3 Arguidos

Banned for suggesting secular is wrong!

Once again the 3 A's is exposed as being a secular site - opposed to free speech.

Is this site deliberately seeking to alienate people who want an investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine? All the time the lunatics run the asylum, the McCanns will continue to win!

Kate - would have only listened

Kate tells us she was nearly tempted to turn away, but spotted the door was a different angle...so did this lead her to check? No, apparently she then went to close the door, only stopping to check the children visually when the door slammed as she closed it!

So did Gerry actually see Madeleine at 9:10 as he claimed (oddly this is exactly the same time Tanner saw the abductor - according to his blog!) or did he also just listen?

So have the McCanns caused us all to suspect them just because they were afraid of being accused of not actually checking the children visually?

Or is it that they didnt check the children at all?

McCann's empty thoughts

What is it with this guy and the word 'incredible' - is it that he is using it to describe his own lack of credibility?

Incredible means 'difficult to beleive' - sums him up rather well in my view!

McCanns - still no confession

So here we are, heading toward two years since Madeleine McCann was abandoned by her parents - and still no confession!

Still no investigation either!

More secrecy being encouraged

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090118/tuk-mps-criticise-police-media-leaks-dba1618.html

MPs criticise police media leaks

Police are too often providing unattributable, "off the record" briefings to the media, a committee of MPs has said Skip related content
Related photos / videos
MPs criticise police media leaks Enlarge photo

The Home Affairs Committee said suspects who have been arrested but not charged should not have their names released to the Press.
The committee said there were too many leaks from police forces and called for detailed rules on briefings by officers and civil servants during counter-terrorism operations.
Its report, Police and the Media, said there were only a "limited set of circumstances" when it was in the public interest for information about ongoing investigations to be released "off the record".
But they said forces should give out more attributable information to journalists about individual crimes.
Committee chairman and Labour MP Keith Vaz said: "While it may not always be illegal for police to leak to the media it is certainly wrong and can be very damaging to an investigation or to an innocent individual - remember we are talking often about people who have not been charged with any crime or wrongdoing.
"Almost as important, it damages the reputation and integrity of the police themselves.
"The police above all must maintain the highest standards of probity and integrity and we welcome moves to enforce discipline on briefings and develop standard procedures for providing information to the media."

Something to think about

If two people who were close to each other, like a married couple, were to be quizzed separately about an incident and the events leading up to and following it, it would be extremely difficult to convincingly lie about every detail.
The best ploy would be for one of the people to answer questions, whilst the other refused to answer. This would prevent any discrepancies between the two accounts.

Incoming!

I'm thinking that if someone kept chucking missiles at my house, I might chuck something back?

The UK media seems to have decided who is in the right and who is in the wrong - who is it that decides the opinion of a newspaper or the TV 'news'?