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…103104106108109…169

Comments

  • #3152
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    splinter65 wrote: »

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

    Are you suggesting that I should know or that the McCanns should have known at the time? How would they know? Why would you think they’d know?


  • #3153
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    joeguevara wrote: »

    Are you suggesting that I should know or that the McCanns should have known at the time? How would they know? Why would you think they’d know?

    All I asked was a question. Where were Clement Freuds best friends from who were prolific child abusers?


  • #3154
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    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.

    If you feel my post was personal in any way, the mods can intervene. The rules quite clearly state "attack the post, not the poster" and I did not personally attack that poster in any way, shape or form.

    I know myself exactly what the motivation is behind these comments and I'm not rising to your bait, so perhaps let the mods do their job and try not being so personal yourself.


  • #3155
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    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?

    How would the McCanns in 2007 , members of the general public, know that Freud was going to be accused of molesting girls in 2016?


  • #3156
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    dark crystal wrote: »
    If you feel my post was personal in any way, the mods can intervene. The rules quite clearly state "attack the post, not the poster" and I did not personally attack that poster in any way, shape or form.

    I know myself exactly what the motivation is behind these comments and I'm not rising to your bait, so perhaps let the mods do their job and try not being so personal yourself.
    We'll have to agree to disagree, I have seen a few posters request of you to stop getting personal with them.
    I'll leave it at that.


  • Advertisement
  • #3157
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    How would the McCanns in 2007 , members of the general public, know that Freud was going to be accused of molesting girls in 2016?

    Well for one, I would wonder why he had a law firm specifically for child abuse allegations.

    But, how about you answer the question I asked at the end?


  • #3158
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    Ah lads I can’t believe we have to go over all this again....

    Clement Freud was a politician and a tv personality a ‘celebrity’ he reached out to the McCanns and invited them for dinner. He was accused of being a paedo YEARS later. He more than likely recommended this law firm to the McCanns, I seriously doubt he said ‘this is the firm all my paedo friends use’ This ‘friendship’ can in no way whatsoever be used to suggest the McCanns are paedophiles.

    The Gaspars, the wife said that David Payne made a sexual comment and gesture at the dinner table and she thinks he was referring to Madeline, the husband says he remembers the comment and gesture but doesn’t think he was referring to Madeline.


  • #3159
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Because the meeting happened and was in public.

    No it wasn't. It was at his private villa. Can you find any media reports about it at the time?
    Why did the McCanns suddenly have a law firm. It is not common in these situation.

    Being treated as arguidos by the Portuguese police, libel and defamation cases.
    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.

    Even paedophiles have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, no?


  • #3160
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    dark crystal wrote: »
    No it wasn't. It was at his private villa. Can you find any media reports about it at the time?



    Being treated as arguidos by the Portuguese police, libel and defamation cases.



    Even paedophiles have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, no?

    Presumption of innocence doesn't stop them being a paedophile. Its just a legal construct to ensure a fair trial.

    The first meeting was in public, in a restaurant as far as Im aware. Vodka and strawberry drink of choice.


  • #3161
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    splinter65 wrote: »

    All I asked was a question. Where were Clement Freuds best friends from who were prolific child abusers?

    And I’m answering you, how would I know? You do know that allegations about Cyril Smith only emerged in 2010 3 years after the McCanns met Freud? And that nobody in the public could have known in 2007 that he would be accused?
    Can you tell what’s going to happen in the future or something?


  • Advertisement
  • #3162
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Presumption of innocence doesn't stop them being a paedophile. Its just a legal construct to ensure a fair trial.

    Yes, a fair trial, not merely the court of public opinion. Or internet sleuths...
    The first meeting was in public, in a restaurant as far as Im aware. Vodka and strawberry drink of choice.

    You have a link for this, I presume?


  • #3163
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Presumption of innocence doesn't stop them being a paedophile. Its just a legal construct to ensure a fair trial.

    The first meeting was in public, in a restaurant as far as Im aware. Vodka and strawberry drink of choice.

    So what your saying is this. That even though there were no public accusations of paedophilia against clement Freud or his friends in 2007 and there weren’t going to be any accusations for years, that the McCanns should have known that he was a paedophile?


  • #3164
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    joeguevara wrote: »

    And I’m answering you, how would I know? You do know that allegations about Cyril Smith only emerged in 2010 3 years after the McCanns met Freud? And that nobody in the public could have known in 2007 that he would be accused?
    Can you tell what’s going to happen in the future or something?

    OK seeing as you won't answer, Granville and SMith are from Leicester. Everyone in Leicester knew about them and what they were. Now guess where the McCanns are from.

    If someone, as you say a member of the public, told me, that their two best friends were X and Y, who I knew to have allegations against them (these were from the 70s not from the 00s) and I had a child abducted, I wouldn't want to continue a friendship. Can you accept this?


  • #3165
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    So what your saying is this. That even though there were no public accusations of paedophilia against clement Freud or his friends in 2007 and there weren’t going to be any accusations for years, that the McCanns should have known that he was a paedophile?

    Please see post above about what people in Leicester knew about G|ranville and Smith.


  • #3166
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    joeguevara wrote: »

    OK seeing as you won't answer, Granville and SMith are from Leicester. Everyone in Leicester knew about them and what they were. Now guess where the McCanns are from.

    If someone, as you say a member of the public, told me, that their two best friends were X and Y, who I knew to have allegations against them (these were from the 70s not from the 00s) and I had a child abducted, I wouldn't want to continue a friendship. Can you accept this?

    So, they were friends with this Granville person and Smith as well is it? Or are you implying that because they live in the same county in the UK, they were privy to all the allegations and tittle-tattle against them, made the link with Clement Freud and armed with all this knowledge, they then made public the fact they had lunch at Freud's villa anyway?

    Lol.


  • #3167
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    dark crystal wrote: »
    So, they were friends with this Granville person and Smith as well is it? Or are you implying that because they live in the same county in the UK, they were privy to all the allegations and tittle-tattle against them, made the link with Clement Freud and armed with all this knowledge, they then made public the fact they had lunch at Freud's villa anyway?

    Lol.

    Granville and Smith were best friends with Freud. Everyone from Leicester (not UK) knew about Grnaville and Smith.

    If you see nothing wrong with this, ok, fair enough.


  • #3168
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Please see post above about what people in Leicester knew about G|ranville and Smith.

    You cannot state what people knew about anyone or anything.

    Suffice it to say, if you asked a random selection of people in Leicester about what they knew about anyone's private life, I would suggest most people wouldn't know or care. Certainly not those who have no interest in Q-anon rubbish or the like anyway.


  • #3169
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    dark crystal wrote: »
    You cannot state what people knew about anyone or anything.

    Suffice it to say, if you asked a random selection of people in Leicester about what they knew about anyone's private life, I would suggest most people wouldn't know or care. Certainly not those who have no interest in Q-anon rubbish or the like anyway.


    Granville and Smith, not private. Smith and Granville are well known cases in Leicester. Especially if you knew them personally. This is not Q-anon. This is public record. You seem quite closed to anything. What makes you special.

    Why would anyone want to become friends with strangers when their daughter is abducted anyway.


  • #3170
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Granville and Smith, not private. Smith and Granville are well known cases in Leicester. Especially if you knew them personally. This is not Q-anon. This is public record. You seem quite closed to anything. What makes you special.

    Public record? Ok so, can you link to reports from 2007 or before, that publicly outline the cases against these two men. Thanks.

    I will happily admit being closed minded to anything that has conspiracy written all over it. Provide proof and facts and I'm all ears.
    Why would anyone want to become friends with strangers when their daughter is abducted anyway.

    Seriously? :rolleyes:


  • #3171
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    The bias of people really sticks out in this thread.. why people just can’t stick to the facts and post things without twisting them to suit their narrative I’ll never know. Why do people insist on presenting things differently than they are..

    The McCann parents left their children alone in an unlocked apt repeatedly at night in a foreign country while they drank wine and ate dinner. crazy stuff, very bad parenting.. some would call it neglect... abandon... i for one understand that they thought it was ok, everyone in their group was doing it and thought it was ok. The thing that I can’t get my head around is they didn’t lock the door! When I’m going to bed at night I lock the door!
    I certainly don’t agree with anyone that says it was ok to leave the kids like this.

    The part that annoys people is when you hear things like, ‘maybe the parents are paedo’s, sure they were having drinks with a paedo in his house while he sat in his dressing gown’ these comments in my opinion are aimed at people who don’t know the full story (like myself a while back) luckily for me I decided to read up about it only to discover that this guy was accused years after the McCanns met him.

    There is no evidence that the parents killed the child and hid her body. There is no evidence of an abduction. There is no evidence the parents were involved in paedophilia in any way shape or form.

    People can of course be suspicious of the parents but it’s when they present things in a way to suit their narrative people tend to call them out on it and then it’s ‘Mcfans’ vs ehhhh... ‘notMcfans’

    Can we not just have the debate without knowingly presenting things in an incorrect way to suit our narrative?


  • Advertisement
  • #3172
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Public record? Ok so, can you link to reports from 2007 or before, that publicly outline the cases against these two men. Thanks.

    I will happily admit being closed minded to anything that has conspiracy written all over it. Provide proof and facts and I'm all ears.



    Seriously? :rolleyes:



    Greville Janner had public accusations made against him in 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greville_Janner#Child_sexual_abuse_allegations

    Cyril Smith had allegations made against him since the late 70's and 80's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith#Early_allegations

    Both best friends with Clement Freud. All defended by Kingsley Napley, the same law firm as McCanns, Freud and the two above.


  • #3173
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Please see post above about what people in Leicester knew about G|ranville and Smith.

    So you are saying that when the McCanns went to see Freud they knew he was a paedophile and they went anyway, even though this was not information in the public arena ? And then Kate McCann mentioned the meeting with Freud at length in her book. Ok. Tell me, why would she do that now?


  • #3174
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Granville and Smith, not private. Smith and Granville are well known cases in Leicester. Especially if you knew them personally. This is not Q-anon. This is public record. You seem quite closed to anything. What makes you special.

    Why would anyone want to become friends with strangers when their daughter is abducted anyway.

    Hey Joe,

    I’m trying to piece together your argument about Freud, Smith and Granville.

    So Freud befriends the McCanns and recommends a law firm to them.

    This law firm is used by Smith and Granville.. who are known Paedo’s at the time and friends of Freud???

    Correct me if I’m wrong anywhere..

    Now where in this do you become suspicious of the McCanns?

    Do the McCanns know who Smith and Granville are?

    If they do know who they are do they know Freud is friends with them?

    Do the McCanns know Smith and Granville used this law firm ?


  • #3175
    Hoop66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,829 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    Rock77 wrote: »
    Can we not just have the debate without knowingly presenting things in an incorrect way to suit our narrative?

    Are you new here?


  • #3176
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    So you are saying that when the McCanns went to see Freud they knew he was a paedophile and they went anyway, even though this was not information in the public arena ? And then Kate McCann mentioned the meeting with Freud at length in her book. Ok. Tell me, why would she do that now?


    Well, whether they knew he was one when they went is up for debate. Immediately after meeting, alarm bells should have rund on who is friends were and his law firm he and his friends all used. And subsequently his friends used.

    How many meetings did th3ey have with this guy? They cant hide their friendship from the public.


  • #3177
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Rock77 wrote: »
    Hey Joe,

    I’m trying to piece together your argument about Freud, Smith and Granville.

    So Freud befriends the McCanns and recommends a law firm to them.

    This law firm is used by Smith and Granville.. who are known Paedo’s at the time and friends of Freud???

    Correct me if I’m wrong anywhere..

    Now where in this do you become suspicious of the McCanns?

    Do the McCanns know who Smith and Granville are?

    If they do know who they are do they know Freud is friends with them?

    Do the McCanns know Smith and Granville used this law firm ?

    I never said I was suspicious of McCanns. Im just raising it as strange and hate when its dismissed as conspiracy. Its well documented that Smith and Janner (Apologies I said Granville - Its greville janner - used this law firm. Freud shared an office with smith and janner when MPs and is widely publicisised especially with smith and janner being from Leicester, where the McCanns are from.


  • #3178
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Greville Janner had public accusations made against him in 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greville_Janner#Child_sexual_abuse_allegations

    Cyril Smith had allegations made against him since the late 70's and 80's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith#Early_allegations

    Both best friends with Clement Freud. All defended by Kingsley Napley, the same law firm as McCanns, Freud and the two above.

    I see. You’ve got it all sewn up there. I do beg your pardon. You’re quite right.
    What seems to the untrained eye to be the McCanns being invited to an innocent afternoon with a British icon who might be further publicity in the search for their missing little girl ( tell me again because I’m becoming confused, if the McCanns were part of a paedophile ring with Smith and Freud etc and they’d handed over their eldest daughter conceived through IVF while on holidays in Portugal with a bunch of friends but then made a huge stink all over the world about her being missing when you’d think they’d want to keep it quiet).
    Why would Kate write about it in her book. Does she not know that there’s top class detectives like you who can join the dots better then the best brains in
    1. The Met
    2. Portuguese police
    3. German police.
    Incidentally have you ever presented this theory to any police force? Don’t you think you’ve got a oral duty to?


  • #3179
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Well, whether they knew he was one when they went is up for debate. Immediately after meeting, alarm bells should have rund on who is friends were and his law firm he and his friends all used. And subsequently his friends used.

    How many meetings did th3ey have with this guy? They cant hide their friendship from the public.

    How is it up for debate? If your from Ballygobackwards and I’m from Ballygobackwards and Ballygobackwards has a population of more then 1:4 million and I’m proved to be a massive paedophile after I’m dead, and you had lunch with me a few times years ago, doesn’t that make you a paedophile too?


  • #3180
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Granville and Smith were best friends with Freud. Everyone from Leicester (not UK) knew about Grnaville and Smith.

    If you see nothing wrong with this, ok, fair enough.

    If everyone knew about it then why wasn’t it in the papers?


  • Advertisement
  • #3181
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Greville Janner had public accusations made against him in 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greville_Janner#Child_sexual_abuse_allegations

    "Over the years, starting in 1991, specific allegations of sex abuse of children by Janner in the past—dating ultimately from at least 1955[35]—were made to authorities. This did not lead to any official action, beyond Janner being questioned once, from the first allegations until 2015"

    So no public record then? The McCanns still knew about it in 2007 though....
    Cyril Smith had allegations made against him since the late 70's and 80's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith#Early_allegations

    "In May 1979, a local underground magazine, the Rochdale Alternative Press, alleged that in the 1960s Smith had spanked and sexually abused teenage boys in a hostel he co-founded. The matter was investigated by the police but Smith was not prosecuted. The story was repeated in the same month by the satirical magazine Private Eye"

    "In November 2012, speaking in the House of Commons, Simon Danczuk,[60][61] the Labour MP for Rochdale, Smith's old seat, called for an inquiry into the alleged abuse"

    So an allegation was made in an underground magazine in Rochdale when the McCanns were children. Nothing again until 2012. Still, they must have known about it somehow...

    Also, where does it say he lived in Leicester anywhere?
    Both best friends with Clement Freud. All defended by Kingsley Napley, the same law firm as McCanns, Freud and the two above.

    So, one of these men lived in Leicester, the other two didn't. But they were all besties. The McCanns knew about all their alleged predilictions anyway because...well, everyone in Leicester knew, even though nothing was made public in the media (save for the gossip about Smith in Rochdale in the 70's). People in Leicester know more than anyone else, of course.

    Armed with all this 'well known' knowledge, the McCanns decided to visit one of the 'Leicester 3' (only one actually lived in Leicester at the time, although not the one they visited) and they decided to regale readers with the happy tale of them having lunch with one of these 'known' alleged paedos. Sure, why not? Their reputation wasn't being dragged through the mud enough, so why not up the ante and tell the tale of lunch with a 'notorious' paedo for good measure!

    Sweet Jesus...


Advertisement