most of those stories died away after a while if i remember right.

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I think the question is who else is being protected here

ah yes, the shadowy individual who left shortly thereafter by private airplane if i remember right or was it a big boat harboured near by. there were so many theories being bandied about in those days and championed by posters who claimed to be 'in the know' it was hard to know what was myth or what. most of those stories died away after a while if i remember right.

I believe that is often the way with cover-ups.

jassi wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I think the question is who else is being protected here

ah yes, the shadowy individual who left shortly thereafter by private airplane if i remember right or was it a big boat harboured near by. there were so many theories being bandied about in those days and championed by posters who claimed to be 'in the know' it was hard to know what was myth or what. most of those stories died away after a while if i remember right.

I believe that is often the way with cover-ups.

no, they died away because they were nonsense and sooner or later they were seen for that and besides, with a cover up its either false information or no information.

in fact i seem to remember that someone once suggested, after a long guessing game, that the big boat was in fact registered to the queen. how we laughed.

Marky wrote:

jassi wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I think the question is who else is being protected here

ah yes, the shadowy individual who left shortly thereafter by private airplane if i remember right or was it a big boat harboured near by. there were so many theories being bandied about in those days and championed by posters who claimed to be 'in the know' it was hard to know what was myth or what. most of those stories died away after a while if i remember right.

I believe that is often the way with cover-ups.

no, they died away because they were nonsense and sooner or later they were seen for that and besides, with a cover up its either false information or no information.

Very true. I remember that Watergate never really came to anything, despite the rumours at the beginning.

jassi wrote:

Marky wrote:

jassi wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I think the question is who else is being protected here

ah yes, the shadowy individual who left shortly thereafter by private airplane if i remember right or was it a big boat harboured near by. there were so many theories being bandied about in those days and championed by posters who claimed to be 'in the know' it was hard to know what was myth or what. most of those stories died away after a while if i remember right.

I believe that is often the way with cover-ups.

no, they died away because they were nonsense and sooner or later they were seen for that and besides, with a cover up its either false information or no information.

Very true. I remember that Watergate never really came to anything, despite the rumours at the beginning.

you going to offer any theories on why this would be classified as a cover up?