Shannon Matthews Found

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:22 am

keveh wrote:I can't remember where I had heard it, but somebody had called up the McCann fund to try and get some money from them.

According to the paper this morning some bloke from the family contacted them three times and was very aggressive asking for money. Mother's lined up for a kicking. It looks like her organising.

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:04 am

I'm stunned by this whole affair. Absolutely stunned.

fatshaft · Post by **fatshaft** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:39 am

CrazyHorse wrote:I'm stunned by this whole affair. Absolutely stunned.

It's taken Chavery to a new low.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:44 am

fatshaft wrote:
CrazyHorse wrote:I'm stunned by this whole affair. Absolutely stunned.
It's taken Chavery to a new low.

Annoying part of it all, it's the taxpayers who'll finish up footing the bill for this bunch of nutters. What chance the kids with a family like this around them? The mother, no doubt, will plead poverty, sell her "story" to the Sun or NOTW and come out of it all scot free. Lock the lot of them up.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:52 am

TANGODANCER wrote:
fatshaft wrote:
CrazyHorse wrote:I'm stunned by this whole affair. Absolutely stunned.
It's taken Chavery to a new low.
Annoying part of it all, it's the taxpayers who'll finish up footing the bill for this bunch of nutters. What chance the kids with a family like this around them? The mother, no doubt, will plead poverty, sell her "story" to the Sun or NOTW and come out of it all scot free. Lock the lot of them up.

I too am getting tired of all this, if guilty she will probably get put away for a short time then come out and demand a new identity etc etc.

Lock these sort of idiots up for good and throw away the key.

Every time I watch one of those "reality" cop shows I am getting more and more amazed with the pond scum that seem to get away with anything they like.

Not saying the rest of the world is any better buy once my daughter has flown the nest I am seriously considering getting out

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:00 am

Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?

Just a thought.

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:04 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?

Just a thought.

You should realise nowadays, in this media driven world its "Guilty until proven innocent"

jaffka · Post by **jaffka** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:23 am

TANGODANCER wrote:
fatshaft wrote:
CrazyHorse wrote:I'm stunned by this whole affair. Absolutely stunned.
It's taken Chavery to a new low.
Annoying part of it all, it's the taxpayers who'll finish up footing the bill for this bunch of nutters. What chance the kids with a family like this around them? The mother, no doubt, will plead poverty, sell her "story" to the Sun or NOTW and come out of it all scot free. Lock the lot of them up.

What frightens me is that there are many more people exactly like this in every city, town and village throughout this country.

How on earth do we combat chavdom?

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:28 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? Just a thought.

Well, it would be fair comment normally, but given the weight of evidence: family concealment of their own child, repeated (and very aggressive apparently) demands for money from the McCann Trust, arrest of other members of the family and the way and place the child was found, it's seems a bit fair to assume some skullduggery. All this outside of the fact that the mother's "partner" was found in possesion of child pornography, means it will take a good lawyer to make any case for them. Only real plus from it all is a safe and unharmed child. I'll stand to be wrong.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:34 am

TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? Just a thought.
Well, it would be fair comment normally, but given the weight of evidence: family concealment of their own child, repeated (and very aggressive apparently) demands for money from the McCann Trust, arrest of other members of the family and the way and place the child was found, it's seems a bit fair to assume some skullduggery. All this outside of the fact that the mother's "partner" was found in possesion of child pornography, means it will take a good lawyer to make any case for them. Only real plus from it all is a safe and unharmed child. I'll stand to be wrong.

evidence?fact? Go on then, let's have some, Tango. Been at the Daily Mail again, my friend?

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:36 am

TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? Just a thought.
Well, it would be fair comment normally, but given the weight of evidence: family concealment of their own child, repeated (and very aggressive apparently) demands for money from the McCann Trust, arrest of other members of the family and the way and place the child was found, it's seems a bit fair to assume some skullduggery. All this outside of the fact that the mother's "partner" was found in possesion of child pornography, means it will take a good lawyer to make any case for them. Only real plus from it all is a safe and unharmed child. I'll stand to be wrong.

I have to say that I'm always concerned by trial by media - they need screaming headlines to generate higher sales and advertising revenue - look no further than the McCann's ordeals to see that, and they're taking action against about 30 incidents of slander .

The evidence looks overwhelming; but if institutions like Murdoch are driving the agenda, I'll wait for the trial (if and when) and put my faith in the British Legal system (mad fool that I am).

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:38 am

TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? Just a thought.
Well, it would be fair comment normally, but given the weight of evidence: family concealment of their own child, repeated (and very aggressive apparently) demands for money from the McCann Trust, arrest of other members of the family and the way and place the child was found, it's seems a bit fair to assume some skullduggery. All this outside of the fact that the mother's "partner" was found in possesion of child pornography, means it will take a good lawyer to make any case for them. Only real plus from it all is a safe and unharmed child. I'll stand to be wrong.

Which makes me think the mother is covering for her Partner and his sick b**tard uncle than anything else

jaffka · Post by **jaffka** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:42 am

The fact that Shannon was immediatley taken into Police protection and not returned to the family should have alarm bells ringing. I am not aware of anyother case where a missing child has not immediatley been returned to the family.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:43 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? Just a thought.
Well, it would be fair comment normally, but given the weight of evidence: family concealment of their own child, repeated (and very aggressive apparently) demands for money from the McCann Trust, arrest of other members of the family and the way and place the child was found, it's seems a bit fair to assume some skullduggery. All this outside of the fact that the mother's "partner" was found in possesion of child pornography, means it will take a good lawyer to make any case for them. Only real plus from it all is a safe and unharmed child. I'll stand to be wrong.
evidence?fact? Go on then, let's have some, Tango. Been at the Daily Mail again, my friend?

Metro actually, I don't ever read the Mail. And I'm only repeating what the papers and national TV are putting out. Why so aggressive at me Bruce, most others on here seem to think the same: the family did conceal the child and all the other stuff is well reported in papers, on TV and on News Websites? Most people seem to think the same.

I ended my post with "I'll stand to be wrong". I will.

jaffka · Post by **jaffka** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:03 pm

Mother now remanded:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 337898.stm

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:15 pm

Sorry, Tango. I'm not having a go at you personally. What we have at the moment are possibilities and probabilities, not facts in relation to guilt nor evidence. Everyone has the right to a fair trial regardless of their background or family set-up. Still, best we don't tell that to the usual lynching mob on here. Their days would become empty otherwise.

InsaneApache · Post by **InsaneApache** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:45 pm

I wouldn't like to be them. Put it this way, they conned their friends and neighbours and Dewsbury Moor is not what you could call a salubrious location. In fact I wouldn't live there for all the tea etc etc...

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:15 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:Sorry, Tango. I'm not having a go at you personally. What we have at the moment are possibilities and probabilities, not facts in relation to guilt nor evidence. Everyone has the right to a fair trial regardless of their background or family set-up. Still, best we don't tell that to the usual lynching mob on here. Their days would become empty otherwise.

Every one is entitled to a fair trial but where in the UK they will find twelve individuals who have not already formed an opinion on the case I cannot imagine.

Harry Genshaw · Post by **Harry Genshaw** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:37 pm

Perhaps its an age thing but I tend to decide guilt on the alleged perpetrators appearances.

The McCanns - Work for a living, conduct themselves in a calm manner and can speak reasonably and clearly. Innocent.

The Matthews - Umpteen kids by umpteen fathers, no wallpaper in the house but no shortage of bottles of wkd. Faces that would scare a Police horse. Guilty.

If this case highlights anything to the whole country it should be that we are going to hell in a handcart if we dont get rid of this huge benefit underclass that is so prevalent around the UK.

a1 · Post by a1 » Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:39 pm

jaffka wrote: How on earth do we combat chavdom?

[joke but possibly true]

what you do is you wait for them all to get lung/liver cancer before they hit thirty ..

they'll all gradually die off ..

if they shoot one another before then then thats better and faster and possibly cheaper for owd taxpayer..

[/joke but possibly true]

Connect with your social network account

Shannon Matthews Found

Who is online