Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
IMO, one has to be very naive to entrust their children to a stranger in a locked private place with no-one coming back for X hours.

Especially to a stranger who has chosen a job which ensures s/he is near children

As I have said before, the vast majority of people chosing to work with children are normal kind and caring people.

[b]However jobs with children are often chosen by paedophiles. [/b] Thank goodness they are but a tiny minority.

Red bit: How do you know that?
Blue bit: Very true and in my younger day we had the expression "never turn your back on a cubmaster". We were also pretty clued up who had a funny uncle or aunt.
Maroon bit: But not a minority accpording to you.  Your theory is that every baby sitter potentially is a paedophile and a danger.
2
I see that my post, pointing out that posts in the past few days from Benice davel misty ferryman and a couple of others including me, has been wiped.

Seems some Moderators on your side cannot bear losing the argument, so destroy the opposition by deleting their posts.

Shame on you.



This will be removed in a flash becos this forum doesn't allow discent (from our side).
 
It is not a proper forum it is an Autocracy.   
No Justice here.
It is in place purely to support Amaral at the expence of The Mccanns and The Ciprianos.


AIMHO but a multitude of pointers.

Posts from both sides of the fence have been removed Sadie, including mine.
3
It was not a back garden Sadie.

It was a restaurant and bar, for people in the complex and presumably others as well.

No more, no less.

They could not see their children, unless they went to check on them.

There are no excuses.

A restaurant enclosed behind a high wall, no less, with one entrance/exit.
4
Well, I am sorry, but I cant take his video on face value when so much that he spouts has been proven totally wrong.

He has lost any credibility that he had with his latest video. .... and he didn't have that much to start with !   IMO

Proven by whom, where and under what circumstances ?
5
I answered most of that last night but you deleted my post for reasons best known to yourself.
I see that my post, pointing out that posts in the past few days from Benice davel misty ferryman and a couple of others including me, has been wiped.

Seems some Moderators on your side cannot bear losing the argument, so destroy the opposition by deleting their posts.

Shame on you.



This will be removed in a flash becos this forum doesn't allow discent (from our side).
 
It is not a proper forum it is an Autocracy.   
No Justice here.
It is in place purely to support Amaral at the expence of The Mccanns and The Ciprianos.


AIMHO but a multitude of pointers.
6
Get lost stephen.   Trying to grind down again.



I  am not going thru it all again, over and over.

If you chose not to think that it was not like in a back garden, then that is up to you.  Your (?deliberate?) mistake.


But i have been there to the Tapas Restaurant, eaten a meal and seen 5a. 

I also had a back garden 50+ metres long and I could hear my kids even when I had my back to them ... and was involved in a jolly chat with several people over the back fence, with the background noise of the ring road .


I am going out now.

It was not a back garden Sadie.

It was a restaurant and bar, for people in the complex and presumably others as well.

No more, no less.

They could not see their children, unless they went to check on them.

There are no excuses.

7

The 'grinding' is yours.

There is no excuse for what the Mccann's or their associates did.

It wasn't safe.

It wasn't in the back garden.

It was plain stupid.

As to the rest of your excuses, do you have stats to support your views, or is it mere rhetoric ?





I  am not going thru it all again, over and over.

If you chose not to think that it was not like in a back garden, then that is up to you.  Your (?deliberate?) mistake.


But i have been there to the Tapas Restaurant, eaten a meal and seen 5a. 

I also had a back garden 50+ metres long and I could hear my kids even when I had my back to them ... and was involved in a jolly chat with several people over the back fence, with the background noise of the ring road .


I am going out now.
8
That's a good point, they could have had a sitter check on all the apartments, its not as if they needed three sitters.  For GP's they exhibited a worrying lack of common sense IMO.

.....and anyone intent on abducting a child from one of those apartments would have the opportunity while the babysitter checked in the others (that's if the babysitter could be bothered).
For anyone who thinks DBS checking & a profession are good means to ensure the stranger babysitting your children is a fine, upstanding citizen...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2881103/54-teachers-struck-nine-months-sexual-misconduct-pupils-including-sleeping-kissing-sexting.html
9

So tell me one simple thing.

Is it better to have someone looking after children, or no-one at all ?

Also, why didn't the McCann's and the others have a babysitter from the creche staff ?

They were available.

I answered most of that last night but you deleted my post for reasons best known to yourself.
10
As Misty says the MW Creche staff should have been trained and vetted, but that is the same in teaching and some with an unhealthy interest in children still slip thru the net.

I wonder if you deliberately chose to NOT understand what I was saying about the dangers of emplying a stranger to baby sit YOUR child.  In Ocean Club, whether they were creche staff, teenagers or any other stranger the same criteria holds.


There is a vast difference between leaving your children with a relative stranger in a creche which is open for other staff and parents to visit at any time + other staff present all the time,

... in comparison to leaving a relative stranger alone in a locked place, with curtains drawn and knowledge that they are on their own to do what they wish for an uninterrupted period of several hours.

The dangers of leaving your child alone with someone who has consciously chosen to work with children are greater from the sexual abuse point of view, in that Paedos deliberately chose that sort of work to give them opportunities.  Thank God that the vast majority of people who chose to work with Children are normal kind and caring people.


A teenager on the other hand is less likely to be sexually interested, but unless having a bunch of younger siblings would be less able to look after that child if problems arose. 

Now I am doing this next bit from memory.
About 7-8 years ago I read up quite a lot about what motivates and starts the "interest in young children" urge.  The one thing that I remember was that it tended to start in the mid to later twenties.  This was for blokes.   Dunno about women.

To remind you, once an abuse has taken place, it is too late.  The damage is done.  Better to be sagfe than sorry.




I hope that you are not going to use the "GRINDING DOWN" terchnique on me stephen, cos I dont feel inclined to keep typing for the sake of it. 

You have got some full and fairly comprehensive answers, stephen. why i think it dangerous to leave a stranger with YOUR children in an enclosed and hidden place like a curtained and locked flat with knowledge of how long you will be away.       


Please drop it now.


The 'grinding' is yours.

There is no excuse for what the Mccann's or their associates did.

It wasn't safe.

It wasn't in the back garden.

It was plain stupid.

As to the rest of your excuses, do you have stats to support your views, or is it mere rhetoric ?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10