pap

A deconstruction of a Verbal post.... Ooh. That's an order. Better follow it, boys and girls. Crazy by association (but let's leave the Savile stuff out, eh - Icke was well on the ball with that one). The link makes no such claims. Verbal is hoping that you don't actually read the link, and latch onto the fiction he has created here. Quelle surprise. Would this be the same Press Complaints Commission that deals with four of the newspapers the McCanns sued for damages? The newspapers that have never written a negative word since? Would the libel action have been led by Carter Ruck, of constant Private Eye infamy? Let's not forget references to "sicko" or "stalker". Verbal will cunningly use them again in an attempt to ascribe the same labels to me. Literally no defence on this topic, so let's drag up another where the sicko and stalker (that would be me, kids) had substantially less support on an issue. That'll work. From Verbal's POV, you're all too thick to catch on. Still don't have anything to say, so a couple of points impugning the poster's intelligence will do, along with some barefaced untruths ( I can't really be accused of not being curious, at least ). Choice.

I moved to Liverpool on the off chance I'd get to snog Anna Friel. It happens. Still no Anna, sadly.

I never really understood it anyway.

Yes, you could quite legitimately be talking of a bastard sword, a bastard child or a bastard chicken. Think I might have got the last bastard wrong.

As a successful Saints manager, or as a bitter cabbie who threw away his one chance at big boy football management?

Very interesting book, hosted by Wikileaks and forced out of print by the McCann's solicitors. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Suppressed_Madeleine_Foundation_book_by_Tony_Bennett,_2008 Another interesting find from Wikileaks is that the UK coppers helped to build the case against the McCanns in the early days. The FSS was ordered to water down its findings after they proved too conclusive. Even so, the biggest reason that an arrest wasn't made was Portugal's much higher burden of proof when it comes to matching genetic markers (so much for them bumbling Portuguese, eh?). If they'd found the same evidence here, it would have been enough to bring charges.

We had an agreement, Bear. You stalk me on Saturdays, not f**king Sundays!

Yeah, but it's just your opinion, right? I'll live.

Painfully obvious. No worries about ye olde confusion. I think we've established that as a "hypo norm" we should accommodate, you cheeky monkey.

And yet Bear, I'm completely unrepentant. Here was me thinking that "a blokey term of respect" probably excluded saying it to nuns and nippers.

I reckon the fact that you don't use it, or more accurately, don't get to use it, is around 90% of your problem. Is this attempt at public pap reprimand going as well as you'd hoped?

Ok, so you read it, but didn't remember any of it? Specifically the key bit. Fair enough.

So basically, you didn't even read the article that this thread is about? Hodgson, when referring to his second half tactics, used the term "feed the monkey" in reference to getting the ball to Townsend. Epic fail, hypo - even by your standards.

Of course, a pre-requisite for all of the above is "mates". Perhaps that's why hypo don't get it *meow*

That is wise, and for all their shandy-dodging toughness, don't say it around Northerners. They have not yet played with the word enough. Same thing goes for Americans.

Not at all. I'm guessing that you've never worked in a large hierarchical organisation. Orders come from the top-down. Purely in my position, if I am asked to develop feature x, and I think feature x is a load of sh!t, I still might have to develop feature x. I'm reasonably lucky in that I can argue against it with a business justification, but generally, most of us have to do what we're told.

So in essence, you're exactly the same as people getting offended over the use of "feed the monkey". You've just got different buttons.

It is, actually. It means we're on the same side in this debate, y'c*nt.

Hypo; one of the offended. Dragged out into the light of day.

Like the one that got Jill Dando's killer?

Maybe not, but the CrimeWatch reconstruction obviously wasn't filmed in a bubble. It maintains the timeline, the abduction thesis and the McCann's as neglectful victims.

I've little confidence in the Met investigation myself. Publicly at least, the scope seems very narrow. Doesn't seem to be entertaining your line of thinking at all, or the huge inconsistencies and potential collusion that most reasonable observers have commented upon.

My first boss scared the sh!t out of me. My advice to bowers is to learn to work. Sheer terror kept me in line in my first job. After that, it's just a case of putting a shift in during the early stages to ensure people know you're a grafter.

I've wondered about the timeline myself. The public understanding of the case is all based on events happening on May 3rd.

I wondered aloud who would get upset about this sort of thing. Now I know.