ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags internet incidents , internet issues , John Synott , madeleine mccann , manfromatlan , trolling

Reply
Old 24th April 2017, 04:45 PM   #201
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Disagree. Bringing in extreme racist statements to make a point is an underhand tactic I have come across before, and recognise its aim. Somebody even gave it a name, as a logical fallacy: Godwin's Law.

It is a form of emotional blackmail and a heavy-handed attempt to browbeat the person you are debating with.
But you think the principle is the same, whatever is written.
Also what you should have written was : "Your use of racist examples...". This would have made it clear that you were not ascribing the comments to LJ's views, as could be surmised by your wording.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett

Last edited by toto; 24th April 2017 at 04:48 PM. Reason: to add comment
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 05:53 PM   #202
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,998
Criticising those involved is not trolling

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 03:19 AM   #203
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by toto View Post
But you think the principle is the same, whatever is written.
Also what you should have written was : "Your use of racist examples...". This would have made it clear that you were not ascribing the comments to LJ's views, as could be surmised by your wording.
Why use the Holocaust or virulent neo-nazi agenda as your example of 'free speech'.

LJ was told that incitement to racial hatred in the UK is a crime, so is not 'free speech' as he tries to claim.


It is disgraceful. Jews and African-Americans must be sick to their back teeth at the constant gratuitous slurs.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 04:32 AM   #204
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is disgraceful. Jews and African-Americans must be sick to their back teeth at the constant gratuitous slurs.
As must the McCanns be.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 05:18 AM   #205
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why use the Holocaust or virulent neo-nazi agenda as your example of 'free speech'.

LJ was told that incitement to racial hatred in the UK is a crime, so is not 'free speech' as he tries to claim.


It is disgraceful. Jews and African-Americans must be sick to their back teeth at the constant gratuitous slurs.
Absolutely. No one would disagree with you. It would of course be possible to say or write nasty things without actually going far enough to be blatantly committing a criminal act.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 06:55 AM   #206
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why use the Holocaust or virulent neo-nazi agenda as your example of 'free speech'.

Why not?

They were well selected examples of the sort of intentionally offensive comments he was referring to, and not qualitatively different from what the McCanns have been targeted with.

Quote:

LJ was told that incitement to racial hatred in the UK is a crime, so is not 'free speech' as he tries to claim.

Not being all that familiar with the intricacies of speech suppression practiced by the U.K. I can't be sure that what he wrote would rise to the level of a crime, but context should make it clear that there was no criminal intent involved. I should think that mens rea would be a factor in any criminal statute there, even with the U.K.'s rather peculiar speech "crimes"

I hope you aren't trying to suggest there was. That would be rather dishonest.

Quote:

It is disgraceful. Jews and African-Americans must be sick to their back teeth at the constant gratuitous slurs.

Most of the ones I know would recognise that LJ was offering examples, not condoning them. I think they would appreciate his effort to express disapproval of such comments.

It isn't like he was approving of them. Quite the opposite.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:39 AM   #207
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Why not?

They were well selected examples of the sort of intentionally offensive comments he was referring to, and not qualitatively different from what the McCanns have been targeted with.




Not being all that familiar with the intricacies of speech suppression practiced by the U.K. I can't be sure that what he wrote would rise to the level of a crime, but context should make it clear that there was no criminal intent involved. I should think that mens rea would be a factor in any criminal statute there, even with the U.K.'s rather peculiar speech "crimes"

I hope you aren't trying to suggest there was. That would be rather dishonest.




Most of the ones I know would recognise that LJ was offering examples, not condoning them. I think they would appreciate his effort to express disapproval of such comments.

It isn't like he was approving of them. Quite the opposite.
Why use the Holocaust as an argument tactic? As an example of, 'oh but what if someone says the Holocaust never happened?' as if anyone who is sickened by this type of argument has to be forced into taking LJ's position of censorship of people expressing their opinion on topical issues.

It is a pathetic logical fallacy that if one upholds people's right to express an opinion on the McCann case, they must ipso facto support vile racist, sexist abuse.

No, sorry, it does not follow.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:47 AM   #208
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,079
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why use the Holocaust as an argument tactic? As an example of, 'oh but what if someone says the Holocaust never happened?' as if anyone who is sickened by this type of argument has to be forced into taking LJ's position of censorship of people expressing their opinion on topical issues.
Who the **** defines the 10-year-old disappearance of a single child as "topical?" It would be like giving a **** about a single 10-year-old murder.
__________________
Never let anyone forget that the American people elected a rapist to be their president. President Rapist is the only name that should be used when referring to this evil narcissist.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:49 AM   #209
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
As must the McCanns be.
When having a debate on a current topic, rational people do NOT gratuitously bring up the McCanns, so your argument is erroneous.

There are many people alive today who had relatives who perished in the Shoah, so to introduce this as a debating device to shut down the debate is truly scraping the barrel.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:51 AM   #210
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Who the **** defines the 10-year-old disappearance of a single child as "topical?" It would be like giving a **** about a single 10-year-old murder.
It is topical: it is a story in the DAILY MAIL today.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 12:00 PM   #211
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,079
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is topical: it is a story in the DAILY MAIL today.
Chicken versus egg. It only gets media play (way below the proverbial fold in a sensationalist tabloid) because obsessive morons and psychopaths won't stop talking about it.
__________________
Never let anyone forget that the American people elected a rapist to be their president. President Rapist is the only name that should be used when referring to this evil narcissist.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 04:09 PM   #212
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Chicken versus egg. It only gets media play (way below the proverbial fold in a sensationalist tabloid) because obsessive morons and psychopaths won't stop talking about it.
I don't think people who take an interest in the fate of a little girl who vanished ten years ago are 'obsessive morons and psychopaths'.

Whatever a person's views are about this case, let us not forget the real victim here is Madeleine McCann.

As she has never been found then of course people will speculate as to what could have become of her.

If anyone finds that upsetting, then lobby your MP or senator to get the law changed to gag them.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 04:19 PM   #213
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I don't think people who take an interest in the fate of a little girl who vanished ten years ago are 'obsessive morons and psychopaths'.

Whatever a person's views are about this case, let us not forget the real victim here is Madeleine McCann.

As she has never been found then of course people will speculate as to what could have become of her.

If anyone finds that upsetting, then lobby your MP or senator to get the law changed to gag them.
And her poor parents and family of course. In an unrelated case you will be familiar with that concept. I have not followed this case, but assume that the controversy is that some online commentary accuses the McCanns of being involved (apart from their initial act of negligence that is). It is sad that in today's news the UK police chief has to remind everyone that there is no reason to believe they are involved. So in that sense the McCann parents are twice victims if people are still speculating about their involvement.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 04:24 PM   #214
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by toto View Post
And her poor parents and family of course. In an unrelated case you will be familiar with that concept. I have not followed this case, but assume that the controversy is that some online commentary accuses the McCanns of being involved (apart from their initial act of negligence that is). It is sad that in today's news the UK police chief has to remind everyone that there is no reason to believe they are involved. So in that sense the McCann parents are twice victims if people are still speculating about their involvement.
That might be true, but you cannot stop people from having an opinion.

If someone is of the opinion the McCanns might be involved that does not translate to 'harassment of the parents' or 'denial of the Holocaust'.

Four out of the five police experts who went to Luz for the C4 documentary Dispatches do not follow the party line as outlined by you. The fifth, was directly involved in Dr Synott's master's dissertation.

Dr Synott does not have ownership of the 'correct opinion'.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light

Last edited by Vixen; 25th April 2017 at 04:26 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 04:55 PM   #215
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That might be true, but you cannot stop people from having an opinion.

If someone is of the opinion the McCanns might be involved that does not translate to 'harassment of the parents' or 'denial of the Holocaust'.

Four out of the five police experts who went to Luz for the C4 documentary Dispatches do not follow the party line as outlined by you. The fifth, was directly involved in Dr Synott's master's dissertation.

Dr Synott does not have ownership of the 'correct opinion'.
If, and as I say I have not followed this, online posters or twitterers (whatever they are called) are publicly accusing the McCanns of being involved then it is of my opinion that they are being harassed. And it is a very nasty thing to do. But that will be my final word on this thread.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 05:08 PM   #216
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by toto View Post
If, and as I say I have not followed this, online posters or twitterers (whatever they are called) are publicly accusing the McCanns of being involved then it is of my opinion that they are being harassed. And it is a very nasty thing to do. But that will be my final word on this thread.
Then lobby your MP to get the law changed.

Harassment is against the law.

It is not against the law to speculate - however outlandishly - what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Therefore it is not harassment of the parents to express an opinion that 'Maddie' is a 'murdered child', as planigale believes.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 06:20 PM   #217
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Then lobby your MP to get the law changed.

Harassment is against the law.

It is not against the law to speculate - however outlandishly - what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Therefore it is not harassment of the parents to express an opinion that 'Maddie' is a 'murdered child', as planigale believes.
Sorry, one last post!
Tweets from the @sweepyface account had said that the McCanns should suffer “for the rest of their miserable lives”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ound-dead.html
This is humiliating, intimidating or abusive behaviour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment#Online
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 01:27 AM   #218
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
When having a debate on a current topic, rational people do NOT gratuitously bring up the McCanns, so your argument is erroneous.
My argument was that the McCanns must be sick to the back teeth of the constant slurs. I see nothing erroneous about this argument.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 01:41 AM   #219
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why use the Holocaust as an argument tactic? As an example of, 'oh but what if someone says the Holocaust never happened?' as if anyone who is sickened by this type of argument has to be forced into taking LJ's position of censorship of people expressing their opinion on topical issues.

Was LJ advocating censorship?


Quote:

It is a pathetic logical fallacy that if one upholds people's right to express an opinion on the McCann case, they must ipso facto support vile racist, sexist abuse.

No, sorry, it does not follow.

Good thing nobody made such a claim then, I guess.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 02:02 AM   #220
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by toto View Post
Sorry, one last post!
Tweets from the @sweepyface account had said that the McCanns should suffer “for the rest of their miserable lives”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ound-dead.html
This is humiliating, intimidating or abusive behaviour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment#Online
You are quoting an opinion piece in a newspaper. The official coroners verdict is as follows (a coroners being a court of law):

Quote:
Detective Sergeant Hutchins

Brenda had a Twitter Account and made postings to do with the McCann family. 2210 tweets over a given period of time (??) and 424 (19%?) directly mentioned McCanns.

A third party presented a dossier to Met Police including these tweets.

When Q by Coroner he said – there was nothing in these tweets which would be a criminal offence.

Fact is, Martin Brunt, the SKY News reporter who doorstepped 'Sweepyface' and then called her a 'Troll' every fifteen minutes on Sky News, was a personal acquaintance of the McCanns, and it was them who complained to him, even though they do not have twitter.

Whatever your views on the case it is not illegal and in fact, it could be said Martin Brunt harassed a private citizen.

There are lots of people who have vile disgusting views. However, it is not illegal to hold an opinion.

If you think it should be, then get the law changed.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 02:06 AM   #221
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
My argument was that the McCanns must be sick to the back teeth of the constant slurs. I see nothing erroneous about this argument.
Oh, I see. Whenever you are having an argument down the pub about football or current affairs, you bring up the Holocaust.

O-Kaaaay.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 02:07 AM   #222
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Was LJ advocating censorship?





Good thing nobody made such a claim then, I guess.
You're a spokesperson for another poster?
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 02:09 AM   #223
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are quoting an opinion piece in a newspaper. The official coroners verdict is as follows (a coroners being a court of law):




Fact is, Martin Brunt, the SKY News reporter who doorstepped 'Sweepyface' and then called her a 'Troll' every fifteen minutes on Sky News, was a personal acquaintance of the McCanns, and it was them who complained to him, even though they do not have twitter.

Whatever your views on the case it is not illegal and in fact, it could be said Martin Brunt harassed a private citizen.

There are lots of people who have vile disgusting views. However, it is not illegal to hold an opinion.

If you think it should be, then get the law changed.
Just to add, in case my post was unclear: the quotation about the tweet came from a news story; the quotation about psychological harassment came from Wikipedia. You set a very low bar as to what is acceptable. No need to reply : let me out of here!
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 02:32 AM   #224
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by toto View Post
Just to add, in case my post was unclear: the quotation about the tweet came from a news story; the quotation about psychological harassment came from Wikipedia. You set a very low bar as to what is acceptable. No need to reply : let me out of here!
AIUI 'Sweepyface' did not contact the parents directly and did not write obscenities or anything that broke twitter rules.

You need to explain in which way 'Sweepyface' was harassing the McCanns and how this differs from Planigale's stated view that 'Maddie' is a 'murdered child'.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 03:49 AM   #225
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh, I see. Whenever you are having an argument down the pub about football or current affairs, you bring up the Holocaust.

O-Kaaaay.
Excuse me? <SNIP> All I said was that the McCanns must be sick to the back teeth of the constant slurs. Quite how you go from that to talking about the Holocaust is beyond me.

Edited by Locknar:  SNIPed, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

Last edited by Locknar; 26th April 2017 at 04:06 AM.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 04:06 AM   #226
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 5,851
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is topical: it is a story in the DAILY MAIL today.
Only because the anniversary is coming up.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 04:07 AM   #227
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 5,851
Originally Posted by toto View Post
It is sad that in today's news the UK police chief has to remind everyone that there is no reason to believe they are involved.
Who?!
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 04:14 AM   #228
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Who?!
Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 04:29 AM   #229
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You're a spokesperson for another poster?

Do you understand how this message board thing works?

People make public statements. Other people comment on those statements. And then maybe there are comments on the comments. Etc., etc., etc.

If you want to have a private conversation with someone then you need to do it in private. Not post in an open thread.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 04:35 AM   #230
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 5,851
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley.
Exactly. Not "the UK police chief," as there isn't one.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 04:49 AM   #231
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,692
Glad we got that important detail sorted.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 09:39 AM   #232
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Who?!
Yes. I was a bit lazy paraphrasing the Daily Mail which referred to "Scotland Yard chief" , later being more precise as Mathew Best has kindly clarified.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 09:49 AM   #233
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 591
Talking

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
AIUI 'Sweepyface' did not contact the parents directly and did not write obscenities or anything that broke twitter rules.

You need to explain in which way 'Sweepyface' was harassing the McCanns and how this differs from Planigale's stated view that 'Maddie' is a 'murdered child'.
If I thought it might alter your view I might have a go, but I think your response to my quotation tells me it would probably be a fruitless task.
I don't know enough about the case except to know now that the documentary you alerted me to was made when the McCanns were still official suspects and now, ten years later they are not. Also I know that we don't know what became of Madeleine which on a closing note we can all agree is terribly sad.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 02:49 PM   #234
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,123
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You're a spokesperson for another poster?
Well you act as a spokesperson for me.
Quote:
Therefore it is not harassment of the parents to express an opinion that 'Maddie' is a 'murdered child', as planigale believes.
The words 'pot' and 'black' come to mind.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 03:01 PM   #235
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,123
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
AIUI 'Sweepyface' did not contact the parents directly and did not write obscenities or anything that broke twitter rules.

You need to explain in which way 'Sweepyface' was harassing the McCanns and how this differs from Planigale's stated view that 'Maddie' is a 'murdered child'.
I think there is a material difference between saying that 'I think that it is most likely a child abducted ten years ago is dead', and saying that 'the parents killed their own child and are part of a paedophile conspiracy'. If you do not understand the difference between the two I am sorry for you. If you do not understand which message is harassment of the parents it is just sad. Whilst I have never met the McCanns it is clear from what they say they are aware of the possibility their daughter is dead, they hope she is alive.

Sweepyface has nothing to do with this thread please stop trying to derail the thread by bringing her up. If you want to discuss sweepyface start a new thread.

Last edited by Planigale; 26th April 2017 at 03:03 PM.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:41 AM   #236
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I think there is a material difference between saying that 'I think that it is most likely a child abducted ten years ago is dead', and saying that 'the parents killed their own child and are part of a paedophile conspiracy'. If you do not understand the difference between the two I am sorry for you. If you do not understand which message is harassment of the parents it is just sad. Whilst I have never met the McCanns it is clear from what they say they are aware of the possibility their daughter is dead, they hope she is alive.

Sweepyface has nothing to do with this thread please stop trying to derail the thread by bringing her up. If you want to discuss sweepyface start a new thread.
Sweepyface is part of the OP. It is what Dr Synnot predicates his psychological paper on.

You are the only person who has brought up a 'paedophile conspiracy' here. Wasn't this a major line of police enquiry? Or do you think that should be censored, too?

You still haven't explained why people speculating about Maddie's disapparance should be censored, when you yourself spout off your own theory.

The Supreme Court decision might be relevant to the OP insofar as it defends the right of an opinion on the case.

re: whether expressing an opinion of their guilt or innocence is harassment, the Portuguese Supreme Court has the final word.

From (a pro-McCann translation)

Quote:

Page 67
In the said order, it was concluded also that the appellants had neglected, although not recklessly or grossly, the duty of custody of their children, and still that, although it had not been possible to determine if the child was alive or not, it seemed more likely she was dead.
Actually a spokesman for the appellants said on 17/10/07 that they were realistic enough to admit that their daughter was probably dead (n° 75 of the proven facts).
From another angle, it has to be observed that, in the introductory note to the book at stake, the respondent affirms that the book's objective is to restore his good name which, in his understanding, was tarnished in the public sphere, to contribute to the discovery of the material truth and to the achievement of justice (n°23 of the proven facts)

It is clear, however, that the proven facts reveal that the respondent intended, on the one hand, to put in crisis the decision to remove him from the investigation, getting even to the point to suggest there had been a political management of the investigation and, on the other hand, to safeguard the rigour of the work of all the police professionals involved in the investigation until the moment he ceased to coordinate them.
Of all those circumstances does not result, in our view, that underlying the book, the documentary and the interview, exists an defamatory intention against the appellants, i.e an animus injuriandi, but rather an animus informandi and an animus defendendi.(23)

The opinion expressed by the respondent is sufficiently detailed in an intelligible and logical assessment of the facts and elements of evidence gathered in the investigation. Therefore the existence of a mere attack ad hominem to the persons of the appellants is not to be prefigured.

In addition, the disappearance of Madeleine and the subsequent investigation have become subjects of general interest and discussion at national and even international level, which, incidentally, was afforded by the conduct of the appellants themselves (n°s 65 to 71 and 76 to 79 of the proven facts).

Thus, everything points to balancing the interests at stake and following a balancing methodology adapted to the specificity of the case, in the sense of freedom of expression, which in this case requires greater protection, taking into account, also, the European legal context where we are inserted and the influence of the European jurisprudential paradigm of human rights.
P. 70:

Quote:
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)

There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.


Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.
The right to express an opinion was upheld. End of. Same principle applies to those who comment on it online, without applying labels of a mental illness.

Unlike you, I do not claim to know what happened.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light

Last edited by Vixen; Yesterday at 12:53 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:45 AM   #237
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,123
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sweepyface is part of the OP. It is what Dr Synnot predicates his psychological paper on.

You are the only person who has brought up a 'paedophile conspiracy' here. Wasn't this a major line of police enquiry? Or do you think that should be censored, too?

You still haven't explained why people speculating about Maddie's disapparance should be censored, when you yourself spout off your own theory.

The Supreme Court decision might be relevant to the OP insofar as it defends the right of an opinion on the case.

re: whether expressing an opinion of their guilt or innocence is harassment, the Portuguese Supreme Court has the final word.

From (a pro-McCann translation)



P. 70:



The right to express an opinion was upheld. End of. Same principle applies to those who comment on it online, without applying labels of a mental illness.

Unlike you, I do not claim to know what happened.
The mods have said we can discuss Synnott et al 2017 and the cyber harassment / trolling of the McCanns. 'Sweepyface' died prior to the research of Synnott, therefore you are wrong to say that the research is predicated on 'Sweepyface', I do not know if 'Sweepyface' was a troll, if you have evidence they were and presented it here then I suppose discussion of 'Sweepyface' would be on thread, I have no opinion on the matter, Synnott had no opinion on the matter.

You posted a reference to a website, on the 'frontpage' there was a statement I quoted accusing the McCanns of being part of a paedophile conspiracy; this I gave as an example of cyber harassment / trolling of the McCanns. You regard this as 'free speech' and that stopping people accusing innocent victims of heinous crimes is 'censorship'. I call it victim blaming. I do understand that your view is unless there is a court ruling that someone is innocent then it is reasonable to assume they are guilty.

I have not spouted off my own theory. I do not have one and in any case we are not allowed to discuss the case on this thread. I note that your reference above says,
Quote:
Actually a spokesman for the appellants said on 17/10/07 that they were realistic enough to admit that their daughter was probably dead
so my general statement that a child missing for ten years is likely dead is in agreement with what the McCanns believe. I do not think agreeing with the parents can be construed as harassing them.

The people who continue to post allegations about the parents ten years on from the crime also extend their harassment by complaining to the McCanns employers and to the GMC.

I think that falsely accusing people of a crime is wrong, that doing it to the parents of a missing child is cruel. That is why I think that Synnott is correct in their profiling (remember this is a forensic psychology department the research emerged from) this group of people as displaying psychopathy and in particular sadism.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:56 AM   #238
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,488
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
The mods have said we can discuss Synnott et al 2017 and the cyber harassment / trolling of the McCanns. 'Sweepyface' died prior to the research of Synnott, therefore you are wrong to say that the research is predicated on 'Sweepyface', I do not know if 'Sweepyface' was a troll, if you have evidence they were and presented it here then I suppose discussion of 'Sweepyface' would be on thread, I have no opinion on the matter, Synnott had no opinion on the matter.

You posted a reference to a website, on the 'frontpage' there was a statement I quoted accusing the McCanns of being part of a paedophile conspiracy; this I gave as an example of cyber harassment / trolling of the McCanns. You regard this as 'free speech' and that stopping people accusing innocent victims of heinous crimes is 'censorship'. I call it victim blaming. [1.] I do understand that your view is unless there is a court ruling that someone is innocent then it is reasonable to assume they are guilty.

I have not spouted off my own theory. I do not have one and in any case we are not allowed to discuss the case on this thread. I note that your reference above says,

so my general statement that[2] a child missing for ten years is likely dead is in agreement with what the McCanns believe. I do not think agreeing with the parents can be construed as harassing them.

[3]The people who continue to post allegations about the parents ten years on from the crime also extend their harassment by complaining to the McCanns employers and to the GMC.

I think that [4] falsely accusing people of a crime is wrong, that doing it to the parents of a missing child is cruel. That is why I think that Synnott is correct in their profiling (remember this is a forensic psychology department the research emerged from) [5]this group of people as displaying psychopathy and in particular sadism.
[1] I said nothing of the sort. Please do not put words in my mouth or insinuate I support harassment.

[2] The parents do not believe she is dead. Therefore, by your own argument you, too, are 'harassing' them.

[3] A shocking logical fallacy (=the sweeping generalisation). Please show the citation that 'all people who speculate in the Madeleine McCann disappearance all contact the parents, and their employers and GMC'.

You can't, because you just made that up in an outrageous attempt to 'win the argument'.

You have already been told that direct contact with the aim of causing distress contravenes the Prevention From Harassment Act is a criminal offence and defenders of free speech do NOT advocate breaking the law nor malicious intent.

It is disgraceful that you want to tar anyone who has an interest in the McCann affair with the brush of being malicious criminal harassers.

[4] You cannot possibly know whether it is true or false, as the case has never come to trial.

The common 'man in the street' does not have the jurisdiction to 'falsely' prosecute anybody.

It would certainly be 'cruel' if we know for a fact the parents of a missing child can reasonably be assumed to be innocent.

In the McCann case, police from Portugal, in collaboration with POLICE FROM THE UK did believe there was sufficient cause to make the parents in this case 'official suspects'. Cadaver dogs DID identify the scent of a cadaver in the apartment, car and Katie's clothes. They are no longer official suspects. However, the Supreme Court ruled that is not the same as a guarantee of innocence. Therefore, there is nothing illegal or 'harassing' for people to speculate what this can all mean. The McCanns are well protected by libel laws.

My problem with Synott is that I would question his sincerity in labelling "this group of people as displaying psychopathy and in particular sadism", as like you, I suspect he has an ulterior motive in trying to label people who disagree with his (or your) views as suffering from a personality disorder, when he - nor you - cannot possibly know that without calling them in for a proper psychological evaluation.

BTW I have alread told you I haven't followed any of this on social media, so your assumptions as to whether or not I condone the views expressed are based on erroneous logic, which is predicated on taking it as given that this is a group of people who without exception determined to harass and be cruel to an innocent couple.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.