pap

I'd say I find the Portuguese investigation more credible. The scope of the investigation was broader than the UK investigation, and it was based in part on physical evidence collected at the scene, including DNA and dog evidence. The main evidence for the UK case, which takes the abduction theory as read, initially rested on the account of Jane Tanner, now thoroughly discounted. The recent reconstruction is largely based off sightings by the Smith family, who have claimed before that the person they think they saw was Gerry McCann. Unsurprising perhaps, that one of the e-fits vaguely resembles him. The only thing that supports abduction are the witness statements. There was no physical evidence at the apartment complex to suggest an abductor was there. Weighing the evidence up, I find the conclusions of the PJ more credible than the British OB. Yes, I saw the way they were portrayed as keystone cops, but the scope of their investigation was wider and they had stronger evidence to support their assertions.

In that case, you need to provide a theory, right now. It's standard operating procedure for anyone with doubts, y'know.

I've no intention of airbrushing my history. It's all still there, and will be around for as long as SaintsWeb exists. Longer, probs. Given the upset that my theorising caused, I thought it'd be wise to take that sh!t elsewhere. Still, keep bringing it up when you've f**k all else to say, coward Tim (assuming the bigger boys have your back, of course).

I'm not sure whether you are aware of the particulars of this case, but there were in fact, two investigations. One was conducted in Portugal, was based on physical evidence and the wild inconsistencies in varying accounts, implicated the McCanns as suspects, and came to an end under political pressure. The other was conducted here, dismissed all of the PJ's findings, and assumed abduction from the very start despite their being no credible evidence, physical or otherwise, that would suggest that this was the case.

Your volte-face on this thread was legendary, coward Tim. Do you at least realise you're capable of being an arsehole? It'd put a lot of minds to rest.

Whose perspective? aintforever's? Why does he need me to explain things that he can find out for himself? Is he a child? Am I the only person in the universe that can give him an opinion? Same crap. Different thread.

As I've said before, there are others who've put far more work into this topic than I. If your interest is so absolute, I'd suggest you head off there.

Nope, just those that use their anonymity as a shield when attacking others. Largely so the comments they make are never attributed to their real-life identities.

The coward Tim's conduct on this thread speaks volumes. When we were all still discussing Madeleine McCann, he was broadly in the doubt camp. As soon as the usual suspects roll in, he's suddenly on the attack, throwing in his lot with the regular band of reactionaries that seem to subsist off my content. Now this may just be the product of a council estate upbringing talking, plus the obvious and well-photographed years I've spent in Liverpool, but the locals have a good work to describe people like the coward Tim - sh!thouse. He's stalked my posts before, but this one is particularly good as he has managed to do himself up in the context of one thread. That's impressive work by the coward Tim. On your last point, I get on with enough people on here, and as I've said before, it's the same four or five posters who cling to my arse like turds who I get the most grief from. You'll have to forgive me if I take the time to wipe them off every once in a while. As for yourself, Special K - I seem to remember brushing you off with a "Specious, K" quip. I'm not even phased by the low level insults you're dealing out here. Bell-end is a particularly good footy insult, but I've been called worse. I'll happily cop to most of it. I can be an arsehole when I want to be; I'm very aware of that fact and do my best to mitigate against it. The big difference between myself and the coward Tim is a level of self-awareness. I'm not sure that the coward Tim even realises he's capable of being an arsehole - but he can be. If you need the evidence, look no further than this thread.

Taken with all the gravitas traditionally accorded to an anonymous coward. (That's zero, btw).

Mate, don't know if you saw the thread in question, but it wasn't pretty. I provided a theory, but there were two major problems. First, it was never really wanted in the first place. The same people who are demanding it here were demanding it then. They weren't interested in the first place. The other issue was the general audience and the timing. If there is ever a good time to discuss these matters, it isn't in the immediate aftermath of events, especially if those events have happened in your own country and had the sort of public outcry that Woolwich did. It was a mistake on those two levels, one I don't intend to make again. See above, hypo. On your other points, I'm not posting to get a reaction from others, but there is an element of truth to your last point. People are willing to accept that things have happened on a very low burden of proof, almost to the point where if it's on the telly, it's real. I find that to be a rather dangerous default position. There is mercifully some evidence of that changing; the Syria incident is a good example of both the problem and the recognition that it exists. During the first week, Cameron and co did their level best to get us into a conflict with no evidence whatsoever, save what they'd collected from disputed intelligence sources. In a less cynical time, I think they might have gotten away with it. They almost did this time. It was only really Miliband staring back at the electorate, correctly assessing the public mood and voting accordingly which kept us out of that conflict. Now I'm not trying to pretend that public sentiment is indicative of people suddenly deciding to not trust their governments. On different levels, people have not trusted their governments for years, and it doesn't even matter if it's your preferred party in power. Who'd have pegged Labour for facilitators of a right-wing hawkish US administration? Certainly not me. Anyone who buys Private Eye knows that that each edition is chock-full with low level conspiracies internal to our country. I suspect the big differentiator between my position and that of many others is what we believe governments, or at least elements of them, to be capable of. Even restricting ourselves to the public record, they are capable of a lot.

Cheers for the support, Jamie. (You'll work it out later)

As must yours, CB Fry. I'd argue that making jokes about toddlers in acid baths is possibly a step above suggesting that a false flag operation happened in Woolwich. My one mistake on that thread was to actually acquiesce to the demand for a theory. A lot of lessons learned on that thread and a couple of others, including the decision to discuss these matters someplace else. So time's spun on. I've had nowt to say about anything on here apart from this since you and your caring band of chums departed the Boston Bombing thread out of "decency". I've kept my gob shut, mush. It's you and your ad-hoc band of bullying brothers who keep bringing the subject up. Look at you now. Not only will you happily bring up these events you found so "upsetting", but you're more than happy to bring them up time and time again. The latest is a new nadir for you, CB Fry. Devising methods of child body disposal to prove a point you don't believe in, and don't care about anyway. As with Timothy's contribution, I'd be paying a lot more attention to "gutless shell of a human" ( which is good in a kind of drill sergeant way ) if you weren't such a blouse-wearing anonymous coward yourself. It is difficult for me to take anonymous attackers seriously. Immediately my back goes up, so I start picturing you as big fat c*nts who post angry all the time because you hate yourselves. It's a stereotype, I know.

The missus went to see this with her mate. I have been somewhat distrustful of ms pap's "crap or brilliant" movie reviewin' scale for some time. She said this was brilliant. It is good to see a positive review of this from someone who normally moans about films.

More remote diagnosis, Tim? I have to say, it's amusing being called fake by someone who hides behind anonymity, baffling to be called insincere when my sincerity over my tax affairs has cost me left-wing brownie points, and downright hypocritical to be accused of lacking empathy from yourself. You're a coward, Tim. You don't have the courage to put your identity behind your words, so any contempt you may hold me in is meaningless. What the f**k do I care about what an anonymous coward thinks?

In all the discussions we've had about various conspiracies, I don't think I've ever made a joke of those involved. The only thing I've ever done is point out discrepancies between what we're being told and the evidence collected at the time, whether that's video, photographic or in this case, official observations of the PJ. Pretty much the only person "cracking wise" about these events or the people involved is yourself. I may be way off the mark ( see the great Turkish surname cock-up for more details ), but I'm guessing you're childless. The old man used to have a pop at me for taking the p!ss out of people, reminding me that they were all someone's son or daughter. Didn't get it at the time, but it's something that retroactively kicked in when my own came along. That you can sit there and spew bile about acid baths just to get to me (fk sake) tells me you've a total lack of empathy. I only really felt that way when I was a selfish, childless c*nt. I honestly don't think you give a f**k one way or the other about any of these incidents.

Can you go back to being Verbal's unpaid and unloved poodle? Let's see another "principled exit" from a subject because it's all too much. Besides, there are better ways to build bridges than flippant accounts of how a young girl might have disappeared. Who exactly do you think you're amusing? (Apart from yourself, of course).

Just an example of the fiction you'll create to invent a case. The acid bath is your invention, kid.

Think it's done by electoral register. I'm self-employed so it was a bit of a pain in the arse. You don't have to do it again for years, so made the decision to get it out of the way.

Cheers, VW. Funnily enough, I ducked out of the foreman responsibility because I was conscious of my strong opinions, and really didn't want that to be a leading factor. There were sensible people in their fifties and sixties who were a much better fit.

Er no. I have no idea whether my fellow jury members have PTSD. They did elect me as foreman, though (although I immediately refused it).

No need. Already did it.

I just wonder at the "timeline" that led to your typo. Was it merely fat fingers, or was it the excitement of having a non-Verbal originated "killer quip" ( description only applies in your head ) for the first time in ages? Whatever, when dealing out the insults, best to get your language spot on. Otherwise you look a bit "cleu"-less.

I could probably spell "clue" tho'.

I've got a couple of Samsungs in the house. Very nice screens. Be careful on the smaller screens though, as they tend not to have an easy means of getting audio out of them. My 22inch screen doesn't even have a headphone socket, which is a pain in the arse.