The McCanns’ New Defence
by John Walker on Sep.06, 2007, under The Rest
“It was some Puerto-Rican guy.”
All content on this blog, including Rum Doings, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Design: Chris Ksoll - playblack.net
September 7th, 2007 on 09:12
As IF anyone even knows who McCann is. Unless you’re talking about Bread actors.
September 7th, 2007 on 14:26
Is it wrong that I would actually be amused if it turned out that they weren’t inattentive parents, but rather had murdered/ritually sacrificed/eaten their daughter, then blamed it on the foreigns?
September 7th, 2007 on 14:30
I think “amused” would be pushing it.
Feeling furious that the police took FOUR MONTHS before they treated the most (statistically) likely people to have killed her as suspects might be more appropriate. And then feel smug for being right from the start.
September 7th, 2007 on 15:26
Hmm, guess I’m just a bit messed up in the head then.
At first I was angry (at the parents), then I was frustrated (with the press), and became entirely desensitised to it. So the fact that the terribly-plotted crime tale turned out to have a shock twist (but is it a red herring!?) months down the line actually made me grin a little. I’m clearly some kind of monster.
September 9th, 2007 on 00:51
“Feel smug for being right from the start”? Come on. You’re talking about a little girl’s life here. I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve been pissed off at the “Maddy” story being the top news all the time, while “dozens killed in Iraq” is relegated to secondary news. But seriously, if you found out that her parents had killed her, would you really feel “smug”?
September 9th, 2007 on 09:09
Yes, I would feel smug. Because I would be right, and all the experts whose job it is to be right would have been wrong. And the newspapers would have been wrong. And the television would have been wrong. Which would make me feel smug.
September 12th, 2007 on 13:38
Leave the parents alone. It was dingoes what done it.
September 12th, 2007 on 20:07
I’m not convinced that anyone would be wrong. Did any of the experts or media ever come out and say “It definitely wasn’t the parents”? I think most people just tend to work under the old “innocent until proven guilty” thing. Maybe you’ve heard of it? Also, if they are guilty, there’ll be plenty of time to condemn them later. If they aren’t, then assuming that they are is another crime against them, and haven’t they already suffered enough?
September 14th, 2007 on 20:14
Didn’t the American press accuse them when they went there … and were pilloried in our press for their crassness? … so WHO would be smuggest?
If it could be proved that the parents had mobilised the media jamboree-fest to cover a crime then it would probably spawn a tabloid campaign to bring back hanging.
September 15th, 2007 on 00:07
Patrick, do piss off with your patronising bullshit. Thanks and all the best.
September 15th, 2007 on 13:00
Damn it. Your latest argument shows that I’m completely wrong, John. I’ll join the experts, and all those involved in the media in bowing down to your justly deserved smugness :)
September 19th, 2007 on 08:19
Apparenltly Renault are about to release a new people carrier… reports suggest that it’s so spacious inside that you wouldn’t even notice if there were children in the back.
They’re calling it the McCann.
September 20th, 2007 on 08:55
“Patrick, do piss off with your patronising bullshit. Thanks and all the best.”
John, I miss the days when your posts were calmer, cooler and more collected.
Your entries were better when you didn’t get so angry with your readers all the time.
I’m not advocating the ‘all opinions are sacred and above criticism’ approach that you (quite rightly) despise. But surely there is a middle way, somewhere between relativism and forum facism.
I find myself reading this less and less the more irritable you become, and I know you always used to tell me to complain to people’s faces not behind their backs. So here I am, complaining to your face (ish).
Clare
September 21st, 2007 on 23:14
Clare – my objection was to this individual’s rudeness, and I really don’t feel the need to converse online with people being quite so patronising.
Lines like, “I think most people just tend to work under the old “innocent until proven guilty” thing. Maybe you’ve heard of it?” are whiny emotional manipulation and outright offensive. I don’t believe I made any statements about Patrick, but he saw fit to arrive condemning me for being honest, and in the face of my continued honesty, chose to be wretched.
I don’t need conversations with thoughts at a level in line with the Daily Express.
If someone, especially Patrick, wishes to make a comment arguing why they believe it could not be the parents, or why I am wrong in my rage that they allowed the parents MONTHS to hide any evidence were there to be any, then fine. I’m interested to hear it. As biased as I just made that statement. But I really am. I want rational debate. But I don’t need to be wasting my time with people so rude as to conflate wishing likely suspects to be treated as suspects with refusing people the basic right of being innocent until proven guilty.
By this moronic logic, no one should ever be suspected, arrested, or charged with a crime, because suspecting them would be to condemn them. It’s manipulative crap.
I think it’s also safe to say that my posts have never been calm and collected. However, I’m stuck to think of an occasion when I’ve gone off on a rant here in a long while. In fact, for this very post I simply made a South Park reference, spotting what was about to happen, the day before the story changed.
90% of my posts are celebrating my cat, or reviewing television programmes, much to the disgust of many readers. However, I will continue to get angry with people when they are unpleasant, as Patrick very clearly was.