READ THIS AND WEEP, YOU BENIGHTED HATERS

Gi' O'er ‏@MrsMLouis
Where's the twitter moron who kept on tweeting about SUPPRESSION owing to the Sunday Times' misleading rubbish? Is he still at it?

Lance Basnett And iv just seen a pink flying pig over my houes if they think were all that daft to think them two things didn't withhold information under lock and key for 5 years knowing full well a lot of people would think then as they do now that the efit is only one man the Smiths gave is him
15 minutes ago via mobile · 1

Dawn Burns All this is is a Big Big cover up they say police to blame so no more stories bad mouth the Mcnns its time sy and the pj pull there fingers out and get these 2 lifted and charged as it should not be 1 rule for them and 1 rule for us as i am sure if it was 1 of us who done this we would be in jail and the other children taken into care

MonBR ‏@Mobyra 2h
@JohnnyWatergate They're too busy trying to "read between the lines" to find hidden messages that prove the original story was true #McCann

coco wrote:Lamerton cleaned the egg off his face yet ? cos he made a complete tit of himself on that thread on inJustice , banging on about the McCanns having very serious questions to answer . looks like they answered the only question that mattered ~ was that garbage true in the first place ?

turns out it wasn't . Lamerton forgot to ask that .

 Re: Sunday Times apology
Post Over The Hill Today at 9:13 pm

Portia wrote:
Nice to meet you. Your expertise will be very welcome, I'm sure

Contrary to what many posters believe, there are plenty of people in the news media who are interested in this case, but they have to treat it in the same professional manner as all other stories, ie only report facts and don't guess or speculate

I've been looking in on this forum for a few years, from both a personal and professional perspective, but it's impossible to develop the latter because there are so few facts

There is no conspiracy to cover anything up, and no conspiracy to report in a biased way
But if there are no facts, there is no story
News editors will tell you that when it comes down to it, the only fact is that a girl is missing

Newsrooms don't have the same freedom to comment like internet forums
Have a look back at the original ST story thread:
Sunday Times link
How many of you would like to re-write your posts now? Broadcast journalists can't do that

The ST story looked interesting, but nobody could make it stand up, and it turns out that it is flawed
If any duty newsroom editor had given air time to it, even just reporting that the ST was saying it at the time, they would have been in big trouble
Not because the Maddie story is being massaged by the broadcast media, but because this development couldn't be proved (just like everything else)

coco wrote:The McCanns are very adept at promoting anything which is useful to them and which raises their profile in the eyes of the public The fact that they saw fit not to promote those e-fits after Halligen went to the trouble to secure them is proof if proof were needed that they are running their own agenda behind the scenes.  The report which Oakley did on them was damming otherwise that too would have been made public

The McCanns have refused to clarify this issue, scared no doubt that Halligen might still be in a position to expose them

is angelomod really that thick or is he taking the p-ss ? what part of Given to the PJ and UK police more than four years ago is hard to understand ?

Skyeblue wrote:

coco wrote:The McCanns are very adept at promoting anything which is useful to them and which raises their profile in the eyes of the public The fact that they saw fit not to promote those e-fits after Halligen went to the trouble to secure them is proof if proof were needed that they are running their own agenda behind the scenes.  The report which Oakley did on them was damming otherwise that too would have been made public

The McCanns have refused to clarify this issue, scared no doubt that Halligen might still be in a position to expose them

is angelomod really that thick or is he taking the p-ss ? what part of Given to the PJ and UK police more than four years ago is hard to understand ?

It's jawdropping the way they actually believe they are entitled to demand the McCanns should explain and answer every little point that's brought up by a bunch of hounders on the internet and then claim it's a sign of guilt when they don't.   It's not as if they'd accept anything the McCanns said anyway.    

The McCanns have said they are not going to comment on the case - what part of that statement do they not understand.