Portugal MADELEINE McCANN: Missing from Praia da Luz, Portugal - 3 May 2007 - Age 3 (1 Viewer)

Madeleine Beth McCann (born 12 May 2003) disappeared on the evening of 3 May 2007 from her bed in a holiday apartment at a resort in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve region of Portugal. Her whereabouts remain unknown.[3] The Daily Telegraph described the disappearance as "the most heavily reported missing-person case in modern history".[4]

Madeleine was on holiday from the UK with her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann; her two-year-old twin siblings; and a group of family friends and their children. She and the twins had been left asleep at 20:30 in the ground-floor apartment, while the McCanns and friends dined in a restaurant 55 metres (180 ft) away.[5] The parents checked on the children throughout the evening, until Madeleine's mother discovered she was missing at 22:00.

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scotland Yard Reveal Latest Findings in Search for Madeleine

In a world exclusive with the BBC, Scotland Yard reveals their latest findings in the search for Madeleine McCann

findmadeleine.com

MADELEINE McCANN: Missing from Praia da Luz, Portugal - 3 May 2007 - Age 3

Madeleine Beth McCann (born 12 May 2003) disappeared on the evening of 3 May 2007 from her bed in a holiday apartment at a resort in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve region of Portugal. Her whereabouts remain unknown.[3]

www.crimewatchers.net

 

[Guess Who]

So if someone calls your phone 50 times, it's not abusive if you don't answer it? Pretty sure you don't have to speak to the person to be harassed.

People get charged for doing that especially if they have been told to quit. It's definitely abusive. Even if they haven't been told to quit, why don't they get the hint on their own?

 

[Tresir]

That entire article was defense slanted and all about the defense other than maybe one sentence or so.

Rather than assuming bias, I will assume they watched only the defense talking before writing the article, and never heard the prosecution. Probably not though lol.

It was just the defense closings that's why. Prosecutor had his say yesterday and i posted that too.

 

[Tresir]

If my phone rang repeatedly, I would consider it harassment and an intrusion of my day and it doesn't leave your phone free either if constant.

I've dealt with such things may be our difference.

We will I'm pretty sure continue to differ in this one lol. It will be interesting to see how it ends up.

If my phone rang repeatedly i would just take it off the hook. It is also easy these days to block unwanted callers.

 

[Guess Who]

If my phone rang repeatedly i would just take it off the hook. It is also easy these days to block unwanted callers.

So how would you get any other possibly important calls if you have to take your phone off the book because of some lunatic ? Why shouldn't the person doing the writing thing be forced to quit if they can't seem to quit without being forced?

People spoof numbers all the time to get around blocks and why should I have to go through all that work just because some people can't take no for an answer? That is stalking.

 

[GrandmaBear]

If my phone rang repeatedly i would just take it off the hook. It is also easy these days to block unwanted callers.

That is exactly the point though. You have to do those things as you are being harassed. You shoudn't have to.

 

[Tresir]

So how would you get any other possibly important calls if you have to take your phone off the book because of some lunatic ? Why shouldn't the person doing the writing thing be forced to quit if they can't seem to quit without being forced?

People spoof numbers all the time to get around blocks and why should I have to go through all that work just because some people can't take no for an answer? That is stalking.

Anyone who wants me genuinely would call or text my mobile. I can just turn that off too if necessary. It's dead easy these days to block or divert numbers too.

 

[Tresir]

That is exactly the point though. You have to do those things as you are being harassed. You shoudn't have to.

Nuisance sales calls are like that. That isn't deemed harassment though.

 

[Tresir]

That is exactly the point though. You have to do those things as you are being harassed. You shoudn't have to.

The other thing we can do in the UK very easily is have your number ex directory so nobody can get it from directory enquiries.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The other thing we can do in the UK very easily is have your number ex directory so nobody can get it from directory enquiries.

I imagine they keep a phone so that if the real Madeline ever wants to reach them she can. Again they should not have to do that, make it private and if they did in this case, it again would be due to their harassment, that's the whole point. Everything you suggest they do would be done to stop the harassment.

 

[RoundPeg]

I put a service on my landline once. Call protect or something. All my incoming calls were screened and the caller had to identify themselves. Then it came through as a recording. This was maybe 2001 or 2002. It effectively stopped the harassment.

 

[Tresir]

I imagine they keep a phone so that if the real Madeline ever wants to reach them she can. Again they should not have to do that, make it private and if they did in this case, it again would be due to their harassment, that's the whole point. Everything you suggest they do would be done to stop the harassment.

We get a lot of regular sales calls in the Uk that are unwanted, if you have a listed landline number. Not so much with mobile phones though.

From what i understand with this case is that it was just on that one day she tried to call them in Dec 2024.

 

[Tresir]

So how would you get any other possibly important calls if you have to take your phone off the book because of some lunatic ? Why shouldn't the person doing the writing thing be forced to quit if they can't seem to quit without being forced?

People spoof numbers all the time to get around blocks and why should I have to go through all that work just because some people can't take no for an answer? That is stalking.

You can just block particular numbers too so it isnt a problem here.

 

[Tresir]

I put a service on my landline once. Call protect or something. All my incoming calls were screened and the caller had to identify themselves. Then it came through as a recording. This was maybe 2001 or 2002. It effectively stopped the harassment.

Yeah that would be a good option to stop nuisance calls.

 

[Guess Who]

You can just block particular numbers too so it isnt a problem here.

I've blocked as many as my phone will allow. There is a limit and that IS a problem. I have to use my phone for work, too so people that call to harass effect my life and we shouldn't have to even go through that.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Okay @Tresir I guess I had two here for the Buzzard thread. I copied and pasted them both in Buzzard. If you want to add your response over there, I will delete the posts here. If not, let me know and I will leave them.

 

[Guess Who]

Nobody should have to be taken to the point to even feel the need to take people to court because they just can't take no for an answer multiple times. Read the room and go away. it's just that simple. If not, you take the chance of being taken to court.

 

[Tresir]

I just came across this podcast. A bit late now but i just listened to the summing up by both sides and the judge's comments.

The adverts are a bit annoying as you can't skip them.

 

[Regina]

People get charged for doing that especially if they have been told to quit. It's definitely abusive. Even if they haven't been told to quit, why don't they get the hint on their own?

Good question but you know, it's disturbing behavior whether they're oblivious or not!

 

[Regina]

Nobody should have to be taken to the point to even feel the need to take people to court because they just can't take no for an answer multiple times. Read the room and go away. it's just that simple. If not, you take the chance of being taken to court.

The thing is, they don't care about how their behaviors affect others, they only care about themselves. (They say they do care but they show they don't.)

 

[Guess Who]

The thing is, they don't care about how their behaviors affect others, they only care about themselves. (They say they do care but they show they don't.)

Exactly! They got themselves into having to go to court over it. They wouldn't be in court if they had only stopped the harassment. Nobody to blame but themselves.