Mark Souster and the complete mystery of the DM's and the now deleted twitter account

If he did end up doing an article casting doubt on the McCann`s story, who in the world would print it ?

Thing is, no matter who decides to write anything not in favour of the mcs will be questioned as to why now, after 8yrs later. Fresh eyes can see things we may not, then that person delves deeper and sees the rest of what we can. Maybe someone has heard even a short sentence which could have started an interest? Personally though, if anyone had new info the correct thing to do is go to police, unless of course, there's doubt on that part too.
IMO

Yes of course; I doubt the media would do an exposee while the case is still live but perhaps he was preparing himself for a future announcement?

That was my take @neveronasunday perhaps he may know mr Kennedy through rugby doesn't mean he has to like him though .. Perhaps he was preparing for a future announcement .. He may possibly have been intending to use a pseudonym who knows?
I will give him the benefit of the doubt though as I'm sure he didn't expect private messages being plastered all over Twitter .. Whatever his motives because of that he ran for the hills as in all honesty I would have done to !

Mimi wrote:If he did end up doing an article casting doubt on the McCann`s story, who in the world would print it ?

 


The Times published the article about Smithman being supressed for 5 years.  That was hugely damaging to the Mcanns, and although the Times issued an apology and eventually had to pay them £55k, the damage was done, some might say, for the Times it was £55k well spent.

What we have to acknowledge is, that the rest of the world and indeed the newspaper industry, are not as obsessed with the disappearance of Madeleine as we are.  To them it is an 8 year old story, and there have been hundreds, if not thousands of interesting stories that have overtaken it.  Our world may revolve around the McCanns, but their world doesn't.  

There is of course still some public interest in the McCann case because they have done a very good job of keeping their names in the news, but for most it is a big yawn, and most newspaper proprietors can't be arsed because of the legal hassle involved - the McCanns have a media team who scrutinise everything said about them, and a legal team always at the ready to take action.  

However, that doesn't mean stories about the McCanns will always be 'buried', if it is of public interest, and it can get past a legal reading, they will publish, especially if it will increase sales of their newspaper. It's all about bums on seats, increasing their audience, and stories that appeal to their readers will always be considered.  If the newspaper industry and the media outlets are prepared to publish a sensational, and indeed outrageous, story about a serving Prime Minister, they are hardly shaking in their boots about upsetting an unpleasant, nondescript couple from Rothley.  

Unfortunately, some people have been discussing this case for so long, that they have lost all sense of perspective.  For them, everything is a conspiracy, and because they have no awareness of how the media industry works, they make up their own theories to fill in the gaps,  Mark Souster made the mistake of believing that he was dealing with normal, rational, people, but their hysterical response confirmed beyond any doubt, that he accidentally prodded a nest of vipers.  


Last paragraph deleted Cristobell, it only antagonises people

Honeyblade wrote:That was my take @neveronasunday perhaps he may know mr Kennedy through rugby doesn't mean he has to like him though .. Perhaps he was preparing for a future announcement .. He may possibly have been intending to use a pseudonym who knows?
I will give him the benefit of the doubt though as I'm sure he didn't expect private messages being plastered all over Twitter .. Whatever his motives because of that he ran for the hills as in all honesty I would have done to !

Another example of Mr. Bennett's strange logic.  If you know someone, be it on nodding terms or whatever, means you are complicit in whatever crimes they may have committed.  The Smith family, or more accurately, Martin Smith knows Robert Murat, ergo his entire family are involved (deleted, don't think that has been said)

The point I was making was intended to provoke discussion Admin, this is after all a discussion forum and the reason we are here.  Trying to compose posts that won't offend or antagonise anyone is laborious, kills debate stone dead, and not to mention, it is extremely vexing to have them deleted regardless!

In my experience, most people prefer honest debates and very few require smelling salts!  

This forum has the potential for lively, interesting debates that should be attracting new members in droves.  Without new blood and new ideas, a forum can become stagnant, with the same topics being discussed over and over again, by the same people.  As it is, I can't say things without being challenged, others can't say things without being challenged, and we are all being left dissatisfied. I have changed the "cans" to "cant's" in the last sentence as I think that's what you meant.  No, I mean't to say CAN in both places. You have completely changed the meaning of that sentence!

I know that I have my unbound blog where I can say anything I like, and I do, lol, but I also like to interact with others.  I haven't 'made my mind up', it is a position I very rarely find myself in.  I am always open to other opinions and other points of view, I don't assume I am right, as if, lol, I value the perspectives of others because it enables me to see the bigger picture.  

I should also add, I have no problem whatsoever if people disagree with me, I don't take it personally, heaven forbid we were all the same, and if they can persuade me over to their point of view, that's fine too.  I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, I often am.  

I have taken the precaution of copying this post over to my blog in case it is deleted, but I would urge Admin to consider what I have said, and perhaps allow members to voice their own opinions on this.  If most prefer that the discussion on this forum should remain 'tame', that's fine, I am happy to go with the majority.

One thing having discussion Cristobell and I am all for that, and another goading and causing more problems for this forum..........
you attacked the other place, now whilst we all have our opinions on what goes on over there, and have at one time or another been attacked ourselves, this is not the thread or place to discuss it. It is fuelling the war, which is totally against what we are here for, we want good discussion on what happened to Madeleine, not goading or causing argument with other places. By all means talk about the posts and Mark Souster and Soustergate, but please do not get personal and attack anyone, we are better than that. You have deleted many comments on your blog and have said so, I run this place and also delete what I think is detrimental to the forum. It only serves to cause more aggravation, we do not want that. As you said you have a voice on your blog to say exactly what you want, and anyone here can read that if they wish too.

candyfloss wrote:One thing having discussion Cristobell and I am all for that, and another goading and causing more problems for this forum..........
you attacked the other place, now whilst we all have our opinions on what goes on over there, and have at one time or another been attacked ourselves,  this is not the thread or place to discuss it.  It is fuelling the war, which is totally against what we are here for, we want good discussion on what happened to Madeleine, not goading or causing argument with other places.  By all means talk about the posts and Mark Souster and Soustergate,  but please do not get personal and attack anyone, we are better than that.  You have deleted many comments on your blog and have said so, I run this place and also delete what I think is detrimental to the forum.  It only serves to cause more aggravation, we do not want that.  As you said you have a voice on your blog to say exactly what you want, and anyone here can read that if they wish too.

You are implying that my deleted posts were goading and abusive, they were not, can you please correct that. I didn't attack or abuse anyone.

The comments I delete on my blog are abusive, in the strictest sense of the word. I publish posts that disagree with me, not the ones that call me names for the hell of it.

Cristobell wrote:

candyfloss wrote:One thing having discussion Cristobell and I am all for that, and another goading and causing more problems for this forum..........
you attacked the other place, now whilst we all have our opinions on what goes on over there, and have at one time or another been attacked ourselves,  this is not the thread or place to discuss it.  It is fuelling the war, which is totally against what we are here for, we want good discussion on what happened to Madeleine, not goading or causing argument with other places.  By all means talk about the posts and Mark Souster and Soustergate,  but please do not get personal and attack anyone, we are better than that.  You have deleted many comments on your blog and have said so, I run this place and also delete what I think is detrimental to the forum.  It only serves to cause more aggravation, we do not want that.  As you said you have a voice on your blog to say exactly what you want, and anyone here can read that if they wish too.

 


You are implying that my deleted posts were goading and abusive, they were not, can you please correct that.  I didn't attack or abuse anyone.  

The comments I delete on my blog are abusive, in the strictest sense of the word.  I publish posts that disagree with me, not the ones that call me names for the hell of it.  

No posts were deleted just a sentence or two Cristobell mentioning others.

May I say cristobell that you are talented and razor sharp but you do have the B in your bonnet.. The point is we are here because of the stifled debate and follow the leader whateverism...over there.
I think that it's easy to fuel Ridicule or on jatyk2 or Sykes if we keep being seen to snipe or associate with someone sniping... We look bad other person acts like a martyr basks i in cries of libel sue etc...
I understand that like me you had difficulties in the past and it was mine that brought me to Twitter .. I had my wars over Palestine and I cried at the death threats etc I got .. But my first follower and best friend on Twitter told me last word& block.. You will never win they will once they realise they can't win you over go to shredding your whole personality ,your family anything at the end your Your crying & shaking and their laugh their laughing ..it's what shills flamers WUM has bars do..
It's concern for you cristobell I say this.. I know it's none of my business but forum/Twitter wars are very cleverly orchestrated to disrupt discredit and hound you away into a corner ..we must fight for MBM and justice and leave the rest to judgement day as we Rastas say by his deeds shall a man be known ..
Keep your insight stay razor sharp and fight for Madeleine don't waste time on cobwebs.
Jah bless x

Honeyblade wrote:May I say cristobell that you are talented and razor sharp but you do have the B in your bonnet.. The point is we are here because of the stifled debate and follow the leader whateverism...over there.
I think that it's easy to fuel Ridicule or on jatyk2 or Sykes if we keep being seen to snipe or associate with someone sniping... We look bad other person acts like a martyr basks i in cries of libel sue etc...
I understand that like me you had difficulties in the past and it was mine that brought me to Twitter .. I had my wars over Palestine and I cried at the death threats etc I got .. But my first follower and best friend on Twitter told me last word& block.. You will never win they will once they realise they can't win you over go  to shredding your whole personality ,your family anything at the end your Your crying & shaking and their laugh their laughing ..it's what shills flamers WUM has bars do..
It's concern for you cristobell I say this.. I know it's none of my business but forum/Twitter wars are very cleverly orchestrated to disrupt discredit and hound you away into a corner ..we must fight for MBM and justice and leave the rest to judgement day as we Rastas say by his deeds shall a man be known ..
Keep your insight stay razor sharp and fight for Madeleine don't waste time on cobwebs.
Jah bless x

Bless ya Honeyblade, that is one of the nicest posts I have ever had addressed to me, I will remember it for a long time

It may appear I have a bee in my bonnet about another B, lol, but this particular little pest has the teeth of a pitbull, once sunk into a victim, it never lets go! You are right of course, it should be ignored, but I can't always keep the fiery Paddy in me supressed! I'm afraid I can't even guarantee that I will try harder, I have never been able to hide my feelings and emotions, its why my poor old dad had to take such great care of me and why my family introduce me with an apology, lol. My honesty has got me into trouble all my life!

Injustice gets my heckles up, it is why I am here commenting on this case. It is not just what the McCanns have done, it is the shadowy figures around them, those who started Funds for Madeleine, and those who use her disappearance to bring in back door legislation to curb and stamp out free speech. On occasion, I find it all quite vexing

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Freedom wrote:That's how I feel.

It does seem unlikely that an MSM journalist would on his own "break cover" on such a controversial issue but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt at all times.

The doubt has long since gone as regards the McCanns though!  

  Neveronasunday Today at 8:56 am


I came here partly to see what you were all saying about the Mark Souster tweets. Jill's forum has concluded that he was a set-up but I'm still undecided on that. Looking at his latest up-to-date Twitter feed, he does seem to have a genuine interest in certain specific issues involving governments and the media, so it's possible that MMc is one of them. His interest may have been ignited by his meeting with Brian Kennedy back in the early days, when he asked BK the questions about Maddie that have been reproduced on both forums. So for me the jury is still out on this

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I agree with Freedom.  Why has it taken him 8 years to suddenly decide to focus on Madeleine's disappearance, and why now when GA's case is coming to a head.  It all seems a bit "iffy" to me.  It's a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

More like jumping on the bandwagon because he thinks he's spotted a juicy scoop.

He has spotted a juicy scoop.

Every journo out there will be wanting a piece of it when the time comes, which hopefully will be soon.

Cristobell you are right! It's a tame forum when we can't chew the cud with a bit of loose talking. We have had some great debates /arguments spanning days only to reappear when least expected. All you have to do is mention Sonia and my eyebrow jumps a la Roger Moore,but also half the other sites seem to go into paroxysms of anger,spitting teeth and dribbling. Cheesesus it's a sight to see! Last night was hilarious as Andrew seemed to access every active thread in a vain attempt to give his opinion and leave his views on line(to no avail ,Freedom seen the lot!). We could do with a longer leash at times....

There's a difference between valid views and drunken ramblings, Bampots!

I rather think that, in the cold light of day, Andrew is glad that they have been removed.

I'm sure I was speaking sense though...

Definitely not on many occasions, I'm afraid.

Ha, fair enough.

Just speaking the truth though.