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: gilet on June 03, 2013, 01:54:12 PM
-
@ gilet
From Madeleine :
'It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.'
So in Kate's rather strange, responsibility free mind, it was not her and her feckless husband who put their children in danger but, and please note her absolutely hypocritical horror, the poor receptionist who made them vulnerable by the leaving of a note in the staff message book.
Priceless !!
As I said this would be better in its own thread rather than being used to disrupt a thread on an entirely different topic.
There is nothing hypocritical or strange about Kate McCann commenting on such a security breach.
If I went into a restaurant and saw that my full name and address was visible to every other diner then I would be appalled at the fact that others could recognise that I was not at home at that time.
This security breach could indeed have contributed to the lack of safety of the children by exposing them to abduction.
The McCanns have openly admitted their error of judgement. It is not hypocritical to then expose the fact that the restaurant itself could also have contributed to an abduction.
I really cannot understand how you think it is hypocritical to expose such a blatant security breach.
-
@ gilet
From Madeleine :
'It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.'
So in Kate's rather strange, responsibility free mind, it was not her and her feckless husband who put their children in danger but, and please note her absolutely hypocritical horror, the poor receptionist who made them vulnerable by the leaving of a note in the staff message book.
Priceless !!
As I said this would be better in its own thread rather than being used to disrupt a thread on an entirely different topic.
There is nothing hypocritical or strange about Kate McCann commenting on such a security breach.
If I went into a restaurant and saw that my full name and address was visible to every other diner then I would be appalled at the fact that others could recognise that I was not at home at that time.
This security breach could indeed have contributed to the lack of safety of the children by exposing them to abduction.
The McCanns have openly admitted their error of judgement. It is not hypocritical to then expose the fact that the restaurant itself could also have contributed to an abduction.
I really cannot understand how you think it is hypocritical to expose such a blatant security breach.
That's a bit like saying I've not got heart disease because I've smoked twenty a day for fifty years but because they didn't put health warning on the cigarette packets.
It's the kind of nonsense argument made by someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions.
-
That's a bit like saying I've not got heart disease because I've smoked twenty a day for fifty years but because they didn't put health warning on the cigarette packets.
It's the kind of nonsense argument made by someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions.
Absolutely not.
Are you saying health warnings should not be put on cigarettes? Are you saying it is perfectly acceptable for restaurants to leave very personal information available to all and sundry with the possible security implications?
Or what is your point.
Because Kate McCann recognises this security issue which you seem to fail to recognise does not make her wrong.
It makes her absolutely right and you wrong in my opinion. This was a blatant breach of confidential information with potentially dire implications.
Why are you apparently defending people who expose children to danger in this way?
I really cannot see any objection to Kate McCann pointing out that the reference on that booking sheet was clearly dangerous to her children.
Your guess that she is exposing this for the reason you suggest is simply your opinion. It is not mine though because I think such security breaches should be exposed.
-
Why are you apparently defending people who expose children to danger in this way?
*****
Oh the irony
So leaving an open apartment accessable to all and sundry is NOT lapse in security
So telling complete strangers in the restaraunt and elsewhere what they were doing is NOT lapse in security
So leaving three babies alone out of ear and eyeshot is NOT exposing them to danger of any kind whatsoever
The brass neck of some, too funny for words, the blame shifting in this case is too staggering for words
BOI
So you continually lie about having me on ignore. Why am I not surprised?
And you post a very rude term to me.
Why am I not surprised.
It is rather early, don't you think for your abuse to begin.
As for the rest of your comment. There is nothing ironical in expressing concern about a security lapse on the part of the restaurant staff.
The McCanns have admitted their mistakes.
However that does NOT excuse the restaurant for their lapse.
-
Blah Blah, its up to me and me only when I decide when to read and respond to blocked people,whenever the fancy takes me, and what rude term is that then? your wailing of *abuse* at every poster who disagrees with you here is so terribly tiresome, when you engage in the most awful abuse yourself, calling people liars with your knee jerk bile filled reactions, how many of those posts have you made today? Did you count? You have been on here all day posting negativity hour on hour on hour
It is just that you have proclaimed to this forum on at least two occasions that you have me on ignore. Therefore you have lied. When people lie about little things....
It is up to me as and when I post and only me. It is absolutely none of your business.
There is nothing negative about making it very clear that people like Icabodcrane cannot back up his claim about Kennedy, that Matthew Wyse does not know that there is no police station in PDL and that he cannot back up his claim about security escorts. There is nothing negative about my laughing at your frantic back pedalling.
And why am I not surprised that your only comment is a blather of abuse towards me while you ignore the very valid point I made regarding the security flaw in the restaurant?
-
It truly beggars belief that Faithlilly and Redblossom cannot understand that the security breach at the Restaurant could have contributed to the abduction.
-
That's a bit like saying I've not got heart disease because I've smoked twenty a day for fifty years but because they didn't put health warning on the cigarette packets.
It's the kind of nonsense argument made by someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions.
Absolutely not.
Are you saying health warnings should not be put on cigarettes? Are you saying it is perfectly acceptable for restaurants to leave very personal information available to all and sundry with the possible security implications?
Or what is your point.
Because Kate McCann recognises this security issue which you seem to fail to recognise does not make her wrong.
It makes her absolutely right and you wrong in my opinion. This was a blatant breach of confidential information with potentially dire implications.
Why are you apparently defending people who expose children to danger in this way?
I really cannot see any objection to Kate McCann pointing out that the reference on that booking sheet was clearly dangerous to her children.
Your guess that she is exposing this for the reason you suggest is simply your opinion. It is not mine though because I think such security breaches should be exposed.
The receptionist was not responsible for the security of Madeleine and her siblings, her feckless parents were and while I realise that must be an atrocious burden of guilt for any parent to bare and also understand the temptation to try and dilute that guilt there is no getting away from the fact that if the McCanns had been looking after their children in their apartment as the should have been, their children would not have been in any danger, receptionist note or no receptionist note.
-
Blah Blah, its up to me and me only when I decide when to read and respond to blocked people,whenever the fancy takes me, and what rude term is that then? your wailing of *abuse* at every poster who disagrees with you here is so terribly tiresome, when you engage in the most awful abuse yourself, calling people liars with your knee jerk bile filled reactions, how many of those posts have you made today? Did you count? You have been on here all day posting negativity hour on hour on hour
It is just that you have proclaimed to this forum on at least two occasions that you have me on ignore. Therefore you have lied. When people lie about little things....
It is up to me as and when I post and only me. It is absolutely none of your business.
There is nothing negative about making it very clear that people like Icabodcrane cannot back up his claim about Kennedy, that Matthew Wyse does not know that there is no police station in PDL and that he cannot back up his claim about security escorts. There is nothing negative about my laughing at your frantic back pedalling.
And why am I not surprised that your only comment is a blather of abuse towards me while you ignore the very valid point I made regarding the security flaw in the restaurant?
Blah Blah, throwing dummy out now are we with irrelevancies? care to explain the horrid term I used to refer to you? interesting ommission
No omission on my part. I referred the matter to Admin rather than deal with you who I now know to be a liar. The abuse is still in your post for all to see.
-
to my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence
doesn't sound like a bad accusation or passing the book to me.
-
It truly beggars belief that Faithlilly and Redblossom cannot understand that the security breach at the Restaurant could have contributed to the abduction.
Yes, it could have been a contributing factor, though as the AG pointed out, nobody could have foreseen that somebody would abduct a child from the resort & that must also include the staff at the restaurant.
-
That's a bit like saying I've not got heart disease because I've smoked twenty a day for fifty years but because they didn't put health warning on the cigarette packets.
It's the kind of nonsense argument made by someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions.
Absolutely not.
Are you saying health warnings should not be put on cigarettes? Are you saying it is perfectly acceptable for restaurants to leave very personal information available to all and sundry with the possible security implications?
Or what is your point.
Because Kate McCann recognises this security issue which you seem to fail to recognise does not make her wrong.
It makes her absolutely right and you wrong in my opinion. This was a blatant breach of confidential information with potentially dire implications.
Why are you apparently defending people who expose children to danger in this way?
I really cannot see any objection to Kate McCann pointing out that the reference on that booking sheet was clearly dangerous to her children.
Your guess that she is exposing this for the reason you suggest is simply your opinion. It is not mine though because I think such security breaches should be exposed.
The receptionist was not responsible for the security of Madeleine and her siblings, her feckless parents were and while I realise that must be an atrocious burden of guilt for any parent to bare and also understand the temptation to try and dilute that guilt there is no getting away from the fact that if the McCanns had been looking after their children in their apartment as the should have been, their children would not have been in any danger, receptionist note or no receptionist note.
I never said that the parents were not responsible. They have freely admitted this fact.
The fact that you still refuse to acknowledge that the security flaw at the restaurant was both wrong and could have been a contributory factor to an abduction is very revealing of your mindset.
Just because the parents were in part to blame does not mean that others did not play a part.
The fact is that the quotation you posted refers to a serious breach of protocol and security on the part of the restaurant.
I gave the parallel example earlier of a restaurant having diner's addresses on view for all to see. Should the diner be robbed because of such a security breach the logic of your one-sided argument is that the robbery is the fault of the diner and the restaurant bears no responsibility whatsoever because the diner should in fact have been at home.
As I said it beggars belief.
-
It truly beggars belief that Faithlilly and Redblossom cannot understand that the security breach at the Restaurant could have contributed to the abduction.
Then provide the note and evidence of when and where it was displayed
-
That's a bit like saying I've not got heart disease because I've smoked twenty a day for fifty years but because they didn't put health warning on the cigarette packets.
It's the kind of nonsense argument made by someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions.
Absolutely not.
Are you saying health warnings should not be put on cigarettes? Are you saying it is perfectly acceptable for restaurants to leave very personal information available to all and sundry with the possible security implications?
Or what is your point.
Because Kate McCann recognises this security issue which you seem to fail to recognise does not make her wrong.
It makes her absolutely right and you wrong in my opinion. This was a blatant breach of confidential information with potentially dire implications.
Why are you apparently defending people who expose children to danger in this way?
I really cannot see any objection to Kate McCann pointing out that the reference on that booking sheet was clearly dangerous to her children.
Your guess that she is exposing this for the reason you suggest is simply your opinion. It is not mine though because I think such security breaches should be exposed.
The receptionist was not responsible for the security of Madeleine and her siblings, her feckless parents were and while I realise that must be an atrocious burden of guilt for any parent to bare and also understand the temptation to try and dilute that guilt there is no getting away from the fact that if the McCanns had been looking after their children in their apartment as the should have been, their children would not have been in any danger, receptionist note or no receptionist note.
I never said that the parents were not responsible. They have freely admitted this fact.
The fact that you still refuse to acknowledge that the security flaw at the restaurant was both wrong and could have been a contributory factor to an abduction is very revealing of your mindset.
Just because the parents were in part to blame does not mean that others did not play a part.
The fact is that the quotation you posted refers to a serious breach of protocol and security on the part of the restaurant.
I gave the parallel example earlier of a restaurant having diner's addresses on view for all to see. Should the diner be robbed because of such a security breach the logic of your one-sided argument is that the robbery is the fault of the diner and the restaurant bears no responsibility whatsoever because the diner should in fact have been at home.
As I said it beggars belief.
We have no verification that either guests or visitors had access to the book simply Kate's assumption that they may have had and as she also assumed that three small children would be safe in a dark, unlocked apartment with access to a main road I think I'll be forgiven for questioning her judgement on that one too.
-
to my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence
doesn't sound like a bad accusation or passing the book to me.
no different to suggesting creche staff drugged madeleine duriing the day and thats why she was so tired
-
We have no verification that either guests or visitors had access to the book simply Kate's assumption that they may have had and as she also assumed that three small children would be safe in a dark, unlocked apartment with access to a main road I think I'll be forgiven for questioning her judgement on that one too.
The evidence is clear enough in the book itself. If other diners did not have access then certainly all the staff did. That in itself is bad enough.
If you wish to discuss the other point please have the decency to open a new thread to do so because it is not what this thread is about.
-
Mark Warner Employment Policies
[part of contract states]
A non-exclusive list of examples of gross misconduct is set out below:
*Theft;
*Damage to Mark Warner's and/or clients’ and/or staff property;
*Fraud;
*Incapacity for work due to being under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
*Possession, use, supply or attempted supply of illegal drugs;
*Actual or threatened violence, or behaviour which provokes violence;
*Harassment;
*Gross insubordination;
*Conviction of any criminal offence other than summary driving offences;
*Unauthorised absence;
*Damage to your accommodation by you or your unauthorised visitors;
*Serious misuse of our property or name
*Deliberately accessing internet sites containing pornographic, offensive or obscene material
*Unlawful discrimination or harassment
*Bringing Mark Warner into serious disrepute
*Causing loss, damage or injury through serious negligence
*Serious breach of health and safety rules
*Unauthorised use or disclosure of confidential information or failure to ensure that confidential
*information in your possession is kept secure
*Showing physical affection towards guests, clients, suppliers or other members of staff on or off duty and
in or outside of resort
*Showing physical affection towards any guests under the age of 18 years old
*Harassment or discrimination against employees, contractors, clients or members of the public on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, marital or civil partner status, gender reassignment, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, disability, religion or belief, or age contrary to our Equal Opportunities Policy
*Giving false information as to qualifications or entitlement to work (including immigration status)
*Unauthorised entry into an area of the premises to which access is prohibited
*Providing any services to guests or other members of staff for your own financial gain. This includes selling items that have been purchased or produced by yourself or through other members of staff.
*Breach of Electronics Communication Policy
*Acting in the capacity of a Ski Instructor (Winter only)
We discover that you have found to be skiing off piste with guests and/or in your MW uniform (Winter only)
-
to my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence
doesn't sound like a bad accusation or passing the book to me.
no different to suggesting creche staff drugged madeleine duriing the day and thats why she was so tired
I think you are sick - go away
-
We have no verification that either guests or visitors had access to the book simply Kate's assumption that they may have had and as she also assumed that three small children would be safe in a dark, unlocked apartment with access to a main road I think I'll be forgiven for questioning her judgement on that one too.
The evidence is clear enough in the book itself. If other diners did not have access then certainly all the staff did. That in itself is bad enough.
If you wish to discuss the other point please have the decency to open a new thread to do so because it is not what this thread is about.
Staff needed to access to it . That is not a breach of security. What next ? The cleaners not having access to the apartments just in case after cleaning they lie in wait and murder guests in their beds ! @)(++(*
-
We have no verification that either guests or visitors had access to the book simply Kate's assumption that they may have had and as she also assumed that three small children would be safe in a dark, unlocked apartment with access to a main road I think I'll be forgiven for questioning her judgement on that one too.
The evidence is clear enough in the book itself. If other diners did not have access then certainly all the staff did. That in itself is bad enough.
If you wish to discuss the other point please have the decency to open a new thread to do so because it is not what this thread is about.
Staff needed to access to it . That is not a breach of security. What next ? The cleaners not having access to the apartments just in case after cleaning they lie in wait and murder guests in their beds ! @)(++(*
The staff have a responsibility to keep all client information in their possession secure. Leaving a bookings book, for example, open on a counter is not keeping client information in their possession secure. It could well be described as a security breach.
-
We have no verification that either guests or visitors had access to the book simply Kate's assumption that they may have had and as she also assumed that three small children would be safe in a dark, unlocked apartment with access to a main road I think I'll be forgiven for questioning her judgement on that one too.
The evidence is clear enough in the book itself. If other diners did not have access then certainly all the staff did. That in itself is bad enough.
If you wish to discuss the other point please have the decency to open a new thread to do so because it is not what this thread is about.
Staff needed to access to it . That is not a breach of security. What next ? The cleaners not having access to the apartments just in case after cleaning they lie in wait and murder guests in their beds ! @)(++(*
The staff have a responsibility to keep all client information in their possession secure. Leaving a bookings book, for example, open on a counter is not keeping client information in their possession secure. It could well be described as a security breach.
We have no real idea where the book was kept. As the entry about leaving the children alone was only seen by Kate when she received the files it seems reasonable to assume it wasn't kept somewhere where the general public had access to it.
-
We have no verification that either guests or visitors had access to the book simply Kate's assumption that they may have had and as she also assumed that three small children would be safe in a dark, unlocked apartment with access to a main road I think I'll be forgiven for questioning her judgement on that one too.
The evidence is clear enough in the book itself. If other diners did not have access then certainly all the staff did. That in itself is bad enough.
If you wish to discuss the other point please have the decency to open a new thread to do so because it is not what this thread is about.
Staff needed to access to it . That is not a breach of security. What next ? The cleaners not having access to the apartments just in case after cleaning they lie in wait and murder guests in their beds ! @)(++(*
The staff have a responsibility to keep all client information in their possession secure. Leaving a bookings book, for example, open on a counter is not keeping client information in their possession secure. It could well be described as a security breach.
We have no real idea where the book was kept. As the entry about leaving the children alone was only seen by Kate when she received the files it seems reasonable to assume it wasn't kept somewhere where the general public had access to it.
"KATE MCCANN believes a note in a restaurant reservation book led to her daughter Madeleine's abduction, she has revealed.
The three-year-old was snatched from the family's holiday apartment in Portugal while the McCanns and their friends dined in a tapas bar.
But Kate's request to book a table near the apartments because the group's children would be alone inside was written on a reservation book left in full view of the public." - Daily Record 09 May 2011
Article: Madeleine McCann: Note in restaurant reservation book may have tipped off kidnapper, reveals mum Kate
ETA
"In her book Madeleine, she recalled: "This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too.
"To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence, the receptionist had added that we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."
Kate discovered the blunder while reviewing Portuguese police case files after their investigation was shelved."
-
We have no real idea where the book was kept. As the entry about leaving the children alone was only seen by Kate when she received the files it seems reasonable to assume it wasn't kept somewhere where the general public had access to it.
You really do like to assume things don't you.
I don't see that as a way to finding truth at all but clearly you do.
Even to have written that in the book is a security breach in that cleaners or any staff could see it.
-
We have no verification that either guests or visitors had access to the book simply Kate's assumption that they may have had and as she also assumed that three small children would be safe in a dark, unlocked apartment with access to a main road I think I'll be forgiven for questioning her judgement on that one too.
The evidence is clear enough in the book itself. If other diners did not have access then certainly all the staff did. That in itself is bad enough.
If you wish to discuss the other point please have the decency to open a new thread to do so because it is not what this thread is about.
Staff needed to access to it . That is not a breach of security. What next ? The cleaners not having access to the apartments just in case after cleaning they lie in wait and murder guests in their beds ! @)(++(*
The staff have a responsibility to keep all client information in their possession secure. Leaving a bookings book, for example, open on a counter is not keeping client information in their possession secure. It could well be described as a security breach.
We have no real idea where the book was kept. As the entry about leaving the children alone was only seen by Kate when she received the files it seems reasonable to assume it wasn't kept somewhere where the general public had access to it.
"KATE MCCANN believes a note in a restaurant reservation book led to her daughter Madeleine's abduction, she has revealed.
The three-year-old was snatched from the family's holiday apartment in Portugal while the McCanns and their friends dined in a tapas bar.
But Kate's request to book a table near the apartments because the group's children would be alone inside was written on a reservation book left in full view of the public." - Daily Record 09 May 2011
Article: Madeleine McCann: Note in restaurant reservation book may have tipped off kidnapper, reveals mum Kate
Relying on a newspaper article rather than Kate's own words. Now there's a thing @)(++(*
-
We have no verification that either guests or visitors had access to the book simply Kate's assumption that they may have had and as she also assumed that three small children would be safe in a dark, unlocked apartment with access to a main road I think I'll be forgiven for questioning her judgement on that one too.
The evidence is clear enough in the book itself. If other diners did not have access then certainly all the staff did. That in itself is bad enough.
If you wish to discuss the other point please have the decency to open a new thread to do so because it is not what this thread is about.
Staff needed to access to it . That is not a breach of security. What next ? The cleaners not having access to the apartments just in case after cleaning they lie in wait and murder guests in their beds ! @)(++(*
The staff have a responsibility to keep all client information in their possession secure. Leaving a bookings book, for example, open on a counter is not keeping client information in their possession secure. It could well be described as a security breach.
We have no real idea where the book was kept. As the entry about leaving the children alone was only seen by Kate when she received the files it seems reasonable to assume it wasn't kept somewhere where the general public had access to it.
"KATE MCCANN believes a note in a restaurant reservation book led to her daughter Madeleine's abduction, she has revealed.
The three-year-old was snatched from the family's holiday apartment in Portugal while the McCanns and their friends dined in a tapas bar.
But Kate's request to book a table near the apartments because the group's children would be alone inside was written on a reservation book left in full view of the public." - Daily Record 09 May 2011
Article: Madeleine McCann: Note in restaurant reservation book may have tipped off kidnapper, reveals mum Kate
Relying on a newspaper article rather than Kate's own words. Now there's a thing @)(++(*
this thread started by posting a quote from you as to where the book was!
-
We have no verification that either guests or visitors had access to the book simply Kate's assumption that they may have had and as she also assumed that three small children would be safe in a dark, unlocked apartment with access to a main road I think I'll be forgiven for questioning her judgement on that one too.
The evidence is clear enough in the book itself. If other diners did not have access then certainly all the staff did. That in itself is bad enough.
If you wish to discuss the other point please have the decency to open a new thread to do so because it is not what this thread is about.
Staff needed to access to it . That is not a breach of security. What next ? The cleaners not having access to the apartments just in case after cleaning they lie in wait and murder guests in their beds ! @)(++(*
The staff have a responsibility to keep all client information in their possession secure. Leaving a bookings book, for example, open on a counter is not keeping client information in their possession secure. It could well be described as a security breach.
We have no real idea where the book was kept. As the entry about leaving the children alone was only seen by Kate when she received the files it seems reasonable to assume it wasn't kept somewhere where the general public had access to it.
"KATE MCCANN believes a note in a restaurant reservation book led to her daughter Madeleine's abduction, she has revealed.
The three-year-old was snatched from the family's holiday apartment in Portugal while the McCanns and their friends dined in a tapas bar.
But Kate's request to book a table near the apartments because the group's children would be alone inside was written on a reservation book left in full view of the public." - Daily Record 09 May 2011
Article: Madeleine McCann: Note in restaurant reservation book may have tipped off kidnapper, reveals mum Kate
Relying on a newspaper article rather than Kate's own words. Now there's a thing @)(++(*
It's a report in the press of what Kate said and wrote in her book. It IS Kate's own words.
-
We have no real idea where the book was kept. As the entry about leaving the children alone was only seen by Kate when she received the files it seems reasonable to assume it wasn't kept somewhere where the general public had access to it.
You really do like to assume things don't you.
I don't see that as a way to finding truth at all but clearly you do.
Even to have written that in the book is a security breach in that cleaners or any staff could see it.
Then we will have to agree to differ. This is exactly the kind of information that should be recorded just in case there is a problem.
-
"In her book Madeleine, she recalled: "This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too.
"To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence, the receptionist had added that we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."
-
We have no real idea where the book was kept. As the entry about leaving the children alone was only seen by Kate when she received the files it seems reasonable to assume it wasn't kept somewhere where the general public had access to it.
You really do like to assume things don't you.
I don't see that as a way to finding truth at all but clearly you do.
Even to have written that in the book is a security breach in that cleaners or any staff could see it.
Then we will have to agree to differ. This is exactly the kind of information that should be recorded just in case there is a problem.
look at your own post quoted at the beginning of the thread.
-
"In her book Madeleine, she recalled: "This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too.
"To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence, the receptionist had added that we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."
Notice the word 'probably'.
-
The book did not sit in the restaurant all day.
'It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.'
Kate McCann in her book (and remember that Redblossom thinks quoting Kate's book is perfectly OK if Icabodcrane does it) actually sat in the POOL reception which is the tiny building near the road.
It was in fact according to Kate sitting where even people who were not OC guests were able to see it.
If a person went to the desk and asked could none OC guests come in, Kate is telling us that the book would be on that desk.
It was an appalling security risk that the member of staff had written such a comment in a book that was visible to the general public as well as OC guests and staff.
You really are doing us all a massive favour Faithlilly, posting these quotes which expose the incompetence of people in Portugal. Thank you.
-
"In her book Madeleine, she recalled: "This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too.
"To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence, the receptionist had added that we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."
Notice the word 'probably'.
Quote from: Faithlilly on Today at 01:35:10 PM
@ gilet
From Madeleine :
'It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.'
So in Kate's rather strange, responsibility free mind, it was not her and her feckless husband who put their children in danger but, and please note her absolutely hypocritical horror, the poor receptionist who made them vulnerable by the leaving of a note in the staff message book.
Priceless !!
.......
You didn't say that Kate probably accused the receptionist. You said that she hypocritically DID accuse the receptionist.
-
As I pointed out earlier.
There is nothing hypocritical about pointing out a security risk.
Kate McCann has already admitted her own mistakes. She is here simply pointing out a different mistake which could have impacted on her child.
Faithlilly does not seem to understand that hypocrisy is something entirely different.
-
The book did not sit in the restaurant all day.
'It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.'
Kate McCann in her book (and remember that Redblossom thinks quoting Kate's book is perfectly OK if Icabodcrane does it) actually sat in the POOL reception which is the tiny building near the road.
It was in fact according to Kate sitting where even people who were not OC guests were able to see it.
If a person went to the desk and asked could none OC guests come in, Kate is telling us that the book would be on that desk.
It was an appalling security risk that the member of staff had written such a comment in a book that was visible to the general public as well as OC guests and staff.
You really are doing us all a massive favour Faithlilly, posting these quotes which expose the incompetence of people in Portugal. Thank you.
Sorry but could you post a direct quote or link to where Kate says the categorically that the book was able to be seen by members of the general public ?
Books like the one described are usually in diary format and once the day has passed the page is turned and any information on it would be rendered inaccessible to anyone without direct access to it.
-
The book did not sit in the restaurant all day.
'It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.'
Kate McCann in her book (and remember that Redblossom thinks quoting Kate's book is perfectly OK if Icabodcrane does it) actually sat in the POOL reception which is the tiny building near the road.
It was in fact according to Kate sitting where even people who were not OC guests were able to see it.
If a person went to the desk and asked could none OC guests come in, Kate is telling us that the book would be on that desk.
It was an appalling security risk that the member of staff had written such a comment in a book that was visible to the general public as well as OC guests and staff.
You really are doing us all a massive favour Faithlilly, posting these quotes which expose the incompetence of people in Portugal. Thank you.
Sorry but could you post a direct quote or link to where Kate says the categorically that the book was able to be seen by members of the general public ?
Books like the one described are usually in diary format and once the day has passed the page is turned and any information on it would be rendered inaccessible to anyone without direct access to it.
The book was on a reception desk where the general public would be able to go.
Kate does not say the general public were able to go there but we know from other reporters etc that they have been to that desk and asked could they go in even though they were not OC guests.
Do you really think it is beyond the ken of people to turn a page to look up a previous reservation of their own or such? I don't?
-
The book did not sit in the restaurant all day.
'It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.'
Kate McCann in her book (and remember that Redblossom thinks quoting Kate's book is perfectly OK if Icabodcrane does it) actually sat in the POOL reception which is the tiny building near the road.
It was in fact according to Kate sitting where even people who were not OC guests were able to see it.
If a person went to the desk and asked could none OC guests come in, Kate is telling us that the book would be on that desk.
It was an appalling security risk that the member of staff had written such a comment in a book that was visible to the general public as well as OC guests and staff.
You really are doing us all a massive favour Faithlilly, posting these quotes which expose the incompetence of people in Portugal. Thank you.
Sorry but could you post a direct quote or link to where Kate says the categorically that the book was able to be seen by members of the general public ?
Books like the one described are usually in diary format and once the day has passed the page is turned and any information on it would be rendered inaccessible to anyone without direct access to it.
The book was on a reception desk where the general public would be able to go.
Kate does not say the general public were able to go there but we know from other reporters etc that they have been to that desk and asked could they go in even though they were not OC guests.
Do you really think it is beyond the ken of people to turn a page to look up a previous reservation of their own or such? I don't?
Can you tell me where this book was placed within the reception ? Was there a back and front desk and was the reception manned when open ?
-
Thank you for reporting argumentative and off topic posts this evening, the offending nonsense has been dealt with. Both admins have been away today due to circumstances beyond our control.
Back to normal service. 8)><(
-
The book did not sit in the restaurant all day.
'It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.'
Kate McCann in her book (and remember that Redblossom thinks quoting Kate's book is perfectly OK if Icabodcrane does it) actually sat in the POOL reception which is the tiny building near the road.
It was in fact according to Kate sitting where even people who were not OC guests were able to see it.
If a person went to the desk and asked could none OC guests come in, Kate is telling us that the book would be on that desk.
It was an appalling security risk that the member of staff had written such a comment in a book that was visible to the general public as well as OC guests and staff.
You really are doing us all a massive favour Faithlilly, posting these quotes which expose the incompetence of people in Portugal. Thank you.
Sorry but could you post a direct quote or link to where Kate says the categorically that the book was able to be seen by members of the general public ?
Books like the one described are usually in diary format and once the day has passed the page is turned and any information on it would be rendered inaccessible to anyone without direct access to it.
The book was on a reception desk where the general public would be able to go.
Kate does not say the general public were able to go there but we know from other reporters etc that they have been to that desk and asked could they go in even though they were not OC guests.
Do you really think it is beyond the ken of people to turn a page to look up a previous reservation of their own or such? I don't?
Can you tell me where this book was placed within the reception ? Was there a back and front desk and was the reception manned when open ?
When I was there Faith, there was onlly one desk. It was the evening and not manned, but very very quiet.
As a member of the public, I was a bit worried about going in to have a meal, in case it wasn't allowed, so I didn't dally in the reception. So I never noticed if there was a book.
The Tapas reception is not large, probably about the same size as an average kitchen or single bedroom. The doors in and out, both to the garden area and also the road, are at the southern end of it. The reception desk was set obliquely at the northern end, so that anyone coming in from the street would instantly be spotted by any receptionist that might be on duty. Hope this helps.
Further up this thread I think there was talk about the steps to 5A coming down to the main road.
There was NOTHING MAIN about it!, it was unbelievably deserted of moving vehicles of any sort when we were there in June 2010
-
@ sadie
Thank you it does help. The book certainly doesn't seem to have been highly visible to members of the public as suggested.
As to the main road, it was me that mentioned it and although it is rarely busy it is still a main road.
-
The book did not sit in the restaurant all day.
'It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.'
Kate McCann in her book (and remember that Redblossom thinks quoting Kate's book is perfectly OK if Icabodcrane does it) actually sat in the POOL reception which is the tiny building near the road.
It was in fact according to Kate sitting where even people who were not OC guests were able to see it.
If a person went to the desk and asked could none OC guests come in, Kate is telling us that the book would be on that desk.
It was an appalling security risk that the member of staff had written such a comment in a book that was visible to the general public as well as OC guests and staff.
You really are doing us all a massive favour Faithlilly, posting these quotes which expose the incompetence of people in Portugal. Thank you.
Sorry but could you post a direct quote or link to where Kate says the categorically that the book was able to be seen by members of the general public ?
Books like the one described are usually in diary format and once the day has passed the page is turned and any information on it would be rendered inaccessible to anyone without direct access to it.
The book was on a reception desk where the general public would be able to go.
Kate does not say the general public were able to go there but we know from other reporters etc that they have been to that desk and asked could they go in even though they were not OC guests.
Do you really think it is beyond the ken of people to turn a page to look up a previous reservation of their own or such? I don't?
Can you tell me where this book was placed within the reception ? Was there a back and front desk and was the reception manned when open ?
When I was there Faith, there was onlly one desk. It was the evening and not manned, but very very quiet.
As a member of the public, I was a bit worried about going in to have a meal, in case it wasn't allowed, so I didn't dally in the reception. So I never noticed if there was a book.
The Tapas reception is not large, probably about the same size as an average kitchen or single bedroom. The doors in and out, both to the garden area and also the road, are at the southern end of it. The reception desk was set obliquely at the northern end, so that anyone coming in from the street would instantly be spotted by any receptionist that might be on duty. Hope this helps.
Further up this thread I think there was talk about the steps to 5A coming down to the main road.
There was NOTHING MAIN about it!, it was unbelievably deserted of moving vehicles of any sort when we were there in June 2010
Is this what it looks like?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/OceanClubReception.png)