pap

Does it? That's nice.

I don't think I've ever expressed certainty on this issue. By all means, read my posts and tell me if I'm bullsh*tting.

Lordy. I'm really sorry CB Fry. Didn't realise it had got you so young.

When did I ever commit to meeting the demands of a full and complete explanation? I didn't; it has been demanded by people who don't want it anyway. I've fielded this ball before, hypo. It doesn't lead anywhere constructive, and is an unreasonable request aimed at getting me to provide ammunition for bitter old f*cks who need me to say something in order to contribute something themselves. Not going to give these boys the oxygen. Soz.

It's not that hypo. I've already written everything I'm going to. I'm not going to regurgitate stuff I've already written for the benefit of a few people who don't give a f**k anyway.

Nah, it's the fifty-something-bullying club meetup again

Yeah, I'd just repeat that your collective cry of "we're outta here, we're far too decent for this sort of discussion" is continually undermined by your later behaviour, y'know - like when you're trying to score cheap points from events you screamed blue murder over before. Still, that's just my perception.

You've actually behaved yourself on this one, Timothy. Don't spoil yourself, sir.

I'm often accused of turning everything into a conspiracy. I've certainly floated the possibility in a number of threads, but the only people who continue to bring those threads back into mention are on this thread, doing the same thing when bereft of comment on the specifics of this one. I can see you've extended the olive branch, so allow me to do the same. I don't require anything more than your last statement. If you want to file my opinions into a special little bin, that's fair enough. Far better that than what we regularly see here; people literally unable to deal with another's opinion without turning into a hysterical insult factory. Further, the amount of posters that slavishly support "everything the government has ever done" in any area of dispute is a little disturbing, more so if it's genuine. I posted some opinions about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on here, along with some links. Every other conspiracy theory that has wound up on this thread has come from others, the four or five posters who pop up with them time and time again. Incidentally, these same four or five posters abandoned one of these threads on supposed grounds of decency, yet continue to bring the events up. Caring bunch, aren't they?

I've pointed out my concerns on this thread already. Quite why you think it reasonable that I make a load of sh!t up is a question for you to answer.

My thoughts have already been provided. Others have also chipped in. Why don't you give some of them the third degree about a full explanation? Does your forum hardman act only extend to self-proclaimed easy targets?

Nah mush. We've done this dance before. It's a good job traditional criminal investigations don't follow your insane line of thinking. "sir, I have doubts about their claims." "Do you? Explain everything at once, in detail, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, shut up".

Aint - I'm aware than in its advancing years, the Verbal username entity is down to three deposits a day and isn't quite producing quite the volume of ejaculation for you to eagerly swallow. I have some sympathy with your position, but I'm not going to be the prism of jism that your hero once was. It's just as well, really. My thing has never been about telling people what they should think or how they should feel. If anything, it's the complete opposite. People should think for themselves, and if it's your assertion that there is enough evidence to prove abduction ( there isn't, but hey ho ), I'm not going to waste my time telling you any different. There are numerous reports out there on the 'net from a variety of sources, ranging from official reports to speculative. Go seek.

Flawed logic from the start, aintforever. I have been clear on what I find inconsistent with the abduction account (for which there is no physical evidence). If you need details, I'd suggest you go look. McCann files is a very good place to start.

There isn't a great deal to explain. The Verbal username identity is all about creating extremes, then presenting those extremes as the views of the person it is arguing with. There's really no art or mystery to it. You were probably called anti-semitic because you were saying something that needed to be thoroughly pushed aside. The Verbal username identity has also asked the same question of me, notably after it had brought anti-semitic sentiment, neo-Nazis and extreme right wingers into the argument. My advice? Don't deal with it as a person. It's not here to debate the topic at hand, it's not even here to make any kind of positive point. It just exists to smear, sneer and obfuscate. Shame really, as I remember a time when the Verbal username identity used to be something else, the sort of character that would send PMs and humbly apologise for its awful behaviour to Turkish ( who really did manage to get under the Verbal username identity's "skin" ). That's all gone now. It's more meme than man, twisted and hostile, masquerading itself as something with morality.

The odd thing is, the only people who keep bringing up these other events are people like yourself and Verbal. That essentially says to me, and hopefully anyone else with a semi-functioning brain, that you've nowt to say on the matter at hand, so have to make your case based on something completely unrelated. At that point, you're no longer in the discussion - you're just slinging mud in the hope that it'll stick. You had your chance to debate some of the other matters, and conducted yourselves in a vile manner there too. Now, returning to topic, the McCanns would have been charged with the DNA evidence collected had the case been under UK jurisdiction. The UK OB and the PJ were doing very well at constructing a timeline of events until political pressure put an end to the investigation. Who knows, given enough political support, one or both of the McCanns could have been charged with criminal offences by now. As it was, the scope of the investigation was changed to be an abduction, despite no solid evidence for the focus to change. The only thing supporting the abduction theory are the accounts of the McCanns and the Tapas Seven, the accounts of the Smiths (Irish family who believed they saw someone carrying a child) and the McCanns' own proclamations that it was the case. The accident theory does at least have some physical evidence to back it up, even though it wasn't enough to bring a case by PJ's standards. Now I have no idea as to what actually happened there, but I do have a fair idea of the differing accounts, the rush to characterise events as an abduction straightaway - enough to make me question the timeline entirely. I can't say exactly how it went down, and a big part of that is that the McCanns can't either. First the shutters were jemmied open. When no physical evidence supported that, they changed their story. And so it went on. Two parents, who should have finding their lost daughter front and centre, scrambling madly to protect their own reputations. This has gone on for six years now, and with each passing year, it seems more people forget the events at the time. I find it all very odd. Please continue with your name-calling though. As you can see, it's devastatingly effective

I expect that at the time, you were so pleased with yourself at seeding your favourite word, nutjob, into proceedings that you perhaps didn't realise you were arguing on extremes. You turned the debate into a straight up choice between abduction and murder, which to be fair, is the exact same trick that has been employed by the McCanns themselves. Whether you actually believe that is irrelevant. You pinned your argument on those two extremes, saying that anyone that believe the McCanns killed their own daughter is a (drum roll...) nutjob. As the discussion has shown, it's a bit more nuanced than that. No-one has argued for the extreme case you presented. I think it most likely that it was an accident of some description. There is plenty of evidence to back this up, not least the blood and cadaver dogs, but also the DNA evidence. As I said before, information from Wikileaks suggests that the British police were involved in building the case against the McCanns in the very early days. Stuart Prior, the initial lead on the DNA evidence, was reportedly furious when the results were made less conclusive, apparently saying that he could have arrested someone on this evidence in this country. I'd advise anyone to have a look at the link I posted earlier, written by the sicko/stalker that Verbal was keen to comment on. It is a chilling read, if only because it forms a record of a very hectic and distressing time, one that has almost been lost since the McCanns successfully sued the newspapers. I think we'll all see a conclusion on this. As Guided Missile says, sometimes you know a crime has been committed but do not have enough evidence to bring the case to court. I think that evidence is still out there; it's just not being heard because it falls outside the abduction narrative. As soon as a UK government gives the green light that it's okay to pursue the original lines of inquiry, I think you can expect the sued publications to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Ahem.

You are, unofficially

Think we've got a great chance of winning. Put my money where my mouth is at 5/1. 5/1! Sometimes the big team bias works for you

I don't think I've said anything of the sort. In brief, here's how I see things. Verbal made it instantly about murder. Gemmel, aintforever and JackFrost immediately started proceeding down such polarised lines of enquiry, hence a bit of light mockery. Verbal weighed in with his usual seems-intelligent-but-not-really-about-the-topic w4nk, leaving me to deconstruct his "contribution" line by line, laying bare what a vacant "debating style" he really has. I think that gets us up to date.

This is pure speculation, but I'd imagine that if they were found to have used medicine which led to their owns child's death, being struck off is a given. I'm not sure if that's the legal course of action, but politically, their continuing careers would be untenable. They'd almost certainly lose their kids as well.

Not a big fan of Number One Party Animal or Mad Sounds, but they have their place in the album ( i.e. a bit of a break before the end of the album, which is excellent ). A lot of the earlier tracks have grown on me too.

So music nerds like yourself can say "How did this not make it onto the album"?