Why not report the abduction at the Tapas Bar rather than Main Reception?

[amaraltheofficeboy]

christ if anyone wants to look at strange timelines - look at the waiters statements

[gilet]

Do normal people choose to ask waiters to contact the police for them?

It was a minute or so closer that is all.

When the option is to speak to a proper receptionist or a busy waiter, a receptionist who is used to dealing with all kinds of inquiries and emergencies or a waiter who is used to dealing with food orders, when that receptionist is fluent in English and the waiter is not and when there is likely to be a couple of minutes needed to explain the situation to someone not fluent in English then I would think the main reception is where I would head especially if I was fit and could cover the 350 metres in about two minutes easily.

There were only the McCanns in the restaurant when the alarm was raised so I can't imagine the waiters were that busy.

Don't you know that waiters have to do a lot of the clearing up in a restaurant before they go home and at the end of a shift the aim is to get that done as quickly as possible and to get home as quickly as possible.  Not the best recipients in my view for a request in a foreign language to get the police involved in a missing child scenario.

Whether busy or not the rest of my points stand and I think it is positively crazy to believe that English tourists would choose a barman or waiter to report a missing child over a receptionist who is fluent in their own language and barely a minute further awsy.

I think the whole argument is ridiculous to be honest.

I believe anyone who is looking at what real people would do in this situation will be able to see that the receptionist is the obvious conduit for the request to inform the police and I think the more that people drag this out with the idea that barmen and waiters are the normal recourse of people on holiday wishing to contact the police rather than receptionists, or silly suggestions that the main reception was 8 minutes away for example the more foolish they look.

[faithlilly]

I would assume it had a telephone.

[gilet]

I would assume it had a telephone.

Only assumption then, perhaps the Tapas group were equally unsure?

You may well have hit the nail on the head here Faithlilly. If like you, the Tapas group were unsure that there was a phone there then they may have not even considered it as an option. They would know without a shadow of doubt that the Reception would have a phone and that they could communicate clearly there about the issue with the staff.

Thanks for that thought.

[faithlilly]

I would assume it had a telephone.

Only assumption then, perhaps the Tapas group were equally unsure?

You may well have hit the nail on the head here Faithlilly. If like you, the Tapas group were unsure that there was a phone there then they may have not even considered it as an option. They would know without a shadow of doubt that the Reception would have a phone and that they could communicate clearly there about the issue with the staff.

Thanks for that thought.

If they were unsure the first thing any adult would do was to ask or they all had mobiles so why not ask for the emergency number for the police ?

[AnneGuedes]

Do normal people choose to ask waiters to contact the police for them?

It was a minute or so closer that is all.

When the option is to speak to a proper receptionist or a busy waiter, a receptionist who is used to dealing with all kinds of inquiries and emergencies or a waiter who is used to dealing with food orders, when that receptionist is fluent in English and the waiter is not and when there is likely to be a couple of minutes needed to explain the situation to someone not fluent in English then I would think the main reception is where I would head especially if I was fit and could cover the 350 metres in about two minutes easily.

No !
The receptionist used to deal with all kinds of inquiries and emergencies waited about 25 minutes before calling the police ! Well, in fact, he had to respect hierarchy and ask the manager before !

[gilet]

No the first thing any normal person would do is go where they were absolutely certain they could find an English speaking person who most definitely had a telephone.

This is now getting ridiculous.

Instead of going to Reception where people spoke fluent English and definitely had a phone, you are absurdly suggesting they should have saved what would have been about one minute by going to a bar/restaurant to establish with people who were not fluent in English whether they had a telephone or if not a land line whether they could possibly use their mobiles to contact the police over a missing child case, with all the translation problems of giving clear details about that missing child case to the local police via the none-too-fluent barman/waiter whose attention they had managed to attract.

Personally I would have done the sane thing and gone to reception. You can come up with lots of other ideas to try to attack the McCanns but I suggest you do better than this hare-brained one.

After all it was you who suggested in the first place that there may not have been a phone there at all.

Then they would have to go to reception anyway.

As I said. I'll stick to sanity and known facts.

We know that the place they went to was the Reception.

And sanity in my opinion suggests that was not only the sensible decision but the normal decision.

[AnneGuedes]

I would assume it had a telephone.

Only assumption then, perhaps the Tapas group were equally unsure?

You may well have hit the nail on the head here Faithlilly. If like you, the Tapas group were unsure that there was a phone there then they may have not even considered it as an option. They would know without a shadow of doubt that the Reception would have a phone and that they could communicate clearly there about the issue with the staff.

Thanks for that thought.

Are you kidding ? All the Tapas group had cell phones they could lend to the Tapas staff in the unlikely case there was no phone in the restaurant.

[gilet]

Do normal people choose to ask waiters to contact the police for them?

It was a minute or so closer that is all.

When the option is to speak to a proper receptionist or a busy waiter, a receptionist who is used to dealing with all kinds of inquiries and emergencies or a waiter who is used to dealing with food orders, when that receptionist is fluent in English and the waiter is not and when there is likely to be a couple of minutes needed to explain the situation to someone not fluent in English then I would think the main reception is where I would head especially if I was fit and could cover the 350 metres in about two minutes easily.

No !
The receptionist used to deal with all kinds of inquiries and emergencies waited about 25 minutes before calling the police ! Well, in fact, he had to respect hierarchy and ask the manager before !

But the Tapas group could not have known in advance that the receptionist would be so dammed incompetent could they?

Could you please give your evidence that he "had to respect hierachy and ask the manager before"? Or are you just guessing as to why he appears to have been such an incompetent?

[AnneGuedes]

No the first thing any normal person would do is go where they were absolutely certain they could find an English speaking person who most definitely had a telephone.

This is now getting ridiculous.

Instead of going to Reception where people spoke fluent English and definitely had a phone, you are absurdly suggesting they should have saved what would have been about one minute by going to a bar/restaurant to establish with people who were not fluent in English whether they had a telephone or if not a land line whether they could possibly use their mobiles to contact the police over a missing child case, with all the translation problems of giving clear details about that missing child case to the local police via the none-too-fluent barman/waiter whose attention they had managed to attract.

Personally I would have done the sane thing and gone to reception. You can come up with lots of other ideas to try to attack the McCanns but I suggest you do better than this hare-brained one.

After all it was you who suggested in the first place that there may not have been a phone there at all.

And what if none of the staff had mobiles with them?

Then they would have to go to reception anyway.

As I said. I'll stick to sanity and known facts.

We know that the place they went to was the Reception.

And sanity in my opinion suggests that was not only the sensible decision but the normal decision.

Yes it does, Gilet. Come on, get back to rationality !

[gilet]

No the first thing any normal person would do is go where they were absolutely certain they could find an English speaking person who most definitely had a telephone.

This is now getting ridiculous.

Instead of going to Reception where people spoke fluent English and definitely had a phone, you are absurdly suggesting they should have saved what would have been about one minute by going to a bar/restaurant to establish with people who were not fluent in English whether they had a telephone or if not a land line whether they could possibly use their mobiles to contact the police over a missing child case, with all the translation problems of giving clear details about that missing child case to the local police via the none-too-fluent barman/waiter whose attention they had managed to attract.

Personally I would have done the sane thing and gone to reception. You can come up with lots of other ideas to try to attack the McCanns but I suggest you do better than this hare-brained one.

After all it was you who suggested in the first place that there may not have been a phone there at all.

And what if none of the staff had mobiles with them?

Then they would have to go to reception anyway.

As I said. I'll stick to sanity and known facts.

We know that the place they went to was the Reception.

And sanity in my opinion suggests that was not only the sensible decision but the normal decision.

Yes it does, Gilet. Come on, get back to rationality !

Rationality is what I have stated.

Irrationality is what you claimed. That it would take a very fit Matthew 8 full minutes to get from Apt 5A to reception. That is beyond irrational. It is ludicrous for a distance of significantly less than 400 metres half on quite a steep slope downwards.

There is no issue here as anti McCanns are trying to suggest.

We know where they went, we know the receptionist was incompetent or the OC system was incompetent.

We also know that most English people when given the choice of going to a bar where nobody spoke fluent English, where they did not know if a phone existed or not and going to Reception would choose the latter when it was only one minute further away.

The reality is that we English tend to go to Reception over every issue be it major or minor. Anyone who discounts this fact clearly has either never been abroad in a hotel where there are lots of English or is simply refusing to face up to facts.

As I have said previously this is a complete non-issue and is making those who are pursuing it (especially when they have to resort to absurd suggestions such as the 8 minute timing for a 350metre jog downhill) look utterly foolish.

[icabodcrane]

No the first thing any normal person would do is go where they were absolutely certain they could find an English speaking person who most definitely had a telephone.

This is now getting ridiculous.

Instead of going to Reception where people spoke fluent English and definitely had a phone, you are absurdly suggesting they should have saved what would have been about one minute by going to a bar/restaurant to establish with people who were not fluent in English whether they had a telephone or if not a land line whether they could possibly use their mobiles to contact the police over a missing child case, with all the translation problems of giving clear details about that missing child case to the local police via the none-too-fluent barman/waiter whose attention they had managed to attract.

Personally I would have done the sane thing and gone to reception. You can come up with lots of other ideas to try to attack the McCanns but I suggest you do better than this hare-brained one.

After all it was you who suggested in the first place that there may not have been a phone there at all.

And what if none of the staff had mobiles with them?

Then they would have to go to reception anyway.

As I said. I'll stick to sanity and known facts.

We know that the place they went to was the Reception.

And sanity in my opinion suggests that was not only the sensible decision but the normal decision.

Yes it does, Gilet. Come on, get back to rationality !

Rationality is what I have stated.

Irrationality is what you claimed. That it would take a very fit Matthew 8 full minutes to get from Apt 5A to reception. That is beyond irrational. It is ludicrous for a distance of significantly less than 400 metres half on quite a steep slope downwards.

There is no issue here as anti McCanns are trying to suggest.

We know where they went, we know the receptionist was incompetent or the OC system was incompetent.

We also know that most English people when given the choice of going to a bar where nobody spoke fluent English, where they did not know if a phone existed or not and going to Reception would choose the latter when it was only one minute further away.

As I have said previously this is a complete non-issue and is making those who are pursuing it (especially when they have to resort to absurd suggestions such as the 8 minute timing for a 350metre jog downhill) look utterly foolish.

Mrs Fenn, an ex pat,  offered to call to police for them  (  she clearly felt up to the task,  Portuguese speaking or not ) 

Gerry McCann told her not to  ... because  it had  'already been done'    ( as if  'bothering' the police unecessarily was a concern at that point ! )

What do you make of that ?  ...  of Gerry telling someone he  didn't  want them to call rhe police   ? 

[gilet]

No the first thing any normal person would do is go where they were absolutely certain they could find an English speaking person who most definitely had a telephone.

This is now getting ridiculous.

Instead of going to Reception where people spoke fluent English and definitely had a phone, you are absurdly suggesting they should have saved what would have been about one minute by going to a bar/restaurant to establish with people who were not fluent in English whether they had a telephone or if not a land line whether they could possibly use their mobiles to contact the police over a missing child case, with all the translation problems of giving clear details about that missing child case to the local police via the none-too-fluent barman/waiter whose attention they had managed to attract.

Personally I would have done the sane thing and gone to reception. You can come up with lots of other ideas to try to attack the McCanns but I suggest you do better than this hare-brained one.

After all it was you who suggested in the first place that there may not have been a phone there at all.

And what if none of the staff had mobiles with them?

Then they would have to go to reception anyway.

As I said. I'll stick to sanity and known facts.

We know that the place they went to was the Reception.

And sanity in my opinion suggests that was not only the sensible decision but the normal decision.

Yes it does, Gilet. Come on, get back to rationality !

Rationality is what I have stated.

Irrationality is what you claimed. That it would take a very fit Matthew 8 full minutes to get from Apt 5A to reception. That is beyond irrational. It is ludicrous for a distance of significantly less than 400 metres half on quite a steep slope downwards.

There is no issue here as anti McCanns are trying to suggest.

We know where they went, we know the receptionist was incompetent or the OC system was incompetent.

We also know that most English people when given the choice of going to a bar where nobody spoke fluent English, where they did not know if a phone existed or not and going to Reception would choose the latter when it was only one minute further away.

As I have said previously this is a complete non-issue and is making those who are pursuing it (especially when they have to resort to absurd suggestions such as the 8 minute timing for a 350metre jog downhill) look utterly foolish.

Mrs Fenn, an ex pat,  offered to call to police for them  (  she clearly felt up to the task,  Portuguese speaking or not ) 

Gerry McCann told her not to  ... because  it had  'already been done'    ( as if  'bothering' the police unecessarily was a concern at that point ! )

What do you make of that ?  ...  of Gerry telling someone he  didn't  want them to call rhe police   ?

I make of it precisely what Gerry said, that it had already been done.

[icabodcrane]

No the first thing any normal person would do is go where they were absolutely certain they could find an English speaking person who most definitely had a telephone.

This is now getting ridiculous.

Instead of going to Reception where people spoke fluent English and definitely had a phone, you are absurdly suggesting they should have saved what would have been about one minute by going to a bar/restaurant to establish with people who were not fluent in English whether they had a telephone or if not a land line whether they could possibly use their mobiles to contact the police over a missing child case, with all the translation problems of giving clear details about that missing child case to the local police via the none-too-fluent barman/waiter whose attention they had managed to attract.

Personally I would have done the sane thing and gone to reception. You can come up with lots of other ideas to try to attack the McCanns but I suggest you do better than this hare-brained one.

After all it was you who suggested in the first place that there may not have been a phone there at all.

And what if none of the staff had mobiles with them?

Then they would have to go to reception anyway.

As I said. I'll stick to sanity and known facts.

We know that the place they went to was the Reception.

And sanity in my opinion suggests that was not only the sensible decision but the normal decision.

Yes it does, Gilet. Come on, get back to rationality !

Rationality is what I have stated.

Irrationality is what you claimed. That it would take a very fit Matthew 8 full minutes to get from Apt 5A to reception. That is beyond irrational. It is ludicrous for a distance of significantly less than 400 metres half on quite a steep slope downwards.

There is no issue here as anti McCanns are trying to suggest.

We know where they went, we know the receptionist was incompetent or the OC system was incompetent.

We also know that most English people when given the choice of going to a bar where nobody spoke fluent English, where they did not know if a phone existed or not and going to Reception would choose the latter when it was only one minute further away.

As I have said previously this is a complete non-issue and is making those who are pursuing it (especially when they have to resort to absurd suggestions such as the 8 minute timing for a 350metre jog downhill) look utterly foolish.

Mrs Fenn, an ex pat,  offered to call to police for them  (  she clearly felt up to the task,  Portuguese speaking or not ) 

Gerry McCann told her not to  ... because  it had  'already been done'    ( as if  'bothering' the police unecessarily was a concern at that point ! )

What do you make of that ?  ...  of Gerry telling someone he  didn't  want them to call rhe police   ?

I make of it precisely what Gerry said, that it had already been done.

Really ?

It  just doesn't sit right with me somehow

An English speaking ex-pat who can  understand the urgency of the situation offers to call the police  ...  surely the response would be be  "oh yes please, would you ?  we'd be very grateful"

I mean the more people contacting the police to make tham aware of just how urgent the matter was,  the better  ...  wouldn't you say ?

Rather than telling the lady upstairs that the police had already been called once,  and that was enough 

[gilet]

Really ?

It  just doesn't sit right with me somehow

An English speaking ex-pat who can  understand the urgency of the situation offers to call the police  ...  surely the response would be be  "oh yes please, would you ?  we'd be very grateful"

I mean the more people contacting the police to make tham aware of just how urgent the matter was,  the better  ...  wouldn't you say ?

Rather than telling the lady upstairs that the police had already been called once,  and that was enough

If I was watching a video of the conversation I would be able to comment further.

As we have only the briefest intimations of what the whole conversation was like I have no idea whether statement by Gerry is the key to the cracking the entire disappearance or not.  I don't know in what tone it was said. Was there an inference in the way it was said that perhaps even though the call had been made then Mrs. Fenn was welcome to try herself or was it utterly dismissive?

I am afraid I have said this before tonight and will repeat it now. I am simply not interested in the kind of speculation you are hinting at here.  People can push as hard as they like but I will stick to facts.

I make of this precisely what I know. That is that Mrs. Fenn asked if she should call and Gerry said the Police had been called.

Anything further is guesswork.

I will leave you to the guessing while I stick to the facts.