Verbal

No. Tony Clifton.

I agree. No one should have to suffer the loss of their child then endure the gross libels of overly suggestible conspiracy enthusiasts. Perspective. That's what you're talking about, right? Because if you're talking about the delicate flowers on here, who even turn any opposition to their views as a 'coordinated' conspiracy, then perspective is what you've lost. To pick up on Minty's question, I think there are two rational ways to deal with the conspiro-crowd. One, as aintforever does, for example, is to try to debunk. Personally, I think this is a bit of a fool's errand, because it drags you into conspiro-world in a way that's ultimately a complete waste of time and effort. The other is to tackle the mindset itself. And to my mind, C B does an excellent job of that. His ridicule contains some unpleasant truths - but truths nonetheless - about the narcissistic, paranoid and, frankly, simple-minded roots of these personal attacks - whether these attacks are aimed at the McCanns, the Rigby family, or the Boston bombing victims. Again, for perspective, you have to contrast the squealing of hurt feelings among the conspiracists with their borderline sociopathic attacks on the bereaved, the injured and the dead.

He was charged with murder, but found not guilty of it. You need to brush up on the basics of the difference between a charge and a verdict.

June 2014, when they arrived in Lisbon to appear in their £1 million libel action against Goncalo Amaral. Amaral sacked his lawyers on the morning of the hearing - a common delaying tactic.

The only thing these mealy-mouthed evasions say is that you have no idea what goes on in a newsroom, and no idea how journalists work. What orders was Sy Hersh taking from the New Yorker when he wrote his expose of Abu Ghraib? How did two junior reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, get their stories past hugely sceptical senior editors at the Washington Post? Who told Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger how to shoot Restrepo? Who gives orders, exactly, to crazily fearless reporters like Jeremy Scahill? Who, exactly, sets their agenda? Do you even know who ANY of these guys are? Let alone how they work? Go on, give us specifics, not your cop-out, ignorant arm-waving 'oh we all know how...' And when can we expect your apology for Lee Rigby?

What do you think goes on in 'media' news rooms? Do you think a memo goes around telling reporters what to say on a story? If so, what do these mysterious memos say, and who are they from exactly? If not, what is 'spin' on a particular story, how is it 'spun', and why? Are we back with the 'Israeli' ownership of worldwide media? Have you ever been near a newsroom? Do you think that intelligent people can't seek out their own news sources, or weight one against another (say, NBC vs Vice, or the NY Times vs The Guardian?). What was The Guardian's and the NY Times' establishment-serving 'spin' in breaking Wikileaks and Snowden? What was the Washington Post's 'spin' in revealing Watergate? What was the 'spin' attached the The New Yorker's and Sy Hersh's breaking of the Abu Ghraib story? And so on, and on. And finally, what earthly use are people like you who uncover absolutely nothing (despite fantasising otherwise), and evidently believe that the 'media' exists as some conspiratorial monolith into which can be wrapped all 'conspiracies', Zionist plots, and the supposed machinations of a British middle class couple with no particular 'establishment' connections, whose mistakes and tragic loss are leapt upon by pitchfork-waving sociopaths? And can we have that apology for your vicious garbage about Lee Ribgy?

The Apocalypse. Nothing too overstated.

I said you were flirting with it, which you were. One of your character flaws is an inability to read sufficiently attentively. On the question of libel, I wonder if you appreciate the absurd irony of accusing me of libel while you happily do so with the McCanns (they have won every libel case they've taken out where newspapers have claimed they've had any responsibility for the murder of their own child). And you also are content to libel me and now others with claims that I/we are paid against of the state, all sent along to disrupt you (good grief, get a grip of your deluded self). You've also libelled the family of Lee Rigby, the 'crisis actors' in his killing and the crisis actors in Boston. There's no end to the libels you're prepared to commit in order to feed your obsessive fantasies. So I ask again: do you apologise for your claims on the Lee Rigby thread?

It's certainly not libel, and absolutely not unsubstantiated. The broader point though is that the sheer volume of crap about the McCanns out there on the net is only there because of the obsessive, malevolent scribblings of conspiracy theorists. Just as with Lee Rigby, the Boston bombing, 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Holocaust, and any other public tragedy in which people have lost their lives, these conspiracy theorists will trample over anyone, especially the victims, in claiming their bizarre theories. You in particular have no hesitation in doing this with your Lee Rigby guff. It's why I keep asking you to apologise. It's a relevant question on any conspiracy thread - and this is, above all, a conspiracy thread. So: do you stand by the 'no blood Bazza' claim? Do you want to apologise for your Lee Rigby claims? Conspiracy theories by their nature lead their adherents into some very dark places of their own making. It would be far better, as I said earlier, for you to take a break and get some fresh air. And far, better, don't you think, just on the off-chance that the McCanns are completely innocent of the awful charge of murder, that you and the rest of your 'theorists' leave them the **** alone?

So the McCann conspiracy, which started with the McCanns themselves, then included the Tapas Seven, the British police, Masons, and then the entire British establishment, now includes Saintsweb posters who think your posts are puerile but in your mind are paid to bring the (in your mind alone) vast importance of your ‘arguments’ (none of them are actually yours) to earth? Where will it stop? I’ll tell you. I asked earlier whether you still believed your own (!) argument that the tampered video of Lee Rigby’s killer, with his orange hands, proved there was ‘no blood Bazza.’ Since you so testily refused to answer the question, I’ll assume you do. (I seriously doubt you could contemplate the alternative – climbing down from your fake high horse – hence your default to abuse at the mere question). Bad news: the conspiro-gods have now deemed it that those who argued for ‘no blood Bazza’ were in fact part of the conspiracy covering up the false flag staging of Lee Rigby’s ‘death’. http://truthfrequencyradio.com/not-debunked-paul-walker-car-accident-and-london-beheading/ The argument is that the ‘no blood’ video was so profoundly, stupidly fake that its real intention was to discredit conspiracy theorists who regurgitated it. Now either you were one of those too stupid to realise this – or you were part of the false flag operation itself. The evidence (using your standard) points to the latter. And if you were part of that conspiracy, you are – following your own rules here – part of all conspiracies, including the one about the McCanns. I suspect a similar mechanism here: you put out stuff that’s so overwhelmingly lacking in basic intelligence as to discredit conspiracy theorists and the gullible (like SOG) who take the bait. I hope you’ve been well rewarded for your sterling work, agent pap. And that is the awful (or comedic, actually) fate that’s been awaiting you all along. Conspiracy theories all end up the same way. To justify ever-spiralling nonsense, they have to make the net of co-conspirators ever wider – until they themselves are swallowed up in a paranoid swamp. In your case, it's already led to the edge of the abyss, where, among the conspiracy theories you've flirted with on here is Holocaust denial. To you, like other deniers, historians of the Holocaust like Alan Bullock, Hannah Arendt, Martin Gilbert, Ian Kershaw, Richard Evans, Eric A Johnson, and Edward Crankshaw must all, inevitably, be simple liars and fantasists. Primo Levi, perhaps the most damningly eloquent of Auschwitz survivors, must merely have been having a bad dream. The remains of the death camps themselves must be postwar amusement parks for the easily led. I've said it before: you're either a malevolent fool or you need help. Either way, take a break and breathe some fresh air.

Why so evasive? Simple question, simple answer: yes or no. Do you still maintain that the orange hands video showed no blood? It's relevant to this discussion precisely because it demonstrates your competence, or lack of it, in judging what counts as 'evidence'.

In your mind maybe. But then we have to remember that the quality of evidence acceptable to you includes your farcical 'look no blood Bazza' meltdown on the Lee Rigby thread. Do you still believe that, by the way? That the orange hands video was real - that it genuinely showed no blood on his hands?

Citizenfour is out this weekend. Go and watch it - it's about something that actually matters, a real conspiracy not an imaginary one, and one that has far-reaching effects that we've yet to fully comprehend. You might find it a welcome relief from your own self-approving wallowing in others' family misfortunes.

In what way is insulting someone by describing them as 'ginger' not 'judgemental'? You've hit on that rare figure of speech, the moronic oxymoron. I've just been listening to a well-known novelist calling prejudices like this 'the egalitarian socialism of fools'. Seems to fit.

Again, a mealy-mouthed, grudging admission, compounded with evident ignorance of the range of actions available to the police when considering possibly criminal behaviour. 'Arrests' are not the only benchmark of whether the 'OB' [sic] are 'interested'. By setting the benchmark that high you're fishing for a conclusion that suits you, rather than has any bearing on reality. Added to this is your depressing double-hypocrisy. A complaint from you about someone being outed sits ill with your chronic addiction to 'outing' people on here. I'm not really thinking of your silly obsession with me, but with Barry Sanchez, and that sad affair in the pub. So to be clear: you can't in good faith be obsessed with the identity of people, gleefully outing them when you have the chance, and then condemn others who do the same. Secondly, you are prepared to condemn a self-styled defence group (darkly hinting - predictable again - at a conspiracy) but not those sick-minded enough to wish slow painful deaths (etc) on the McCanns. For what it's worth, I think the Sky reporter (who did not actually name the woman nor name the village in which she lived) should not have doorstepped her; nor should other media outlets have completed the circle in identifying her and her home. The public interest defence for doing so was simply too weak. And once more: when can we expect your apology for Lee Rigby?

Desperate stuff. You said (in your faux chav-speak) 'the OB weren't interested, so they took their dossier to the media instead.' This requires that you had inside knowledge that the police rejected the dossier, and that following that decision 'they' took it to 'the media'. But you know none of that, do you. You're just guessing - and making guff up to try to avoid being wrong. You must also be claiming inside knowledge of police procedures and of the investigation itself to imply that a month is long enough to deduce the police investigation's 'lack of interest'. But you don't have such knowledge. You know nothing of the sort. More generally, your vilification of the McCanns renders you absurd. No one would deny that the McCanns were highly irresponsible to leave their child alone in the way they did. But to endorse and regurgitate such a highly emotive hate campaign against them years after the event only shows that you are attracted to the story simply because of your fatal addiction to conspiracy theories. Re the quoted comments about conspiracy theorists being, in your words, 'Lonely. Bored. Mental.' (By the way, you missed out: desperately seeking validation): none of this was aimed at you, your predictably hysterical reaction notwithstanding. You are not a conspiracy theorist. You think you are, or strive your absolute best to be one, but you're not. You merrily but dully repeat; you contribute nothing. At least when a conspiracy theorist gets 'creative' and crudely turns bloody hands orange, that's contributing something. If you want to be a conspiracy theorist, you'll have to do some actual work - but you're a long way short of that. Alternatively, you could accept you're wrong (far more than) once in a while and acknowledge that. The above is a good example. Tell us you were wrong. And while you're at it - and appear to have suddenly (albeit selectively) discovered the human quality of empathy - try to summon up the basic decency to admit you were wrong to claim that Lee Rigby and his family conspired in the 'staging' of his murder. Say sorry. It's easy. The world won't collapse - even though you evidently feel yours will.

Exactly as I was saying. Someone on here, judging by his apoplectic (and presumably narcissistic) reaction, seems to have concluded I was talking about him...

Read the quote again, this time carefully:

An interesting and balanced take on this tragedy by Claire Hardaker in The Guardian. She concludes: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/was-brenda-leyland-really-a-troll-mccanns

Are you sure?

The term 'death cult' was first applied - to Al Qaeda - by ex-CIA officer Robert Baer. He's written and made television series about it. As a means of explaining the motives of recruits it's not a bad analysis (placing Al Qeada, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, etc on a par with the Jonestown Masscacre fantasists or Manson acolytes), but it nowhere near tells the whole story of what these organisations are about and why they flourish.

4 +1

True for certain kinds of BBC programming - far fewer than you might think - but not MOTD. At the BBC, careers (behind the camera) can be made or broken by ratings - the regular inquests with execs can be brutal. The running order is set by two criteria: regional 'balance' (MOTD is broadcast from Salford after all - a monument to the BBC's colossally expensive ambition to prove that it's not London-and-south-east-centred) and quite straightforward journalistic judgement about the 'best stories'.

Not that many. I've been unreliably informed that the team will include Ospina, Chambers, Diaby, Rosicky, Wilshere, Alexis and Podolski. Assuming that's halfway right, Arsenal are hardly going to be pushovers even if we field our strongest team.