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: faithlilly on November 03, 2013, 02:55:57 PM
-
TomWinnifrith.com
CRIMEWATCH, KATE & GERRY MCCANN, MADDY, MI5
Kate & Gerry McCann – my sympathy is diminishing rapidly
Sunday 3 November 2013
- Tom Winnifrith
I have written before about the McCann parents. Losing a child must be an unimaginable horror but my sympathy was, even two weeks ago, greatly diminished by the way they had used funds raised to help in the search to silence their critics with legal threats and action and by their apparent love of being on TV and more. As of this week I am afraid that my sympathy almost disappeared.
The Crimewatch special of ten days ago claimed to have big new evidence. I am not sure that it did but I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. Whatever my private views on the chances of finding Maddy alive those who loved her must be allowed to cling to hope.
However it has since emerged that the new evidence actually emerged five years ago thanks to a report compiled by ex MI5 officers paid for by the Mccann’s foundation funded by members of the public (actually it is a limited company which is odd in itself) But the report was also critical of the McCann parents and their friends and so foundation money was used to suppress it with the threat of legal action. Is that really what Maddy well-wishers would have wanted?
It has only now emerged, with the trail five years colder, because the Old Bill have forced it into the public domain. They have done this to justify the millions of quid of public money being spent on this new enquiry, something that has only taken place because of lobbying by Kate & Gerry.
So when Kate McCann blubbers on our TV screens asking for us to help use this NEW evidence I cannot say that I am blubbering with her.
The affaire McCann has become an unpleasant and costly circus. It is time to draw a line.
http://tomwinnifrith.com/articles/4057/ ... ng-rapidly
-
I'm sure the "pro" posters will state that it isn't the case and the "[ censored word]" will claim the opposite.
As an neutral I can only say that the people who I have discussed the case with have all been rather negative toward the family. It is an emotive issue, on the one hand your heart goes out to the child and the parents. But on the other their behaviour just doesn't do them any favours at all.
If you want to be in the public eye, and the McCanns certainly want that, then you need to have good PR and they just don't - despite allegedly spending a fair few quid on it.
N
-
I'm sure the "pro" posters will state that it isn't the case and the "[ censored word]" will claim the opposite.
As an neutral I can only say that the people who I have discussed the case with have all been rather negative toward the family. It is an emotive issue, on the one hand your heart goes out to the child and the parents. But on the other their behaviour just doesn't do them any favours at all.
If you want to be in the public eye, and the McCanns certainly want that, then you need to have good PR and they just don't - despite allegedly spending a fair few quid on it.
N
I don't find your posts neutral...you are often criticising the McCanns and I don't think I've ever seen a post of yours in support of them
-
TomWinnifrith.com
CRIMEWATCH, KATE & GERRY MCCANN, MADDY, MI5
Kate & Gerry McCann – my sympathy is diminishing rapidly
Sunday 3 November 2013
- Tom Winnifrith
I have written before about the McCann parents. Losing a child must be an unimaginable horror but my sympathy was, even two weeks ago, greatly diminished by the way they had used funds raised to help in the search to silence their critics with legal threats and action and by their apparent love of being on TV and more. As of this week I am afraid that my sympathy almost disappeared.
The Crimewatch special of ten days ago claimed to have big new evidence. I am not sure that it did but I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. Whatever my private views on the chances of finding Maddy alive those who loved her must be allowed to cling to hope.
However it has since emerged that the new evidence actually emerged five years ago thanks to a report compiled by ex MI5 officers paid for by the Mccann’s foundation funded by members of the public (actually it is a limited company which is odd in itself) But the report was also critical of the McCann parents and their friends and so foundation money was used to suppress it with the threat of legal action. Is that really what Maddy well-wishers would have wanted?
It has only now emerged, with the trail five years colder, because the Old Bill have forced it into the public domain. They have done this to justify the millions of quid of public money being spent on this new enquiry, something that has only taken place because of lobbying by Kate & Gerry.
So when Kate McCann blubbers on our TV screens asking for us to help use this NEW evidence I cannot say that I am blubbering with her.
The affaire McCann has become an unpleasant and costly circus. It is time to draw a line.
http://tomwinnifrith.com/articles/4057/ ... ng-rapidly
Im sure he speaks for many on that issue and other related ones....for sure
-
I don't find your posts neutral...you are often criticising the McCanns and I don't think I've ever seen a post of yours in support of them
It would be interesting if, for once, you addressed the points in the OP and didn't simply resort to haranguing other members Dave.
-
If you want to be in the public eye, and the McCanns certainly want that, then you need to have good PR and they just don't - despite allegedly spending a fair few quid on it.
N
Absolutely, how could these intelligent people let themselves be so badly advised ?
-
I don't find your posts neutral...you are often criticising the McCanns and I don't think I've ever seen a post of yours in support of them
how you find my posts is of no interest to me and even less to the other members of the forum. IF you must spout off do it in pm rather than continually pollute threads.
N
-
how you find my posts is of no interest to me and even less to the other members of the forum. IF you must spout off do it in pm rather than continually pollute threads.
N
I will post how and whenever I like within forum rules
-
I'm basically neutral...just listen to the evidence and am willing to go where ever it leads.
I think the Mccanns have gained a lot more support over the last few weeks due to the positive stories in the press re new suspects
-
TomWinnifrith.com
CRIMEWATCH, KATE & GERRY MCCANN, MADDY, MI5
Kate & Gerry McCann – my sympathy is diminishing rapidly
Sunday 3 November 2013
- Tom Winnifrith
I have written before about the McCann parents. Losing a child must be an unimaginable horror but my sympathy was, even two weeks ago, greatly diminished by the way they had used funds raised to help in the search to silence their critics with legal threats and action and by their apparent love of being on TV and more. As of this week I am afraid that my sympathy almost disappeared.
The Crimewatch special of ten days ago claimed to have big new evidence. I am not sure that it did but I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. Whatever my private views on the chances of finding Maddy alive those who loved her must be allowed to cling to hope.
However it has since emerged that the new evidence actually emerged five years ago thanks to a report compiled by ex MI5 officers paid for by the Mccann’s foundation funded by members of the public (actually it is a limited company which is odd in itself) But the report was also critical of the McCann parents and their friends and so foundation money was used to suppress it with the threat of legal action. Is that really what Maddy well-wishers would have wanted?
It has only now emerged, with the trail five years colder, because the Old Bill have forced it into the public domain. They have done this to justify the millions of quid of public money being spent on this new enquiry, something that has only taken place because of lobbying by Kate & Gerry.
So when Kate McCann blubbers on our TV screens asking for us to help use this NEW evidence I cannot say that I am blubbering with her.
The affaire McCann has become an unpleasant and costly circus. It is time to draw a line.
http://tomwinnifrith.com/articles/4057/ ... ng-rapidly
Excellent article.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
I'm basically neutral...just listen to the evidence and am willing to go where ever it leads.
I think the Mccanns have gained a lot more support over the last few weeks due to the positive stories in the press re new suspects
...and lost twice as many by refusing to answer why they suppressed the e-fits.
-
Be under no illusion, there are details about what happened the night Maddie was abducted which are not as they might at first appear. There was a fabrication but it wasn't the one Mr Amaral came up with.
-
Be under no illusion, there are details about what happened the night Maddie was abducted which are not as they might at first appear. There was a fabrication but it wasn't the one Mr Amaral came up with.
And you 'know' this how? It may be your belief, but you have insufficient evidence to support it.
-
It is very difficult to assess exactly what the McCann's position is in the public eye.
I have noticed that even within the Daily Mail readership, there seems to be more support than I previously thought. Most replies to McCann articles were anti-McCann, but this assesses determination to post over real analysis of beliefs. Perhaps the [ censored word] are more angry, vindictive and blaming than the pros are relaxed, excusing and forgiving, meaning that [ censored word] are more likely to post. We cannot know.
But since the Mail altered its approve/disapprove voting system where it now takes just a button press to vote, most 'pro' posts have a good majority of green thumbs up whereas most 'anti' posts have a majority of red thumbs down.
Previously they only listed the reds minus the greens as a single total, but now you can see that some posts have many votes in favour of the McCanns. Given that the Anti sites (who have much larger memberships than any pro site) regularly have threads to 'get the vote out' on Mail and other threads, I tend to believe that there is a solid majority of "Very pro, mildly Pro, generally forgiving and don't really cares" over the people who believe that the McCanns are culpable for anything more than rather doubtful childcare.
-
Be under no illusion, there are details about what happened the night Maddie was abducted which are not as they might at first appear. There was a fabrication but it wasn't the one Mr Amaral came up with.
It appears you are the one under illusion
-
It appears you are the one under illusion
Let's have some meat on that argument Dave. One liners just don't cut it. 8(0(*
-
Be under no illusion, there are details about what happened the night Maddie was abducted which are not as they might at first appear. There was a fabrication but it wasn't the one Mr Amaral came up with.
That's a big statement Angelo.
would you care to elaborate? Please
-
It is very difficult to assess exactly what the McCann's position is in the public eye.
I have noticed that even within the Daily Mail readership, there seems to be more support than I previously thought. Most replies to McCann articles were anti-McCann, but this assesses determination to post over real analysis of beliefs. Perhaps the [ censored word] are more angry, vindictive and blaming than the pros are relaxed, excusing and forgiving, meaning that [ censored word] are more likely to post. We cannot know.
But since the Mail altered its approve/disapprove voting system where it now takes just a button press to vote, most 'pro' posts have a good majority of green thumbs up whereas most 'anti' posts have a majority of red thumbs down.
Previously they only listed the reds minus the greens as a single total, but now you can see that some posts have many votes in favour of the McCanns. Given that the Anti sites (who have much larger memberships than any pro site) regularly have threads to 'get the vote out' on Mail and other threads, I tend to believe that there is a solid majority of "Very pro, mildly Pro, generally forgiving and don't really cares" over the people who believe that the McCanns are culpable for anything more than rather doubtful childcare.
The Mail is hardly representative, as comments are screened before being printed on the web, so it is of little consequence.
A more fairer sample of public opinion can be seen on the yahoo comments pages, where there is moderation, but opinions across the spread of views are allowed.
There are of course some nutters from both sides of the fence, and their posts and the posters themselves invariably get banned.
So I suggest you have a look at those to see 'public opinion'.
-
Be under no illusion, there are details about what happened the night Maddie was abducted which are not as they might at first appear. There was a fabrication but it wasn't the one Mr Amaral came up with.
OK Angelo...you made this statement...what do you have to back it up ...nothing
-
The Mail is hardly representative, as comments are screened before being printed on the web, so it is of little consequence.
A more fairer sample of public opinion can be seen on the yahoo comments pages, where there is moderation, but opinions across the spread of views are allowed.
There are of course some nutters from both sides of the fence, and their posts and the posters themselves invariably get banned.
So I suggest you have a look at those to see 'public opinion'.
statistics obviously never was your strong point
-
statistics obviously never was your strong point
Wrong yet again.
I teach Stats.
8)-)))
-
The Mail is hardly representative, as comments are screened before being printed on the web, so it is of little consequence.
A more fairer sample of public opinion can be seen on the yahoo comments pages, where there is moderation, but opinions across the spread of views are allowed.
There are of course some nutters from both sides of the fence, and their posts and the posters themselves invariably get banned.
So I suggest you have a look at those to see 'public opinion'.
Try reading what I posted. Likes and dislikes are not moderated. Likes and dislikes seem to favour the McCann's.
-
Try reading what I posted. Likes and dislikes are not moderated. Likes and dislikes seem to favour the McCann's.
Try reading what I posted.
he comments on the mail are first censored, i.e. many comments never get on the web site.
I wasn't talking about the voting.
-
Fortunately more and more people are starting to open their eyes to this shameful case of obfuscation and lies.
It's high time that those that are guilty, at least of making money over a poor child's fate, to be finally unmasked.
-
Try reading what I posted.
he comments on the mail are first censored, i.e. many comments never get on the web site.
I wasn't talking about the voting.
But I was and that is my point- the votes suggest that the anti McCann's are in a minority, given the Oro bias on votes on both pro and anti comments.
-
Fortunately more and more people are starting to open their eyes to this shameful case of obfuscation and lies.
It's high time that those that are guilty, at least of making money over a poor child's fate, to be finally unmasked.
And your evidence for that statement is.....
-
Wrong yet again.
I teach Stats.
8)-)))
Just gone back to the text I used some fifty years ago. The example it gives is that recent research shows that statistically fifty per cent of people will die from smoking related diseases. But that tells you nothing about an individual who smokes heavily and survives to be a centenarian. It points out that statistics predicts group outcomes but is silent on specifics.
It is much the same as stochastic in Brownian motion- group behaviour is predicted but such stochastic processes cannot predict individual molecular behaviour.
-
It is very difficult to assess exactly what the McCann's position is in the public eye.
I have noticed that even within the Daily Mail readership, there seems to be more support than I previously thought. Most replies to McCann articles were anti-McCann, but this assesses determination to post over real analysis of beliefs. Perhaps the [ censored word] are more angry, vindictive and blaming than the pros are relaxed, excusing and forgiving, meaning that [ censored word] are more likely to post. We cannot know.
But since the Mail altered its approve/disapprove voting system where it now takes just a button press to vote, most 'pro' posts have a good majority of green thumbs up whereas most 'anti' posts have a majority of red thumbs down.
Previously they only listed the reds minus the greens as a single total, but now you can see that some posts have many votes in favour of the McCanns. Given that the Anti sites (who have much larger memberships than any pro site) regularly have threads to 'get the vote out' on Mail and other threads, I tend to believe that there is a solid majority of "Very pro, mildly Pro, generally forgiving and don't really cares" over the people who believe that the McCanns are culpable for anything more than rather doubtful childcare.
The online newspapers won't allow comments. Well, the majority. And when they do they tend to exclude criticism over the McCann. If they allowed a totally free comment line, I bet 99% would be critical towards the McCann.
-
But I was and that is my point- the votes suggest that the anti McCann's are in a minority, given the Oro bias on votes on both pro and anti comments.
i.e. you assume the mail is representative.
N..B. People can only vote on the comments given, and not all sent to the mail are posted.
-
Wrong yet again.
I teach Stats.
8)-)))
right again..there are so many poor teachers...have you not heard of random samples...that would be a true representation of the british public
-
I've never been able to post any comment in a british newspaper. Maybe, because my IP denounces me from being from Portugal I'm literally boycotted.
-
right again..there are so many poor teachers...have you not heard of random samples...that would be a true representation of the british public
Don't be foolish, I am fully aware of random sampling, and when and where to apply it.
P.S. If you start your insults, yet again, it just shows what you are.
So davel and aiofe, do you think the 'mail' represents a random sample of public opinion ? 8)-)))
-
Don't be foolish, I am fully aware of random sampling, and when and where to apply it.
P.S. If you start your insults, yet again, it just shows what you are.
So davel, do you think the 'mail' represents a random sample of public opinion ? 8)-)))
of course not
-
Before Madeleine went missing, according to auntie Philomena, the couple had financial difficulties. When going to the Ocean Club in 2007, Mr. McCann obtained a discount in an already cheap resort, because there was no "hearing" service for the kiddies.
After Madeleine was missing, Mr and Mrs traveled on private jets, when commercial, always in first class and always chose 5 star hotels. Quite a change, wouldn't you say?!
You will of course provide cites for 'financial difficulties', and discounts for the holiday......
I suspect we shall wait a long time.
-
You are playing with words.
You stated the comments are representative, I gave reasons why they aren't.
As to your above example, irrelevant in the circumstances.
Why shouldn't the yahoo comments be taken as well as the mails ?
I pity your students who are being ill taught if you believe that tosh.
-
I pity your students who are being ill taught if you believe that tosh.
I pity you if you believe the mail is representative of public opinion.
Mind you, some people can't be helped.
-
I pity you if you believe the mail is representative of public opinion.
Mind you, some people can't be helped.
The mail probably has the closest demographic to the entire population of any newspaper; only TV or Radio would be a closer fit. It also has a massive readership beyond its sales.
I suspect that if the votes supported your views, you would be singing the Mail's praises!
-
The mail probably has the closest demographic to the entire population of any newspaper; only TV or Radio would be a closer fit. It also has a massive readership beyond its sales.
I suspect that if the votes supported your views, you would be singing the Mail's praises!
I presume you have the statistics to back up your claim on the Mail's readership ?
Bearing in mind it is , to put it mildly, it is a right-wing newspaper, therefore hardly representative of public opinion across the UK.
-
So I've read this thread with steadily mounting disbelief, but I'm not sure why (my disbelief steadily mounted).
It's just the same old, same old from most posters.
Of course the McCanns didn't release that e-fit.
They had no remit or authority to do so.
This efit (of a man seen carrying a child in the vicinity of apartment 5a on the night of the crime) was delivered to the McCanns something like 3 months after the original investigation that exonerated the McCanns had been shelved!
What if that man turns out to be an innocent holidaymaker carrying his child back to an apartment, same as the man Jane Tanner saw turned out to be?
Where would the McCanns stand releasing an efit of an innocent holiday-maker or Portuguese resident on evening May 3rd, after the original investigation had been shelved? No doubt, the self-righteous bile now being churned out by the usual suspects would, instead, accuse the McCanns of fingering an innocent man.
And another question. Mr Smith was billed by Amaral as the crucial witness who would cement the case and prove the culpability of the McCanns.
Why did not his team trouble to take an e-fit from Mr Smith? They did of the man Jane Tanner saw ...
-
What about all the other efit's they released at press conferences and the like? Cooperman was after the investigation was shelved wasn't he?
-
What about all the other efit's they released at press conferences and the like? Cooperman was after the investigation was shelved wasn't he?
Were they seen carrying a child in the vicinity of apartment 5a on the night Madeleine was abducted?
-
What about all the other efit's they released at press conferences and the like? Cooperman was after the investigation was shelved wasn't he?
No he wasnt, he was in jan 2008 but vicky beckham was 2009 long after the shelving
The mccanns have always said they believe smithman was the same as tannerman so no reason at all not to include him/his efits in their campaign......
-
Were they seen carrying a child in the vicinity of apartment 5a on the night Madeleine was abducted?
Oh, so you can release e-fits of innocent people as long as they're not carrying a child? That is truly bizarre logic!
No he wasnt, he was in jan 2008 but vicky beckham was 2009 long after the shelving
The mccanns have always said they believe smithman was the same as tannerman so no reason at all not to include him/his efits in their campaign......
Thanks Red. I agree, I can't think of any reason not to include them.
-
You are rather sad. The Daily Mail is a right wing paper in a right wing country. It has the greatest spread of any paper.
Rubbish.
That includes the vast majority of the Mail's content.
So as to sad...........................
-
No he wasnt, he was in jan 2008 but vicky beckham was 2009 long after the shelving
The mccanns have always said they believe smithman was the same as tannerman so no reason at all not to include him/his efits in their campaign......
Absolutely ! At least the e-fits could provide a double face, like Janus, to Tannerman who, in spite of classic shoes, dark in color, with a heel perhaps a bit higher than normal and a white pyjama with little flowers or perhaps little birds and a frill.... conveniently had none !
-
how you find my posts is of no interest to me and even less to the other members of the forum. IF you must spout off do it in pm rather than continually pollute threads.
N
I agree with Davel. I find you very anti Mccann. Very biased.
But it was good hearing some pleasant words from you for a change 8((()*/
-
Fortunately more and more people are starting to open their eyes to this shameful case of obfuscation and lies.
It's high time that those that are guilty, at least of making money over a poor child's fate, to be finally unmasked.
I couldn't agree more.
So many lies and so much obfuscation. Do you know any liars Luz? @)(++(*
And as for making money out of it, the businesses that have built up by selling nasty books of lies etc. on the backs of missing children ARE APALLING.
Help us to unmask them. The liars and the moneymakers.............Purleaze
-
Absolutely ! At least the e-fits could provide a double face, like Janus, to Tannerman who, in spite of classic shoes, dark in color, with a heel perhaps a bit higher than normal and a white pyjama with little flowers or perhaps little birds and a frill.... conveniently had none !
Don't forget the hair Anne,
But, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy’ish sort of ill fitting more than. And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of”.
'And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of'
-
Absolutely ! At least the e-fits could provide a double face, like Janus, to Tannerman who, in spite of classic shoes, dark in color, with a heel perhaps a bit higher than normal and a white pyjama with little flowers or perhaps little birds and a frill.... conveniently had none !
it makes no sense whatsoever to have hidden them.....a man seen ONTHE NIGHT at the right time...but vicky beckham and spottyman released 2009, both not there on the night and neither carrying any child
-
Don't forget the hair Anne,
But, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy’ish sort of ill fitting more than. And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of”.
'And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of'
Jane, bless her, is a bit like me. She doesn't express herself very clearly, but she is genuine . Like me.
-
Don't forget the hair Anne,
But, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy’ish sort of ill fitting more than. And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of”.
'And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of'
And after all that observation and all the rest, even noticed he had no creases in his trousers.....what a hawk
-
And after all that observation and all the rest, even noticed he had no creases in his trousers.....what a hawk
?{)(**
-
Don't forget the hair Anne,
But, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy’ish sort of ill fitting more than. And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of”.
'And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of'
I sort of forgot you know that sort of hairish bit !
-
So I've read this thread with steadily mounting disbelief, but I'm not sure why (my disbelief steadily mounted).
It's just the same old, same old from most posters.
Of course the McCanns didn't release that e-fit.
They had no remit or authority to do so.
This efit (of a man seen carrying a child in the vicinity of apartment 5a on the night of the crime) was delivered to the McCanns something like 3 months after the original investigation that exonerated the McCanns had been shelved!
What if that man turns out to be an innocent holidaymaker carrying his child back to an apartment, same as the man Jane Tanner saw turned out to be?
Where would the McCanns stand releasing an efit of an innocent holiday-maker or Portuguese resident on evening May 3rd, after the original investigation had been shelved? No doubt, the self-righteous bile now being churned out by the usual suspects would, instead, accuse the McCanns of fingering an innocent man.
And another question. Mr Smith was billed by Amaral as the crucial witness who would cement the case and prove the culpability of the McCanns.
Why did not his team trouble to take an e-fit from Mr Smith? They did of the man Jane Tanner saw ...
I can only reiterate, that surely any parent would want any e-fit released of any potential lead / suspect, be it 1 e-fit, 2, 3 , 4 50 etc etc
Why oh why would you not want all leads followed up........however many e-fits
Its this type of behaviour I struggle with and I think many do....it doesn't seem natural for the circumstance..........are the McCanns that different form 80% of reactions ? Its this type of thing that turns opinion against them imho .............
They could make a clear statement about the e-fit, would be natural to do so ; ?
-
An earlier thread - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2822.0 - asked: "Has support of the McCanns increased or decreased over the last 6½ years??" and the subsequent posts and the poll itself were very interesting. It could perhaps be worth putting it among the polls section. As it stands at the minute, 23 voted, with 69.6% saying support had decreased and 17.4% saying it had increased. (the rest were that it had stayed the same or they didn't know)
Certainly from posts I have read elsewhere, fewer people seem to be supportive of the McCanns since the recent revelations in and after CrimeWatch
-
An earlier thread - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2822.0 - asked: "Has support of the McCanns increased or decreased over the last 6½ years??" and the subsequent posts and the poll itself were very interesting. It could perhaps be worth putting it among the polls section. As it stands at the minute, 23 voted, with 69.6% saying support had decreased and 17.4% saying it had increased. (the rest were that it had stayed the same or they didn't know)
Certainly from posts I have read elsewhere, fewer people seem to be supportive of the McCanns since the recent revelations in and after CrimeWatch
I haven't noticed one person on this forum who has changed their opinion in the slightest...
-
I haven't noticed one person on this forum who has changed their opinion in the slightest...
I said "from posts I have read elsewhere", not here. If I was being davel, I would add "learn to read properly"!!!
-
An earlier thread - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2822.0 - asked: "Has support of the McCanns increased or decreased over the last 6½ years??" and the subsequent posts and the poll itself were very interesting. It could perhaps be worth putting it among the polls section. As it stands at the minute, 23 voted, with 69.6% saying support had decreased and 17.4% saying it had increased. (the rest were that it had stayed the same or they didn't know)
Certainly from posts I have read elsewhere, fewer people seem to be supportive of the McCanns since the recent revelations in and after CrimeWatch
Where are some cites to these posts that you have read "elsewhere" to back up your claim?
-
I said "from posts I have read elsewhere", not here. If I was being davel, I would add "learn to read properly"!!!
Well... having looked at several other sites I don't see anyone changing their mind.
its only a tiny, tiny percentage of the population who post and I think our ideas are fairly fixed and it would take a lot to cause a change in mind. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the public don't follow the case IMO
-
TomWinnifrith.com
CRIMEWATCH, KATE & GERRY MCCANN, MADDY, MI5
Kate & Gerry McCann – my sympathy is diminishing rapidly
Sunday 3 November 2013
- Tom Winnifrith
I have written before about the McCann parents. Losing a child must be an unimaginable horror but my sympathy was, even two weeks ago, greatly diminished by the way they had used funds raised to help in the search to silence their critics with legal threats and action and by their apparent love of being on TV and more. As of this week I am afraid that my sympathy almost disappeared.
The Crimewatch special of ten days ago claimed to have big new evidence. I am not sure that it did but I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. Whatever my private views on the chances of finding Maddy alive those who loved her must be allowed to cling to hope.
However it has since emerged that the new evidence actually emerged five years ago thanks to a report compiled by ex MI5 officers paid for by the Mccann’s foundation funded by members of the public (actually it is a limited company which is odd in itself) But the report was also critical of the McCann parents and their friends and so foundation money was used to suppress it with the threat of legal action. Is that really what Maddy well-wishers would have wanted?
It has only now emerged, with the trail five years colder, because the Old Bill have forced it into the public domain. They have done this to justify the millions of quid of public money being spent on this new enquiry, something that has only taken place because of lobbying by Kate & Gerry.
So when Kate McCann blubbers on our TV screens asking for us to help use this NEW evidence I cannot say that I am blubbering with her.
The affaire McCann has become an unpleasant and costly circus. It is time to draw a line.
http://tomwinnifrith.com/articles/4057/ ... ng-rapidly
I'm rying to figure out why they wouldn't show the efits could it have been they were not allowed until the case was reopened? That Portugal law is so complex there has to be a reason why .maybe we will be told in the future
-
Where are some cites to these posts that you have read "elsewhere" to back up your claim?
Rightly or wrongly, I don't actually like quoting posters elsewhere without their permission. So just to say that two ex-posters on the Amazon site have recently posted again, having changed their views
-
Rightly or wrongly, I don't actually like quoting posters elsewhere without their permission. So just to say that two ex-posters on the Amazon site have recently posted again, having changed their views
So basically your claims are made-up rubbish.
-
So basically your claims are made-up rubbish.
No, they are not. What a strange (and rude) claim. I do not make things up, Rachel Granada. Whether you believe it or not is up to you
-
Rightly or wrongly, I don't actually like quoting posters elsewhere without their permission. So just to say that two ex-posters on the Amazon site have recently posted again, having changed their views
probably a wind up by sad souls with nothing better to do... I used to support the Mccanns..I thought they were a lovely couple...but since I saw crimewatch...i despise them
-
probably a wind up by sad souls with nothing better to do... I used to support the Mccanns..I thought they were a lovely couple...but since I saw crimewatch...i despise them
Not quite - you exaggerate somewhat. But basically feeling more doubt since the CrimeWatch programme
-
what we have seen is a couple of real McCann critics , Bren and Bonny Braes do a complete about turn...no record of the reverse happening
-
Not quite - you exaggerate somewhat. But basically feeling more doubt since the CrimeWatch programme
do you have any evidence that these conversions .. are genuine..
-
I have a link to the Amazon site and I'm strugglng to find anyone changing their views.
Keep looking! - you should find them
-
do you have any evidence that these conversions .. are genuine..
They are posters who used to post some time back and have not posted for many months, even years
-
what we have seen is a couple of real McCann critics , Bren and Bonny Braes do a complete about turn...no record of the reverse happening
??? Bonny braes that name rings a bell pro or anti ?
-
Keep looking! - you should find them
what I would like to see are their previous posts in support of the McCanns
-
do you have any evidence that these conversions .. are genuine..
Ive read the recent posts on there from one member who used to go on periodically over a couple years now and slag everyone off for still discussing the case.....for suspecting the official story, saying get a life etc blah blah until the Times article , then she came on and said she had changed her opinion on the Mccanns, was quite shocked.....what CPN has posted is true, no need to go for her jugular because you dont like the fact......or whatever other reason you and others here have!
If you want evidence, go and read the forum discussions under amazon
-
Ive read the recent posts on there from one member who used to go on periodically over a couple years now and slag everyone off for still discussing the case.....for suspecting the official story, saying get a life etc blah blah until the Times article , then she came on and said she had changed her opinion on the Mccanns, was quite shocked.....what CPN has posted is true, no need to go for her jugular because you dont like the fact......or whatever other reason you and others here have!
If you want evidence, go and read the forum discussions under amazon
So now its one poster. the old back pedaler is out again...do you have a link
-
No, they are not. What a strange (and rude) claim. I do not make things up, Rachel Granada. Whether you believe it or not is up to you
You are making some very bold claims with nothing to back them up, so again I say that you are posting made-up rubbish.
-
So now its one poster. the old back pedaler is out again...do you have a link
Its one poster I know of from reading, on and off, no backpeddling going on anywhere......so quick to jump
-
Ive read the recent posts on there from one member who used to go on periodically over a couple years now and slag everyone off for still discussing the case.....for suspecting the official story, saying get a life etc blah blah until the Times article , then she came on and said she had changed her opinion on the Mccanns, was quite shocked.....what CPN has posted is true, no need to go for her jugular because you dont like the fact......or whatever other reason you and others here have!
If you want evidence, go and read the forum discussions under amazon
I was speaking to someone sunday and he said that anyone who believes the McCanns covered up an accident would have to be an idiot...so there you are
-
How many pages do I need to read?
Not many - since CrimeWatch!
what I would like to see are their previous posts in support of the McCanns
Too long ago - they will be there but I am certainly not tracing them - you do it if you have time!
No one is going for anyones jugular. We are debating from both sides.
Why are you so aggressive Red?
The aggression started elsewhere, Neeley
-
What you going on about ?
-
No one is going for anyones jugular. We are debating from both sides.
Why are you so aggressive Red?
CPN posted something factual and relevant to the thread, she was jumped on and told she was making rubbish thngs up then told she was a crashing bore.who is the aggrssive one here?? Zzzzz
-
Its one poster I know of from reading, on and off, no backpeddling going on anywhere......so quick to jump
It is two, actually Redblossom, but one has contributed a good deal more than the other since CrimeWatch
-
for the benefit of the doubt..if we were to accept two posters have changed there mind..is that statistically significant @)(++(* @)(++(*
Does that show that a supportive public has turned against the McCanns...not really does it
-
I was speaking to someone sunday and he said that anyone who believes the McCanns covered up an accident would have to be an idiot...so there you are
Good for you but thats an irrelevant point in the context of what CPN posted and what I did after.....but feel free to move the goalposts
-
It is two, actually Redblossom, but one has contributed a good deal more than the other since CrimeWatch
I dont doubt you...I dont read amazon every day so only noticed the one....when I did read the other day, was surprised but not shocked....
@)(++(*
-
for the benefit of the doubt..if we were to accept two posters have changed there mind..is that statistically significant @)(++(* @)(++(*
Does that show that a supportive public has turned against the McCanns...not really does it
That is two people among a limited number on one forum. You then only have to read the comments on the Yahoo news report site to see how feelings have changed, also, and the CrimeWatch programme added to that also
-
I dont doubt you...I dont read amazon every day so only noticed the one....when I did read the other day, was surprised but not shocked....
@)(++(*
They both posted shortly after the Crimewatch programme; one has continued to post
-
How many pages do I need to read before I come across someone who has changed their minds?
I'm sure Bren was anti and is now pro ? Then there was Paulo reis who was so pro until he went camping and got scared by the car
-
How many pages do I need to read before I come across someone who has changed their minds?
Right - as it is you Neeley.... I have checked - go back 14 pages from the page now there (obviously if others post it may turn into 15 pages back)
-
They both posted shortly after the Crimewatch programme; one has continued to post
Well that may impress you but it certainly doesn't impress me.. and we still don't know how genuine they are
-
for the benefit of the doubt..if we were to accept two posters have changed there mind..is that statistically significant @)(++(* @)(++(*
Does that show that a supportive public has turned against the McCanns...not really does it
There's a facebook page that I lurk on that had in the region of 2,000 likes before crime watch. It's nearly 16,000 now.
It's an open group so you can read it without joining. I've never joined it as I find some of the stuff on there very distasteful
." Detectives are monitoring the internet for vile messages about the couple after a Facebook group targeting the pair attracted 11,000 members."
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/346131/Sick-internet-trolls-target-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-after-Crimewatch-special
That's a couple of weeks old now. The numbers have risen since.
-
It then goes back to page 13, Neeley - and I am sure there are others but I really don't want to search through them all
-
Thank you CPN. Anne2shoes does indeed appear to have changed her mind about the McCanns.
The media are very powerful aren't they?
still not impressed..could you pm me a link
-
Thank you CPN. Anne2shoes does indeed appear to have changed her mind about the McCanns.
The media are very powerful aren't they?
She was very - unsure is probably the best word to use - a couple of years back. And for some time used to post quite sarcastic comments about everyone still discussing things all these years on!! But, as I said, the Crimewatch programme plus the Sunday Times article seems to have set her of thinking things through again. Whether this is the media being powerful or people realising that things can be looked at in other ways, is another discussion
-
She was very - unsure is probably the best word to use - a couple of years back. And for some time used to post quite sarcastic comments about everyone still discussing things all these years on!! But, as I said, the Crimewatch programme plus the Sunday Times article seems to have set her of thinking things through again. Whether this is the media being powerful or people realising that things can be looked at in other ways, is another discussion
or something could have happened in her personal life...we haven't really got a clue
-
There's a facebook page that I lurk on that had in the region of 2,000 likes before crime watch. It's nearly 16,000 now.
It's an open group so you can read it without joining. I've never joined it as I find some of the stuff on there very distasteful
." Detectives are monitoring the internet for vile messages about the couple after a Facebook group targeting the pair attracted 11,000 members."
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/346131/Sick-internet-trolls-target-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-after-Crimewatch-special
That's a couple of weeks old now. The numbers have risen since.
could you pm me a link
-
maybe the Detectives are monitoring this forum for nasty vile posts about the McCann's .... >@@(*&)
Yeah, I think so. Still doesn't change the fact that it's grown exponentially since crime watch does it?
-
or something could have happened in her personal life...we haven't really got a clue
davel - she said what had made her re-think things, and I have outlined them.
-
maybe the Detectives are monitoring this forum for nasty vile posts about the McCann's .... >@@(*&)
If they are monitoring, this forum will be way down their list.
-
Yeah, I think so. Still doesn't change the fact that it's grown exponentially since crime watch does it?
If members are recruiting friends then it would grow exponentially...but these friends would be unlikely to recruit further so it would slow down
-
If members are recruiting friends then it would grow exponentially...but these friends would be unlikely to recruit further so it would slow down
I PM'ed you a link. Have a browse. Maybe you'll see how moderate all us '[ censored word]'s' on here are then1
-
That is two people among a limited number on one forum. You then only have to read the comments on the Yahoo news report site to see how feelings have changed, also, and the CrimeWatch programme added to that also
I believe one sceptic group on Facebook has gone from just over 2,000 members to over 16,000 since Crimewatch and the ST revelations and many of the new members, they say, were very supportive of the McCanns in the past. You really can't argue with those kinds of figures.
-
I believe one sceptic group on Facebook has gone from just over 2,000 members to over 16,000 since Crimewatch and the ST revelations and many of the new members, they say, were very supportive of the McCanns in the past. You really can't argue with those kinds of figures.
davel can, see two posts up @)(++(*
-
I think it's just everyone who used to post are back and maybe more now because of sy
I never posted for years then all of a sudden I'm back interested
-
davel can, see two posts up @)(++(*
Seen yours and was just about to delete mine Cariad. Apologies.
-
Behave Sadie. The prime suspect for six and a half years is dismissed and immediately replaced by another that had mostly been ignored for five years?
No wonder people were >@@(*&) after Crimewatch.
-
Behave Sadie. The prime suspect for six and a half years is dismissed and immediately replaced by another that had mostly been ignored for five years?
No wonder people were >@@(*&) after Crimewatch.
Yep after the PJ sat on it for 5 years.
-
Behave Sadie. The prime suspect for six and a half years is dismissed and immediately replaced by another that had mostly been ignored for five years?
No wonder people were >@@(*&) after Crimewatch.
And then replaced by another a week later
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564121/Madeleine-McCann-police-fury-over-private-hunt.html
By Caroline Gammell in Praia da Luz1:25PM BST 25 Sep 2007
Kate and Gerry McCann provoked the fury of the Portuguese authorities after it was revealed they had hired private investigators to help find their daughter Madeleine.
In full: The Madeleine McCann case
The couple were accused by police of employing "diversion tactics".
A senior judge said their actions could prompt charges of obstruction of justice in the hunt for the missing four-year-old who has not been seen since May 3.
Under Portuguese law, it is illegal to carry out independent inquiries into a case while a police investigation is ongoing. But it emerged this week that Mr and Mrs McCann hired investigators from Control Risks Group - who specialise in kidnap, hostage and crisis management - at the end of May.
Related Articles
McCanns hired detective firm with ex-SAS men 24 Sep 2007
Madeleine McCann police 'must find her body' 24 Sep 2007
A source close to the couple's legal team insisted they were only working in an advisory role and were not on the ground in Portugal.
But the company – which employs ex-SAS and military personnel – is thought to be focusing on Spain and Morocco, where three sightings of a little blonde girl have now been reported.
In Portugal, figures from both the police and judicial arenas vented their anger about the move.
Antonio Martins, president of the National Association of Portuguese Judges, told the newspaper 24 Horas: "It is still up to the state to carry out criminal investigation. That kind of activity has no legal standing.
"Anything that results from private investigation has no substance."
Mr Martins said the private detectives and even the McCanns themselves could be accused of "obstruction of justice".
Carlos Anjos, the head of Portugal's criminal police federation, added: "This can only be another diversion tactic from the McCanns. It is nothing but folklore.
"Portugal does not have legislation in this area. Private detectives who intervene in criminal cases cannot exist.
"The law only tolerates private detectives who gather information and only about matters of the private lives of certain people like extramarital relationships."
A separate police source warned that the involvement of investigators may not only be illegal but could have a detrimental effect on the inquiry.
The high ranking official told newspaper Correio da Manha: "If private investigators come here they will be running a serious risk of being arrested."
""""""""""""""
Maybe that's why they wasn't released
Was they released before or after Portugal reopened the case
Same time wasn't it
-
Yep after the PJ sat on it for 5 years.
If the PJ had the e-fits they would have been in the files. As it is they weren't.
Please stay on topic. TY
-
If the PJ had the e-fits they would have been in the files. As it is they weren't.
Not all the files were released.
-
Not all the files were released.
That's true but if there had been e-fits made available to the PJ it would have been mentioned somewhere in the files or the final Reports. As it was they weren't mentioned because their existence was effectively hidden. The McCanns refusal to address this matter is extremely damaging to their credibility.
-
Yep after the PJ sat on it for 5 years.
I will log in tomorrow to read your evidence for this statement
Nite nite
-
Maybe the McCanns have been advised not to comment in view of the ongoing investigation?
Then the police should speak. Currently the lack of explanation about the e-fits damages their credibility.
But maybe it's only the public that doesn't know they actually have no credibility (which is why they were never previously used).
-
Then the police should speak. Currently the lack of explanation about the e-fits damages their credibility.
But maybe it's only the public that doesn't know they actually have no credibility (which is why they were never previously used).
May be, but why weren't executed genuine ones and why were those presented to more than 7 millions viewers ?
-
May be, but why weren't executed genuine ones and why were those presented to more than 7 millions viewers ?
It's a mystery Anne. I expect if anyone knows though, it's the lawyers 8)-)))
-
It's a mystery Anne. I expect if anyone knows though, it's the lawyers 8)-)))
I've read that Crimewatch resolves 1 case in 5, cold ones included. Really, after watching this one, I wonder how.
-
I really don't think the police will speak until they charge someone.
And that is really how it should be.
The problem is that the media and the public expect to have a running commentary on progress.
-
Ah, you've probably spotted the contradiction in the oft-used pro argument pile:
1. Those critical of the McCanns are a loony internet minority
2. The comments sections that end up being massively in favour of those that are critical of the McCanns are only because the [ censored word] whip up a hate mob and form an organised attack on such comments sections... with a "handful of internet loonies" vs the might of the hundreds of thousands of those that support the McCanns... er... oh, right.
Obviously someone is getting the numbers wrong on one side of the equation or other.
(cue (supposedly) withering response from my very own personal stalker in 3...2..)
In Portugal alone they have around 80% of the population that don't believe them, the other 20% don't even care about them - if that's a handful....
And if you fail to outspoke the antagonists in the internet, that's probably because there are many more than you would like to accept.
-
In Portugal alone they have around 80% of the population that don't believe them, the other 20% don't even care about them - if that's a handful....
And if you fail to outspoke the antagonists in the internet, that's probably because there are many more than you would like to accept.
^^^ that is the crucial part of the equation that keeps on getting missed ;-)
-
Then the police should speak. Currently the lack of explanation about the e-fits damages their credibility.
But maybe it's only the public that doesn't know they actually have no credibility (which is why they were never previously used).
How do you know? Are you PJ then?
-
^^^ that is the crucial part of the equation that keeps on getting missed ;-)
how significant (in numerical terms) is that crucial part of the equation?
-
In Portugal alone they have around 80% of the population that don't believe them, the other 20% don't even care about them - if that's a handful....
And if you fail to outspoke the antagonists in the internet, that's probably because there are many more than you would like to accept.
rather than type it out I will use a question used on a different thread as it applies here:
"Quote from: Opposing Pat on Today at 03:42:28 PM
And those statistics are available where precisely or is it once again a personal opinion paraded as fact ?"
-
I really don't think the police will speak until they charge someone.
I hope they dont.
-
That's true but if there had been e-fits made available to the PJ it would have been mentioned somewhere in the files or the final Reports. As it was they weren't mentioned because their existence was effectively hidden. The McCanns refusal to address this matter is extremely damaging to their credibility.
Totally agreed with that last line, where is their Statement ? Surely they can clear it up in less than one side of sworn A4 ?
-
Totally agreed with that last line, where is their Statement ? Surely they can clear it up in less than one side of sworn A4 ?
my opinion is that this supposedly massive story has sunk without a trace
-
my opinion is that this supposedly massive story has sunk without a trace
I think there are plenty who will remember it.
-
my opinion is that this supposedly massive story has sunk without a trace
Or of course articles are ' Carter Rucked '.
-
I think there are plenty who will remember it.
There are 60 million people in the uk alone...how many is plenty
-
The mail probably has the closest demographic to the entire population of any newspaper; only TV or Radio would be a closer fit. It also has a massive readership beyond its sales.
I suspect that if the votes supported your views, you would be singing the Mail's praises!
davel, you asked why the Daily Mail comments were being discussed, it was mentioned on this thread first.
-
davel, you asked why the Daily Mail comments were being discussed, it was mentioned on this thread first.
the point I am making is how important the daily mail comments are
-
With regard to the title of this thread. No I don't think the actions of the McCann's has turned a supportive public against them.
I believe the majority of the people who support the McCann's agree that it was wrong of them to leave the children, agree that the McCann's deeply regret leaving them, and support them in the search for their daughter.
-
the point I am making is how important the daily mail comments are
I don't think that they are terribly important, but Aiofe seems to think that they are a good indication of public opinion (on the first page of this thread) so I guess it's just personal opinion.
-
I was originally supportive of the McCanns. I wasn't even especially critical of their babysitting arrangements as it struck me as not that different from a baby listening service. Having said that, it appears they were not checking on the children as often as they said and they were also quite far away.
It is only in the past few months that I started to become suspicious. Now I can see and smell a rat the size of a large continent. I am still somewhat flummoxed on the question of why so much support from such high places. Was there something else going on between Britain and Portugal? Or was it a political maneuver to bury bad news and sell newspapers with a human interest story? I can certainly see why our media would want to believe in the abduction theory - it is the stuff of every parents worst fear (although, curiously, had not been a fear of the McCanns at all until that evening).
Or is there some kind of wider agenda (Gerry's words) to do with making everyone paranoid about safety (the micro chipping theory?)
There are undoubtedly a lot of cultish elements operating - Catholicism, Medicine, Freemasonry. Then there are the links to organized crime.
The Murdoch press are not exactly squeaky clean. They can do a pretty good job of discrediting people when they want to. Brian Deer, a hack with no scientific qualifications at all, did a hatchet job on Andrew Wakefield. Interestingly, he got no support at all from high places. Yet he too was a doctor. All very strange.....
-
J.rob you have just mentioned Freemasonry. Have you evidence to back up this claim?
-
Hello there Rachel! I have read some things about Freemasons in this case but I think it is all rubbish? My late husband was a mason and the last thing they would do is to cover up in a missing child case?
Freemasons by their very nature are a secretive society, whose foundations are well known.
What function do they serve which is of any value ?
and if I am not mistaken, their doctrine is to protect fellow members. >@@(*&)
-
Being a secretive male society, how would you know what they might and might not do ?
-
I find that a bit offensive as my late husband and I had no secrets.
it will get a lot worse Tooty, I'm afraid..best of luck though
-
Freemasons by their very nature are a secretive society, whose foundations are well known.
What function do they serve which is of any value ?
and if I am not mistaken, their doctrine is to protect fellow members. >@@(*&)
And....
-
Hi Stephen2500 I'm not being funny but my late husband's lodge did a hell of a lot for charity and they would not ever, ever cover up anything to do with children being harmed.
That's spot on TP. The Free Masons are a charitable organisation who do a lot of good work on behalf of the impoverished and needy in society.
-
I was originally supportive of the McCanns. I wasn't even especially critical of their babysitting arrangements as it struck me as not that different from a baby listening service. Having said that, it appears they were not checking on the children as often as they said and they were also quite far away.
Hi j.rob
Welcome
Have you noit been keeping up to date?
It is now an accepred fact that the mccanns were only about 50 metres, crow flies, from 5A. This can be checked on Google Earth
Also about 75 metres walking. For a fit person, that could easily be done in well under 20 seconds including the gate and patio door.
And why are you making this statement that it appears that they were not checking regularly.
They were visually checked every half hour (unhappily Matt saw the twins but seeing the foot of Madeleines bed looking OK, ,did not actually check Madeleine.
Additionally Matt listened at the bedroom window and all was quiet. Hotels and places like Butlins used to do these half hourly listening checks as the norm.
So 4 checks in an hour and a half. That's pretty good
-
Hi j.rob
Welcome
Have you noit been keeping up to date?
It is now an accepred fact that the mccanns were only about 50 metres, crow flies, from 5A. This can be checked on Google Earth
Also about 75 metres walking. For a fit person, that could easily be done in well under 20 seconds including the gate and patio door.
And why are you making this statement that it appears that they were not checking regularly.
They were visually checked every half hour (unhappily Matt saw the twins but seeing the foot of Madeleines bed looking OK, ,did not actually check Madeleine.
Additionally Matt listened at the bedroom window and all was quiet. Hotels and places like Butlins used to do these half hourly listening checks as the norm.
So 4 checks in an hour and a half. That's pretty good
"they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did"
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
-
"they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did"
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
It seems the Oldfield couple had no intention of doing a half hourly check at 10pm when Kate did hers.
-
That's because Matt Oldfield said Kate left at 9.50pm to do her check not 10pm.
-
Also about 75 metres walking. For a fit person, that could easily be done in well under 20 seconds including the gate and patio door.
>@@(*&) Well under 20 seconds? That's well over half the speed Bannister ran his mile at.
Spin, spin, spin Sadie.
-
I know Zola Budd used to run barefoot but neither she or Bannister ran in flip flops 8(0(*
-
>@@(*&) Well under 20 seconds? That's well over half the speed Bannister ran his mile at.
Spin, spin, spin Sadie.
LOL
Well..I fail to see any relevance in how quick or slow someone got to the flat to check on their kids from the tapas bar if they were left out of sight and hearing for thirty minute stretches...before they did so..... a few seconds less or more.....matters not a jot
>@@(*&)
Oh well tomorrows
@)(++(*
-
LOL
Well..I fail to see any relevance in how quick or slow someone got to the flat to check on their kids from the tapas bar if they were left out of sight and hearing for thirty minute stretches...before they did so..... a few seconds less or more.....matters not a jot
>@@(*&)
True Red 8((()*/
-
>@@(*&) Well under 20 seconds? That's well over half the speed Bannister ran his mile at.
Spin, spin, spin Sadie.
Would you kindly take that back and apolopgise Lyall
It is your side that spins ... and twists facts.
http://uk.ask.com/question/100-meter-dash-world-record-holder
Who Is the World Record Holder in the 100 Meter Dash?
AnswerAs of January 2013 Usain Bolt is the world record holder in the 100 meter dash. He holds both a world and an Olympic record in the 100 meter dash. His fastest time was at the 2009 World Championships with a time of 9.58. At the 2012 Olympics his time was 9.63. Florence Griffith is the women's world record holder with a time of 10.49.
Those times are for 100 metres. The distance from the restaurant to the patio doors is something like 75 metres. Only 3/4 the distance and I have allowed twice the time for a much shorter distance.
So They would be running at just over a third the speed of the world record holders.
Both Kate and Gerry are very fit if they run up to that trig point near tbe Rocha Negro. Have you been?
I stand by my statement
Also about 75 metres walking. For a fit person, that could easily be done in well under 20 seconds including the gate and patio door
An apology would be appreciated.
-
You are mixing running and walking up in your calculations.
And your distance is an underestimate.
-
I just find the distance so irrelevant - they were out of sight and hearing, that was what mattered
-
I just find the distance so irrelevant - they were out of sight and hearing, that was what mattered
OF course the distant is relevant... .thats why they weren't charged with neglect..50 yds or 5 miles may make no difference to you but it does to the authorities
-
The reason that the Portuguese authorities didn't charge the parents with neglect was because that initial charge would have negated a further charge and they knew where they were going with the case.
-
The reason that the Portuguese authorities didn't charge the parents with neglect was because that initial charge would have negated a further charge and they knew where they were going with the case.
That is a myth created by [ censored word] early on to explain away why they were not charged. No-one has ever produced a reference to a law or administrative procedure that commands that. People have in the past produced other Portuguese cases of people being charged with more serious offences later in an investigation.
-
I'm sure the "pro" posters will state that it isn't the case and the "[ censored word]" will claim the opposite.
As an neutral I can only say that the people who I have discussed the case with have all been rather negative toward the family. It is an emotive issue, on the one hand your heart goes out to the child and the parents. But on the other their behaviour just doesn't do them any favours at all.
If you want to be in the public eye, and the McCanns certainly want that, then you need to have good PR and they just don't - despite allegedly spending a fair few quid on it.
N
Good post.
Most people i have spoken to about it lately just shrug it all off they are totally fed up of hearing about it sadly. It was just like OVERKILL. Since the crimewatch and all the stuff about gypsies and blonde girls, and black tractor men, they are even more fed up with it, and dont buy into ANY OF IT.
Its like the Saville case sadly. A truly horrendous case which turned into something beyond comprehension with all the victims coming forward one after the other, the stories of saville almost floating along the hospital corridors with a fat cigar in his mouth seeking out his next victim, it became almost bizzare in its telling, and I think got to the stage where people started to switch off and doubt any of it.
Which is totally a shame for the victims of this man. The media just did them no favours non so ever.
The same with the PR and McCann media, it has become ludicrous with headlines like MADDY FOUND IN GREECE, etc.
People are just switching off.
There will never be justice for Madeleine because the Media and PR have their own agendas.
I mean really what is new? NOTHING oh apart from the fact that FINALLY OFFICIALLY the JT sighting was dismissed, after years and years of being brainwashed into thinking it was the abductor of the child. How sad is that. Years wasted.....for Maddy anyway. It seems that people in general forgot about the child. IF she is alive she has no chance of being found with all this media circus.....sadly.
(http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t140/MrsAristotle/clarencemitchell_zps42e2b1a5.jpg)
-
OF course the distant is relevant... .thats why they weren't charged with neglect..50 yds or 5 miles may make no difference to you but it does to the authorities
Firstly, you omitted the relevant part of my post "they (the children) were out of sight and hearing, that was what mattered"
Secondly, how do you know why they weren't charged with neglect? Do you have more information from the authorities than the rest of us do? As I have previously explained, there are a number of reasons why parents are not actually charged in these situations - and no, I don't know which reason it was
-
Firstly, you omitted the relevant part of my post "they (the children) were out of sight and hearing, that was what mattered"
Secondly, how do you know why they weren't charged with neglect? Do you have more information from the authorities than the rest of us do? As I have previously explained, there are a number of reasons why parents are not actually charged in these situations - and no, I don't know which reason it was
if you look at the archiving report you will see that the portuguese did not think them guilty of neglect. i have spoken to social workers recently and they have confirmed that their baby listening sevice did not amount to neglect. they told me they have a massive amount of cases to deal with of real neglect by parents.
-
Firstly, you omitted the relevant part of my post "they (the children) were out of sight and hearing, that was what mattered"
Secondly, how do you know why they weren't charged with neglect? Do you have more information from the authorities than the rest of us do? As I have previously explained, there are a number of reasons why parents are not actually charged in these situations - and no, I don't know which reason it was
FGS Read the Portuguese Law. The law on abandonment requires proof that the abandoners intended to leave the children alone permanently. They have no criminal law for what we would call neglect, only administrative law. The Police could not get any evidence against them as they would need to prove that they did not intend to return to them at all.
This was settled years ago and still raises its head as a myth every few months.
-
Firstly, you omitted the relevant part of my post "they (the children) were out of sight and hearing, that was what mattered"
Secondly, how do you know why they weren't charged with neglect? Do you have more information from the authorities than the rest of us do? As I have previously explained, there are a number of reasons why parents are not actually charged in these situations - and no, I don't know which reason it was
IIRC (from memory) They were not charged because their regular checking ruled out 'Intent to Abandon' which is a necessary criterium to prove 'neglect'.
-
Firstly, you omitted the relevant part of my post "they (the children) were out of sight and hearing, that was what mattered"
Secondly, how do you know why they weren't charged with neglect? Do you have more information from the authorities than the rest of us do? As I have previously explained, there are a number of reasons why parents are not actually charged in these situations - and no, I don't know which reason it was
You seem to have very little knowledge of the law for someone who claims to be an ex social worker
-
FGS Read the Portuguese Law. The law on abandonment requires proof that the abandoners intended to leave the children alone permanently. They have no criminal law for what we would call neglect, only administrative law. The Police could not get any evidence against them as they would need to prove that they did not intend to return to them at all.
This was settled years ago and still raises its head as a myth every few months.
No need to be rude. I know about the proof of abandonment in Portugal aspect. But people are often asking why the parents were not charged here in the UK and that is the aspect about which I have explained that other actions are also taken; but what would be taken into account in considering the actions to take - the fact that the children were out of sight and hearing would be the relevant part, not the actual distance (and other aspects also).
-
You are mixing running and walking up in your calculations.
And your distance is an underestimate.
Measure it on G Earth then Lyall and tell us what it is. Make sure you keep close on the corners taking the shortest route that someone in a hurry would take. Measure from where they sat to the patio doors.
Tell us what it measures Lyall.
-
You seem to have very little knowledge of the law for someone who claims to be an ex social worker
I don't pretend to know Portuguese law, except what I have read on this case. I do know the British law on this which does not require abandonment. But anyway I was not talking legally, I was talking about the relevant aspects of leaving the children in the apartment when I think about the situation they were in
-
Measure it on G Earth then Lyall and tell us what it is. Make sure you keep close on the corners taking the shortest route that someone in a hurry would take. Measure from where they sat to the patio doors.
Tell us what it measures Lyall.
But Sadie, I genuinely can't see that the exact distance matters. The children were out of sight and hearing on unfamiliar territory - that is what matters to me
-
if you look at the archiving report you will see that the portuguese did not think them guilty of neglect. i have spoken to social workers recently and they have confirmed that their baby listening sevice did not amount to neglect. they told me they have a massive amount of cases to deal with of real neglect by parents.
I doubt they have more cases to deal with now than they did 20 years ago - the reason there is a 'massive amount' of cases is because there are less social workers and they have to comply with a lot more procedure. So they have less social workers dealing with (procedurally) more complex cases.
N
-
No need to be rude. I know about the proof of abandonment in Portugal aspect. But people are often asking why the parents were not charged here in the UK and that is the aspect about which I have explained that other actions are also taken; but what would be taken into account in considering the actions to take - the fact that the children were out of sight and hearing would be the relevant part, not the actual distance (and other aspects also).
Are you sure you know child care law. If you did you would know that they could not be charged with neglect in England for something that happened abroad.
-
Aiofe
FGS Read the Portuguese Law. The law on abandonment requires proof that the abandoners intended to leave the children alone permanently. They have no criminal law for what we would call neglect, only administrative law. The Police could not get any evidence against them as they would need to prove that they did not intend to return to them at all.
This was settled years ago and still raises its head as a myth every few months.
No need to be rude. I know about the proof of abandonment in Portugal aspect. But people are often asking why the parents were not charged here in the UK and that is the aspect about which I have explained that other actions are also taken; but what would be taken into account in considering the actions to take - the fact that the children were out of sight and hearing would be the relevant part, not the actual distance (and other aspects also).
Nothing rude about what Aoife wrote, just FACT .... and a hint of exasperation, that the facts are being ignored. Continually ignored.
Nothing rude at all.
-
I doubt they have more cases to deal with now than they did 20 years ago - the reason there is a 'massive amount' of cases is because there are less social workers and they have to comply with a lot more procedure. So they have less social workers dealing with (procedurally) more complex cases.
N
Social workers in child care are currently dealing with a Tsunami of referrals following the Baby P case- referrals are up by 100%, many of them defensive and time consuming but not actionable.
-
Measure it on G Earth then Lyall and tell us what it is. Make sure you keep close on the corners taking the shortest route that someone in a hurry would take. Measure from where they sat to the patio doors.
Tell us what it measures Lyall.
See the first answer on this thread, from the Google Maps admin - "distances are approximations only"
N
-
Firstly, you omitted the relevant part of my post "they (the children) were out of sight and hearing, that was what mattered"
Secondly, how do you know why they weren't charged with neglect? Do you have more information from the authorities than the rest of us do? As I have previously explained, there are a number of reasons why parents are not actually charged in these situations - and no, I don't know which reason it was
So in answer to the second part of your post I think we can say that they weren't charged with neglect...no need for the sarcastic comments re information from the authorities
-
Are you sure you know child care law. If you did you would know that they could not be charged with neglect in England for something that happened abroad.
Well I never knew that. I know you can be charged with child abuse for crimes committed abroad and assumed it would be the same sort of thing.
N
-
IIRC (from memory) They were not charged because their regular checking ruled out 'Intent to Abandon' which is a necessary criterium to prove 'neglect'.
This seems to imply that the situation itself; the risks, the age of the infants; the unlocked doors intended to enable Madeleine to get out at night and find her parents are irrelevant as long as the abandonment was not "permanent."
-
Social workers in child care are currently dealing with a Tsunami of referrals following the Baby P case- referrals are up by 100%, many of them defensive and time consuming but not actionable.
whats happened is that now far more professionals are having to undergo safeguarding training and are duty bound to report any suspicions, causing a tsunami of referrals
-
This seems to imply that the situation itself; the risks, the age of the infants; the unlocked doors intended to enable Madeleine to get out at night and find her parents are irrelevant as long as the abandonment was not "permanent."
Portuguese law
-
Social workers in child care are currently dealing with a Tsunami of referrals following the Baby P case- referrals are up by 100%, many of them defensive and time consuming but not actionable.
I'm meeting with the child protective services team on wednesday next week so I'll ask them if this is what they have experienced.
N
-
Well I never knew that. I know you can be charged with child abuse for crimes committed abroad and assumed it would be the same sort of thing.
N
The law was especially expanded to include sex crimes against minors because of the Thai and other child sex trade. Neglect abroad cannot be prosecuted in England.
-
It really gets my goat when people rehash items to abuse the McCanns with that were proven to be false years ago.
It takes a special sort of person to enjoy regurgitating falsehoods in an attempt to defend their own indefensible psoitions and to find weapons to wound the McCanns with.
I guess one can divide up the world into those Bright, Cheerful people who are able to accept that cases run their course and the application of the law has little to do with the, and sad obsessed peopl who believe that they have some real standing in the Mccann case and have a right to libel, abuse and harass a family who have apparently broken no laws at all.
It just pisses me off.
I don't much like the McCanns or their habits, but I know that I have no real input into their lives.
People here just get their jollies by cyber bullying.
I am not Pro McCann, just anti cretinous bullies.
What a wonderful post
-
Are you sure you know child care law. If you did you would know that they could not be charged with neglect in England for something that happened abroad.
Quite right. And they wouldn't have been anyhow, because it was standard practice at Pontins /Butlins and at hotels to listen check every half hour.
THe Mccanns checking arrangements far exceeded that. They VISUALLY checked every half hour and Matt also listening checkedm but that was extra to the listening checks and not instead of one of them
The Mccanns made a mistake, a very understandable one cos they were like in their back garden and only 50 crow flies metres away.
But then they behaved in an examplorary manner visually checking every half an hour. Better than thousands, nay millions, of peoples checks around the hotels of the world.
Examplorary after the first very understandable mistake
-
This seems to imply that the situation itself; the risks, the age of the infants; the unlocked doors intended to enable Madeleine to get out at night and find her parents are irrelevant as long as the abandonment was not "permanent."
That is what the word abandonment means and what the law states in Portugal. They do not have neglect on their criminal statute, but in their administrative Law.
-
whats happened is that now far more professionals are having to undergo safeguarding training and are duty bound to report any suspicions, causing a tsunami of referrals
Professionals have had to have such training for over two decades. The recent increase is due to the fallout from the Baby P case.
-
Oh dear - how indeed do people like to misunderstand. So last post
I am also aware of UK law. I was giving my feelings on the situation, and what would have been looked at as the relevant aspects. And pointing out as I have many times before that prosecution is not the only response to neglect (of any kind) so the fact that the McCanns were not prosecuted does not mean that leaving the children in that way was OK.
As for Aiofe
Nothing rude about what Aoife wrote, just FACT .... and a hint of exasperation, that the facts are being ignored. Continually ignored.
Nothing rude at all.
Maybe not to you.....
-
Portuguese law
I wonder if there are ever any prosecutions then ?
From this it seems that anything goes as long as the intention is to return to the child eventually.
It certainly seems to cover a broad spectrum!
-
I'm meeting with the child protective services team on wednesday next week so I'll ask them if this is what they have experienced.
N
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2013/05/09/care-applications-rise-70-in-years-since-baby-p-case/#.Un4WjPnIaAk
The number of care applications made by social workers in England soared by 70% in the years since the Baby Peter case, statistics released by Cafcass revealed today.
The family courts body published data for care applications across the 152 councils in England. It shows a 70% rise in total between 2012-13 and 2008-09, when news of Baby Peter’s death broke. It also revealed a 64% increase in referrals per 10,000 children, showing the rise is due to social work decisions, rather than population growth.
Over the same period, care applications per 10,000 children rose from 5.9 to 9.7 - a rise of 64%. The figures also reveal huge local variations, with some authorities with small care numbers seeing applications rise by up to 500%. In total, 139 local authorities have seen rising referrals, while 13 councils have seen decreases.
-
whats happened is that now far more professionals are having to undergo safeguarding training and are duty bound to report any suspicions, causing a tsunami of referrals
This is true, and each LA has their own implementation of safeguarding policy/procedure so they do have differences in the way that they deal with reports.
In the 3 LA which I most deal with they take the referral on a central line, this allows them to filter out a lot of the unnecessary referrals. Any they are unsure about get passed on to a more senior worker who then filters out a few more before passing the genuine referrals on for investigation.
So yes, they are getting a boat load of referrals through, but only a small percentage actually land on the desk of a social worker.
N
-
Quite right. And they wouldn't have been anyhow, because it was standard practice at Pontins /Butlins and at hotels to listen check every half hour.
THe Mccanns checking arrangements far exceeded that. They VISUALLY checked every half hour and Matt also listening checkedm but that was extra to the listening checks and not instead of one of them
The Mccanns made a mistake, a very understandable one cos they were like in their back garden and only 50 crow flies metres away.
But then they behaved in an examplorary manner visually checking every half an hour. Better than thousands, nay millions, of peoples checks around the hotels of the world.
Examplorary after the first very understandable mistake
See the first answer on this thread, from the Google Maps admin - "distances are approximations only"
N
-
Professionals have had to have such training for over two decades. The recent increase is due to the fallout from the Baby P case.
More accurately *certain professionals* have. For example it has only been in the last 4 years that I've had to have the training. In that time I've worked with high risk criminals and young people (16-25)
N
-
Oh dear - how indeed do people like to misunderstand. So last post
I am also aware of UK law. I was giving my feelings on the situation, and what would have been looked at as the relevant aspects. And pointing out as I have many times before that prosecution is not the only response to neglect (of any kind) so the fact that the McCanns were not prosecuted does not mean that leaving the children in that way was OK.
As for
Maybe not to you.....
It was legally OK as no formal action was taken. You should know the law and how it works. Placing a child on the Protection Register has no meaning regarding culpability, and even less meaning is attached to social workers investigations and words of advice.
Technically, legally and formally, the Mccanns have made no acts in the UK or Portugal that were actionable in any manner that could apportion blame.
Anyone saying that they are in some way guilty of neglect is only expressing an unsupportable personal opinion and misuse of the word neglect which has legal connotations.
Did they 'neglect' the child in an absolute way- NO
Did they act in a way that some people (including me) might find doubtful - YES
Do people have the right to cyber bully them about it - NO
-
This is true, and each LA has their own implementation of safeguarding policy/procedure so they do have differences in the way that they deal with reports.
In the 3 LA which I most deal with they take the referral on a central line, this allows them to filter out a lot of the unnecessary referrals. Any they are unsure about get passed on to a more senior worker who then filters out a few more before passing the genuine referrals on for investigation.
So yes, they are getting a boat load of referrals through, but only a small percentage actually land on the desk of a social worker.
N
What a load of Tosh. All referrals have to be assessed by a qualified social worker at some level. Filtering by senior staff takes out experience from teams.
-
More accurately *certain professionals* have. For example it has only been in the last 4 years that I've had to have the training. In that time I've worked with high risk criminals and young people (16-25)
N
Of course all professionals don't have to do this. All professionals concerned with the care of children do- Doctors, Nurses, Social Workers, Police, Teachers etc.
-
So are we agreed that we should avoid any words that state or imply that the McCanns are in any way guilty of formal neglect.
Their standards may not be your standards, but what they did is not illegal.
-
But Sadie, I genuinely can't see that the exact distance matters. The children were out of sight and hearing on unfamiliar territory - that is what matters to me
After 5 days the local territory was familiar to them. Most people in PdL are British or English speakers.
Without stepping outside the patio doors even, they only had to pull the curtains aside a little and the light from within would have immediately shone out with them silhouetted in that brightly lit patch. The tapas group were a bright group. Someone would immediately have noticed the change in the Mccann apartment. Remember it was only about 50 metres away.
-
After 5 days the local territory was familiar to them. Most people in PdL are British or English speakers.
Without stepping outside the patio doors even, they only had to pull the curtains aside a little and the light from within would have immediately shone out with them silhouetted in that brightly lit patch. The tapas group were a bright group. Someone would immediately have noticed the change in the Mccann apartment. Remember it was only about 50 metres away.
Had Madeleine stepped out, then her eyes would have been drawn to the one bright spot, the Tapad outside restaurant with its massive windows. She would have immediately have spotted her Mum and Dad and the rest of her adult friends .... and she would have YELLED them.
Kate would have heard. A mother is tuned into her childrens cries. And I easily heard my kids when they yelled us from the house when we were at the end of our 50 metre garden chatting over the bottom fence.
Madeleine is NO quiet little thing. She is fairly dainty, but does she ever have a good voice ! They would have heard her, almost without doubt. And someone would have noticed her.
Also, sorry to repeat it, but would a little girl having struggled to open a patio door, then in her (?)panic, have struggled to close it?
Nah, not in my opinion anyway.
So she would have been heard and seen had she come out. Had she stayed in then the movement of the curtains with the sudden light shining out along with her silhouete would have been noticed.
She was taken
-
Had Madeleine stepped out, then her eyes would have been drawn to the one bright spot, the Tapad outside restaurant with its massive windows. She would have immediately have spotted her Mum and Dad and the rest of her adult friends .... and she would have YELLED them.
Kate would have heard. A mother is tuned into her childrens cries. And I easily heard my kids when they yelled us from the house when we were at the end of our 50 metre garden chatting over the bottom fence.
Madeleine is NO quiet little thing. She is fairly dainty, but does she ever have a good voice ! They would have heard her, almost without doubt. And someone would have noticed her.
Also, sorry to repeat it, but would a little girl having struggled to open a patio door, then in her (?)panic, have struggled to close it?
Nah, not in my opinion anyway.
So she would have been heard and seen had she come out. Had she stayed in then the movement of the curtains with the sudden light shining out along with her silhouete would have been noticed.
She was taken
Woke and wandered is unlikely, but not disproven.
-
Quite right. And they wouldn't have been anyhow, because it was standard practice at Pontins /Butlins and at hotels to listen check every half hour.
THe Mccanns checking arrangements far exceeded that. They VISUALLY checked every half hour and Matt also listening checkedm but that was extra to the listening checks and not instead of one of them
The Mccanns made a mistake, a very understandable one cos they were like in their back garden and only 50 crow flies metres away.
But then they behaved in an examplorary manner visually checking every half an hour. Better than thousands, nay millions, of peoples checks around the hotels of the world.
Examplorary after the first very understandable mistake
How do you feel about the doors being left unlocked, though and about the reasons given for leaving them so?
How is this an improvement on the listening services offered commercially?
How would it be if Listening Service Supervisors were listening at empty rooms because toddlers had wandered off or "Abductors" had already walked in and made away with the child?
Why aren`t hotels/ Butlin`s etc. a target for "abductors" or child traffickers or "paedophile rings" when it is known that a listening service is offered and that children are alone?
Why risk targeting a family using such an" exemplary" superior checking service, when thousands nay millions are making do with inferior commercially offered listening services which would make it far easier for the prospective abductor ?
-
See the first answer on this thread, from the Google Maps admin - "distances are approximations only"
N
They are a damned sight nearer than any measurements by any other means. You peeps wee going on about 200 metres and 150 metres before G Earth.
Of course GE has to cover their backs because their images are made up of small photos added together, but there aint going to be many photos added together over such a small distance as 50 metres, are there?
For all intents and purposes GE measurements are as accurate as we need, And I suspect you know this
Why are you obfuscating? Cant you stand the facts?
-
Of course all professionals don't have to do this. All professionals concerned with the care of children do- Doctors, Nurses, Social Workers, Police, Teachers etc.
what a load of tosh. Nursery workers do not have to do it and it's not just children that are subject to safeguarding.
N
-
After 5 days the local territory was familiar to them. Most people in PdL are British or English speakers.
Without stepping outside the patio doors even, they only had to pull the curtains aside a little and the light from within would have immediately shone out with them silhouetted in that brightly lit patch. The tapas group were a bright group. Someone would immediately have noticed the change in the Mccann apartment. Remember it was only about 50 metres away.
See the first answer on this thread, from the Google Maps admin - "distances are approximations only"
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/maps/2qQF6eteanQ
You keep posting 50 meters, I keep posting this. Simples
N
-
They are a damned sight nearer than any measurements by any other means. You peeps wee going on about 200 metres and 150 metres before G Earth.
Of course GE has to cover their backs because their images are made up of small photos added together, but there aint going to be many photos added together over such a small distance as 50 metres, are there?
For all intents and purposes GE measurements are as accurate as we need, And I suspect you know this
Why are you obfuscating? Cant you stand the facts?
find a thread where I have even bothered to argue the distance - and good luck with it.
You say 50m, Google says distances are approximate - I know who I believe.
I don't care how far away they are, it makes no difference to me because my children are well looked after and safe thank you very much.
I just don't like people parading approximations around as fact that's all. when you visit the complex and measure the distance, or find a reference to someone who has, please feel free to post and I won't irritate you.
N
-
Measure it on G Earth then Lyall and tell us what it is. Make sure you keep close on the corners taking the shortest route that someone in a hurry would take. Measure from where they sat to the patio doors.
Tell us what it measures Lyall.
No need to. Brunty measured it for us. 80 paces he said.
80 paces in 20 seconds? >@@(*&)
-
Your surname isn't Christian-Andersen perchance ?
That did make me smile - and it's my birthday too!
N
-
Measure it on G Earth then Lyall and tell us what it is. Make sure you keep close on the corners taking the shortest route that someone in a hurry would take. Measure from where they sat to the patio doors.
Tell us what it measures Lyall.
And why would they be in a hurry, Sadie?
-
err, it's not tosh. Where do I say that the people who take the calls are not qualified social workers?
You are an objectionable fool at times.
N
[/quote]
You were claiming that because they were being filtered, this did not affect practitioner time. The fact that the most senior staff are spending much of their time filtering the tsunami means that senior experienced practitioner time IS being wasted.
You said:
"So yes, they are getting a boat load of referrals through, but only a small percentage actually land on the desk of a social worker."
That IS tosh- every case lands on the desk of a social worker- often a senior social worker. Yu now agree that!
You made an error by saying that not every case landed on the desk of a social worker. That is untrue. Please withdraw your statement and apologise for the insults that followed.
-
And why would they be in a hurry, Sadie?
Also, as they had been drinking, can we be sure that they didn't wander round a bit / stagger? Were they fully able to assess what the quickest route would be if there judgement were clouded by alcohol?
N
-
what a load of tosh. Nursery workers do not have to do it and it's not just children that are subject to safeguarding.
N
You are rather good on mis-statements.
Nursery Nurses, Nursery teachers and the management of nurseries have to do child protection courses. Nursery assistants (as with assistants in nursing and social work do not have to as their jobs do not have an executive function and all their work is technically the responsibility of a professional member of staff.
-
No need to. Brunty measured it for us. 80 paces he said.
80 paces in 20 seconds? >@@(*&)
That calculates to 8mph.
-
You are rather good on mis-statements.
Nursery Nurses, Nursery teachers and the management of nurseries have to do child protection courses. Nursery assistants (as with assistants in nursing and social work do not have to as their jobs do not have an executive function and all their work is technically the responsibility of a professional member of staff.
So you were wrong then, not everyone who works with children has to do it.
If you want to be a pedant then you can only expect others to act in the same way towards you, fairs fair.
N
-
So you were wrong then, not everyone who works with children has to do it.
If you want to be a pedant then you can only expect others to act in the same way towards you, fairs fair.
N
You really must work on your memory and your fact testing.
I said in
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2886.msg102936#msg102936
"Professionals have had to have such training for over two decades. The recent increase is due to the fallout from the Baby P case."
No mention of non-professionals.
An apology would be quite nice.
-
And:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2886.msg102949#msg102949
"Of course all professionals don't have to do this. All professionals concerned with the care of children do- Doctors, Nurses, Social Workers, Police, Teachers etc."
Apology please.
-
You were claiming that because they were being filtered, this did not affect practitioner time. The fact that the most senior staff are spending much of their time filtering the tsunami means that senior experienced practitioner time IS being wasted.
You said:
"So yes, they are getting a boat load of referrals through, but only a small percentage actually land on the desk of a social worker."
That IS tosh- every case lands on the desk of a social worker- often a senior social worker. Yu now agree that!
You made an error by saying that not every case landed on the desk of a social worker. That is untrue. Please withdraw your statement and apologise for the insults that followed.
I will not apologise to you, not in a month of Sundays.
The report lands on the desk of a qualified (not necessarily senior) Sw.
A case, as in a case file, does not because many of the reports are filtered out.
N
-
And:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2886.msg102949#msg102949
"Of course all professionals don't have to do this. All professionals concerned with the care of children do- Doctors, Nurses, Social Workers, Police, Teachers etc."
Apology please.
Please define 'professional' so I can make you look even more foolish than you already do.
thanks
N
-
No need to. Brunty measured it for us. 80 paces he said.
80 paces in 20 seconds? >@@(*&)
What a shame he didn't run the march in the last London Olympics!
-
That did make me smile - and it's my birthday too!
N
Happy birthday Blonde 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Happy birthday Blonde 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Thank you, if only I were 21 again ....
-
Thank you, if only I were 21 again ....
Stone?
-
That did make me smile - and it's my birthday too!
N
Happy Birthday BFB. Hope it's a good one !
-
Please define 'professional' so I can make you look even more foolish than you already do.
thanks
N
A member of a professional organisation- a qualified person in one of the professions, teacher, doctor, nurse, social worker etc. It is laid down in Government advice which professional and administrative staff need to go.
-
Thank you, if only I were 21 again ....
Stone?
Sorry, JK Happy birthday 8((()*/
-
Thank you, if only I were 21 again ....
It likely would be boring. Rather the unexpected.. Happy Birthday !
-
A member of a professional organisation- a qualified person in one of the professions, teacher, doctor, nurse, social worker etc. It is laid down in Government advice which professional and administrative staff need to go.
go where? none of the above have any specific legal requirement to report safeguarding issues other than doctor and nurse.
Try reading the 2004 (or 2008 amendments) children's act, rather than 'advice', as to who has legal responsibility for child and adult safeguarding.
N
-
go where? none of the above have any specific legal requirement to report safeguarding issues other than doctor and nurse.
Try reading the 2004 (or 2008 amendments) children's act, rather than 'advice', as to who has legal responsibility for child and adult safeguarding.
N
they may not have a legal requirement but many do have a professional requirement and failure to act could be deemed gross professional misconduct and loss of registration
-
they may not have a legal requirement but many do have a professional requirement and failure to act could be deemed gross professional misconduct and loss of registration
Correct
N
-
go where? none of the above have any specific legal requirement to report safeguarding issues other than doctor and nurse.
Try reading the 2004 (or 2008 amendments) children's act, rather than 'advice', as to who has legal responsibility for child and adult safeguarding.
N
There is no Legal requirement, merely a professional one. And an employment one as each hospital, school etc must have a reporting policy.
It is not a criminal offence to fail to report, but a civil infraction of administrative law:
"In England, government guidance Working together to safeguard children (DCSF, 2010) states that “Everybody who works or has contact with children, parents and other adults in contact with children should be able to recognise, and know how to act upon, evidence that a child’s health or development is or may be being impaired – especially when they are suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.”(Para 5.8).
Para 5.12 goes on to say that “All staff members who have or become aware of concerns about the safety or welfare of a child or children should know:
who to contact in what circumstances, and how; and
when and how to make a referral to local authority children’s social care services or the police.”
If there are any child welfare concerns “relevant information about the child and family should be discussed with a manager, or a named or designated health professional or a designated member of staff depending on the organisational setting."(Para 5.13).2
The guidance makes clear reference to the duty to act on any child welfare concerns in para 5.18: “If somebody believes or suspects that a child may be suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm then s/he should always refer his or her concerns to the local authority children’s social care services. In addition to social care, the police and the NSPCC have powers to intervene in these circumstances.”
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/questions/reporting_child_abuse_wda74908.html
If, as you claim, you work with child protection, you are in need of a course on the Law.
I do know as I used to be a level two trainer in the 90s.
-
go where? none of the above have any specific legal requirement to report safeguarding issues other than doctor and nurse.
Try reading the 2004 (or 2008 amendments) children's act, rather than 'advice', as to who has legal responsibility for child and adult safeguarding.
N
Cite please for where Doctors and Nurses have a different legal position to Teachers or Administrators.
-
Cite please for where Doctors and Nurses have a different legal position to Teachers or Administrators.
As I said earlier - try reading the 2004 children's act. It's all in there. And some medical/educational professionals DO have a legal responsibility to act - so your'e wrong on that one too.
Still it was over 20 years ago when you were a 'level 2' trainer so you could be forgiven if you weren't so egotistical.
And where have I said I work with child protection? I certainly don't do that for a living.
N
-
As I said earlier - try reading the 2004 children's act. It's all in there. And some medical/educational professionals DO have a legal responsibility to act - so your'e wrong on that one too.
Still it was over 20 years ago when you were a 'level 2' trainer so you could be forgiven if you weren't so egotistical.
And where have I said I work with child protection? I certainly don't do that for a living.
N
You are just getting confused.
First it is The Children Act, not the children's act.
Secondly I have not said that there is a legal requirement to report for anyone under the criminal law- that is currently being discussed. I am not aware how Doctors and Nurses differ in their responsibilities to report- perhaps you can show where this is legislated for.
It was not over 20 years ago, and I followed the passage of the 2004 and 2008 Acts as I write on the subject. I do not use them every day, but I am fascinated to see you try to make your statements stand up.
Give it a try.
-
As you write on them, you shouldn't have to read the act where it states such. But hey ho there you go.
N
-
As you write on them, you shouldn't have to read the act where it states such. But hey ho there you go.
N
No rational response then
Where does it specify the duties of Doctors and Nurses?
-
This is the legal position for Dctors, none of which flows from the Children Act as amended. It is professional guidance as I stated. It is not part of the criminal Law:
http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=20007924
All doctors have a duty to report concerns that a child may be at risk of abuse or neglect, even if their work is with adult patients, says new guidance from the General Medical Council.[1]
Niall Dickson, the GMC’s chief executive, said that doctors need not worry that the regulator would “come after them” as long as they followed the guidance and took action through the proper channels.
Paediatricians have shunned child protection work after high profile cases in which some have been hauled up before the regulator after complaints by parents. Two paediatricians with an international reputation, Roy Meadow and David Southall, were ordered to be struck off the medical register but eventually had the decisions quashed on appeal.
The guidance, to be sent to more than 230 000 doctors in the United Kingdom, comes from a working party whose establishment was announced when Southall was restored to the register in May 2010.[2] Paediatricians were outraged that one of the group’s members was Penny Mellor, a parents’ advocate they accused of orchestrating a campaign of complaints against child protection doctors, but she stepped down after Southall threatened a High Court challenge to her appointment.[3]
The GMC’s chairman, Peter Rubin, said that he could see how doctors who worked with adults could overlook child protection concerns. But a patient’s chaotic lifestyle, alcohol or drug misuse, or “serious mental health issues” could lead to worries about the welfare of children in the home.
The guidance outlines the advice doctors should take and how they should raise their concerns with child protection colleagues and agencies. It states, “Taking action will be justified, even if it turns out that the child or young person is not at risk of, or suffering, abuse or neglect, as long as the concerns are honestly held and reasonable, and the doctor takes action through appropriate channels.”
-
This is the professional position for Nurses- again, not flowing from the Children Act itself, but from adminstrative law.
http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/78583/002045.pdf
-
Are we being spammed again ?
-
Just a note to say the BFB has not backed up her incorrect postings about reporting abuse after I posted the professional guidelines. And to think that she was haranguing me for cites earlier!
-
Alfie shhhh @)(++(*
N
-
Alfie shhhh @)(++(*
N
Should be shhhd for good.......for his disgusting antics today....but he will be back....tomorrow...no doubt defending his disgraceful actions with some pathetic argument LOL
-
Where's Aiofe gone to ? I missed out on what happened.
He posted a link to a blog that had peoples user ids from an old forum called the 3as side by side with their real life names outed ...not sure where they came from, but was out of order... And boasted you could get thier occupations phone numbers and other info....s..m behviour afaiac for someone who asks of others "is this honourable behaviour"? LOL
-
He posted a link to a blog that had peoples user ids from an old forum called the 3as side by side with their real life names outed ...not sure where they came from, but was out of order... And boasted you could get thier occupations phone numbers and other info....s..m behviour afaiac for someone who asks of others "is this honourable behaviour"? LOL
And he wasn't banned ! Remarkable !
-
And he wasn't banned ! Remarkable !
Maybe mods dont realise hes a previouslybanned (afew times) poster who did exactly the same thing last time they were banned.....for that and or other stuff,heyho debunker sappie sepee or whatever it was LOL and now aiofe clown
Theyhad no business putting up a link to make a point...ergo their purpose was to publicise peoples real ids...that were illegally harvested from some place iirc some petition..... maliciously used to intimdate....inthe guise of some "argument".... Just another joke bully troll you know....
8((()*/
-
Maybe mods dont realise hes a previouslybanned (afew times) poster who did exactly the same thing last time they were banned.....for that and or other stuff,heyho debunker sappie sepee or whatever it was LOL and now aiofe clown
Theyhad no business putting up a link to make a point...ergo their purpose was to publicise peoples real ids...that were illegally harvested from some place iirc some petition..... maliciously used to intimdate....inthe guise of some "argument".... Just another joke bully troll you know....
8((()*/
Remarkable indeed ! How many times will the nurse have to strike ?
-
Remarkable indeed ! How many times will the nurse have to strike ?
Many it seems Anne. Although if intimidation is all they have left in their bag of tricks it seems we have the upper hand.
-
There's a facebook page that I lurk on that had in the region of 2,000 likes before crime watch. It's nearly 16,000 now.
It's an open group so you can read it without joining. I've never joined it as I find some of the stuff on there very distasteful
." Detectives are monitoring the internet for vile messages about the couple after a Facebook group targeting the pair attracted 11,000 members."
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/346131/Sick-internet-trolls-target-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-after-Crimewatch-special
I could never understand how this group had so many members..now I understand. it has a link where if you join it adds all your facebook friends. that means that one person joining could add a hundred to their list..
On the right hand side of this page......>>>> there is a little box option to ''+ add people to the group''. Please feel free to add your facebook contacts in here. Thanks Admin.
-
Morning davel.
Why are you bumping my post?
-
have a look now ive edited it. The support for the page is not as it seems
-
have a look now ive edited it. The support for the page is not as it seems
I came across that group because a Facebook friend is a member. I've not been added, nor has she invited me....
Do you mean that if a friend of mine became a member, I would automatically be added or that poeple can choose to invite their friends, who can then choose to join or not?
-
I came across that group because a Facebook friend is a member. I've not been added, nor has she invited me....
Do you mean that if a friend of mine became a member, I would automatically be added or that poeple can choose to invite their friends, who can then choose to join or not?
it seems to me that your facebook contacts are automatically added to the group....which would explain why they have 17000 members but only a fraction of that support for any petitions they raise and ask people to sign
-
it seems to me that your facebook contacts are automatically added to the group....which would explain why they have 17000 members but only a fraction of that support for any petitions they raise and ask people to sign
I don't see how that's possible. Are you saying that if I joined, all my friends would automatically be signed up?
Do you want me to join to see what happens?
-
I don't see how that's possible. Are you saying that if I joined, all my friends would automatically be signed up?
Do you want me to join to see what happens?
yes ifyou want..see what happens
-
I don't see how that's possible. Are you saying that if I joined, all my friends would automatically be signed up?
Do you want me to join to see what happens?
if you look at the list of members you will see that some have joined but the overwhelming majority have been added by other people. the same names seem to have added a lot of members. This is how the group has grown so much
-
if you look at the list of members you will see that some have joined but the overwhelming majority have been added by other people. the same names seem to have added a lot of members. This is how the group has grown so much
I see what you mean. That's because you have to be added by a member of admin. You apply to join and then you're added. That's why it's the same people who are doing the adding all the time. It's not that all of your FB friends are automatically added when you join.
-
I see what you mean. That's because you have to be added by a member of admin. You apply to join and then you're added. That's why it's the same people who are doing the adding all the time. It's not that all of your FB friends are automatically added when you join.
then why do some posters just join..think you are wrong
-
counted about 3 out of a hundred who joined...the rest have been added
-
counted about 3 out of a hundred who joined...the rest have been added
In the spirit of scientific experiment, I've joined. The members list says I've been added. I really do think that it's a case of the admin accepting you, hence, 'adding' you.
I also haven't seen a massive jump in numbers since my add. In fact it hasn't changed at all. I don't know if it doesn't automatically update, or if another member left at the same time.
-
In the spirit of scientific experiment, I've joined. The members list says I've been added. I really do think that it's a case of the admin accepting you, hence, 'adding' you.
I also haven't seen a massive jump in numbers since my add. In fact it hasn't changed at all. I don't know if it doesn't automatically update, or if another member left at the same time.
have you been added or have you joined...thats the question
-
have you been added or have you joined...thats the question
It says added.
-
Have any of your friends been added ?
Nope. 2 were already members. No other friends are....
-
So that would suggest that your list of friends are not automatically included into the membership numbers of that Facebook page !
So there are approximately 17000 members who have joined voluntarily !
Do you have a link to the site perchance Cariad as I'd like to view what is being discussed ?
P.S. thanks for volunteering to, and subsequently signing to the site for the sake of clarity !
I'll PM it to you. I don't think the mods would appreciate linking to it on the board.
-
So there are approximately 17000 members who have joined voluntarily !
Until they realise what they've joined. A friend on my news feed joined the group believing it was a page about Madeleine, when she read the content she was disgusted.
-
Sorry for going off topic but why is it so quiet on here, just logged in after about 6 days absence and expected to have to catch up on loads of posts, where is everyone?
-
Hellooo is anybody there ?????
Oh well goodnight folks xxx
-
So there are approximately 17000 members who have joined voluntarily !
Until they realise what they've joined. A friend on my news feed joined the group believing it was a page about Madeleine, when she read the content she was disgusted.
"when she read the content she was disgusted."
Kates book had a similar effect on me.
-
I've just checked 'member's by date joined' and I can confirm that none of my friends have been added since I was.
Also it definitely says I was 'added by so and so' not that I joined.
-
Are you satisfied with the results of the experiment davel, cause I'd quite like to leave the group now.
-
Are you satisfied with the results of the experiment davel, cause I'd quite like to leave the group now.
no...stay a bit longer
-
no...stay a bit longer
More than a hundred people have been added since me and none of them are my friends. How much longer?