Re: Princess Diana : Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:33 pm  

Goodness, Princess Diana has a lot to answer for....poor lass.

Re: Princess Diana : Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:23 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Nice swerve, but your point was that you incorrectly believed they didn't investigate child neglect. Why not just accept that?

Because it's a ****ing lie.

DMW made a throwaway line about it being funny that the McCann's weren't charged with child neglect. I argued against a charge considering the fact that they'd lost their daughter. You jumped in with your stupid comment that the (British) police don't have jurisdiction. And you've been digging since then to try and bury that stupid comment.

The question wasn’t whether it “got in the way”, just that the child neglect issue was actively considered, contrary to what you thought.

I've never written anywhere that a neglect charge would not have been considered. I've never *thought* that either, despite what your mind reading skills lead you to believe.

I haven’t started lying, and don’t intend to. Once again, you clearly have no clue what ad hominem means. It is nothing to do with real or perceived "jibes”, though goodness knows your posts aren’t short of those. There's nowt wrong with a good jibe, and frankly ridiculing your drivel is also entertaining, though not as funny as the picture I am getting of your cheeks reddening and your saliva spluttering onto your screen.

So WTF did you mean by the "struggling for attention" comment? That was clearly a comment aimed *to the person* and not *to the post*.

YAY! The penny has finally droipped! Do I get an apology, then?

You honestly think you deserve one?

No, what you actually said was :-
That’s you thinking you're taking the pi*s. that’s you ridiculing the idea that the Portuguese police were considering child neglect. That’s you claiming through your clumsy rhetorical question that they DID NOT LOOK INTO A NEGLECT CHARGE. Sadly turns out that you were 100% wrong.

I never said that they NEVER LOOKED INTO IT. I'm just arguing that a child neglect charge against parents when no one knows where the child is is ridiculous.

For the McCann's to be charged with child neglect, the police would have needed Madeline to be found wandering around lost on her own that night. But with Madeline missing, with the possibility that she was either dead or abducted, it would have been a cruel and nasty waste of policing to charge them with neglect. And it would have also made their case more difficult to prove if the McCann's were suspected of the murder WHICH THE PORTUGUESE POLICE DID ACCUSE THEM OF.

You really need to calm down. I should also point out that this is illogical, since if on your face there is excrement that I spat out, then I couldn’t at the same time still be full.

The reason that the excrement is on my face is because you were talking ****. And you're still full of **** because you're a greedy ****er and eat too much.

Re: Princess Diana : Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:26 pm  

Miro wrote:

Goodness, Princess Diana has a lot to answer for....poor lass.

I think she's proof of mass mind control. Because she was nowhere near as pretty as the world seems to think she was.

Re: Princess Diana : Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:39 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I think she's proof of mass mind control. Because she was nowhere near as pretty as the world seems to think she was.

True, but she inspired a generation of smart looking lasses, not like the scruffy dross knocking around today.

Re: Princess Diana : Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:41 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

...
I've never written anywhere that a neglect charge would not have been considered.

You sarcastically tried to take the pis* out of me for suggesting it was, which of course amounts to precisely the same thing.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

...So WTF did you mean by the "struggling for attention" comment? That was clearly a comment aimed *to the person* and not *to the post*.

What utter, utter bollox.

I said "Is there a point in there somewhere, struggling for attention?" - this is a question. It presumes you meant to make a point in your post, but that I can't see thae point. It sarcastically asks you to explain what (if any) point you were making. It is thus 100%, clearly, a question aimed at the post you made. How you could think it was aimed at a "person" is a mystery.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

...I never said that they NEVER LOOKED INTO IT.

With as much respect as I can muster, you extremely clearly implied exactly that when you wrote:-

...So when exactly do you think the Portuguese police were considering charging the McCann's with child neglect? Before or after they thought that the McCann's killed their child?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

...The reason that the excrement is on my face is because you were talking ****. And you're still full of **** because you're a greedy ****er and eat too much.

Ah, vulgar abuse. The last refuge for those soundly whupped in argument.

Bless.

Re: Princess Diana : Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:04 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You sarcastically tried to take the pis* out of me for suggesting it was, which of course amounts to precisely the same thing.

The ONLY reason the issue of whether the PORTUGUESE police considered charging the McCann's for child neglect is being discussed is because YOU made your STUPID comment that "the police don't have jurisdiction in forrin countries".

You know that was a dumb comment, you won't even acknowledge the comment and you are digging and digging to hide that fact.

I don't think the McCann's should have been charged with child neglect. I don't think that a charge of child neglect should ever be made during an ONGOING INVESTIGATION into the disappearance of a child when the facts have not been established. I don't think the way the case was handled by the Portuguese police meant that the McCann's could have been charged, even if they were neglectful, when Madeline was never recovered.

But a charge of child neglect completely contradicts the accusation of the murder of Madeline. The Portuguese police named them as suspects in her murder, they briefed the British press they did it and lead the tabloids to savage them. The McCann's couldn't have neglected Madeline by leaving her in the apartment AND killed her at the same time.

I've never said that the Portuguese police didn't consider charging them with child neglect. I never thought it. And it is BS to say that I did. I've made the point many times, the possible murder charge would take precedence, the possible abduction of the child would be another lead, any possible child neglect charge would need to wait until a proper picture emerged of what happened.

Just thinking about it a little more. As they were considered suspects of Madeline's murder they could have been charged with child neglect, but it would probably have been as a tool to try and make them implicate themselves/each other over the murder. But IMO it would have never been as a standalone child neglect case when the issues were in no way resolved. And I don't think it would have been politically feasible to charge anguished parents when the accusation could be made that they were covering up for their botched recovery by trying to pin it on the parents.

I said "Is there a point in there somewhere, struggling for attention?" - this is a question. It presumes you meant to make a point in your post, but that I can't see thae point. It sarcastically asks you to explain what (if any) point you were making. It is thus 100%, clearly, a question aimed at the post you made. How you could think it was aimed at a "person" is a mystery.

TBH I may have read it wrong. The "struggling for attention" comment I read as you saying that *I* was struggling for attention. That was how I continued to read it until this post. I now accept that the meaning is different when the sentence is taken as a whole.

Re: Princess Diana : Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:07 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The ONLY reason the issue of whether the PORTUGUESE police considered charging the McCann's for child neglect is being discussed is because YOU made your STUPID comment that "the police don't have jurisdiction in forrin countries".

You know that was a dumb comment, you won't even acknowledge the comment and you are digging and digging to hide that fact.

No, it wasn't. It is a factual statement about the lack of jurisdiction in the matter by police in this country and this "digging" and "hiding" stuff is just weird!

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I don't think the McCann's should have been charged with child neglect.

Neither do I. But you're going off the subject again.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I don't think that a charge of child neglect should ever be made during an ONGOING INVESTIGATION into the disappearance of a child when the facts have not been established.

The way I read it, the issue of whether to charge them with child neglect can logically only have been considered once the authorities in principle felt that the McCann's account was the most credible. But personally I am of the view that to even consider a charge that they abandoned/neglected their child, in the circumstances set out, would be doomed to failure anyway.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I don't think the way the case was handled by the Portuguese police meant that the McCann's could have been charged, even if they were neglectful, when Madeline was never recovered.

I don't see the connection, though I do see the argument that if you accept they didn't kill their own child, then her disappearance is punishment enough for them.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

But a charge of child neglect completely contradicts the accusation of the murder of Madeline.

No it doesn't, I would bet she was, sadly, abducted and killed by someone, just not the McCanns.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The Portuguese police named them as suspects in her murder, they briefed the British press they did it and lead the tabloids to savage them. The McCann's couldn't have neglected Madeline by leaving her in the apartment AND killed her at the same time.

Well, we don't need Columbo to figure that, but the point was that all possible charges were in turn considered, including murder, and including abandonment/neglect.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I've never said that the Portuguese police didn't consider charging them with child neglect. I never thought it. And it is BS to say that I did.

Now you're bullshitting. You're digging and digging to hide the fact that YOU WROTE:

...So when exactly do you think the Portuguese police were considering charging the McCann's with child neglect? Before or after they thought that the McCann's killed their child?

You cannot escape the fact that this plainly implies you DID think exactly that thought. You're ignoring it in the hope your bluster will smokescreen it, but it won't.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I've made the point many times, the possible murder charge would take precedence, the possible abduction of the child would be another lead, any possible child neglect charge would need to wait until a proper picture emerged of what happened.

Except it wouldn't have to, as the possibility of a child neglect charge was indeed considered, as I set out.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Just thinking about it a little more. As they were considered suspects of Madeline's murder they could have been charged with child neglect, but it would probably have been as a tool to try and make them implicate themselves/each other over the murder.

Er, I think you're getting a bit carried away now.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

TBH I may have read it wrong. The "struggling for attention" comment I read as you saying that *I* was struggling for attention. That was how I continued to read it until this post. I now accept that the meaning is different when the sentence is taken as a whole.

Fair enough.

Re: Princess Diana : Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:56 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

No, it wasn't. It is a factual statement about the lack of jurisdiction in the matter by police in this country and this "digging" and "hiding" stuff is just weird!

If someone had been arguing about the British police charging them with child neglect then your point would have been warranted. As no one had, it was simply a stupid comment. As pretty much anyone reading this thread can see.

Neither do I. But you're going off the subject again.

You were claiming that I thought the Portuguese police never considered charging them with child neglect. I never wrote that, I never alluded to that, I never thought that. I was just pointing that out.

The way I read it, the issue of whether to charge them with child neglect can logically only have been considered once the authorities in principle felt that the McCann's account was the most credible. But personally I am of the view that to even consider a charge that they abandoned/neglected their child, in the circumstances set out, would be doomed to failure anyway.

Which I am in agreement with. Which I was arguing. Until you helpfully chimed in with the fact the British police don't have jurisdiction.

I don't see the connection, though I do see the argument that if you accept they didn't kill their own child, then her disappearance is punishment enough for them.

The Portuguese police wrongly jumped to the conclusion that Madeline was dead because of their misreading of DNA evidence, and named the parents as suspects. The Portuguese police then briefed the British press about the fact the McCann's were the murderers. The British tabloid press then did what the British tabloid press does and went to town to destroy them.

Given the fact that the Portuguese police have massively screwed up with that. Given the fact that the British tabloids, having been pushed wrongly into hammering the McCann's, were now likely to be focusing back on Portuguese police very sharply, it would make it almost impossible to charge the McCann's with child neglect, even if they did deserve it (which I don't think they did).

No it doesn't, I would bet she was, sadly, abducted and killed by someone, just not the McCanns.

I prefer to believe she is safe and abducted by someone and sold to some loon who really wanted kids, but is otherwise safe and bringing her up well.

The Portuguese police were briefing that the McCann's killed Madeline. Around the same time that you say they were considering charging them with child neglect.

Well, we don't need Columbo to figure that, but the point was that all possible charges were in turn considered, including murder, and including abandonment/neglect.

We didn't need Columbo to point out that British police wouldn't be charging the McCann's with child neglect, but you felt it was important to point it out.

Now you're bullshitting. You're digging and digging to hide the fact that YOU WROTE:
You cannot escape the fact that this plainly implies you DID think exactly that thought. You're ignoring it in the hope your bluster will smokescreen it, but it won't.

There is a missing child. There is a possibly murdered child. The police believed that the McCann's were involved in her murder. By all means consider a possible child neglect case and leave that possible case open should the girl be soon discovered. But a potential child neglect case is of almost complete irrelevance compared to the abduction and possible murder of a child.

Except it wouldn't have to, as the possibility of a child neglect charge was indeed considered, as I set out.

Considered because the police should consider each possible outcome. But obviously shelved because of higher priorities, and also IMO, because a child neglect case wasn't supported by the facts.

Re: Princess Diana : Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

If someone had been arguing about the British police charging them with child neglect then your point would have been warranted. As no one had, it was simply a stupid comment. As pretty much anyone reading this thread can see.

<resigned sigh>
OK if I have to spell it out for you then so be it.
1. My post was a sarcastic comment, aimed at the apparent misunderstandings being posted about what might/should be charged.
2. Nobody was so arguing. They were suggesting that the Portuguese police should charge the parents with neglect.
3. Anyone who was involved in this discussion seemed to be ignorant of the fact that, in reality, the Portuguese police had already given detailed consideration to such charges, and presumably ruled them out (as none were ever brought).
4. The post mocks that ignorance, since obviously a poster who wasn't ignorant of the fact wouldn't suggest that the Portuguese police should pursue a course that they had already pursued and rejected. (They would instead point out that decision and criticise it).
5. Therefore the sarcasm in the post is in the implicit assumption it makes that these posters do know this fact, a simple device used to mock the fact that they do not.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

You were claiming that I thought the Portuguese police never considered charging them with child neglect. I never wrote that, I never alluded to that, I never thought that. I was just pointing that out.

This is getting really tiresome. Your sarcastic comment (which I've quoted several times now) has a clear implication and that won't change however many times you swerve explaining why else you would have posted what you did. Though I'm curious how you pointed out something that you never wrote, alluded to, nor thought. That would be a good trick.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The Portuguese police were briefing that the McCann's killed Madeline. Around the same time that you say they were considering charging them with child neglect.

To be precise, around the time that the Supreme Court in Evora said they were.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

We didn't need Columbo to point out that British police wouldn't be charging the McCann's with child neglect, but you felt it was important to point it out.

You know, in an odd way, you almost got the sarcasm, didn't you? A bit more attention and you wouldn't have made quite such a fool of yourself!

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Considered because the police should consider each possible outcome. But obviously shelved because of higher priorities, and also IMO, because a child neglect case wasn't supported by the facts.

See what you're doing? You're now posting on the basis that the police could and did consider all possibilities, including child neglect. As if you knew they had considered child neglect, all along. But you didn't. You had no clue. You believed they hadn't. You believed they thought the McCanns "dun it" and so looked into murder charges, and not neglect. Because you thought looking at possible neglect charges would be illogical.

YOU wrote:

It would obviously be the Portuguese police who would be charging them with child neglect.

In reply, I wrote:

It obviously wouldn't, as they looked into that very possibility, and didn't.

YOU then spelled out your mistaken belief, I'll quote the full extract, for the avoidance of doubt:

Lord God Jose Mourinho earlier wrote:

I made the point that it would have been the Portuguese police who charged them with child neglect.

You then said that it wouldn't be the Portuguese police charging them, as they looked into that possibility and didn't.

I posted from wikipedia which outlined the fact that the Portuguese police named them as suspects in the murder of their child.

So when exactly do you think the Portuguese police were considering charging the McCann's with child neglect? Before or after they thought that the McCann's killed their child?

Game, set and match. Though dead horses should not assume they can rest easy.

Re: Princess Diana : Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:03 am  

TBH this is pointless arguing. All the evidence is all in the thread.

You've obviously claimed the position of judge as well as participant.

My judgement is that you tried to make a joke with your British cops don't have jurisdiction comment. It wasn't funny, it was stupid and you got pi55ed off after you were called on it.

But hey, you called dibs on being judge so I've lost.