Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Madeleine McCann

1…102103105107108…169

Comments

  • #3122
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    happyoutscan wrote: »
    At the bottom of the link you provided:

    'At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine.'

    But you can see whatever you want to see.

    More ****ing nonsense.
    You know the link provides for statements from two different people right?


  • #3123
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Day Lewin wrote: »
    There's no question though that there ARE paedophiles, (sadly) and there were some of those around in Praia at the time.

    Like nasty old CB, for instance, man with a long rap sheet for crimes against kids; others too, no doubt.

    If it wasn't him, well --- then who?

    The parents being parties to paedophila of their cherished little girl just doesn't seem to me like a convincing case. They raised the alarm, they searched, they never gave up searching.

    If it looks like a duck and it quacks - most likely a duck

    Except becoming amazing friends with the biggest one of the people you describe.


  • #3124
    Day Lewin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭Day Lewin


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Except becoming amazing friends with the biggest one of the people you describe.

    Sorry, what? who? Explain?


  • #3125
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Day Lewin wrote: »
    Sorry, what? who? Explain?

    For someone who suggests they know so much about the case it's interesting to observe how little you actually seem to know. Just my observation btw.


  • #3126
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Day Lewin wrote: »
    Sorry, what? who? Explain?

    Clement Freud. Just do a quick google on him. Great friends with the McCanns.


  • Advertisement
  • #3127
    Day Lewin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭Day Lewin


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    For someone who suggests they know so much about the case it's interesting to observe how little you actually seem to know. Just my observation btw.

    My dear chap, you know my methods: apply them!

    Drawing them out of cover, dontcha know.

    Please don't bring personal comments into this -- it's awfully bad form!


  • #3128
    Babooshka
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Babooshka


    happyoutscan wrote: »
    At the bottom of the link you provided:

    'At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine.'

    But you can see whatever you want to see.

    More ****ing nonsense.

    Yes, I too am amazed the people who post several times a day in this thread who keep discovering "new" stuff about it, mainly because they haven't actually read up on the case at all in the first place....it's completely ridiculous.


  • #3129
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Day Lewin wrote: »
    My dear chap, you know my methods: apply them!

    Drawing them out of cover, dontcha know.

    Please don't bring personal comments into this -- it's awfully bad form!

    It's not a personal comment, it is directed at your posts.
    I leave the personal stuff to others. Although I see one has already been sanctioned for such behaviour.


  • #3130
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    happyoutscan wrote: »
    At the bottom of the link you provided:

    'At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine.'

    But you can see whatever you want to see.

    More ****ing nonsense.

    If it was harmless nonsense it wouldn’t matter but it’s wicked.


  • #3131
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Babooshka wrote: »
    Yes, I too am amazed the people who post several times a day in this thread who keep discovering "new" stuff about it, mainly because they haven't actually read up on the case at all in the first place....it's completely ridiculous.

    Happy responded to a link without noting it contained the statements of two sperate individuals.


  • Advertisement
  • #3132
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Clement Freud. Just do a quick google on him. Great friends with the McCanns.

    You’re pretending that the McCanns knew Clement Freud before Madeleine was abducted. You’re lying. Why?
    Your pretending that they knew him after he was exposed as a paedophile. You’re lying. Why?
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/how-clement-freud-invited-kate-and-gerry-mccann-for-lunch-after/amp/


  • #3133
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    You’re pretending that the McCanns knew Clement Freud before Madeleine was abducted. You’re lying. Why?
    Your pretending that they knew him after he was exposed as a paedophile. You’re lying. Why?
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/how-clement-freud-invited-kate-and-gerry-mccann-for-lunch-after/amp/

    I never said that at all. I said that they were friends with him. You don't know anything else.

    At the end of the day the McCanns were friends with a notorious paedophile. Whatever conclusions you want to draw from that is up to you. Im not friends with a notorious paedophile. If any of my family had been abducted I would be wary of any new friends who were known as a notorious paedophile.


  • #3134
    Banana Republic.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Banana Republic.


    happyoutscan wrote: »
    At the bottom of the link you provided:

    'At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine.'

    But you can see whatever you want to see.

    More ****ing nonsense.

    Yea but in the statement it said in it “referring to Madeline”
    That’s the part I was talking about. So no not nonsense I was asked for a link to Gaspars so I’ve quoted the piece as it is below


  • #3135
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I never said that at all. I said that they were friends with him. You don't know anything else.

    At the end of the day the McCanns were friends with a notorious paedophile. Whatever conclusions you want to draw from that is up to you. Im not friends with a notorious paedophile. If any of my family had been abducted I would be wary of any new friends who were known as a notorious paedophile.

    The article I posted a link to completely clears up any suggestion that the McCanns knew Freud was a paedophile. or that their association with him had anything to do with Madeleines disappearance.
    9 years after Madeleine went missing were the first allegations that Freud was a paedophile yet here you are alleging that the McCanns knew in 2007. What are your grounds for that allegation?


  • #3136
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    The article I posted a link to completely clears up any suggestion that the McCanns knew Freud was a paedophile. or that their association with him had anything to do with Madeleines disappearance.
    9 years after Madeleine went missing were the first allegations that Freud was a paedophile yet here you are alleging that the McCanns knew in 2007. What are your grounds for that allegation?

    McCanns started using the legal firm Kingsley Napley to defend them against allegations immediately after their first (supposed) meeting. Kingsley Napley were defending Freud and his two best friends against child abuse allegations. Saying that no allegations were made against Freud for 9 years are spurious at best.

    Also, for someone who never was in the public eye and hated the press, why did Freud suddenly want to become friends with the parents of the child who was at the centre of a worldwide hunt when he knew himself that he was a paedophile.


  • #3137
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I never said that at all. I said that they were friends with him. You don't know anything else.

    At the end of the day the McCanns were friends with a notorious paedophile. Whatever conclusions you want to draw from that is up to you. Im not friends with a notorious paedophile. If any of my family had been abducted I would be wary of any new friends who were known as a notorious paedophile.

    He was not a notorious paedophile when they knew him. Why would they be wary of someone they didn't know to be paedophile?

    How do you know you're not friends with a paedophile? Do they announce it?

    Your posts are nothing but conspiracy nonsense. Implying and/or insinuating that someone is in cahoots with a known paedophile is a very serious accusation to make. I hope you're never the victim of such a vicious slur yourself.


  • #3138
    Banana Republic.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Banana Republic.


    joeguevara wrote: »
    McCanns started using the legal firm Kingsley Napley to defend them against allegations immediately after their first (supposed) meeting. Kingsley Napley were defending Freud and his two best friends against child abuse allegations. Saying that no allegations were made against Freud for 9 years are spurious at best.

    Also, for someone who never was in the public eye and hated the press, why did Freud suddenly want to become friends with the parents of the child who was at the centre of a worldwide hunt when he knew himself that he was a paedophile.

    His own sick twisted pleasure, I don’t believe they know anything about his past, nobody did at the time.


  • #3139
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    dark crystal wrote: »
    He was not a notorious paedophile when they knew him. Why would they be wary of someone they didn't know to be paedophile?

    How do you know you're not friends with a paedophile? Do they announce it?

    Your posts are nothing but conspiracy nonsense. Implying and/or insinuating that someone is in cahoots with a known paedophile is a very serious accusation to make. I hope you're never the victim of such a vicious slur yourself.

    Honest question but why do you more often than not personalise your response to the poster? Can you not just rebutt the content of the comment?


  • #3140
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    dark crystal wrote: »
    He was not a notorious paedophile when they knew him. Why would they be wary of someone they didn't know to be paedophile?

    How do you know you're not friends with a paedophile? Do they announce it?

    Your posts are nothing but conspiracy nonsense. Implying and/or insinuating that someone is in cahoots with a known paedophile is a very serious accusation to make. I hope you're never the victim of such a vicious slur yourself.

    Conspiracy nonsense? The truth is that he was a paedophile. They were friends with him. Both use the same law firm for the same allegations. Why are you so sure that there is no truth in it? He was a known paedophile and everyone in praia de luz and anyone who knew him knew too. Also his two best friends Cyril Smith and Granville were notorious paedophiles. What aren't you getting.


  • #3141
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    McCanns started using the legal firm Kingsley Napley to defend them against allegations immediately after their first (supposed) meeting. Kingsley Napley were defending Freud and his two best friends against child abuse allegations. Saying that no allegations were made against Freud for 9 years are spurious at best.

    Also, for someone who never was in the public eye and hated the press, why did Freud suddenly want to become friends with the parents of the child who was at the centre of a worldwide hunt when he knew himself that he was a paedophile.[/

    What evidence have you got to suggest that Kate McCann is lying when she says that was their first meeting? Is it not completely wrong to suggest that she is lying without offering any evidence of a lie?
    Why would you suggest that the McCanns knew that Freud was a paedophile when the first public mention of it was in 2016 (from wikepdia below ):

    In June 2016, allegations were made in Exposure: Abused and Betrayed – A Life Sentence, an ITV documentary broadcast on 15 June, that Freud was a paedophile in the late 1940s and the 1970s.[24][25] Two women, who did not know each other, spoke publicly for the first time about how Freud preyed upon them when they were still children and into young adulthood.[26] Sylvia Woosley contacted the ITV news team — the same team that exposed Jimmy Savile — to tell them she had been abused for many years by Freud, from the age of 10 in the 1950s to when she left his home aged 19. The second woman, who remained anonymous, said that Freud groomed her from the age of 11 in 1971, abused her at 14, and violently raped her at 18, by which time Freud had become a Liberal MP, sharing an office with fellow MP Cyril Smith, a prolific abuser of children who was first accused of abuse in the 1960s, but was never prosecuted.[4][27]

    As to your last point, the McCanns were approached by Freud at the time who at that point was still, and continued to be, a British icon. Why do you think that the McCanns should be able to answer for his motives?? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Freud is dead and can’t tell us why.
    Are you 100% sure that in your life you have never innocently associated with anyone who later on would prove to have a far different history to what you believed of them?
    Would you like then to be found guilty of the same crime by association?


  • Advertisement
  • #3142
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Banana Republic. wrote: »
    His own sick twisted pleasure, I don’t believe they know anything about his past, nobody did at the time.

    Apart from the mutual lawyers that they use and his two best friends Smith and Granville, who also used the same lawyers, a lot of people in praia de luz, his victims etc etc etc.


  • #3143
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Honest question but why do you more often than not personalise your response to the poster? Can you not just rebutt the content of the comment?

    I reply to the post about the post, not the poster personally. And I did rebut it.

    Why do you keep trying to accuse posters of being personal, honest question? What's the motivation behind that?


  • #3144
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    joeguevara wrote: »
    McCanns started using the legal firm Kingsley Napley to defend them against allegations immediately after their first (supposed) meeting. Kingsley Napley were defending Freud and his two best friends against child abuse allegations. Saying that no allegations were made against Freud for 9 years are spurious at best.

    Also, for someone who never was in the public eye and hated the press, why did Freud suddenly want to become friends with the parents of the child who was at the centre of a worldwide hunt when he knew himself that he was a paedophile.[/

    What evidence have you got to suggest that Kate McCann is lying when she says that was their first meeting? Is it not completely wrong to suggest that she is lying without offering any evidence of a lie?
    Why would you suggest that the McCanns knew that Freud was a paedophile when the first public mention of it was in 2016 (from wikepdia below ):

    In June 2016, allegations were made in Exposure: Abused and Betrayed – A Life Sentence, an ITV documentary broadcast on 15 June, that Freud was a paedophile in the late 1940s and the 1970s.[24][25] Two women, who did not know each other, spoke publicly for the first time about how Freud preyed upon them when they were still children and into young adulthood.[26] Sylvia Woosley contacted the ITV news team — the same team that exposed Jimmy Savile — to tell them she had been abused for many years by Freud, from the age of 10 in the 1950s to when she left his home aged 19. The second woman, who remained anonymous, said that Freud groomed her from the age of 11 in 1971, abused her at 14, and violently raped her at 18, by which time Freud had become a Liberal MP, sharing an office with fellow MP Cyril Smith, a prolific abuser of children who was first accused of abuse in the 1960s, but was never prosecuted.[4][27]

    As to your last point, the McCanns were approached by Freud at the time who at that point was still, and continued to be, a British icon. Why do you think that the McCanns should be able to answer for his motives?? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Freud is dead and can’t tell us why.
    Are you 100% sure that in your life you have never innocently associated with anyone who later on would prove to have a far different history to what you believed of them?
    Would you like then to be found guilty of the same crime by association?

    Where was his best friends from Smith and Granville? Honest question.


  • #3145
    Banana Republic.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Banana Republic.


    Babooshka wrote: »
    Yes, I too am amazed the people who post several times a day in this thread who keep discovering "new" stuff about it, mainly because they haven't actually read up on the case at all in the first place....it's completely ridiculous.

    If you actually read this thread I was commenting on a comment about Peado tendencies in the group of Tapas and remember comments by the Gaspars and linked it to show someone else who asked about it. Bring some context to your comments on my postings. In regards to posting new stuff if I find an article I haven’t seen here or the latest update I’ll post it here instead of the same old tripe everyday. In fairness most ppl have no interest in any new links which is weird in itself. So church the thread before making comments about other posters. Thanks. Open to debate any points.


  • #3146
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Conspiracy nonsense? The truth is that he was a paedophile. They were friends with him. Both use the same law firm for the same allegations. Why are you so sure that there is no truth in it? He was a known paedophile and everyone in praia de luz and anyone who knew him knew too. Also his two best friends Cyril Smith and Granville were notorious paedophiles. What aren't you getting.

    When was Clement Freud convicted of being a paedophile?

    Both of who uses the same firm for the same allegations?

    Why would Kate McCann openly and candidly describe a meeting with someone she knew to be a paedophile in her book?


  • #3147
    Banana Republic.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Banana Republic.


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Apart from the mutual lawyers that they use and his two best friends Smith and Granville, who also used the same lawyers, a lot of people in praia de luz, his victims etc etc etc.

    They could of used them well before the allegations were out, that would have to be checked, believe me I went down this route and the allegations were all well after Madeline went missing.


  • #3148
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Conspiracy nonsense? The truth is that he was a paedophile. They were friends with him. Both use the same law firm for the same allegations. Why are you so sure that there is no truth in it? He was a known paedophile and everyone in praia de luz and anyone who knew him knew too. Also his two best friends Cyril Smith and Granville were notorious paedophiles. What aren't you getting.

    I don’t think you understand what you are saying. We the public know NOW that Freud Smith and Granville were paedophiles.
    If you are suggesting that that knowledge was public in 2007 then you should be able to produce news reports about it from then. A simple Google should find that for you.
    If you can’t find it then we will have to accept that it wasn’t public knowledge and that the McCanns couldn’t have known at the time.


  • #3149
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    dark crystal wrote: »
    When was Clement Freud convicted of being a paedophile?

    Both of who uses the same firm for the same allegations?

    Why would Kate McCann openly and candidly describe a meeting with someone she knew to be a paedophile in her book?

    Because the meeting happened and was in public.

    Why did the McCanns suddenly have a law firm. It is not common in these situation.

    Being convicted of being a paedophile, doesn't make you a paedophile, and similarly not being, isn't a get out of jail free card.


  • #3150
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    dark crystal wrote: »
    I reply to the post about the post, not the poster personally. And I did rebut it.

    Why do you keep trying to accuse posters of being personal, honest question? What's the motivation behind that?

    It's not the first time you have been asked about your willingness to make personal comments and not by me either. You did make it personal, reread your post. What's the motivation? Simple I find it nasty as the GAA would say 'this playing of the man not the ball'. I feel it's necessary to call out that behaviour.


  • Advertisement
  • #3151
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    I don’t think you understand what you are saying. We the public know NOW that Freud Smith and Granville were paedophiles.
    If you are suggesting that that knowledge was public in 2007 then you should be able to produce news reports about it from then. A simple Google should find that for you.
    If you can’t find it then we will have to accept that it wasn’t public knowledge and that the McCanns couldn’t have known at the time.

    Knowledge doesn't have to be public for it to be known. Especially by the people closest to it ie.. the people who actually meet.

    Where did Granville and Smith come from by the way?


Advertisement