Translate

Sunday, 27 September 2015

An idiot writes.......

Evening all

A slight change this evening - a reply from Nuala, some no-hoper who appears to have attached herself to Textusa like an unsightly wart.

It's very amusing

I'll copy her post in full first, then break it down


Not Textusa 27 Sep 2015, 03:20:00

There is no question that a wide circle of people were involved in trying to cover up what happened to Maddie. That's not up for debate, that's what happened.

The question we're then left with is why all those people would do that, what their motivation was.

We all know what paedophiles do to children, so would they be prepared to help cover for a paedophile, that diverse circle of people all agree to do that? Absolutely not.


But presented with a situation where a child wasn't killed intentionally but nonetheless had tragically died, and not only that it was as the result of a swinging event, because the two adults present when the child died were married to other people, would people be prepared to collude in a cover up in those circumstances? People who thought their own reputations would be ruined if the truth got out, and others because they were told what to do or else, would they collude in a cover up?

The answer is yes, and they did. 

"you insist they would not cover up for a paedophile but would cover up, in your scenario, for a grown man hitting a child so hard that she died"

That's equating the two situations. I hope I don't have to graphically describe what a paedophile does to a child for anyone to understand the difference between the two. It should be obvious to any decent person.

Nuala
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Not Textusa 27 Sep 2015, 03:20:00

There is no question that a wide circle of people were involved in trying to cover up what happened to Maddie. That's not up for debate, that's what happened.
Oh really? Not up for debate, eh?  I beg to differ. You have fallen for Textusa's bullshit, clearly, which is unsurprising as you seem a little simple-minded. 

There is no evidence of this at all. Just a load of barmpot theories from the mentally disadvantaged 


The question we're then left with is why all those people would do that, what their motivation was.
Well, no. You are only left with that question if you believe Textusa's bullshit. Which you do.


We all know what paedophiles do to children, so would they be prepared to help cover for a paedophile, that diverse circle of people all agree to do that? Absolutely not.
Only if the child was an infant, according to Textusa 



But presented with a situation where a child wasn't killed intentionally but nonetheless had tragically died, and not only that it was as the result of a swinging event, because the two adults present when the child died were married to other people, would people be prepared to collude in a cover up in those circumstances? People who thought their own reputations would be ruined if the truth got out, and others because they were told what to do or else, would they collude in a cover up?
This completely avoids my question, which as you will recall was as follows:

"So what would a restaurant worker or a nanny have to lose? Or a receptionist? Or Sky News? All people or organisations Textusa claims were involved. And please don't give me some nonsense about the threat of losing their job - there was a £2m reward up for grabs."
You say 
'' and others because they were told what to do or else
So your theory is that all those people were told what had happened, given a complicated backstory to learn and participate in because ''or else''

What is ''or else''?

If someone told you to commit a serious crime ''Or else'' would you do it? Because someone told you to? Well, you probably would, but I think you'll find most wouldn't

And what precisely was the ''Or else'' with which they threatened Sky News? 


The answer is yes, and they did. 
So you contend that the guests would all knowingly cover up for a couple who were covering up the violent death of their child at the hands of one of their party, including the investigation of her death and proper burial, rather than have people know they were swingers? Or in other words, commit a very very serious crime for which they could spend years in jail in order to spare their own blushes and the arses of the guilty parties?

And all the other parties? The people I listed above?


"you insist they would not cover up for a paedophile but would cover up, in your scenario, for a grown man hitting a child so hard that she died"

That's equating the two situations.
Er yes, it is.
I hope I don't have to graphically describe what a paedophile does to a child for anyone to understand the difference between the two. It should be obvious to any decent person.
Ah - so it's okay to cover up for someone who beats a child to death, but not for someone who sexually abuses them - is that what you are saying?

You people have a very very strange, twisted sense of right and wrong

Now would you like to answer the question you avoided?

"So what would a restaurant worker or a nanny have to lose? Or a receptionist? Or Sky News? All people or organisations Textusa claims were involved. And please don't give me some nonsense about the threat of losing their job - there was a £2m reward up for grabs."



Nuala

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.