UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Vertigo Swirl on June 30, 2019, 12:36:21 PM
-
The McCanns are castigated for leaving their kids alone to dine out at the Tapas restaurant but come in for extra criticism for doing so and leaving the patio door unlocked. Do people think this added to the risks facing the kids, and if so what were the additional risks?
-
Thanks for authorising my thread. 8((()*/
-
Thanks for authorising my thread. 8((()*/
I approved it because it followed on with what I said in the other thread.
"I think the McCann children were more vulnerable because the other people, who knew that the door was unlocked, worried about the kids and hence started to interfere."
I don't think many will agree with me on that but IMO Kate even thought along these lines. There were the reports of a mystery couple entering the McCann's apartment the night before.
The tea stain on Madeleine's pyjamas was evidence of this according to what Kate said.
-
If you think it’s virtually impossible that with all the comings and goings that evening that Madeleine could have been abducted then clearly leaving the door unlocked is irrelevant.
-
If you don’t think it’s virtually possible that with all the comings and goings that evening that Madeleine was abducted then clearly leaving the door unlocked is irrelevant.
Not true. The McCann children were uniquely vulnerable within the group with or without an abduction. Any building not secured is more vulnerable than one that is , as are the contents whether that leads to them being stolen or not. That is why insurance companies will not pay it if you are burgled when you failed to insure that your property was secure.
-
Not true. The McCann children were uniquely vulnerable within the group with or without an abduction. Any building not secured is more vulnerable than one that is , as are the contents whether that leads to them being stolen or not. That is why insurance companies will not pay it if you are burgled when you failed to insure that your property was secure.
So do you believe that the threat of abduction from the apartment was a very real one especially as the McCanns left the door unlocked?
-
So do you believe that the threat of abduction from the apartment was a very real one especially as the McCanns left the door unlocked?
It would make it easier for someone to access the apartment for nefarious reasons but not more likely. IN YOUR OPINION.
-
It would make it easier for someone to access the apartment for nefarious reasons but not more likely.
If it was easier then it was more likely to be the McCanns’ apartment than one that was locked wouldn’t it?
-
If it was easier then it was more likely to be the McCanns’ apartment than one that was locked wouldn’t it?
Only in a targeted abduction where the abductor took advantage of the parent’s woefully negligent decisions.
-
Only in a targeted abduction where the abductor took advantage of the parent’s woefully negligent decisions.
So targeted abduction by a stranger was a real, tangible danger then, thanks for that.
-
So targeted abduction by a stranger was a real, tangible danger then, thanks for that.
As was Madeleine climbing on a chair to see over the balcony to where the noise was coming from and falling. Which do you think was the more likely ?
-
As was Madeleine climbing on a chair to see over the balcony to where the noise was coming from and falling. Which do you think was the more likely ?
abduction, in the circumstances.
-
abduction, in the circumstances.
Why ?
-
Why ?
Why what? How do the patio doors lock?
-
Why what? How do the patio doors lock?
Why is abduction more likely ‘in the circumstances ‘ ? Even the AG couldn’t decide what was more likely.
-
Why is abduction more likely ‘in the circumstances ‘ ? Even the AG couldn’t decide what was more likely.
Because there is no plausible or logical explanation for the falling off the balcony to her death theory, that fits with all the known facts.
-
Because there is no plausible or logical explanation for the falling off the balcony to her death theory, that fits with all the known facts.
Nope you’ll have to do better than that.
-
Nope you’ll have to do better than that.
No I won’t, it’s absolutely the crux of the matter.
-
No I won’t, it’s absolutely the crux of the matter.
What preclude’s Madeleine from falling from the balcony?
-
What preclude’s Madeleine from falling from the balcony?
Nothing.
PS: please sort out your apostrophes, they hurt my eyes.
-
Nothing.
PS: please sort out your apostrophes, they hurt my eyes.
It’s predictor text and if it hurts your eyes can I suggest that you don’t read my posts ?
So nothing precludes Madeleine falling from the balcony. In fact Eddie alerting under it is a positive indicator that that may be what happened.
And still not one single, solitary shred of evidence pointing to an abduction.
-
It’s predictor text and if it hurts your eyes can I suggest that you don’t read my posts ?
So nothing precludes Madeleine falling from the balcony. In fact Eddie alerting under it is a positive indicator that that may be what happened.
And still not one single, solitary shred of evidence pointing to an abduction.
not a shred of evidence to support the abduction...if the PJ failed to carry out a proper crime scene investigation...what do you expect
-
It’s predictor text and if it hurts your eyes can I suggest that you don’t read my posts ?
So nothing precludes Madeleine falling from the balcony. In fact Eddie alerting under it is a positive indicator that that may be what happened.
And still not one single, solitary shred of evidence pointing to an abduction.
I still find it remarkable that the abduction from the apartment theory is constantly trotted out despite there being nothing to support it. I see no alternative to woke and wandered and probably knocked down in the street outside the apartment for all the reasons previously explained.
-
I still find it remarkable that the abduction from the apartment theory is constantly trotted out despite there being nothing to support it.
I would say theres plenty to support it...SY seem to support it (IN YOUR OPINION)
-
I would say theres plenty to support it...SY seem to support it
SY haven't a clue @)(++(*
Had they been doing their job correctly we would have already seen the arrest of several crooks for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
-
It’s predictor text and if it hurts your eyes can I suggest that you don’t read my posts ?
So nothing precludes Madeleine falling from the balcony. In fact Eddie alerting under it is a positive indicator that that may be what happened.
And still not one single, solitary shred of evidence pointing to an abduction.
There is no such word as preclude’s so thats a poor excuse for a start. Everything preclude’s (sic) Madeleine dying in a fall off the balcony, lying there long enough to emit cadaver odour, being discovered, all within the 90 minutes her parents were away from the apartment, and with others checking on the apartment, plus all the other known facts.
-
SY haven't a clue @)(++(*
really...and armchair detectives on this site do...I find that more than a little ridiculous
-
Can we get back on topic? Was leaving the patio door unlocked risky and if so why? Would it have made any difference to whether or not Madeleine could have left the apartment under her own steam if it had been locked from the inside?
-
really...and armchair detectives on this site do...I find that more than a little ridiculous
I haven't decided yet whether SY are being intentionally dim witted in this case or if they are under orders to hold back. No doubt it will all come out in the end.
-
Can we get back on topic? Was leaving the patio door unlocked risky and if so why? Would it have made any difference to whether or not Madeleine could have left the apartment under her own steam if it had been locked from the inside?
It was shear stupidity imo leaving three young children alone for over an hour on at least one documented occasion. It's true what they say about common sense and intelligence.
-
I haven't decided yet whether SY are being intentionally dim witted in this case or if they are under orders to hold back. No doubt it will all come out in the end.
I think you are totally wrong on both counts...those are not the only two options..
you have often said the police will have more information than we do ... which is true...so I think they are in a far better position to reach a conclusion than someone sitting in front of a computer screen
-
Can we get back on topic? Was leaving the patio door unlocked risky and if so why? Would it have made any difference to whether or not Madeleine could have left the apartment under her own steam if it had been locked from the inside?
It was pointless considering, according to the McCanns, that Maggie couldn't have operated the child gate anyways.
I suppose she could have got some fresh air though.
-
I still find it remarkable that the abduction from the apartment theory is constantly trotted out despite there being nothing to support it. I see no alternative to woke and wandered and probably knocked down in the street outside the apartment for all the reasons previously explained.
woke and wandered highly unlikely according to the PJ...are they dimwitted too
-
woke and wandered highly unlikely according to the PJ...are they dimwitted too
I think you are ten years out of date.
-
Clever sillies: why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense.
"...it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in 'common sense'--and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings.'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19733444
-
There is no such word as preclude’s so thats a poor excuse for a start. Everything preclude’s (sic) Madeleine dying in a fall off the balcony, lying there long enough to emit cadaver odour, being discovered, all within the 90 minutes her parents were away from the apartment, and with others checking on the apartment, plus all the other known facts.
Firstly there has been no peer reviewed research that I have seen that quantifies how quickly cadaver odour develops in a child...whether it is different from an adult....so until that happens we can’t be sure what Eddie’s alert was to.
As to other people checking, only one did, Matthew and he didn’t see Madeleine.
What are the other known facts ?
-
I think you are ten years out of date.
Crikey, that reminds me, I need to go and check the use-by date on our can of corned beef.
(&^&
-
Clever sillies: why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense.
"...it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in 'common sense'--and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings.'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19733444
People of High IQ are inherently clever. I do not lack common sense. The only thing that I lack is general knowledge, because it is not that important to me. I can always work it out if I have to.
-
Firstly there has been no peer reviewed research that I have seen that quantifies how quickly cadaver odour develops in a child...whether it is different from an adult....so until that happens we can’t be sure what Eddie’s alert was to.
As to other people checking, only one did, Matthew and he didn’t see Madeleine.
What are the other known facts ?
Check the files, they are all in there. convenient that you can make up any old figures for cadaver odour developing in the case of a child to fit with your theory, don’t you think....?
-
Check the files, they are all in there. convenient that you can make up any old figures for cadaver odour developing in the case of a child to fit with your theory, don’t you think....?
It was you who claimed that there is other facts therefore it is up to you to produce them.
-
woke and wandered highly unlikely according to the PJ...are they dimwitted too
In that case I afraid so IMO.
-
It was you who claimed that there is other facts therefore it is up to you to produce them.
The files, look in them, full of known facts.
-
The files, look in them, full of known facts.
Ah you see that’s where you’re wrong. There’s not one teeny, weeny fact in the files that conclusively proves that there was an abduction.
-
Ah you see that’s where you’re wrong. There’s not one teeny, weeny fact in the files that conclusively proves that there was an abduction.
I don’t think I actually said that did I Miss Twisty?
-
I don’t think I actually said that did I Miss Twisty?
Or any fact that even suggests that there was an abductor.
-
The files, look in them, full of known facts.
Let's give thanks to G-unit for diligence in doing that.
-
Or any fact that even suggests that there was an abductor.
If you re-read my post you will see that I was saying that all the known facts make your (and any other parental involvement) theory extremely unlikely but you have read what I’ve written and decided that I wrote “there are loads of known facts that prove abduction “. Try to improve your comprehension skills before reading my next post, there’s a love.
-
It was shear stupidity imo leaving three young children alone for over an hour on at least one documented occasion. It's true what they say about common sense and intelligence.
Yes we all know what you think about the parents, but actually addressing my post would have been more constructive in that it may have led to a change of the record for once.
-
If you re-read my post you will see that I was saying that all the known facts make your (and any other parental involvement) theory extremely unlikely but you have read what I’ve written and decided that I wrote “there are loads of known facts that prove abduction “. Try to improve your comprehension skills before reading my next post, there’s a love.
There is nothing wrong with my comprehension. If you meant the above would you please craft your sentences more carefully so that they actually say what you want them to say.
-
There is nothing wrong with my comprehension. If you meant the above would you please craft your sentences more carefully so that they actually say what you want them to say.
Do you spot the word “abduction “ in what I wrote?
“Everything preclude’s (sic) Madeleine dying in a fall off the balcony, lying there long enough to emit cadaver odour, being discovered, all within the 90 minutes her parents were away from the apartment, and with others checking on the apartment, plus all the other known facts”.
Now feel free to parse that sentence so it means what you think I said and we’ll take it from there.
-
The McCanns are castigated for leaving their kids alone to dine out at the Tapas restaurant but come in for extra criticism for doing so and leaving the patio door unlocked. Do people think this added to the risks facing the kids, and if so what were the additional risks?
Yes definitely and imo this is the whole crux of the case.
Anyone observing T9's comings and goings during the night time jolly ups @ Tapas could potentially quickly pick up on the fact the McCanns were checking via the patio doors at the back and would understand these doors must be unlocked since they were re-entering.
T7 were not walking along the alley and through the garden gates. They were disappearing out of line of sight to the front of the block and entering through their front doors. I also believe the front doors were in a sort of alcove and looked over by other front doors the communal areas for stairs and the lift?
-
Yes definitely and imo this is the whole crux of the case.
Anyone observing T9's comings and goings during the night time jolly ups @ Tapas could potentially quickly pick up on the fact the McCanns were checking via the patio doors at the back and would understand these doors must be unlocked since they were re-entering.
T7 were not walking along the alley and through the garden gates. They were disappearing out of line of sight to the front of the block and entering through their front doors. I also believe the front doors were in a sort of alcove and looked over by other front doors the communal areas for stairs and the lift?
If any would be abductor wanted to whisk away any T7 child(ren) they would need to force entry to do so.
-
Do you spot the word “abduction “ in what I wrote?
“Everything preclude’s (sic) Madeleine dying in a fall off the balcony, lying there long enough to emit cadaver odour, being discovered, all within the 90 minutes her parents were away from the apartment, and with others checking on the apartment, plus all the other known facts”.
Now feel free to parse that sentence so it means what you think I said and we’ll take it from there.
This was my original question.
‘Why is abduction more likely ‘in the circumstances ‘ ? Even the AG couldn’t decide what was more likely.’
I kind of thought you might be addressing that....
-
This was my original question.
‘Why is abduction more likely ‘in the circumstances ‘ ? Even the AG couldn’t decide what was more likely.’
I kind of thought you might be addressing that....
I was addressing the post of yours I quoted, I would have thought you understood how forums work by now? The one in which you wrote
“So nothing precludes Madeleine falling from the balcony. In fact Eddie alerting under it is a positive indicator that that may be what happened.
And still not one single, solitary shred of evidence pointing to an abduction”.
-
I was addressing the post of yours I quoted, I would have thought you understood how forums work by now? The one in which you wrote
“So nothing precludes Madeleine falling from the balcony. In fact Eddie alerting under it is a positive indicator that that may be what happened.
And still not one single, solitary shred of evidence pointing to an abduction”.
We were talking about different likely scenarios.
There is nothing that precludes an accident having befallen Madeleine if you put aside the statements of non-independent witnesses. That’s what you are struggling with.
-
Moderation
I have this morning instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum. This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease. Posters who continue to flaunt the rules despite this warning will be subject to a ban without further notice.
-
We were talking about different likely scenarios.
There is nothing that precludes an accident having befallen Madeleine if you put aside the statements of non-independent witnesses. That’s what you are struggling with.
That is not what you’re suggesting though. What you are claiming is that nothing precludes Madeleine having a fatal accident after falling off the balcony, lying at the bottom of the steps for long enough to leave cadaver odour, being discovered by her father, being hidden by her father, then again half-an-hour later when he carried her uncoverered body to the other side of town because he remembered seeing a convenient bin there, chucking thr body in then coming back and getting his wife to raise the alarm. I think there are plenty of non-independent witness statements which make that scenario highly, highly unilkely.
-
That is not what you’re suggesting though. What you are claiming is that nothing precludes Madeleine having a fatal accident after falling off the balcony, lying at the bottom of the steps for long enough to leave cadaver odour, being discovered by her father, being hidden by her father, then again half-an-hour later when he carried her uncoverered body to the other side of town because he remembered seeing a convenient bin there, chucking thr body in then coming back and getting his wife to raise the alarm. I think there are plenty of non-independent witness statements which make that scenario highly, highly unilkely.
I think, to answer the initial question, it would appear that, due to the apartment apparently being left unlocked, the McCann's children were 'more vulnerable'. I understand that by creating the thread and posing the question you are demonstrating to us heathens that a window of opportunity did indeed exist, and that 'window' came to fruition for our abductor. Thus, by us admitting that their children were 'more vulnerable' we are, by default, admitting that the abduction is actually now more plausible to a degree.
Conversely, one could argue that, if one wanted it to appear that an abductor had been at work, then this 'window of opportunity' was required. It's at odds with the whole 'timeline' submission, but then that's explained by their reluctance to be cast in an unfavourable light by demonstrating wilful neglect.
I like typing these things out to straighten stuff out in my head, as I am convinced I am currently losing my memory - seriously.
-
That is not what you’re suggesting though. What you are claiming is that nothing precludes Madeleine having a fatal accident after falling off the balcony, lying at the bottom of the steps for long enough to leave cadaver odour, being discovered by her father, being hidden by her father, then again half-an-hour later when he carried her uncoverered body to the other side of town because he remembered seeing a convenient bin there, chucking thr body in then coming back and getting his wife to raise the alarm. I think there are plenty of non-independent witness statements which make that scenario highly, highly unilkely.
The only witnesses to Gerry being in the tapas at the approximate time of the Smith sighting are people who have a reason to be dishonest.
-
The only witnesses to Gerry being in the tapas at the approximate time of the Smith sighting are people who have a reason to be dishonest.
People such as...? A reason such as...?
-
I think, to answer the initial question, it would appear that, due to the apartment apparently being left unlocked, the McCann's children were 'more vulnerable'. I understand that by creating the thread and posing the question you are demonstrating to us heathens that a window of opportunity did indeed exist, and that 'window' came to fruition for our abductor. Thus, by us admitting that their children were 'more vulnerable' we are, by default, admitting that the abduction is actually now more plausible to a degree.
Conversely, one could argue that, if one wanted it to appear that an abductor had been at work, then this 'window of opportunity' was required. It's at odds with the whole 'timeline' submission, but then that's explained by their reluctance to be cast in an unfavourable light by demonstrating wilful neglect.
I like typing these things out to straighten stuff out in my head, as I am convinced I am currently losing my memory - seriously.
Actually I was inspired to start the thread by the strange logic of those who both believe the McCanns were extra irresponsible for leaving the door unlocked but who also scoff at the idea that anyone would be so foolish as to enter the unlocked apartment to take a child, to the point where they describe such a theory as “a pile of rubbish”.
-
The McCanns are castigated for leaving their kids alone to dine out at the Tapas restaurant but come in for extra criticism for doing so and leaving the patio door unlocked. Do people think this added to the risks facing the kids, and if so what were the additional risks?
Of course it does.
If I leave a door open here, there is a greater chance that someone can enter our level, go upstairs, and nick one of the grandkids.
We live in a rural backwater of the country. The McCanns resided on a junction of two roads. On top of that, according to Kate, she had her back to 5A, whilst Gerry would have had to have rubbernecked to observe it.
Shall I risk the wrath of the forum by describing the pair as thicko Britos? *%87
-
Of course it does.
If I leave a door open here, there is a greater chance that someone can enter our level, go upstairs, and nick one of the grandkids.
We live in a rural backwater of the country. The McCanns resided on a junction of two roads. On top of that, according to Kate, she had her back to 5A, whilst Gerry would have had to have rubbernecked to observe it.
Shall I risk the wrath of the forum by describing the pair as thicko Britos? *%87
As John has warned against goading comments then perhaps you shouldn’t risk it.
-
As John has warned against goading comments then perhaps you shouldn’t risk it.
Have you any reason to believe Kate or Gerry are members of this forum? It's difficult to goad those who are not.
*&(+(+
-
Of course it does.
If I leave a door open here, there is a greater chance that someone can enter our level, go upstairs, and nick one of the grandkids.
We live in a rural backwater of the country. The McCanns resided on a junction of two roads. On top of that, according to Kate, she had her back to 5A, whilst Gerry would have had to have rubbernecked to observe it.
Shall I risk the wrath of the forum by describing the pair as thicko Britos? *%87
You certainly should if you wish but don't be surprised that the mccanns were not interested in opening a dialogue with you
-
Have you any reason to believe Kate or Gerry are members of this forum? It's difficult to goad those who are not.
*&(+(+
It was more your use of the phrase "thicko Britos", which taken in conjunction with other anti British sentiment you have used in the past could be construed as offensive to people of British ethnicity. You yourself perceived that wrath may be caused yet you felt it worth the risk, I would suggest you knew your statment was inflammatory before you posted it.
-
It was more your use of the phrase "thicko Britos", which taken in conjunction with other anti British sentiment you have used in the past could be construed as offensive to people of British ethnicity. You yourself perceived that wrath may be caused yet you felt it worth the risk, I would suggest you knew your statment was inflammatory before you posted it.
But is anyone really bothered what sil happens to think
-
But is anyone really bothered what sil happens to think
No, I was just pointing out his flagrant disregard of John's instructions to avoid making inflammatory posts by making a post that he himself thought might risk incurring "wrath". I was only trying to be helpful. 8**8:/:
-
But is anyone really bothered what sil happens to think
OK, that's two of the trinity.
The third seems to be lagging behind.
(&^&
-
No, I was just pointing out his flagrant disregard of John's instructions to avoid making inflammatory posts by making a post that he himself thought might risk incurring "wrath". I was only trying to be helpful. 8**8:/:
I don't know why sil should imagine he would incur the wrath of the forum... As I said I doubt anyone really cares
-
OK, that's two of the trinity.
The third seems to be lagging behind.
(&^&
Clear goading.
-
But is anyone really bothered what sil happens to think
I would nearly go so far as calling that comment "sniping". I think we are going to take some time to get used to this new rule.
-
I don't know why sil should imagine he would incur the wrath of the forum... As I said I doubt anyone really cares
You are forgetting about the perception of the moderators. It is how we perceive the words, I personally can't tell what sort of response it will have and I'm not just going to react to those who "throw a Hollywood".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10846.msg541153#msg541153 is what I'd perceive to be a Hollywood response.
-
I would nearly go so far as calling that comment "sniping". I think we are going to take some time to get used to this new rule.
I disagree... I'm sure sil doesn't care what I think...sil made a claim hat what he said might upset the forum...i simply replied taht I wasnt particularly bothered what he said...it doesnt upset me..
-
It was more your use of the phrase "thicko Britos", which taken in conjunction with other anti British sentiment you have used in the past could be construed as offensive to people of British ethnicity. You yourself perceived that wrath may be caused yet you felt it worth the risk, I would suggest you knew your statment was inflammatory before you posted it.
I’m not offended and I’m British. You and your ilk imply lack of intellect in sceptics all the time.
-
I disagree... I'm sure sil doesn't care what I think...sil made a claim hat what he said might upset the forum...i simply replied taht I wasnt particularly bothered what he said...it doesnt upset me..
It is no longer about what you or anyone else may perceive how anyone responds to a comment.
"But is anyone really bothered what sil happens to think"
are you saying "But am I really bothered what sil happens to think"
Now you have to be aware "But is a moderator really bothered that I don't care what sil happens to think".
-
It is no longer about what you or anyone else may perceive how anyone responds to a comment.
"But is anyone really bothered what sil happens to think"
are you saying "But am I really bothered what sil happens to think"
Now you have to be aware "But is a moderator really bothered that I don't care what sil happens to think".
I think you are not making much sense...but Im not really bothered...hows that
-
I think you are not making much sense...but Im not really bothered...hows that
I was thinking of going back to bed.
-
I’m not offended and I’m British. You and your ilk imply lack of intellect in sceptics all the time.
a) No I don't and b) many sceptics are not British anyway. Strange comment. But come to think of it "Thicko Sceptico" does have a ring to it. @)(++(*
-
a) No I don't and b) many sceptics are not British anyway. Strange comment. But come to think of it "Thicko Sceptico" does have a ring to it. @)(++(*
Watch it! No sniping. "Thicko Sceptico" will be definitely offensive to some sceptics IMO.
-
a) No I don't and b) many sceptics are not British anyway. Strange comment. But come to think of it "Thicko Sceptico" does have a ring to it. @)(++(*
AFAIK, Kate and Gerry are British.
Is that correct? *%87
-
Watch it! No sniping. "Thicko Sceptico" will be definitely offensive to some sceptics IMO.
Nah, I don't believe it. Water off a sceptic's back, hard as nails, nothing offends them, ever.
-
AFAIK, Kate and Gerry are British.
Is that correct? *%87
Yes I believe they are. And your point is? *%87
-
For the record, as a British person I am VERY offended by xenophobic slurs against my ethnicity, implying that Brits are thick. Therefore can the Mods please ensure that such disgusting comments are removed from the forum forthwith. I would not get away with "Thicko Portugueso" so let's have some even-handedness for a change.
-
Nah, I don't believe it. Water off a sceptic's back, hard as nails, nothing offends them, ever.
I'm actually harder than that.
-
I'm actually harder than that.
You're a diamond.
-
Yes I believe they are. And your point is? *%87
Then thicko Britos is accurate. &^^&*
-
Then thicko Britos is accurate. &^^&*
No it's not accurate, it's an opinion and an insult. Is it accurate to state that Amaral a Thicko Portugueso?
-
Then thicko Britos is accurate. &^^&*
Are there any thicko Portueguesos?
-
Are there any thicko Portueguesos?
Yes, of course there are.
There are also sardine-munchers. The topic of next year's Portuguese sardine quota turns up in the news every single year.
And a lot more.
But we also get regular news of thicko Britos turning up in Portugal and acting like boors.
A complete stain on Britain.
-
Yes, of course there are.
There are also sardine-munchers. The topic of next year's Portuguese sardine quota turns up in the news every single year.
And a lot more.
But we also get regular news of thicko Britos turning up in Portugal and acting like boors.
A complete stain on Britain.
You're just falling for the xenophobic propaganda churned out by Thicko Portugueso Journalistos.
-
Yes, of course there are.
There are also sardine-munchers. The topic of next year's Portuguese sardine quota turns up in the news every single year.
And a lot more.
But we also get regular news of thicko Britos turning up in Portugal and acting like boors.
A complete stain on Britain.
But yet they are welcomed with open arms.
Fortunately we holiday in Italy.
A country which seems to attract a different type of British holidaymaker.
-
Yes, of course there are.
There are also sardine-munchers. The topic of next year's Portuguese sardine quota turns up in the news every single year.
And a lot more.
But we also get regular news of thicko Britos turning up in Portugal and acting like boors.
A complete stain on Britain.
I'm sure all those who lost their jobs at the OC are glad to see the back of the Brits.... And we were supposed to feel sory for them
-
Yes, of course there are.
There are also sardine-munchers. The topic of next year's Portuguese sardine quota turns up in the news every single year.
And a lot more.
But we also get regular news of thicko Britos turning up in Portugal and acting like boors.
A complete stain on Britain.
Just think without those thicko Brits.. And the Scots... Saving Europe from Hitler... The EEC would be a very different place now...
-
You're just falling for the xenophobic propaganda churned out by Thicko Portugueso Journalistos.
Would that be as opposed to the Thicko Brito media, who never told a lie, but got their collective arses sued off?
(&^&
-
What's the title of the thread...
-
I think the fragrant Lilly is having another pop at you because of your age. Bullying a senior citizen in other words. But she is a kind girl really.
It was a joke I was once told....but you supporters don’t really have a sense of humour that isn’t emoji based, do you ?
Anyhooooo knowing Erngath I’m sure she’s thrown better than me out of the fight trying to get in.
-
It was a joke I was once told....but you supporters don’t really have a sense of humour that isn’t emoji based, do you ?
Anyhooooo knowing Erngath I’m sure she’s thrown better than me out of the fight trying to get in.
Rubbish... I've git the best since of humour by fur
-
Rubbish... I've git the best since of humour by fur
Yeah, sure you have @)(++(*
-
It was a joke I was once told....but you supporters don’t really have a sense of humour that isn’t emoji based, do you ?
Anyhooooo knowing Erngath I’m sure she’s thrown better than me out of the fight trying to get in.
I recognized that it was a joke, and if it hadn’t been directed at someone you are continually attack simply for the crime of being old and a McCann supporter I might have thought it vaguely amusing. As it was, it came across as just another spiteful insult.
-
I recognized that it was a joke, and if it hadn’t been directed at someone you are continually attack simply for the crime of being old and a McCann supporter I might have thought it vaguely amusing. As it was, it came across as just another spiteful insult.
I thought it was a reference to the French castigating the Italian cuisine. I typed this earlier, but, bizarrely, it was deleted. Mods going all deletey on totally harmless posts.
-
I thought it was a reference to the French castigating the Italian cuisine. I typed this earlier, but, bizarrely, it was deleted. Mods going all deletey on totally harmless posts.
deleted as my original post was MODified and the meaning altered.
-
I recognized that it was a joke, and if it hadn’t been directed at someone you are continually attack simply for the crime of being old and a McCann supporter I might have thought it vaguely amusing. As it was, it came across as just another spiteful insult.
I’m not sure Erngath would thank you for calling her old. It’s hardly gentlemanly.
-
No, perhaps you haven’t posted here long enough to realise she is a kind girl really.
I’m beginning to suspect that you’re a teeny bit in love with me 8**8:/:
-
I’m beginning to suspect that you’re a teeny bit in love with me 8**8:/:
I know how you feel.
I've long suspected that Wonderfulspam has the same feelings towards me. 8**8:/:
-
I’m not sure Erngath would thank you for calling her old. It’s hardly gentlemanly.
I’m not a gentleman, so hardly surprising, however if Erngarth was upset by my post I apologise to her. The irony is I don’t think her age has any relevance to any of the discussions on this forum, and yet you seem intent on using it as ammunition against her. Why? It’s crass IMO.
-
I’m beginning to suspect that you’re a teeny bit in love with me 8**8:/:
Why do you suspect that? I think this shows how very wrong your suspicions can be, tbh.
-
I’m not a gentleman, so hardly surprising, however if Erngarth was upset by my post I apologise to her. The irony is I don’t think her age has any relevance to any of the discussions on this forum, and yet you seem intent on using it as ammunition against her. Why? It’s crass IMO.
Erngath seems quite at herself. I’m sure she doesn’t need you to fight her battles.
-
I’m not a gentleman, so hardly surprising, however if Erngarth was upset by my post I apologise to her. The irony is I don’t think her age has any relevance to any of the discussions on this forum, and yet you seem intent on using it as ammunition against her. Why? It’s crass IMO.
Behave!
No need to apologize.
You have never ever been guilty of ageism.
-
Erngath seems quite at herself. I’m sure she doesn’t need you to fight her battles.
As a target of your ageist claptrap myself in the past I have every right to call you out on it. I’m sure you wouldn’t approve of scornful remarks about the disabled or the LGBT community would you? Time to move on now, hopefully you will be a little less scornful towards people based on characteristics over which they have no control, and I’m not referring to their bladders or bowels.
-
Erngath seems quite at herself. I’m sure she doesn’t need you to fight her battles.
No, every now and then it's quite nice to have someone to support one in one's battles
But at this moment I have a glass of Glavya and hubby has a glass of malt and we are both listening to the King of Rock and Roll.
So Cheers!
-
As a target of your ageist claptrap myself in the past I have every right to call you out on it. I’m sure you wouldn’t approve of scornful remarks about the disabled or the LGBT community would you? Time to move on now, hopefully you will be a little less scornful towards people based on characteristics over which they have no control, and I’m not referring to their bladders or bowels.
Agreed.xx
-
No, every now and then it's quite nice to have someone to support one in one's battles
But at this moment I have a glass of Glavya and hubby has a glass of malt and we are both listening to the King of Rock and Roll.
So Cheers!
And quite right too.
-
As a target of your ageist claptrap myself in the past I have every right to call you out on it. I’m sure you wouldn’t approve of scornful remarks about the disabled or the LGBT community would you? Time to move on now, hopefully you will be a little less scornful towards people based on characteristics over which they have no control, and I’m not referring to their bladders or bowels.
And for that we can only be thankful.
-
As a target of your ageist claptrap myself in the past I have every right to call you out on it. I’m sure you wouldn’t approve of scornful remarks about the disabled or the LGBT community would you? Time to move on now, hopefully you will be a little less scornful towards people based on characteristics over which they have no control, and I’m not referring to their bladders or bowels.
It's actually quite revealing how ageism has not been included in any right not to be discriminated against.
-
For the record, as a British person I am VERY offended by xenophobic slurs against my ethnicity, implying that Brits are thick. Therefore can the Mods please ensure that such disgusting comments are removed from the forum forthwith. I would not get away with "Thicko Portugueso" so let's have some even-handedness for a change.
Can you define for the forum what defines a British person please? There is the English, Scottish Welsh and Irish who make up the United Kingdom.
-
No it's not accurate, it's an opinion and an insult. Is it accurate to state that Amaral a Thicko Portugueso?
The problem appears to be the work "thicko" or any variant of that.
-
Could you all please post on topic otherwise off topic comments will be deleted.
-
The forum appears to recognise the risk of unwanted intruders if you leave your holiday apartment unlocked yet at least half the forum also appears to believe an abduction is virtually impossible because of the timeline, yet these very same doubters also appear to believe that the timeline vastly overstates the number of checks, so as I see it this logic poses a bit of a conundrum.
-
The forum appears to recognise the risk of unwanted intruders if you leave your holiday apartment unlocked yet at least half the forum also appears to believe an abduction is virtually impossible because of the timeline, yet these very same doubters also appear to believe that the timeline vastly overstates the number of checks, so as I see it this logic poses a bit of a conundrum.
IN MY OPINION - The group were between a rock and a hard place. Not enough checks and they heightened the chance of being charged with neglect, too many and the window of opportunity was too small. While only the McCanns benefited from a longer window of opportunity for the abduction , the whole group benefited from more checks....so more checks it was IN MY OPINION.
[Opinion as fact: statements like these are liable for deletion unless they are fact. These are obviously opinion so make that clear..]
-
The group were between a rock and a hard place. Not enough checks and they heightened the chance of being charged with neglect, too many and the window of opportunity was too small. While only the McCanns benefited from a longer window of opportunity for the abduction , the whole group benefited from more checks....so more checks it was.
The McCanns "benefited" from a longer window of opportunity for the abduction by having their child abducted. Nice. Which of the checks are you thinking never actually happened then?
Here you go
20:35 McCanns leave 5A and go to Tapas
20:40 Jane Tanner arrives followed by the Oldfields.
20:45 Russell O'Brien arrives
20:55 Matthew Oldfield back to apartments, meets the Payne/Webster on their way down.
21:00 Matt returns to Tapas
21:05 Gerry goes to the apartments.
21:15 Jane goes to the apartments; Gerry is chatting to Jez.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
21:30 Matt checks 5A.
21:35 Matt to Tapas.
21:40 Jane goes to her apartment.
21:45 Russelll to Tapas.
22.00 Kate McCann to apartment
-
The McCanns "benefited" from a longer window of opportunity for the abduction by having their child abducted. Nice. Which of the checks are you thinking never actually happened then?
Here you go
20:35 McCanns leave 5A and go to Tapas
20:40 Jane Tanner arrives followed by the Oldfields.
20:45 Russell O'Brien arrives
20:55 Matthew Oldfield back to apartments, meets the Payne/Webster on their way down.
21:00 Matt returns to Tapas
21:05 Gerry goes to the apartments.
21:15 Jane goes to the apartments; Gerry is chatting to Jez.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
21:30 Matt checks 5A.
21:35 Matt to Tapas.
21:40 Jane goes to her apartment.
21:45 Russelll to Tapas.
22.00 Kate McCann to apartment
I think both Matt and Gerry left the table at 20.55 and Gerry did the check, not Matt. When Diane Webster arrived at the tapas around 9 she said she didn’t remember Matt or Gerry being there... “That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21:00, in the company of the PAYNE couple.
- That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and MATT had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group.
-
I think both Matt and Gerry left the table at 20.55 and Gerry did the check, not Matt. When Diane Webster arrived at the tapas around 9 she said she didn’t remember Matt or Gerry being there... “That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21:00, in the company of the PAYNE couple.
- That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and MATT had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group.
Where do you think Matt went then? Is that the only check you believe to be a lie?
-
Where do you think Matt went then? Is that the only check you believe to be a lie?
I believe he checked on his own children, just not the McCann’s children.
-
The forum appears to recognise the risk of unwanted intruders if you leave your holiday apartment unlocked yet at least half the forum also appears to believe an abduction is virtually impossible because of the timeline, yet these very same doubters also appear to believe that the timeline vastly overstates the number of checks, so as I see it this logic poses a bit of a conundrum.
Nobody can prove the aoartment was left unlocked or how frequent the checks were. If the apartment was unlocked then the risk of intrusion existed, but equally so did the risk of a child getting out. The reported frequency of the checks diminishes the possibility of both imo. The conundrum was created solely by the T9. All anyone else can do is highlight it.
-
I believe he checked on his own children, just not the McCann’s children.
And that's it?
-
Nobody can prove the aoartment was left unlocked or how frequent the checks were. If the apartment was unlocked then the risk of intrusion existed, but equally so did the risk of a child getting out. The reported frequency of the checks diminishes the possibility of both imo. The conundrum was created solely by the T9. All anyone else can do is highlight it.
IMO the conundrum exists because sceptics want their cake and eat it. They want the McCanns and their friends to be neglectful and not to be doing frequent checks, they want there to be no opportunity in the timeline for an abductor to enter the apartment, they want to heap extra criticism on the McCanns for giving a putuative abductor extra opportunity to strike by leaving the door unlocked. There is no conundrum created by the Tapas group's version of events IMO.
-
And that's it?
I also believe that Matt did not do the 9.30 check either. That was Gerry.
-
I also believe that Matt did not do the 9.30 check either. That was Gerry.
OK thanks. Let's face it, this plan couldnt have been executed without the full cooperation of all 7 friends so it appears you believe they all conspired to cover up. The next question is - why would they all do that?
-
Please follow forum rules and avoid any potentially accusatory remarks.
-
Please follow forum rules and avoid any potentially accusatory remarks.
What accusatory remark did I make that hadn't already been made?
-
Please follow forum rules and avoid any potentially accusatory remarks.
Forum rules.were broken by Faithlilly making an unpleasant accusation to me.
Can I ask why her post has not been removed?
Carllymichelles unpleasant post has been removed.
-
Forum rules.were broken by Faithlilly making an unpleasant accusation to me.
Can I ask why her post has not been removed?
Carllymichelles unpleasant post has been removed.
What unpleasant accusation?
-
What unpleasant accusation?
You seem to believe that all the Tapas Group covered up Gerry's covert check at 9.30pm - please explain why you think they would do this?
-
You seem to believe that all the Tapas Group covered up Gerry's covert check at 9.30pm - please explain why you think they would do this?
Must have missed this. Is there more ?
-
IMO the conundrum exists because sceptics want their cake and eat it. They want the McCanns and their friends to be neglectful and not to be doing frequent checks, they want there to be no opportunity in the timeline for an abductor to enter the apartment, they want to heap extra criticism on the McCanns for giving a putuative abductor extra opportunity to strike by leaving the door unlocked. There is no conundrum created by the Tapas group's version of events IMO.
IMO, supporters want their cake and eat it, stringent checking yet still a hypothetical window of opportunity.
-
The forum appears to recognise the risk of unwanted intruders if you leave your holiday apartment unlocked yet at least half the forum also appears to believe an abduction is virtually impossible because of the timeline, yet these very same doubters also appear to believe that the timeline vastly overstates the number of checks, so as I see it this logic poses a bit of a conundrum.
Luckily we have an independent witness who proved that the checking regime was exaggerated.
-
IMO, supporters want their cake and eat it, stringent checking yet still a hypothetical window of opportunity.
Which the timeline amply demonstrates. At least 10 minutes in fact.
-
Luckily we have an independent witness who proved that the checking regime was exaggerated.
Who is that? Cite please.
-
Must have missed this. Is there more ?
What do you mean?
-
What do you mean?
You mention Gerry doing a covert 9.30 visit. Post 133
I wondered where that came from
-
You mention Gerry doing a 9.30 visit.
Faithlilly claims he did.