The Maddy Circus rolls on.

[pred]

It's you that's stupid, not the dogs. Dogs are unbiased. You think the McCanns are innocent - but a dog doesn't care because it doesn't know what innocent or guilt is.

If you were in a foreign land in a dodgy hotel that collapsed and trapped your kids and rescue dogs were available to help locate them, would you say:

"Yes please."

Or

"Nah they'll only wag and bark and go looking for sausages".

So which is it?

Actually Joe, maybe it's time to stop being respectful, and react to your comments in kind.... you are a fookin knob.
A dog is not unbiased... put it in front of two people, one with a sausage, and one with a housebrick.. the dog will favour the sausage. Plus dogs are stupid, that's why not many dogs are barristers.

I've had many stances during this harrowing case, my current stance in NOT that the McCanns are innocent, it is let's put effort in to find Maddie, and then look at the evidence to punish the guilty... whether that be a spanish paedo ring, the McCanns, or you Joe.

Joe a debate is an evolution of facts you share and learn from and formulate a better argument.... yet you put your stick in the sand and just shout louder - that's not an act of an intelligent person is it Joe?

I agree with most of what you say but would like to pull you up on a few minor points.

1. Are you saying barristers are clever?

2. You have used two words in the same sentence that are not compatible; "intelligent" & "Joe"

 

[Sombrero]

It's you that's stupid, not the dogs. Dogs are unbiased. You think the McCanns are innocent - but a dog doesn't care because it doesn't know what innocent or guilt is.

If you were in a foreign land in a dodgy hotel that collapsed and trapped your kids and rescue dogs were available to help locate them, would you say:

"Yes please."

Or

"Nah they'll only wag and bark and go looking for sausages".

So which is it?

Actually Joe, maybe it's time to stop being respectful, and react to your comments in kind.... you are a fookin knob.
A dog is not unbiased... put it in front of two people, one with a sausage, and one with a housebrick.. the dog will favour the sausage. Plus dogs are stupid, that's why not many dogs are barristers.

I've had many stances during this harrowing case, my current stance in NOT that the McCanns are innocent, it is let's put effort in to find Maddie, and then look at the evidence to punish the guilty... whether that be a spanish paedo ring, the McCanns, or you Joe.

Joe a debate is an evolution of facts you share and learn from and formulate a better argument.... yet you put your stick in the sand and just shout louder - that's not an act of an intelligent person is it Joe?

I agree with most of what you say but would like to pull you up on a few minor points.

1. Are you saying barristers are clever?

2. You have used two words in the same sentence that are not compatible; "intelligent" & "Joe"

Apologies... I'm only human ffs !! (apart from the martian bits of course !)

 

[joe-90]

It's you that's stupid, not the dogs. Dogs are unbiased. You think the McCanns are innocent - but a dog doesn't care because it doesn't know what innocent or guilt is.

If you were in a foreign land in a dodgy hotel that collapsed and trapped your kids and rescue dogs were available to help locate them, would you say:

"Yes please."

Or

"Nah they'll only wag and bark and go looking for sausages".

So which is it?

Actually Joe, maybe it's time to stop being respectful, and react to your comments in kind.... you are a fookin knob.
A dog is not unbiased... put it in front of two people, one with a sausage, and one with a housebrick.. the dog will favour the sausage. Plus dogs are stupid, that's why not many dogs are barristers.

I've had many stances during this harrowing case, my current stance in NOT that the McCanns are innocent, it is let's put effort in to find Maddie, and then look at the evidence to punish the guilty... whether that be a spanish paedo ring, the McCanns, or you Joe.

Joe a debate is an evolution of facts you share and learn from and formulate a better argument.... yet you put your stick in the sand and just shout louder - that's not an act of an intelligent person is it Joe?

You explain the oddities in the case then.

Why did they not go to look for her?

Why did they employ the most expensive libel solicitors in the country?

Why did they employ a media guru on £70k?

Why do they accept no responsibility?

Why can't they tell the same story twice?

Why was there DNA evidence (15 marker) in the hire car?

Why do they bow down like Muslims?

Why did they assume 'they' had taken her?

Why did she wash cuddle cat?

Why did she take her dirty work gear on holiday in a hot climate?

Well? If you cannot answer the questions it's YOU that's the idiot. (along with the forum fool Pred).

 

[pred]

Forum Fool?

Kettle Black! Springs to mind!


I'll say again Joe, you are lashing out at the parents so it is more than obvious you have both feet firmly planted on the other side of the fence, I would not be surprised if you were a paedo ring master.

 

[Big Tone]

I think Joe's well balanced Pred. He's got a chip on both shoulders

He talks about evidence from science in this case yet completely dismissed the science from alcohol consumption and metabolism elswhere

Likes to cherry pick what he uses, where and when, but no one else is allowed to in his warped world. Quite honestly, I'm surprised anyone bothers to engage in an argument with him. If he can't be right he'll be wrong at the top of his voice...

 

[joe-90]

Just answer the questions big gob.

 

[Norcon]

The mc canns also deleted call logging info from their mobile phones.

Why do that unless its incriminating?

They also phoned up friends in the UK in the early hours to give a display of their grief giving the impression that their daughter was gone forever.

Yet it wasn't even established at that point what had happened to the little girl.
She may just have went for a walk down the street and got lost.

 

[joe-90]

One of the calls was to Sky News.

 

[Norcon]

Sky news must have had vital information on the paedophile ring who obviously took her.

 

[joe-90]

Forum Fool?

Kettle Black! Springs to mind!


I'll say again Joe, you are lashing out at the parents so it is more than obvious you have both feet firmly planted on the other side of the fence, I would not be surprised if you were a paedo ring master.

There's something wrong with your brain pal.

 

[Dextraneous]

Personally I "admire" any of you on here who can look at the conflicting evidence and come to a seemingly fixed conclusion which utilises your opinion to cherry pick in order to reinforce said opinion.

The longer I live, the more I tend towards the paradoxic stance that the only fixed opinion one has is that one shouldn't have fixed opinions.

 

[joe-90]

Where's the conflicting evidence? Don't you agree that the new investigation should go where the leads take it?

 

[Graeme1983]

I think Joe's well balanced Pred. He's got a chip on both shoulders

He talks about evidence from science in this case yet completely dismissed the science from alcohol consumption and metabolism elswhere

Likes to cherry pick what he uses, where and when, but no one else is allowed to in his warped world. Quite honestly, I'm surprised anyone bothers to engage in an argument with him. If he can't be right he'll be wrong at the top of his voice...

Im surprised he has time to do any DIY...

 

[joe-90]

Why? my posts are always short.

 

[pred]

Forum Fool?

Kettle Black! Springs to mind!


I'll say again Joe, you are lashing out at the parents so it is more than obvious you have both feet firmly planted on the other side of the fence, I would not be surprised if you were a paedo ring master.

There's something wrong with your brain pal.

Yes you are quite right Joe, there is something wrong with my brain, why else would I be talking to a paedo.