Facebook news

bluebell wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Anyone else get the feeling that this whole charade is much more about TPTB/various agencies then the M's/Tapas 7?

I'm thinking along the lines of lack of action from authorities like in the Baby P and Victoria Climbie. Could something like this account for a lot of what we are seeing in the case?

I really should know this but is there a known date on the infamous CATS file?

I don't want to give misinformation, but wasn't it 2002  ??    Please anyone correct me if I've got it wrong.

This is a really good point. Given that one of Detective Amaral's questions which Kate refused to answer related to whether Kate had considered handing over Madeleine's care to relatives. This of course would suggest one of several things.

One might be that Kate was struggling to cope. Another of course might be that Kate was concerned about Madeleine's welfare and thought it would be safer for her to be living with relatives.

Of course it could be a combination of the above. But if the Gaspers were right then that would suggest there are child protection issues surrounding this case. (And there are so many indicators, imo, that there are.) In which case it is perfectly possible that the family were already known to social services.

This could account for why Madeleine's medical records were with-held. And it might account for how we know so little about the family's background. Plus a distinct absence of family photos and very few accounts of the children's birthday parties and so on.

From the beyond creepy episodes of C4 'Madeleine was Here' series what I can see of family life chez Mc makes my flesh crawl. GM' s interactions - or lack of - with Amelie I find very strange indeed.

Deleted poster, the implication/ suggestion was there, and although your opinion it could be libel.

I don't know what has been deleted, but if it is about the interaction between GM and A, my skin crawls ...

There is a really good post from Yura Nicced on fb Abduction or Scam (6 hours ago), re new
information on the Wayback issue. It also mentions the 'Tennis Ball' photograph may have
been photo-shopped. Can anyone bring the post over. It is interesting.

There are times when, much as I like Facebook, I want to scream at the stupidity of some of the contributors. 

A hoax appears, it gets debunked quickly but people still believe it.

There's this one at the moment about Tesco's banning the word Easter.

https://scontent-amt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t34.0-12/12920939_10208738951940531_118564419_n.jpg?oh=a23bee3d5b1b7505f5ab5a26998de7cd&oe=5737FBAE

I'm just off to bang my head on the wall after the latest comment - posted right after this one.



1) "There still seem to be some people who aren't sure that this is a hoax despite the proof given that it is. 

This is the supposed Tesco link - you will see that the page doesn't exist.

www.tesco.com/easter2017"


2) "I hope this is a joke because things are getting a bit crazy when we cant live as we want in our own country I'm sure if we tried to change other countries way of living we have no chance"

The items that pee me off are the graphic, obviously photoshopped photos of disfigured kids, gruesome scars, limbless people, headless chickens and sundry cancer victins, dying babies etc that tell you you are heartless if you don't type "Amen"
I can't believe the number of people who fall for this clickbait. Even when you message them to tell them it's a hoax they still do it.

I posted earlier about that - I think that a lot of the replies are automatically generated.

Freedom wrote:I posted earlier about that - I think that a lot of the replies are automatically generated.

Could be but I have several friends who type Amen every time.

Bless them! 

I know that I should get out more and not get dragged down by the intellectually challenged on Facebook but another one has cropped up.

An almost certainly bogus story about a transgender reality star's plan to pose nude with the American flag has sent feathers flying!

Now this one has cropped up with the predictable squawks of rage from the intellectually challenged.

I don't know how these people manage to look after themselves.

http://www.b4x.me/2016/05/david-rockefellers-sixth-heart.html?m=1

John Coxon
2 hrs
The phoney war.
I'm not a psychiatrist or psychologist ( some may argue I need one) I'm not a body
Language expert or a crime profiler, I was a very ordinary policeman who dealt with traffic accidents and mundane crimes, I never breathed the rarefied air of the likes of Grange where the obvious becomes the inconceivable , yet to my eyes, there seems to me an element of phoney war about Gerry and Kate McCann. I mean , how outraged can a human being actually get? - ok some may argue these specimens barely qualify for the human race but for the sake of argument......
Amaral wins they are fuming
Sharon Osbourne voices an opinion ,they are outraged
S40 is delayed ,he's volcanic!
The trolls get their say ,the are supanova.!!
According to their errr spokesperson - who is ?
Are they not capable of expressing such basic human conditions themselves?
Well apparently not - that however may beg a follow up question , well why?
Your case against Amaral was ill judged and pathetically argued - several judges said so.
The trolls you dismiss as insignificant , well why ARE you so worried about them?
Sharon Osbourne pays plenty of taxes , is she not entitled to voice an opinion on this saga that her fellow taxpayers are now funding ?
Ah but she's ignorant , of what ? Is it NOT a FACT you abandoned babies? What more needs to be established in the scale of how monumentally stupid such actions are?
Exit stage left , flouncing ,making utterances of think of the children and harming their famous unicorn hunt - which they in fact handed over to the MET five years ago and seem remarkably unhurried in taking up the reigns again.
Then there's the section 40 rage inducer.
I'm reasonably concerned Gerry McCann may actually physically explode - not that that would make me blink I'd be concerned a passing maggot might get taken out in the debris.
I mean can the Mccanns be THAT angry?
Can ANYBODY be that angry?
I doubt it , he looked a grey beaten man to me in his Leveson interview a man whose been fighting the phoney war for a long time but now the real one looms.
Sure he was angry in the beginning but he's a peacock , not a pitbull it was all postured rage , the lager fuelled yob playing to the gallery , he's not the problem , it's anger you don't see coming that is dangerous, the flick of a switch man , or woman for that matter , his anger is phoney like everything else in his phoney war.sure , he's got a temper on him , but its all part and parcel of the rest of his "performance"
McCann isn't irrational imo. his wife is way more volatile. Then again she's well er , insane ( well you'd have to be wouldn't you)
Their campaign strategy has been clear from the off avoid reality deal purely spin, initially they attempted this themselves and proved to be crack handed amateurs , their own , frankly mad reality shone through - not a pretty sight.
So Mitchell is dropped into the fray - Gerry and Kate simple folk who serve the community , victims of circumstance, searching tirelessly , the world supports them , the Portuguese police are incompetent buffoons anybody who believes their " evidence" is a fool , worthy of being pelted in the stocks.
Of course this is disgraceful , racist misleading bullshit.
Say it a thousand times out of a thousand broadcasters mouths and it becomes fact
Well as close to a fact as the Mccanns are ever going to venture within a mile of in this case.
Of course , if they ever had to deal with the real facts they would lose very quickly.
They had to deal with them twice removed in the Amaral case , it's still what killed them ,his right to quote an investigation in a book about an investigation v the contrived search for a myth - round 1 to Amaral - a shock for the SPIN doctors , reality has just smacked them one right in the gob.
Now Mitchell is nowhere to be seen
The media have suddenly gone all George Galloway on them - their big guns are spiked.
Whatever dark forces that kept their big top standing appear to have at the very least loosened their grip.
Well let's look at some of those pesky facts
Grange is closing down - it appears to be a rambling embarrassment.
Amaral has won - their chances of reversing that negligible
Financial ruin beckons
S40 has been put on ice A- q steam pouring out of Gezzas fat head.
Katie Hopkins has attacked them
The daily Mail , who did the original character assassination on Amaral printed an article describing people who payed for his defence as " truth seekers " q calamity banging her wrists against metal railings
Sharon Osbourne has attacked them , Katie Price follows up.
So what.? so im afraid that's the world we REALLY do live in ,people listen to celebs.
Now I get all this it WASN'T neglect stuff , the point is , they are getting a kicking , it's ok to question this fairy story , it's cool to doubt .
Perhaps the phoney war is finally over - 9 long years
The Mccanns aren't warriors in this forthcoming spat , they aren't even allowed to speak, they are foot soldiers at best , in some thinking cannon fodder. They may be outspoken and angry , they may posture but ultimately their fate is in the hands of others as , in reality , something they prefer to avoid for way too obvious reasons , it long has been. Their shady accomplices in this dark play seemed to have cooled right off them, it seems possible they see a way ahead without this tedious charade and they can be left to their fate , by the looks of them , they know it.
Their friends are nowhere to be seen - hardly surprising since they don't , in reality exist.
Insane ? Outraged? Or just plain old scape goats? Their circus the very implement of their destruction?
Whatever this saga is REALLY about the real war may be full on nuclear.
I doubt these two clowns will last 20 minutes- an acceptable tactical sacrifice in a much bigger conflict.

Write a comment...
Choose File

Thanks for that.
There`s a few things in there which make me think - "When you put it like that" and "Yes, it is rather obvious" - too obvious for me to bring it to the front of my mind, but it has been at the back of my mind all along.

Like, the phoney war. You can almost see it.
And, why do they still need a spokesperson, or why have they needed one for so long.
And, are they really THAT angry.

What's S40?

AndyB wrote:What's S40?

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is an essential element in
this balanced scheme for audited self-regulation of the press. It was
recommended by the report of the Leveson Inquiry and endorsed by all
political parties in Parliament.

It has never been implemented and that's what Gerry was bleating about lately.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1685416178386907&set=a.1452060078389186.1073741827.100007556237288&type=3

I don't know if non Facebook members will be able to see this - it's supposedly from the parent of a soldier in uniform spat on by lowlife.

Despite the fact that it is an unproven myth, enough feathers are being spat by the nice but dim brigade to fill many mattresses!

http://www.snopes.com/man-spit-marine/

Yes, non-members can see it. And I can't believe I just spent a few minutes of my time scrolling through this random's other photos.

You're lucky that you didn't read the posts from all the Neanderthals vowing plague and pestilence on those who disrespect our soldiers.

Thankfully the topic has been whooshed - the group admin must have realised how bad it looked.

Thank you

To be honest, I really didn't understand any of it. Just found myself weirdly looking at a stranger's photos from the FB link.

Is this A or S group ok?

Just seen this. Read it, but not sure if actually understand it...

What's the gist....

Will re-read it again later and digest.

dogs don't lie wrote:Is this A or S group ok?

Yes ddl, it has almost 24k members. Kerry Needham is a member or looks in.

costello wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Is this A or S group ok?

Yes ddl, it has almost 24k members. Kerry Needham is a member or looks in.

thanks costello X

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1193284167373027&set=a.959485824086197.1073741827.100000743657514&type=3

I would like to hear other people's opinions on this one. In case it can't be accessed, it's a "joke" about a woman who objected to something her husband said and hit him so severely that he couldn't see for days.

Now I hope that those of you who are rolling about on the floor hysterically laughing won't have difficulty getting back up again. 

My point is what would the reaction be if it was a man who'd hit a woman?

I can joke about very serious subjects at times - I don't know how anyone survives without a sense of humour - but any kind of physical violence is not one of those subjects.

I have stated my views on Facebook, mentioning that I have known people trapped in domestic violence situations and, while some people have agreed, most are saying how hilarious the joke is.

Am I being a humourless mad old bat? I will accept a majority verdict on the question!

Freedom I just get a photo of a kilted man holding 2 children.