 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Comrac Date: 05 Dec 08 - 07:34 AM Our thoughts should be with this kid and her future, God bless her and I wish her happiness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Dec 08 - 06:18 AM Back in April I said quite categoricaly If they are found guilty of anything by the courts then feel free to shoot away, I will join you, but until then conjecture and rumour do no good to anyone. Now is that time. What a cold and calculating, heartless woman. To try and make money from the misery of countless others who have realy suffered is bad enough. To use your own children to do it is unforgiveable. Who says that a childs own family is always the best envireonment? DeG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: the lemonade lady Date: 04 Dec 08 - 12:51 PM "The mother of Shannon Matthews has been convicted, along with her boyfriend's uncle, of kidnapping her own nine-year-old daughter in an unlikely plot to keep thousands of pounds in reward money. Karen Matthews hatched the plan with Michael Donovan, who took the schoolgirl to his flat and imprisoned her for 24 days, while her mother made emotional appeals for her return. The jury at Leeds Crown Court today found the pair guilty of kidnapping, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice." From Times Online December 4, 2008 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: the lemonade lady Date: 28 Nov 08 - 09:36 AM Lol have I invented a new word? To remunt... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Andy Jackson Date: 28 Nov 08 - 05:34 AM I've tried getting her to remunterate, she didn't want to play!! Tee Hee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: the lemonade lady Date: 27 Nov 08 - 02:48 PM How about the people on the isle of wight living somewhere else. If they were remunterated i'm sure they wouldn't mind. On the otherhand maybe we could use another large island of the coast of scotland maybe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Andy Jackson Date: 27 Nov 08 - 06:43 AM Thankyou Mrs Duck from, Eyelander and Myself!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Comrac Date: 27 Nov 08 - 06:28 AM Sadly Human Rights laws in this country extend to these bast*ards. Jonathan King stood outside the court last week that sentenced him for attacking a ten year old boy wearing a police tunic and cap and red knickers and stockings and suspenders.It was for the front of a Christmas card. The message inside is too sick to put up here. How the hell is this allowed? Three years ago Sir Elton John on stage in Brazil told those clapping him to show their kindness by sending their sons to his dressing room after the concert. Gary Glitter has built up a 5.4 million fortune while in jail for attacking children. I don´t agree in giving them a knighthood or media coverage. A simple OBE would be enough. (One behind the ear). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Mrs.Duck Date: 26 Nov 08 - 02:18 PM Bit harsh on the residents of the Isle of Wight though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: the lemonade lady Date: 26 Nov 08 - 12:35 PM Turn the Isle of Wight into a penal colony. Make the Bas***ds walk tread mills providing electricity for England. Make them work 12 hr shifts. They should have no privileges and do at least 10yrs if not 20. Well that's just for a start in my world. Sal |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Comrac Date: 26 Nov 08 - 07:35 AM Yet again the country has been taken in by lies and a cover up concerning a missing child. From day one it was clear this lot were crackpots. The night the child went missing they were on the news standing holding camcorders recording the police officers guarding their home and standing at the window holding cans of lager up to the cameras. They lived off the state and openly boasted about it to reporters listing all the benefits they were on. The childs step father was later charged as a kiddie fiddler. The only difference in this case and the McCann´s is this lot were out to make money and hadn´t a brain cell between them. I still have doubts about the McCann case.How the hell could you go out for the evening to party and leave young kids alone ? If that was the holiday they wanted, leave the kids at home with granny. I see today in the paper some guy in England got life in prison yesterday for raping his daughters and two of them had kids to him. I sometimes wonder if there is a God, how the hell can adults be so cruel to kids. We who are lucky to have them see them grow up so quick and reflect on those years with joy and pride. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: the lemonade lady Date: 25 Nov 08 - 05:44 PM Tch tch Sally, smacked wrist.... again! lol Sal |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Nov 08 - 04:35 PM I can't see comments in the Mudcat as having a great deal of weight in court. But I think it's better to wait until a trial is over before wading in with inevitably ill-informed speculations and assumptions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Bainbo Date: 25 Nov 08 - 03:38 PM You may well be right, LL. However, they've pleaded not guilty, and the case to decide it is still going on. British law says nothing should be published which might influence the jury one way or the other. I don't know where we stand with Mudcat being American, but a clever lawyer could argue they haven't had the chance of a far trial and get the whole thing called off. S'pose we'll have to wait and see once we've heard all the evidence for both sides. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: the lemonade lady Date: 25 Nov 08 - 11:04 AM I posted this in April... ... I think there is much more here than we have been told. This family are going to be rewarded by magazines, sleazy tabloids, worldwide tv interviews, morning telly, Richard and Judy; need I go on?...' There's more to this than meets the eye. News is coming out all the time about this case. Tabloids love to eek it out just to keep the interest going and newpaper sales. Sal told you so or what??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Backwoodsman Date: 10 Apr 08 - 05:38 AM "As to obstruction, if (as I suspect) this was an inside job rescue of a child from her mother's lover, the mother's repeated assertions (assuming that she made such) of lack of knowledge of the child's whereabouts would seem consistent, no?" A very good point, Richard. As you say, everyone's speculating, but the only people who ACTUALLY know the truth are those involved. (And I'd bet the police have a pretty good idea too). Maybe we should all sit back and wait for truth to out, as it pretty much always does eventually. None of this is helping the innocent child. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Richard Bridge Date: 09 Apr 08 - 05:33 PM Now we are all speculating here. But the best view of the facts I have is that the adults in Shannon's household seem to have been rather better than some of their immediate neighbours in remaining in paid employment. As to obstruction, if (as I suspect) this was an inside job rescue of a child from her mother's lover, the mother's repeated assertions (assuming that she made such) of lack of knowledge of the child's whereabouts would seem consistent, no? And damn, after the way some here have behaved recently and the apparent views of some mods, I was REALLY trying not to post. And then I saw this and had to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Noreen Date: 09 Apr 08 - 09:29 AM Shannon mother remanded by court |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Apr 08 - 08:15 PM I have several times posted in threads where someone calling themselves GUEST who would seem to be this one pointing out that there has been another person already using this same label. Of course this may be yet another one doing the same. Seems a bit of a coincidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Joe's House Guest Date: 08 Apr 08 - 08:04 PM Hi Jeri, I was told I was welcome to post as a guest and also told I was a guest in Joe's house so I thought the name fitting.I await conformation of permission to use it. I was unaware that someone else was posting under the Name Guest until yesterday. I am now aware the person posting as Guest had grieved a few people here. I was wondering what the hell they were talking to me about. Seemed a fairly hostile site to arrive on. Explained to me now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Jeri Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:56 PM Pick a name for yourself that doesn't involve 'guest'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Joe's House Guest Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:35 PM Dear Moderator I am aware you have my IP so you will know who I am. Do you find this title acceptable ? If so please change all of my posts to that title. I would be grateful for a reply before your appointed golden hour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Sorcha Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:22 PM I'm looking fwd to that Joe. Can't wait. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:03 PM We will agree to disagree. I believed what I read in my morning paper. I do think the whole sham of this case is both the child's mother and her partner saw the public support and donations in the McCann case and simply got greedy. I think it is fair to say both adults are intellectually challenged and didn't think it could go wrong. The child would turn up safe and they would receive a lot of attention and money. I really can't find any defence for either of them. Possibly the child told the police mum said I would be going away or something. Yes I did refer to their lifestyle. Yes I do think that it is wrong that the tax payer should have to pay them for their chosen lifestyle.A collect of children by different fathers is not the states problem. The maintenance of these children is the responsibly of the parents, just as we maintain our own children. I am bloody sick of hearing about deprived areas and poverty stricken families. The state provides housing and money for food clothes and heat, so there is no reason for poor families. They can go bet on horses, buy lottery tickets, stock up on beer and cigarettes so it's bad management of their income. The answer we get from some here is, well they are victims of a Thatcher government, pushed into socially deprived areas and the government fail the poor souls. BULLSHIT. I grew up in a working class area, I am proud to say all of my family worked hard academically or gained a trade. We had neighbour's who scoffed us for working. My mother was told she would be better off going to her doctor seeking treatment for bogus depression, saying the children were hypoactive and calling out the doctor or social worker to say you can't cope. Yes there are tricks and cons on a scale you would not believe. My mother and father worked all their lives, as did the five children. Self respect, pride and personal motivation were the rules in our home. So don't preach to me, I lived among those who could gain Oscars for the performance's they gave to benefit assessor's. I understand this is a bit of a thread drift, but you need to understand the players before you view the team.
Thanks. -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,patty o'dawes Date: 08 Apr 08 - 06:39 PM Mother now been charged. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Emma B Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:10 PM I will comment on the basic 'rights' that all people have Guest - I even acknowledge your 'right' to post here unless it's gross inaccuracies or unwarranted and nasty personal attacks on people. My views and opinions are my own but I am prepared to put a name to them and back up my facts with sources. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:05 PM I stand by my comments. I have no wish to enter into an argument with you Emma over this. Recently on another thread you commented on the rights people on benefits and how hard done by single parents seem to be. You are entitled to your views however distorted they may be. Sorry if I don't share them.
Thanks. -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Captain Ginger Date: 08 Apr 08 - 03:29 PM Blimey, there is some seriously obnoxious pond life creeping into the Mudcat these days. Is the Daily Express actively trying to send its readers here? And well said, EmmaB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Emma B Date: 08 Apr 08 - 02:31 PM I advocate facts Guest and I also quoted my source. Please demonstrate where I have ever advocated what you claim - you seem very good at making totally fallacious statements (or simply lies) and personal attacks without a shred of evidence to back them up! Now put up or shut up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 08 Apr 08 - 02:25 PM Of course Emma, I forgot, you advocate people cleaning the benefits system. Yes take all you can get, young single mothers should not work, lay up, have kids and fill in benefit forms it's their right. Sorry but it really depends on which newspaper you tend to believe. I stand by my comments.
Thanks. -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Emma B Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:21 PM I forgot to also mention...... Shannon's brothers and sisters - Tony, 11, Shannon, nine, Cameron, five, and Courtney, two, all live with her. Her three other siblings Ian, 10, Kelly, six and Daniel, seven, live with their respective fathers. source The Times but never let the facts get in the way of pejudice eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Emma B Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:07 PM Again Guest Guest you simply can't be bothered to check your facts! Shannon's father has been named frequently in the newspapers as Leon Rose, aged 29 who lives with his current partner in the countryside outside Huddersfield 10 miles from Shannon's Dewsbury home. The reports also describe him as a visitor to the home when he calls 'to pick Shannon up' It was also widely reported that the police intially found Shannon had scribbled a note on her bedroom wall saying she wished to see more of her natural father. Now you are as entitled to your 'opinions' as anyone else but in your rush to condemn everyone else at least quit shooting your mouth off with inacuraccies too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Rasener Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:59 PM I just hope that they haven't been sexually abusing this child! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:53 PM "...this mother has forfeited the right to bring up her own children." Talking in terms of parents' rights is beside the point - the rights of the child are what is paramount in British law. If the interests of a child are seen to require that a child is taken away from the parents, any parental right to bring up the child just doesn't enter into it. And conversely, if the interest of the child is seen as requiring that she should stay with a parent, there can be no question of that being prevented because that parent is seen as having "forfeited the right to bring up her own children". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:47 PM According to a newspaper article, the mother has only contact with one of her ex partners, none of the children have any contact with their natural fathers, nor has the Child Support Agency. If the mother, and I say if, is found to be behind the abduction of this child, social services should either make contact with the children's natural fathers to accept their responsibly or place the children with credible foster parents. The natural fathers if located should either lose assets to recover child care benefits that have been paid out, or loss of their own benefits or salary. The state should not pick up the bill for raising children of irresponsible parents.
Thanks. -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Sapper at Plat.4, Motherwell Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:35 PM Agree Patty. As much as there will by many who disagree with me, this mother has forfeited the right to bring up her own children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,patty o'dawes Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:30 PM But at least unwittingly Shannon is now safe. If, and we don't know, the family did half hatch a plan to make a quick buck, they at least succeeded in lots of stones being unturned that they would rather have lain undisturbed. Shannon can only benefit from any investigation now. And that's what is important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Sapper waiting to start from Polmadie for Du Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:25 PM Ben Needham is one of the cases that, whilst it does not bring tear to my eyes, still makes me sit and think. The agonies his parents must go through every time there is another missing child are unimaginable. I think cases like that and Madeline McCann make what is now almost certainly a cynical scam even more reprehensible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:11 AM Dave, many like myself have got a feeling that all just wasn't right about the McCann case. Yes we could be wrong. For what it is worth, I think the child was a victim of an accidental death within the family home. Admission would not bring the child back but would result in a court case. And if medication was used it could result in them both being struck off. I think the McCanns thought the situation well out and with help from within the circle of friends covered any tracks. I do not think either of the McCanns are bad people, but if what I think is true, it must be dammed hard to live with. I fear there will either be a self harm ending to this case through guilt or a friend of theirs will say something. If this is the case, it will be impossible to them to live among their community or work again. A sad case and a pity for all concerned. Only my view may I add, I have no proof. Don't jump on me for my viewpoint.
Thanks. -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 08 Apr 08 - 08:10 AM I said on the Maddie thread and on the earlier Shannon one, don't speculate. No-one has been found guilty of anything other than by the gutter press. The McCanns have proven in court that the same press was making libelous accusations. Maybe the Matthews clan will do the same. If they are found guilty of anything by the courts then feel free to shoot away, I will join you, but until then conjecture and rumour do no good to anyone. Cheers dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Emma B Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:38 AM Sal, your link is not a news item! It's a very blatent piece of advertising for a forthcoming book by Nigel Lawson ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Thatcher regime, architect of the Lawson boom that inevitably led to bust. As long ago as 2005 Lawson was argueing for the abolition of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) based on a report by the UK House of Lords Economics Affairs committee (in which they made clear that they had no scientific expertise) and transferring its functions to economic institutions. The book is an extension of his claim that environmentalism 'is profoundly hostile to capitalism and the market economy' and is neither 'news' or anything more than the reiteration of the Bush White House statement 'The American way of life is a blessed one . . . The President also believes that the American people's use of energy is a reflection of the strength of our economy, of the way of life that the American people have come to enjoy' Don't you just love thread drift :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,guest guest Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:06 AM does anyone spare a thought for Ben Needhams mother in all this
Thanks. -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: the lemonade lady Date: 08 Apr 08 - 06:38 AM As i said in the last thread...I agree it's great that she has been recovered, and hope that she does recover from it all. "What I want to know is how come ITV were exclusively filming the story, and had been 2 days before and were coincidently present when she was 'discovered'? I think there is much more here than we have been told. This family are going to be rewarded by magazines, sleazy tabloids, worldwide tv interviews, morning telly, Richard and Judy... need I go on?" "There's more to this than meets the eye. News is coming out all the time about this case. Tabloids love to eek it out just to keep the interest going and newpaper sales." It's a brilliant scam and I'm just so bloody angry that ultimately we all have to pay for her to do this. On the other hand, if the woman is so poor that she needs to cry out for help like this, someone should have noticed before now, surely? I don't think the government should pay someone like her, who could go out to work and help herself just a bit. She's come out of prison and go back on the social. This kind of thing reveals that we are easily led by what we see on the News programs and read in the New Papers. We believe it all, and flare up accordingly. If we are spoon fed this kind of thing, how will we know what is the truth? This doesn't end here, folks, we are being spoon fed big time by the government about so called 'global warming' as they interpret it for their own means. We read the papers about it, we see the documentarys on tv and we watch the News programs. It must be right, we believe it and we will have to pay the government for it. that's another story, this is their story Sal |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: theleveller Date: 08 Apr 08 - 06:01 AM Let's just stop the speculation and leave the poor kid alone - and hope the media will do the same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Folk Form # 1 Date: 08 Apr 08 - 03:55 AM This is from Yahoo news: Police are still questioning Shannon Matthews' mother in connection with the schoolgirl's disappearance. Karen Matthews was arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice three weeks after nine-year-old Shannon was found. Police sources said detectives had been granted a superintendent's extension to allow further questioning but officers will have to charge her with an offence at some stage today or appeal to a magistrate for more time. According to reports, Mrs Matthews was arrested after she told a police family liaison officer she had known where Shannon was all along. Mrs Matthews is the fourth family member to be arrested in connection with the nine-year-old's disappearance on February 19. A fifth person, Mrs Matthews' boyfriend Craig Meehan, has been charged with possessing child porn and has been remanded in custody. Shannon was discovered in the base of a bed at an address just one mile from her home after a 24-day police search. Michael Donovan, formerly known as Paul Drake, of Lidgate Gardens, Batley Carr, was arrested on March 14 after Shannon was found in the bed at his flat. The 39-year-old is the uncle of Shannon's 22-year-old Meehan. Meehan appeared at Dewsbury Magistrates' Court charged with 11 counts of possessing indecent images of children. He was remanded in custody to appear again before the same court on Friday. Meehan's sister, Amanda Hyett, 25, who lives next door to Shannon's mother in Moorside Road, and his mother, Alice Meehan, 49, were both arrested in connection with the alleged abduction. The women were arrested on Thursday, the 25-year-old on suspicion of assisting an offender, and the 49-year-old on suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The pair were granted bail the following day pending further inquiries. While police searched for Shannon, someone claiming to be her aunt asked for money from the fund set up to help find missing Madeleine McCann. Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "She didn't seem to understand why we couldn't just send a large wad of cash. I must admit I found it a bit odd. "The fund directors considered helping the search as a gesture of goodwill. But I was concerned about the haphazard method of approach and suggested we didn't get involved." " For what it is worth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,patty o'dawes Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:51 PM Thanks for the link eanjay. Didn't realise the fund was so big now, but the recent compensation payout from the press has upped it considerably. I understand the McCanns can't use it anymore for their personal expenses i.e mortgage payments etc and their legal expenses are no longer being met from it - not until they are no longer 'suspects' in the case. If it can't be used by anyone else until Madeleine is found, what happens to it I wonder if she isn't found in 5/10/15 years? It would have surely not been set up as an open ended fund. Then again maybe it would. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: katlaughing Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:30 PM Sapper, I was just making a general statement about watching this thread for personal attacks. Didn't mean you had done so. I've always looked forward to your postings, esp. tracking where you've been! My only request to you and everyone else is please do NOT respond to the trolls; it makes it harder to delete them when there are a bunch of replies listed right after.:-) Tks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Emma B Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:21 PM Leave No Stone Unturned is a registered Limited Company (Registration number 6248215) registered office - PO Box 53133 London E18 2YR. Auditors: Haysmacintyre, Fairfax House, 15 Fulwood Place, London, WC1V 6AY. and NOT a charitable trust 1.1 The full objects of the Fund are: 1.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; 1.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and 1.1.3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family. AND.............note......... 1.2 IF the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere. The directors of the company are Peter Hubner, Brian Kennedy, John McCann, Esther McVey, Doug Skehan and Philip Tomlinson. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Jean(eanjay) Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:19 PM link |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,patty o'dawes Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:12 PM http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2771369.ece This won't work as a link - but it does indeed state that the fund WAS set up with one objective being to help find other missing children. It still wouldn't benefit the Shannon family, but that was one of it's aims. Glad the memory hasn't completely malfunctioned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:12 PM Personal abuse has to be directed at a person. Someone using a label already associated with another frequent poster doesn't really amount to a "person" in that sense, I would suggest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Emma B Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:06 PM For information ..... Actually the (Leaving no stone unturned Ltd) fund was set up as a limited company with directors who were friends or relatives of the family; it did not qualify as a charity and the money could only be used for parental expenses (including mortgage repayments) incurred in visiting the Pope, renting Portugese villas etc as well as hiring detective firms to find their daughter until such time as Madelaine was recovered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:00 PM Obviously there's more to the case than we know about - that is always the situation, especially at this stage. In good time more genuine information will be available, and there will be some kind of court proceedings with the evidence being explored, and so forth. Going round and round in circles at this time with rumour and guesswork is a total waste. And it just leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,patty o'dawes Date: 07 Apr 08 - 07:00 PM I may be having memory probs here - but am sure when the McCann fund started to grow at a huge rate, it was mentioned that it would indeed be used to help fund investigations into other missing children. Although I can't see how that would benefit the current family of Shannon. Glad she is safe and hopefully now she will remain that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Sapper, just past Motherwell Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:50 PM Not the fund it's self Sorcha, but the sentiments that have led a lot of people to make donations to that fund. If the supposition is correct, then a "Find Shannon" fund would have been a nice little earner for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Sorcha Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:48 PM Sapper, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is MY understanding that the McCann Fund can ONLY be used for the benefit of the McCanns....either parental expenses or directly related to finding Madeline. If this is so, how can the Matthews tap into it????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Sapper, now heading towards Glasgow Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:43 PM Kat and Sorcha, if you care to look back on the now closed thread, you will note that I only placed one message. Giving thanks that she was safe, but expressing an opinion that there was more to the case than had, up to then, been revealed. All through the ridiculous name calling I kept silent as there were points on both sides that I agreed and sympathised with. Far too much prejudice against the family on the one side, but on the other side appearing to be too trusting and willing to make excuses. As things in this case are looking now, and I am prepared to give full appology if I am wrong, it seems that those prejudices may, regrettably have been correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Sorcha Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:24 PM Thank you kat. It is appreciated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: katlaughing Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:13 PM This one will be watched, very carefully, for personal attacks. They will not be allowed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: Sorcha Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:12 PM You couldn't just leave it could you? The other thread was closed. |
|
Subject: BS: Shannon kidnap a con-trick? From: GUEST,Sapper on the UTU stuck in Carstairs Loop Date: 07 Apr 08 - 06:06 PM There appear to be mutterings that the "kidnap" of Shannon Mathews may have been no such thing, but rather and attempt by the family to cash in on the funds that the McCann family have raised in their efforts to find their daughter. Yes, it appears to be pure conjecture at the moment, but............ |
