pap

It's small time and bordering on obsession. Do you think Everton spend all their time faffing off about Liverpool? Do Liverpool define themselves based on their relationship with Man U?

Think the mods erred on the side of caution. Can't blame them for that, but if mumsnet are doing it... Anyway, the story has since spread beyond the paywall, a few links:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10407664/Madeleine-McCann-critical-new-evidence-is-from-five-year-old-suppressed-report.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html http://www.anorak.co.uk/372377/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-the-private-detectives-secret-e-fits.html/

I'm not hopeful. JJ Abrams, for me at least, has never produced an entirely satisfactory body of work. I never watched ALIAS, but people tell me it's good. A lot of people loved LOST. I can't really say I understood what it was all about. The island was weird because it was weird, dumbass! Oh, and it might have something to do with an eternal battle between what you might call God and what you might call evil. Spoiler for LOST? Hardly. It made no sense. This was his own creation. First Star Trek movie was alright; I'll confess to liking it on my way out. Was even looking forward to the second. Both films are extremely well made from a visual perspective, but they're just big dumb action movies. Cool sh!t happens so more cool sh!t can happen. Doesn't matter if it makes a lick of sense. I've been floored by the Rule of Cool before. I watched some utterly derivative Guy Pearce sci-fi movie a while back which was a cookie cutter of other movies, mostly rubbish, but had an extremely memorable ending. Abrams wants to give you something amazing every five minutes. It's f**king tiresome. One of the reasons the original Star Wars movie works so well is that it dwells on the important moments, often letting John Williams' score and a bit of scenery do the work. Can't imagine Abrams being down for that sort of lark.

It's as if a billion voices suddenly cried out in unison "I've got a bad feeling about this".

I'm just pleased to have my arrest threat downgraded from "defamation" to "copyright infringement". The Sunday Times will be pursuing a load of cases all over the Internet.

HuffPost article based off the Sunday Times work. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/27/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-mi5_n_4167645.html

The interesting thing about the Sunday Times article is that it is very much related to the court case the McCanns are pursuing against Goncalo Amaral, former lead investigator on the original PJ case. They claim that his actions hindered the search for Madeleine. It could be argued that by deliberately suppressing this e-fit information for a number of years, so have the McCanns.

Given previous form, I have difficulty accepting that any advice from you falls under the friendly bracket. Besides, the mods can delete the post if they feel I've breached it. In the meantime, I'll wait for those pipe-hittin' Sunday Times lawyers to sue me for publicising their works.

Listened to this yesterday ( I prefer Sunday Supplement in podcast format ). All very encouraging, except we're now a mere fifth

Very good first half, exemplifying what we're supposed to be about and most importantly, a couple of goals. Rickie is back with a vengeance.

The original claim was that the Conservatives were the only party who could make unpopular decisions for the benefit of the "bigger picture", however inexpertly that may be perceived. Labour made unpopular decisions during its previous tenure. Tuition fees were among them. I disagree with your point, though. I wouldn't have thought it uncommon for smart kids to take a different path, in part based on the costs incurred at Uni. They may take the view that it's better to be financially solvent at 22 than degree educated, particularly if their vocation doesn't require a higher level qualification. Many apprenticeship schemes get you professional credentials on the job. If some kid decides to become an electrician instead of an engineer, is that a bad decision?

I think you're underestimating this. Any kid bright enough to go to Uni is affected, as are parents. If we have people that are deterred by the costs of University, we could also be losing out on real talent within our midst.

That's patently untrue. Tuition fees say hello. So does Iraq, funnily enough.

Way to miss the point, Wes. The reason Brand doesn't vote is because whatever he chooses, too many choices have been made for him up-front. From an electoral perspective, much of the country is disenfranchised. Even if you're lucky enough to live in one of the 150 or so places that actually make a difference, I still don't think you have much of a choice. Democracy as practised here is just the chance to elect your autocrats, with two exceptions. First, our autocrats have the veneer of legitimacy through the ballot box. Second, they're still scared of the public. Boiled down, representative democracy is manifested as a series of transient autocracies kept in check by "public opinion" (whatever the f**k that really is).

On that score I think they are. Conservative governments seem to coincide with a lot of civil unrest. Toxteth, pitched battles with miners, poll tax riots and the recent UK wide riots are recent examples.

I echo the opinions of a couple of others on here. There are certainly times of my life that I'd like to do over, but I don't know how things would have turned out if I'd done otherwise. In my mid-to-late twenties, I did the offs from ms pap and the kids. To this day, it remains probably my worst decision. I don't like seeing pictures from that era, or even talking about it, because it was the one time that I was a complete and utter selfish nob. As things turned out, we ended up getting back together and are probably stronger for the time apart. The self-justification part of me says that if it hadn't have happened then, it would have happened sooner or later. We had our kids young; had to grow up a lot. Turns out that I didn't grow as much as required. There's two ways to look at that period of my life. I can either shudder every time I think about it, or use it as a template of what not to do. The reality is I do a bit of both.

I very much doubt he will. Not really sure it's worth offering up Tony Blair as an example of a Labour politician. He should be up before the Hague for being a war criminal, imo. Besides, my point was about the disenfranchisement of the underclass, not mindless whattabouttery. The Conservatives seem to be particularly distant from that section of society, as their ill-thought out policies are proving.

Pretty sure they're different from the perspective of someone who is now living in B+B accommodation as a result of any of the benefit caps.

Just watched the whole thing. First saw Russell Brand on Big Brother's Big Mouth. Thought he was absolutely hatstand, probably on something but brilliant all the same. I also got the impression that he'd f**k a right load of people off instantly. There are still shades of manic in this interview. He talks quickly; has a lot of points to make, but I'm in agreement of much of what he says. He is spot-on about an unrepresented underclass. Tories tend to see these things in very simplistic terms; remove someone's benefits and they'll have to get a job. Nah, they'll find other means to maintain an income, probably criminal. I still think a lot of the destruction in the UK riots was borne of the attitude "f*ck it, it'll never be mine anyway". The bottom rung of the ladder is now too big a leap for a lot of folk. Think it'll be quite interesting to see how Brand's foray into politics evolves. He's recounted his life of drugs and debauchery in some detail, so the usual political tricks, such as revealing drug use or perversion aren't going to work. Yes, we know

Has to have been a humbling experience for ol' 'Arry. Part of his schtick is thinking he's the mutt's nuts.

The PJ's report in 2008 covers their investigation and its findings in their entirety. English translations here, including information on DNA http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm Fingerprints:- http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

I haven't ruled out anything. Just making the point that once again, you're making the debate about extremes. In your original response to Window Cleaner, you set out two possible outcomes, one we're all familiar with (the abduction thesis), the other being the extreme case of the McCanns murdering their child and covering it up. For someone who complains about my points not taking ambiguity and contradiction into account, it's amusing that you set up such a black and white case, tragic that you expect people to argue it. The PJ found no evidence of anyone else but the McCanns and their friends in that apartment. You can keep ignoring that fact and all the others. There's no physical evidence to support abduction. There is physical evidence that supports other hypotheses. I do wonder if there is any disputed narrative where you aren't completely in lockstep with the "official position".

I'm not proud, but I'd happily refer to the bottom right as a potential cluster-f*ck.

For your analysis to hold, you pretty much have to ignore all the physical evidence that was found, which we have, so no real problem.

To be honest, the pap and Super Michael resistance group does not have those knockers in its locker. If we did, we wouldn't be posting on here.