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: Sherlock Holmes on January 01, 2014, 06:35:41 PM
-
The point has been raised that it is sometimes hard to discern whether the actions the McCanns have taken since the disappearance of their daughter ( hiring detectives, orchestrating media campaigns, libel claims, etc.) are part of a controlled strategy by the McCanns, or are the result of the McCanns having become caught up in a modern media frenzy that is beyond their influence.
Are they stuck on the back of a runaway tiger, as Redblossom puts it - or are they cleverly in control?
-
The point has been raised that it is sometimes hard to discern whether the actions the McCanns have taken since the disappearance of their daughter ( hiring detectives, orchestrating media campaigns, libel claims, etc.) are part of a controlled strategy by the McCanns, or are the result of the McCanns having become caught up in a modern media frenzy that is beyond their influence.
Are they stuck on the back of a runaway tiger, as Redblossom puts it - or are they cleverly in control?
They could fade away any time they want. They won't because they know that the best chance of finding out what happened to their daughter is to keep the case in the public eye, and so far they have shown that they will do absolutely everything within their power to keep the pressure up.
-
The point has been raised that it is sometimes hard to discern whether the actions the McCanns have taken since the disappearance of their daughter ( hiring detectives, orchestrating media campaigns, libel claims, etc.) are part of a controlled strategy by the McCanns, or are the result of the McCanns having become caught up in a modern media frenzy that is beyond their influence.
Are they stuck on the back of a runaway tiger, as Redblossom puts it - or are they cleverly in control?
Just to say the original Chinese proverb is: ''Ch'i 'hu nan hsia pei'', translated as ''He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount.''
"A rough interpretation of the proverb would be ''Once a dangerous or troublesome venture is begun, the safest course is to carry it through to the end''. Or in plain speak, it is easy to get on the Tiger but very difficult to get off without incurring danger to oneself." - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070708081303AAkhGND
-
They could fade away any time they want. They won't because they know that the best chance of finding out what happened to their daughter is to keep the case in the public eye, and so far they have shown that they will do absolutely everything within their power to keep the pressure up.
I don't think they can fade away- its just not in their nature.
They are desperate to be exonerated in the eye of the public and it just isn't happening, so they have to soldier on. Even when they appear to be proactive, it is usually in response to some imminent bad publicity.
In fairness to them, I don't suppose that they imagined for one moment that it would turn out the way it has.
-
I don't think they can fade away- its just not in their nature.
They are desperate to be exonerated in the eye of the public and it just isn't happening, so they have to soldier on. Even when they appear to be proactive, it is usually in response to some imminent bad publicity.
In fairness to them, I don't suppose that they imagined for one moment that it would turn out the way it has.
whatever the McCanns do it will be construed by those who doubt them as evidence of guilt...bizarre but true...if they sue they are vexatatious litigants and if they don't sue then the story is true. I cannot see how any guilty person would continue to make sure the case is kept in the public eye and is further investigated. They have had every opportunity to fade into the background
-
The point has been raised that it is sometimes hard to discern whether the actions the McCanns have taken since the disappearance of their daughter ( hiring detectives, orchestrating media campaigns, libel claims, etc.) are part of a controlled strategy by the McCanns, or are the result of the McCanns having become caught up in a modern media frenzy that is beyond their influence.
Are they stuck on the back of a runaway tiger, as Redblossom puts it - or are they cleverly in control?
They could just be trying to find their daughter.
-
Just to say the original Chinese proverb is: ''Ch'i 'hu nan hsia pei'', translated as ''He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount.''
"A rough interpretation of the proverb would be ''Once a dangerous or troublesome venture is begun, the safest course is to carry it through to the end''. Or in plain speak, it is easy to get on the Tiger but very difficult to get off without incurring danger to oneself." - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070708081303AAkhGND
Absolutely.
They weren't properly and on time invited to dismount, as it should have been.
-
In fairness to them, I don't suppose that they imagined for one moment that it would turn out the way it has.
So do I. But they had a very strong motive, which isn't the case of their supporters.
-
Absolutely.
They weren't properly and on time invited to dismount, as it should have been.
Can I have that in Plain English please?
-
They could just be trying to find their daughter.
Its certainly a possibility.
-
So do I. But they had a very strong motive, which isn't the case of their supporters.
I have a perfectly strong and understandable motive. So please don't tell me what my motives are.
-
Its certainly a possibility.
Well thank you. And I mean that kindly.
-
I have a perfectly strong and understandable motive. So please don't tell me what my motives are.
We all know what your motives are eleanor....demonisng people who dare to think the mccanns mght have been involved and daring to thnk for themselves, grand motive there......not....brass necks? Oh yes
SH, re your OP, the mccanns are not robots...,they act on their own accord....there is no way they were ever only acting on any advice and nothing else.....they unleashed the media...they couldnt unleash them ever.....a trap of their own making
-
Just to say the original Chinese proverb is: ''Ch'i 'hu nan hsia pei'', translated as ''He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount.''
"A rough interpretation of the proverb would be ''Once a dangerous or troublesome venture is begun, the safest course is to carry it through to the end''. Or in plain speak, it is easy to get on the Tiger but very difficult to get off without incurring danger to oneself." - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070708081303AAkhGND
Thanks for that, CPN!
One wonders when this venture will end.....
-
They could just be trying to find their daughter.
That's my opinion.
But I also believe that their campaigning contains elements that are counterproductive to that end.
-
That's my opinion.
But I also believe that their campaigning contains elements that are counterproductive to that end.
Its not just their campaigning its their behaviour words and actions from 2007 to date.....do you really believe their only motive was searching for their lost child? So many of their actions contradict that?..not least the fact they never publicised the smith efits ever! Why didnt they
Edited
-
Its not just their campaigning its their behaviour words and actions from 2007 to date.....
Yes I would include that in the broad sweep of the campaign. 'We have done nothing wrong' etc. (Not exactly a new point, I know).
-
Yes I would include that in the broad sweep of the campaign. 'We have done nothing wrong' etc. (Not exactly a new point, I know).
No no no SH...it wasnt just that........
-
Thanks for that, CPN!
One wonders when this venture will end.....
I quoted it some time back, SH, and someone answered with another very appropriate quote (which I meant to commit to memory but failed!)
It is just that it is increasingly difficult to go back on something the longer it goes on... And increasingly difficult to change a story as time progresses
-
We all know what your motives are eleanor....demonisng people who dare to think the mccanns mght have been involved and daring to thnk for themselves, grand motive there......not....brass necks? Oh yes
SH, re your OP, the mccanns are not robots...,they act on their own accord....there is no way they were ever only acting on any advice and nothing else.....they unleashed the media...they couldnt unleash them ever.....a trap of their own making
And isn't this not a big part of the element of tragedy in this case? The fact that not only have they lost their daughter (not their fault, IMO), but that they are now suffering from by being caught up in a complex web largely of their own devising. Victims of an abductor (IMO) and also of their own imperfect choices.
-
No no no SH...it wasnt just that........
!!
-
But I also believe that their campaigning contains elements that are counterproductive to that end.
I guess that those elements are the result of dubious advise, though their lawyers and PRs are the best (not the PIs however) and money not a problem.
What about the elements of their campaigns that you don't consider counterproductive ? How would you qualify them ?
-
That's my opinion.
But I also believe that their campaigning contains elements that are counterproductive to that end.
Has anyone written a Handbook on how to find your abducted daughter?
-
No no no SH...it wasnt just that........
!!
-
Victims of an abductor (IMO) and also of their own imperfect choices.
You must be kidding, SH.
Madeleine is the only victim and it has not (yet) been established of whom.
Would you call the jemmied shutter/window untruth an "imperfect choice" ? And would you call the open shutter/window version for the PJ a "perfect choice" ?
-
And isn't this not a big part of the element of tragedy in this case? The fact that not only have they lost their daughter (not their fault, IMO), but that they are now suffering from by being caught up in a complex web largely of their own devising. Victims of an abductor (IMO) and also of their own imperfect choices.
imperfect choices? Like chosing to leave their three infants alone night after night, like unlucky one was alledgedly abducted, like unlucky the cadaver dog signalled only in their place, like unlucky some PIs stole half a million quid off them, like unlucky no one was looking for madeleine not police not no one.....etc etc like unlucky in so many things, come on......are they cursed or something?
-
I quoted it some time back, SH, and someone answered with another very appropriate quote (which I meant to commit to memory but failed!)
It is just that it is increasingly difficult to go back on something the longer it goes on... And increasingly difficult to change a story as time progresses
This is what the AG foresaw and why he requested a reconstruction.
-
imperfect choices? Like chosing to leave their three infants alone night after night, like unlucky one was alledgedly abducted, like unlucky the cadaver dog signalled only in their place, like unlucky some PIs stole half a million quid off them, like unlucky no one was looking for madeleine not police not no one.....etc etc like unlucky in so many things, come on......are they cursed or something?
like forgetting whether or not they left the door unlocked...
-
This is where your lack of knowledge of the nuances of the English Language fails you.
Eleanor, I do not like getting involved in arguments with individuals, but I really do think you are repeatedly unpleasant to Anne in a totally unnecessary way. She does pretty well, if English is not her first language, IMO
-
like forgetting whether or not they left the door unlocked...
Of course! You leave your three babies alone go out and just dont know if you locked the door or not!!!!
@)(++(*
They must thnk people are THICK..or they are
So much for some say they are highly intellgent....what a joke......
-
You must be kidding, SH.
Madeleine is the only victim and it has not (yet) been established of whom.
Would you call the jemmied shutter/window untruth an "imperfect choice" ? And would you call the open shutter/window version for the PJ a "perfect choice" ?
Well first of all I don't think Madeleine is the only victim. If you hurt a child, you hurt the parents. A child's pain is a parent's pain. In fact, they McCanns could be suffering even more than Madeleine. Perhaps Madeleine is living with a family who treat her reasonably well and is blissfully unaware of the suffering her parents are going through. (Unlikely, but possible). Or perhaps she is no longer alive, in which case her pain has ended. The McCanns' daily torture continues.
With regard to the 'perfect' and 'imperfect' , I will explain by saying that Madeleine has already vanished. Nothing can be done to alter that fact. The McCanns had choices with regard to their conduct after that day, and they made a lot of mistakes, one being their strong need to persuade people that they haven't made any mistakes.
To me this is an Achilles heel for them. If they had admitted mistakes they would have gained a great deal more sympathy and public support. More effort could have been put into a search (in whatever form) rather than energy being expended in fighting those who dared to go against them. And that would have increased the chances - maybe - of their daughter being found.
Nothing new in what I'm saying, I know. Just noting the tragedy - and the irony.
-
imperfect choices? Like chosing to leave their three infants alone night after night, like unlucky one was alledgedly abducted, like unlucky the cadaver dog signalled only in their place, like unlucky some PIs stole half a million quid off them, like unlucky no one was looking for madeleine not police not no one.....etc etc like unlucky in so many things, come on......are they cursed or something?
?{)(**
Let's hope their spy on this forum (MW revealed they have) reads this. They'll be "delighted" by the multiple victims label.
-
Well first of all I don't think Madeleine is the only victim. If you hurt a child, you hurt the parents. A child's pain is a parent's pain. In fact, they McCanns could be suffering even more than Madeleine. Perhaps Madeleine is living with a family who treat her reasonably well and is blissfully unaware of the suffering her parents are going through. (Unlikely, but possible). Or perhaps she is no longer alive, in which case her pain has ended. The McCanns' daily torture continues.
With regard to the 'perfect' and 'imperfect' , I will explain by saying that Madeleine has already vanished. Nothing can be done to alter that fact. The McCanns had choices with regard to their conduct after that day, and they made a lot of mistakes, one being their strong need to persuade people that they haven't made any mistakes.
To me this is an Achilles heel for them. If they had admitted mistakes they would have gained a great deal more sympathy and public support. More effort could have been put into a search (in whatever form) rather than energy being expended in fighting those who dared to go against them. And that would have increased the chances - maybe - of their daughter being found.
Nothing new in what I'm saying, I know. Just noting the tragedy - and the irony.
Agreed totally.
Also do not forget the siblings will be suffering. When I worked in the Children's hospital, we referred parents of patients to an organisation called "Compassionate Friends", who had a special siblings section, as the siblings are so often forgotten with all focus on the parents
-
Any more unpleasantness and bans will be invoked. No further warnings will be given.
-
Well first of all I don't think Madeleine is the only victim.
As far as we know (not much), Madeleine is the only victim. As far as we know the agent of her fate is unknown. It might be a stranger, it might be one parent or both. Without evidence this is open.
That does by no way mean that her parents didn't suffer from her loss. They did.
Would you say a parent is a victim if smacking his/her child, the child falls on a hard surface and breaks its crown ? In a way that parent is a victim, a victim of anger perhaps ? But following that logic everybody is a victim.
-
Well first of all I don't think Madeleine is the only victim. If you hurt a child, you hurt the parents. A child's pain is a parent's pain. In fact, they McCanns could be suffering even more than Madeleine. Perhaps Madeleine is living with a family who treat her reasonably well and is blissfully unaware of the suffering her parents are going through. (Unlikely, but possible). Or perhaps she is no longer alive, in which case her pain has ended. The McCanns' daily torture continues.
With regard to the 'perfect' and 'imperfect' , I will explain by saying that Madeleine has already vanished. Nothing can be done to alter that fact. The McCanns had choices with regard to their conduct after that day, and they made a lot of mistakes, one being their strong need to persuade people that they haven't made any mistakes.
To me this is an Achilles heel for them. If they had admitted mistakes they would have gained a great deal more sympathy and public support. More effort could have been put into a search (in whatever form) rather than energy being expended in fighting those who dared to go against them. And that would have increased the chances - maybe - of their daughter being found.
Nothing new in what I'm saying, I know. Just noting the tragedy - and the irony.
I find this type of comment very unfair...its like the woman who goes out...has a few drinks too many and gets raped...some people have little sympathy with her and say it was her own fault....others blame the rapist
-
As far as we know (not much), Madeleine is the only victim. As far as we know the agent of her fate is unknown. It might be a stranger, it might be one parent or both. Without evidence this is open.
That does by no way mean that her parents didn't suffer from her loss. They did.
Would you say a parent is a victim if smacking his/her child, the child falls on a hard surface and breaks its crown ? In a way that parent is a victim, a victim of anger perhaps ? But following that logic everybody is a victim.
Yes, I hadn't though of that. If her parents physically harmed her, they can hardly be considered victims. (Except in the psychological sense).
-
The McCanns had choices with regard to their conduct after that day, and they made a lot of mistakes, one being their strong need to persuade people that they haven't made any mistakes.
Why ? That would make sense if they were primary, easy to manipulate poor fellows.
How do you justify for instance the disastrous Metodo 3 ? They complain about the PJ insufficiencies (euphemism) and simultaneously keep under contract pathetic caricatures of what a PI is ! You may of course argue that the money spent doesn't come from their pocket, but is that a serious argument ?
-
Yes, I hadn't though of that. If her parents physically harmed her, they can hardly be considered victims. (Except in the psychological sense).
At the moment her parents are innocent...have been extensively investigated and haven't even been arrested...they are victims
-
I find this type of comment very unfair...its like the woman who goes out...has a few drinks too many and gets raped...some people have little sympathy with her and say it was her own fault....others blame the rapist
Not at all....the mccanns said what they did was ok....its ok to leave three babies on their own out of ear and eyeshot....they even promoted it by default
-
I find this type of comment very unfair...its like the woman who goes out...has a few drinks too many and gets raped...some people have little sympathy with her and say it was her own fault....others blame the rapist
But if people acknowledge the role they may have played in an unpleasant incident (as well as any other person) it does create more sympathy, like it or not. Another quote! - "And oftentimes excusing of a fault doth make the fault the worse by the excuse." - William Shakespeare
-
Not at all....the mccanns said what they did was ok....its ok to leave three babies on their own out of ear and eyeshot....they even promoted it by default
If I said the pope was a catholic I would expect you to disagree.
-
If I said the pope was a catholic I would expect you to disagree.
No i only challenge lies and tosh.......happy new year
8(>((
-
Yes, I hadn't though of that. If her parents physically harmed her, they can hardly be considered victims. (Except in the psychological sense).
If intentionally, no way the parent is a victim. But if one parent physically unintentionally harmed his/her child, is s/he a victim of bad luck ?
For such a parent I feel an enormous compassion.
The "victim" notion imo should be restricted to very precise cases.
-
If I said the pope was a catholic I would expect you to disagree.
davel - just because people disagree with you on one matter, it does not mean they are talking nonsense in general
-
Eleanor, I do not like getting involved in arguments with individuals, but I really do think you are repeatedly unpleasant to Anne in a totally unnecessary way. She does pretty well, if English is not her first language, IMO
I would rather put it down to ignorance of the language than a deliberate misinterpretation of facts.
-
I would rather put it down to ignorance of the language than a deliberate misinterpretation of facts.
I will answer once, but not again.
It was not just the once, it was repeated, as I made clear
-
I quoted it some time back, SH, and someone answered with another very appropriate quote (which I meant to commit to memory but failed!)
It is just that it is increasingly difficult to go back on something the longer it goes on... And increasingly difficult to change a story as time progresses
I thought...
Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
-
"And oftentimes excusing of a fault doth make the fault the worse by the excuse." - William Shakespeare
He who excuses himself accuses himself (French proverb)
-
another good one, Slartibartfast - but the earlier response was even better... ?{)(**
-
But if people acknowledge the role they may have played in an unpleasant incident (as well as any other person) it does create more sympathy, like it or not. Another quote! - "And oftentimes excusing of a fault doth make the fault the worse by the excuse." - William Shakespeare
And in shakespeares time the parents would have been expected to don sackcloth and ashes and flagellate themselves...fortunately some of us have moved on...
Speaking with some knowledge of the subject I think there are very sound psychological reasons why the McCanns will have been advised NOT to blame themselves..
The lesson has been learned MW no longer promote a babylstening service at any of their resorts now
-
I find this type of comment very unfair...its like the woman who goes out...has a few drinks too many and gets raped...some people have little sympathy with her and say it was her own fault....others blame the rapist
Just because I think the McCanns would have been wise to admit that possibly they made mistakes here and there doesn't mean I condone any of the abuse that they take. Any more than one could condone the actions of the Rapist.
The level of vitriol against them that exists is exceptionally cruel, and no-one deserves that.
-
davel - just because people disagree with you on one matter, it does not mean they are talking nonsense in general
im talking about one particular poster and please have the decency to allow me to have an opinion...Im sure you are aware that the vast majority of children abused by family are in dysfunctional families
-
And in shakespeares time the parents would have been expected to don sackcloth and ashes and flagellate themselves...fortunately some of us have moved on...
Speaking with some knowledge of the subject I think there are very sound psychological reasons why the McCanns will have been advised NOT to blame themselves..
The lesson has been learned MW no longer promote a babylstening service at any of their resorts now
Well, maybe they need to see another psychologist. Because I really think this refusal to acknowledge any fault or responsibility has taken away a lot of sympathy for them from many people
-
im talking about one particular poster and please have the decency to allow me to have an opinion...Im sure you are aware that the vast majority of children abused by family are in dysfunctional families
But davel!! Cannot you see the contradiction here? Of course you can have an opinion - and so can others, even if it is not the same as yours!
-
The level of vitriol against them that exists is exceptionally cruel
Where ? Can you be more specific ?
-
Well, maybe they need to see another psychologist. Because I really think this refusal to acknowledge any fault or responsibility has taken away a lot of sympathy for them from many people
First I think any psychologist would say the same...secondly they have admitted fault...thirdly ...they have half a million likes on the official facebook page so perhaps they have more sympathy than you think
-
Why ? That would make sense if they were primary, easy to manipulate poor fellows.
How do you justify for instance the disastrous Metodo 3 ? They complain about the PJ insufficiencies (euphemism) and simultaneously keep under contract pathetic caricatures of what a PI is ! You may of course argue that the money spent doesn't come from their pocket, but is that a serious argument ?
Actually I think Metodo 3 is an obvious exception to this. (And I don't claim that the McCanns have made only mistakes, just that they have made some!). How could they have known that Metodo 3 were going to do such a bad job? I certainly don't believe that Metodo 3 and some of the other detective agencies were hired with the expectation of being incompetent or corrupt, in order to obfuscate. That's doublethink.
-
Well, maybe they need to see another psychologist. Because I really think this refusal to acknowledge any fault or responsibility has taken away a lot of sympathy for them from many people
Agreed, it is easy to imagine an impassioned statement berating themselves for believing that it was safe to leave Maddy when it wasn't. Most observers would have said "there but for the grace of god..."
-
But davel!! Cannot you see the contradiction here? Of course you can have an opinion - and so can others, even if it is not the same as yours!
Well we have both expressed our opinion...why do you only criticise mine
-
Well we have both expressed our opinion...why do you only criticise mine
davel, sometimes..... maybe I agree with whoever else you are talking about or someone else on the forum - so why should I criticize them? Sometimes I disagree with others, including (at times) you - so those are the people to criticize. But it does not mean you are not able to have a differ opinion.
This discussion is, to be honest, becoming very childish and nonsensical IMO. You have your opinions, I have mine. You have criticized mine many times, I have criticized yours. And now?
-
Agreed, it is easy to imagine an impassioned statement berating themselves for believing that it was safe to leave Maddy when it wasn't. Most observers would have said "there but for the grace of god..."
However, they chose not to and so continue to suffer the consequence of that decision.
-
Where ? Can you be more specific ?
Sorry Anne, have to go for a while..
Will get back to you a bit later
-
davel, sometimes..... maybe I agree with whoever else you are talking about or someone else on the forum - so why should I criticize them? Sometimes I disagree with others, including (at times) you - so those are the people to criticize. But it does not mean you are not able to have a differ opinion.
This discussion is, to be honest, becoming very childish and nonsensical IMO. You have your opinions, I have mine. You have criticized mine many times, I have criticized yours. And now?
perhaps you should just post on the topic and not try to police the thread
-
Actually I think Metodo 3 is an obvious exception to this. (And I don't claim that the McCanns have made only mistakes, just that they have made some!). How could they have known that Metodo 3 were going to do such a bad job? I certainly don't believe that Metodo 3 and some of the other detective agencies were hired with the expectation of being incompetent or corrupt, in order to obfuscate. That's doublethink.
How comes all their pis have been shyte and all their lawyers great?
>@@(*&)
-
perhaps you should just post on the topic and not try to police the thread
Perhaps you should stop being a sanctmonious busy body
-
How comes all their pis have been shyte and all their lawyers great?
>@@(*&)
Duarte
-
Perhaps you should stop being a sanctmonious busy body
that's not a very nice thing to say to CPN
-
First I think any psychologist would say the same...secondly they have admitted fault...thirdly ...they have half a million likes on the official facebook page so perhaps they have more sympathy than you think
No, not all psychologists would say the same. indeed some would no doubt take the generally held view that the admission of fault is the first step towards repairing any damage, whereas refusing to acknowledge fault leads nowhere.
Secondly I have not heard them admit that they should not have left the children alone; can you quote, please, where they have said that. I have heard them say they were sorry they were not with Madeleine when he was taken; well I am sorry I was not with my son when he got bopped on the head by another children at school - but I was not meant to be there, he was not in my care at that point. What I have not heard them say is that they were wrong to leave the children alone
Thirdly, the facebook page is, to me, irrelevant. Any comments I see (where they are allowed) following any story about the McCanns in the press shows me where the bulk of feelings lie. But anyway that is also irrelevant as to the question of whether the children should have been left or not
-
How comes all their pis have been shyte and all their lawyers great?
>@@(*&)
I think the answers quite simple...the legal profession is highly regulated and lawyers have track records which can be easily validated... try googling private detectives...missing children and see the sort of results you get
-
No, not all psychologists would say the same. indeed some would no doubt take the generally held view that the admission of fault is the first step towards repairing any damage, whereas refusing to acknowledge fault leads nowhere.
Secondly I have not heard them admit that they should not have left the children alone; can you quote, please, where they have said that. I have heard them say they were sorry they were not with Madeleine when he was taken; well I am sorry I was not with my son when he got bopped on the head by another children at school - but I was not meant to be there, he was not in my care at that point. What I have not heard them say is that they were wrong to leave the children alone
Thirdly, the facebook page is, to me, irrelevant. Any comments I see (where they are allowed) following any story about the McCanns in the press shows me where the bulk of feelings lie. But anyway that is also irrelevant as to the question of whether the children should have been left or not
then you have your opinion and I have mine
-
perhaps you should just post on the topic and not try to police the thread
I am NOT policing this thread, any more than anyone else. I am responding as others have done. I object to that comment very strongly.
-
that's not a very nice thing to say to CPN
I wasnt sayng it to her, you know I wasnt saying it to her, she knows I wasnt saying it to her, therefore that makes you a mndless petty and pointless tw at wummng troll
8((()*/
Tara chuck
-
then you have your opinion and I have mine
exactly - and no need to be rude about it.
-
I think the answers quite simple...the legal profession is highly regulated and lawyers have track records which can be easily validated... try googling private detectives...missing children and see the sort of results you get
Apologist extraordinaire lolol and a scotsman gave away half a million quid just like that up front hahahahahahahha!!!! Tara chuck!! Busted as ever
-
Please stick to topic. Personal discussions can be conducted via PM or email.
-
So...controlled strategy or runaway tiger.......I think its pretty controlled...particularly now as SY have said the McCanns are not suspects
-
Davel is one of the rudest unreasonable sanctimonious people on this forum...wouldnt worry about him, discredited fantasist who is never ever wrong abut anythng and for hm everyne else is stupid if they dont agree wth him....
Please stick to topic. Personal discussions can be conducted via PM or email.
-
So...controlled strategy or runaway tiger.......I think its pretty controlled...particularly now as SY have said the McCanns are not suspects
Where your constant mention of this falls down Dave is that the McCanns might not be considered suspects at this moment in time but we have seen from history that this can change very quickly.
As it stands they are both guilty of having shown really poor judgement when it came to the protection of their three young children. Who knows what might follow if a body is found.
-
Where your constant mention of this falls down Dave is that the McCanns might not be considered suspects at this moment in time but we have seen from history that this can change very quickly.
As it stands they are both guilty of having shown really poor judgement when it came to the protection of their three young children. Who knows what might follow if a body is found.
posters have been saying the same as this for 5 years. My opinion is that if evidence hasn't been found yet to show the McCanns guilt then it never will be. Combined with the actions of the McCanns I just cant see any way they are guilty of any involvement in Maddies disappearance
-
posters have been saying the same as this for 5 years. My opinion is that if evidence hasn't been found yet to show the McCanns guilt then it never will be. Combined with the actions of the McCanns I just cant see any way they are guilty of any involvement in Maddies disappearance
If a body turns up in PdL some of these days you might just have to review that comment Dave. As many people have found to their cost there is no time limit on justice!!
-
imperfect choices? Like chosing to leave their three infants alone night after night, like unlucky one was alledgedly abducted, like unlucky the cadaver dog signalled only in their place, like unlucky some PIs stole half a million quid off them, like unlucky no one was looking for madeleine not police not no one.....etc etc like unlucky in so many things, come on......are they cursed or something?
Fifty metres away Red and almost like being in their back garden. Checking every half hour
At least they are not drunk in cjarge of them as Amaral was with his daughter we hear ... and also someone on here, who we are not allowed to name
Drunk in charge of her/ his little one/s too. Much more dangerous imo
-
Fifty metres away Red and almost like being in their back garden. Checking every half hour
#
Out of sight and hearing, that is the crux. And nothing like a back garden, with doors leading onto the street unlocked etc. And total omission of the damages to young children of being left alone, nothing to do with abduction.
And the fact that excuses are still made shows that lessons have not been learned
-
Dave keeps his calm in a remarkable way, when you all gang up on him. I know what that is like, it happened to me for months.
He has an empathy that so many on here are completely without + belief in Justice and fair play + sound knowledge of the case.
His knowledge and intellect shine thru in a way that many of you are jealous of
Intellect? You bet. A whole wadge of top quality qualifications. But all the best brains get beaten out of here , dont they ?
How many of you can earn £1000 for a days work?
Intellect? Top quality qualifications? Maybe. But what do you know of the qualifications of other posters here?
Perhaps you need to read (or re-read) the thread to see who started the rudeness.
-
If a body turns up in PdL some of these days you might just have to review that comment Dave. As many people have found to their cost there is no time limit on justice!!
The operative word there is * IF * Angelo
There are strong pointers, that I cannot share, that Madeleine left PdL alive ... and there were some indicators that she still was alive 2 years ago ... nothing is sure, but there are indicators. Sadly I cant share that either
I am totally prepared to be found wrong, but SY have listened and are interested in the same man. Maybe others too, of course.
-
#
Out of sight and hearing, that is the crux. And nothing like a back garden, with doors leading onto the street unlocked etc. And total omission of the damages to young children of being left alone, nothing to do with abduction.
And the fact that excuses are still made shows that lessons have not been learned
I disagree about it not being like a back garden. Have you been and seen CPN ?
I know of many houses and cottages that have 50+ metre back gardens, with direct back or side door access to the street.
Many peeps live in towns where houses are packed and it would be unusual to find the 50 metre and side access in them ... but in the Country such situations and with cottages right on the street are not in the least rare.
-
The operative word there is * IF * Angelo
There are strong pointers, that I cannot share, that Madeleine left PdL alive ... and there were some indicators that she still was alive 2 years ago ... nothing is sure, but there are indicators. Sadly I cant share that either
I am totally prepared to be found wrong, but SY have listened and are interested in the same man. Maybe others too, of course.
Now I know you are posting nonsense Sadie. The police don't even know what happened to Madeleine so it is unlikely you do. They don't even know what the crime was or who may or may not have been involved. They don't even know for sure what part if any the parents played in it all. The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is as much a mystery today as it was 6 years ago.
There are no indicators as you like to suggest Sadie, just lies, convoluted statements and twisted stories.
-
#
Out of sight and hearing, that is the crux. And nothing like a back garden, with doors leading onto the street unlocked etc. And total omission of the damages to young children of being left alone, nothing to do with abduction.
And the fact that excuses are still made shows that lessons have not been learned
I tend to agree CPN, it might have been 50 metres as the crow flies from the patio of 5a to the tapas tent but it might as well have been 500 metres. In the darkness, in a noisy restaurant tent, the parents hadn't a hope in hell of hearing or seeing those children had they been in peril. Stating otherwise is sheer hypocrisy.
-
Well, maybe they need to see another psychologist. Because I really think this refusal to acknowledge any fault or responsibility has taken away a lot of sympathy for them from many people
Quote from Kates book. (Again)
.......however unwittingly we'd given this predator an opportunity.. We had not been there for Madeleine. And, as I've said before and will say again, our guilt over that is a heavv cross we will bear for the rest of our lives.
Page 202
End quote
IMO those are not the words of someone who feels they bear no responsibility or fault.
I posted the above quote the last time you made a similar comment and you ignored it. If you don't think it's an expression of guilt - then what do you think it is?
I have no problem with people who criticise the McCann's child checking arrangements, but I do have a problem with folk who appear to believe that those arrangements justify the horrific actions of the perpetrator - whose crime the McCanns have admitted they themselves enabled and for which they will carry the guilt for the rest of their lives.
Your repeated claim that the McCanns have refused to acknowledge any fault or responsiblity is wrong IMO. What more do you want - sackcloth and ashes?
-
Now I know you are posting nonsense Sadie. The police don't even know what happened to Madeleine so it is unlikely you do. They don't even know what the crime was or who may or may not have been involved. They don't even know for sure what part if any the parents played in it all. The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is as much a mystery today as it was 6 years ago.
There are no indicators as you like to suggest Sadie, just lies, convoluted statements and twisted stories.
I am not a liar.
They are considering the same person that I am Angelo. Maybe others too.
There are dozens of indicators Angelo, but you have to find the key, which I was lucky enough to do.
[b]I always know that I could be wrong, but too many co-incidences and pointers imo ... and I do know SY are looking at the same person [/b]
As I have said before this guy is VERY VERY elite and also clever and VERY rich. A global man who speaks several languages like a native. It is my belief that he is backed by a whiter than white organisation of mega import globally.
That is all I am saying.
I hope you have to eat your words Angelo, but I fear this guy and his backing organisation are untouchable, so never charged.
If I am right, Angelo, I hope you will be gentleman enough to apologise
-
However, they chose not to and so continue to suffer the consequence of that decision.
Suffer what consequences? Please could you elucidate?
-
I am not a liar.
They are considering the same person that I am Angelo. Maybe others too.
There are dozens of indicators Angelo, but you have to find the key, which I was lucky enough to do.
[b]I always know that I could be wrong, but too many co-incidences and pointers imo ... and I do know SY are looking at the same person [/b]
As I have said before this guy is VERY VERY elite and also clever and VERY rich. A global man who speaks several languages like a native. It is my belief that he is backed by a whiter than white organisation of mega import globally.
That is all I am saying.
I hope you have to eat your words Angelo, but I fear this guy and his backing organisation are untouchable, so never charged.
If I am right, Angelo, I hope you will be gentleman enough to apologise
Wishful thinking Sadie. Madeleine never made it out of the area and one day that will be established.
-
I tend to agree CPN, it might have been 50 metres as the crow flies from the patio of 5a to the tapas tent but it might as well have been 500 metres. In the darkness, in a noisy restaurant tent, the parents hadn't a hope in hell of hearing or seeing those children had they been in peril. Stating otherwise is sheer hypocrisy.
I wonder why Amaral stated that no abductor would have gone in via the patiodoors then? He stated that the family /tapas group were too close at 50 metres, and over lookin, for an intruder to have risked it. That was when he first stated that Madekeine died in the apartment cos there was no way in.
After all the front door was locked, so no-one could get in that way either
Plonker !
-
Wishful thinking Sadie. Madeleine never made it out of the area and one day that will be established.
Angelo I am VERY angry with you for calling me a twister, a liar, and a maker of convoluted statements. I know that I dont always express myself very well, but to call me a liar and a twister of statements at any time, but most especially on a forum such as this! A forum which allows the [ censored word] to lie thru their teeth, spin and twist on a daily basis, is an insult I cannot tolerate
You owe me a bloody big apology and piublicly
-
I am not a liar.
They are considering the same person that I am Angelo. Maybe others too.
There are dozens of indicators Angelo, but you have to find the key, which I was lucky enough to do.
[b]I always know that I could be wrong, but too many co-incidences and pointers imo ... and I do know SY are looking at the same person [/b]
As I have said before this guy is VERY VERY elite and also clever and VERY rich. A global man who speaks several languages like a native. It is my belief that he is backed by a whiter than white organisation of mega import globally.
That is all I am saying.
I hope you have to eat your words Angelo, but I fear this guy and his backing organisation are untouchable, so never charged.
If I am right, Angelo, I hope you will be gentleman enough to apologise
So this very very elite guy was clocked by Jane Tanner carrying the child away. I say this as I note you believe this sighting.....
IF this guy is so elite and global, why one earth would he need to purchase a child from a holiday camp when there are thousands of pretty young blonde girls languishing in filthy conditions all over Eastern Europe in orphanages.....
I know who you are speaking of he has been mentioned before and I believe he speaks German pretty fluently too.
Perhaps he also belongs to the Freemasons......
I have heard this theory more then once over the world wide web.......
Anyway musnt go off topic............
-
I believe in the saying too many cooks spoils the broth......(being a chef of course).
I think at the beginning the request to send a poster supplied by the McCanns team by as many people as possible (myself included we did this in our office and sent it to companies abroad) was a great idea. It went VIRAL. Everyone was doing it. What a great way to get the childs disappearance noticed.....NOTHING wrong in that.
Then it just went haywire. You couldnt get away from the McCanns. Their online shop, photos of them smiling showing off T shirts, then the money pouring in and being used to hire detectives.....not even experienced in child abduction...
A phone number was supplied RING IT. A MASSIVE REWARD was offered.........it was NEVER CLAIMED.
Then the pink shirt guy who came over like a robot YOU MUST LOOK AT THIS EFIT, you must ring this number.....ANY SIGHTING is important, and it went on and on.
The McCanns went to see the Pope lucky them, (children are dying of terrible cancers and they cant get an audience with the Pope), they went off to other countries, were on GMTV, Ophrah, on and on and on and on AND EVERYTIME they made the same EXCUSE it was like being in your garden WE DID NOTHING WRONG. It was a MANTRA.....in the end people got fed up of hearing about it. DOCTORS making excuses......this went horribly wrong for them, as people started to turn against them.
The constant pushing by detectives and pink man, the fact they disclosed that the child had a rare eye defect (AGAINST ALL ADVICE), THE phone number which brought in all the sightings from all over the world, RUINED any chances the child could have had to be found alive if she was abducted by child pedophile ring.
The child was simply TOO HOT TO HANDLE.
Then the suing began......WHAT amazes me no one was allowed to write anything NEGATIVE about the McCanns to do so would get them CARTER RUCKED, yet only recently The Sun and other Red tops were allowed to print things like MADDY FOUND IN GREECE, MADDY FOUND IN IRELAND. ROMA GYPSIES CHILD ABDUCTORS, BLACK TRACTOR MAN MURDERING DRUG ADDICT, and not one word said against any of this...NOT ONE CARTER RUCK or sue.......WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE............IS NOT GOOD FOR THE GANDER OBVIOUSLY.
ALL THESE THINGS make people ANGRY. The injustice of it, the xenopobia carried alonside the McCanns case, the amount of families TORN APART by it.....the debris is HUGE...........
The Madness or the Tiger devoured her...........
The McCanns should have stopped with the poster campaign and let the police do their job.
What they did had the opposite effect. The police were so overcome by sightings, and creepy people that any real detective work was lost. They had to check EVERYTHING. They were villified by McCann supporters it became almost sickening. The same police force who have high level of expertise in child disappearance, and NOT ONE child has ever been SNATCHED from a bed in Portugal.
IF THIS CHILD HAD GONE MISSING IN THE UK....I bet your bottom dollar Scotland Yard would never have allowed the McCanns to get involved or interfere in anyway.
The FMC became not about Madeleine but it changed to Get Amaral Campaign........it became nasty, and left a horrible taste in the mouth....... This was ENCOURAGED BY MRS MCCANN in her own book, who had the AUDACITY to say “I think I could probably forgive Madeleine's abductor, yet wants harm to Amaral.....
I would say at the beginning of this journey 80% of my family and friends thought the child had been abducted they believed EVERYTHING the McCanns said, now its about 5%...The rest of them are just FED UP OF READING about it, they are sick to death of it, what a real shame for the child...when they hear the word McCann they turn the T.V. over, they no longer read the BULLcrap in the papers, and their eyes just roll and they sigh.....
Even hardened McCann supporters like my care worker has turned away from them.
No the tiger was unleashed by the McCanns and sadly the Tiger devoured her.............
-
I note as per normal, a certain party was still trying to excuse the mccanns as if they were wining and dining in their back garden.
They weren't, they were in a BAR, eating and drinking.
So for once and for all, stop giving excuses, it just doesn't wash.
Meanwhile the cost of SY's review, now in excess of £6.34 million..............................and counting.
-
I disagree about it not being like a back garden. Have you been and seen CPN ?
I know of many houses and cottages that have 50+ metre back gardens, with direct back or side door access to the street.
Many peeps live in towns where houses are packed and it would be unusual to find the 50 metre and side access in them ... but in the Country such situations and with cottages right on the street are not in the least rare.
As has been said time and again - 50 meters ( if that was what you insist, others say further) is as the crow flies I believe. I look at the route taken on maps (no I have not been there) and "as the crow flies" is totally irrelevant. And on unfamiliar ground anyway so their own back garden is irrelevant. And in a foreign country where the children were not known nor knew their surroundings well. It all comes across as such rubbish , Sadie, whether "peeps" (what peeping has to do with it I do not know) live in packed houses or cottages in the country is irrelevant; these children were left in a foreign country for a length of time, be it half an hour or longer or shorter, where the dangers of leaving an unsupervised child, let alone three, were numerous and should have been obvious to anyone, let alone trained and experienced doctors.
-
Quote from Kates book. (Again)
.......however unwittingly we'd given this predator an opportunity.. We had not been there for Madeleine. And, as I've said before and will say again, our guilt over that is a heavv cross we will bear for the rest of our lives.
Page 202
End quote
IMO those are not the words of someone who feels they bear no responsibility or fault.
I posted the above quote the last time you made a similar comment and you ignored it. If you don't think it's an expression of guilt - then what do you think it is?
I have no problem with people who criticise the McCann's child checking arrangements, but I do have a problem with folk who appear to believe that those arrangements justify the horrific actions of the perpetrator - whose crime the McCanns have admitted they themselves enabled and for which they will carry the guilt for the rest of their lives.
Your repeated claim that the McCanns have refused to acknowledge any fault or responsiblity is wrong IMO. What more do you want - sackcloth and ashes?
Sorry if I "ignored" a posting of yours before, Benice. I am not on here full time and do not always read everything to catch up when I have been away, it depends on my time available. I usually answer posts directed to me unless the poster has been rude, then I do not see why I should bother to answer
If there was indeed an abductor I never have and never, ever would justify his / her actions. But it comes back to the lack of admission that leaving the children alone was wrong and others should not do it - and as I have said many times before also, not because of possible abduction, which its very rare but because of possible dangers in the home (in this case not a familiar home, but a holiday apartment) Leave the "abductor" out of it - it is still wrong to leave young children alone and unsupervised; and yet Kate said in the introduction to the Crime Watch programme that they had done "nothing wrong". So no, I do not want sack cloth and ashes; I personally would like a consistent acknowledgement that they DID do some thing wrong in leaving the children alone and others should not repeat it - not for reason of possible abduction either, but for the myriad of other reasons which have led to the government and NSPCC guideline on this matter.
-
Angelo I am VERY angry with you for calling me a twister, a liar, and a maker of convoluted statements. I know that I dont always express myself very well, but to call me a liar and a twister of statements at any time, but most especially on a forum such as this! A forum which allows the [ censored word] to lie thru their teeth, spin and twist on a daily basis, is an insult I cannot tolerate
You owe me a bloody big apology and piublicly
It was agreed long back that the use of the word "anti" was not acceptable. The poster concerned found it amusing; eventually a moderator repeated what has long been established here. Could you please remove your word or I will report your post. From Sherlock Holmes, Moderator - "A polite reminder to all that the terms 'pro' and 'anti' are best avoided." - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2784.msg115848#new
No doubt you would call me an "anti". I am not anti the McCanns; as others have said time and again I am against some of their actions, mainly leaving three young children out of sight and hearing. I am "pro" the children, and especially Madeleine; it could be argued that you are "anti" child safety and I am sure you would not like that.
-
It is only an opinion that The McCann's actions were wrong. It was not and is still not a crime.
-
It is only an opinion that The McCann's actions were wrong. It was not and is still not a crime.
And I have said, and will repeat again, Eleanor, that if this behaviour had come to the attention of the Children's Departments of the Local Authorities in the UK where I worked, it would have ben investigated and action taken. I have had to investigate far less "criminal" behaviour - our concern is always the welfare of the child(ren) and the welfare of the McCann children was put at risk. This does not mean that they would necessarily have been prosecuted, prosecution being a last resort. But action would most certainly have been taken, I can assure you.
-
So this very very elite guy was clocked by Jane Tanner carrying the child away. I say this as I note you believe this sighting.....
IF this guy is so elite and global, why one earth would he need to purchase a child from a holiday camp when there are thousands of pretty young blonde girls languishing in filthy conditions all over Eastern Europe in orphanages.....
I know who you are speaking of he has been mentioned before and I believe he speaks German pretty fluently too.
Perhaps he also belongs to the Freemasons......
I have heard this theory more then once over the world wide web.......
Anyway musnt go off topic............
When did I say that HE carried Madeleine away?
And I am sure that YOU DO KNOW who I am talking about, unless you know the man. I have never seen anything about his being associated with Germany. But I would lay a level bet that he is competent at German.
He speak many languages
Have you thought that he might have a specific child in mind?
-
I note as per normal, a certain party was still trying to excuse the mccanns as if they were wining and dining in their back garden.
They weren't, they were in a BAR, eating and drinking.
So for once and for all, stop giving excuses, it just doesn't wash.
Meanwhile the cost of SY's review, now in excess of £6.34 million..............................and counting.
They were NOT in a BAR. The bar was in the indoor building next door. They were in an outside restaurant
Get it right Stephen
Please can we have sources for the figure you mention
-
And I have said, and will repeat again, Eleanor, that if this behaviour had come to the attention of the Children's Departments of the Local Authorities in the UK where I worked, it would have ben investigated and action taken. I have had to investigate far less "criminal" behaviour - our concern is always the welfare of the child(ren) and the welfare of the McCann children was put at risk. This does not mean that they would necessarily have been prosecuted, prosecution being a last resort. But action would most certainly have been taken, I can assure you.
So can we therefore assume that the other families in the group who left their children have been visited by social workers and action taken...I don't think so
-
So can we therefore assume that the other families in the group who left their children have been visited by social workers and action taken...I don't think so
No-one knows - as you well know, the work of Social Services, especially in relation to children, is confidential. Had this come to light in the LAs I worked for, I think a visit would have been paid, yes. Whether further action would have been taken is another matter.
-
No-one knows - as you well know, the work of Social Services, especially in relation to children, is confidential. Had this come to light in the LAs I worked for, I think a visit would have been paid, yes. Whether further action would have been taken is another matter.
So what do you think social services are doing about the babylistening services promoted by hotels?
-
So what do you think social services are doing about the babylistening services promoted by hotels?
I have no idea, as I have told you before, I am retired, after working internationally for some years so my experience of local Social Services refers to my experience when I was there plus whatever I have picked up since. But to add, I do not find the situation of the McCanns equivalent to being in a hotel, which is usually contained (or those I have stayed in recently were) But I think we have gone over this far too many times to waste time on it again
-
It is only an opinion that The McCann's actions were wrong. It was not and is still not a crime.
It is not an opinion as the outcome is known. It is similar to not belting your children in a car, most of the time they will not come to harm but it is still wrong whether or not they are injured in an accident.
-
Angelo I am VERY angry with you for calling me a twister, a liar, and a maker of convoluted statements. I know that I dont always express myself very well, but to call me a liar and a twister of statements at any time, but most especially on a forum such as this! A forum which allows the [ censored word] to lie thru their teeth, spin and twist on a daily basis, is an insult I cannot tolerate
You owe me a bloody big apology and piublicly
I stated that there are no indicators as you like to suggest Sadie, just lies, convoluted statements and twisted stories. I should have made clear that these relate to the case in general, I wasn't having a go at you personally.
I will say this though. Your continued insistence that you somehow know better than the investigators is very tiresome. Nobody believes you Sadie.
-
It is not an opinion as the outcome is known. It is similar to not belting your children in a car, most of the time they will not come to harm but it is still wrong whether or not they are injured in an accident.
8((()*/ And there were three children in that room. The 2007 press management was quite brilliant at masking that fact.
-
And I have said, and will repeat again, Eleanor, that if this behaviour had come to the attention of the Children's Departments of the Local Authorities in the UK where I worked, it would have ben investigated and action taken. I have had to investigate far less "criminal" behaviour - our concern is always the welfare of the child(ren) and the welfare of the McCann children was put at risk. This does not mean that they would necessarily have been prosecuted, prosecution being a last resort. But action would most certainly have been taken, I can assure you.
So are you saying that The Social Services were unaware of all the parents doing this in holiday camps and holiday resorts both in The UK and abroad? Or were they turning a blind eye? Or perhaps it just wasn't considered to be an offence?
-
I stated that there are no indicators as you like to suggest Sadie, just lies, convoluted statements and twisted stories. I should have made clear that these relate to the case in general, I wasn't having a go at you personally.
I will say this though. Your continued insistence that you somehow know better than the investigators is very tiresome. Nobody believes you Sadie.
I believe that Sadie's suggestions and thoughts have some credibility. Certainly more so than some of the barmy ideas I have seen. But that's okay because they are against The McCanns.
-
I believe in the saying too many cooks spoils the broth......(being a chef of course).
I think at the beginning the request to send a poster supplied by the McCanns team by as many people as possible (myself included we did this in our office and sent it to companies abroad) was a great idea. It went VIRAL. Everyone was doing it. What a great way to get the childs disappearance noticed.....NOTHING wrong in that.
Then it just went haywire. You couldnt get away from the McCanns. Their online shop, photos of them smiling showing off T shirts, then the money pouring in and being used to hire detectives.....not even experienced in child abduction...
A phone number was supplied RING IT. A MASSIVE REWARD was offered.........it was NEVER CLAIMED.
Then the pink shirt guy who came over like a robot YOU MUST LOOK AT THIS EFIT, you must ring this number.....ANY SIGHTING is important, and it went on and on.
The McCanns went to see the Pope lucky them, (children are dying of terrible cancers and they cant get an audience with the Pope), they went off to other countries, were on GMTV, Ophrah, on and on and on and on AND EVERYTIME they made the same EXCUSE it was like being in your garden WE DID NOTHING WRONG. It was a MANTRA.....in the end people got fed up of hearing about it. DOCTORS making excuses......this went horribly wrong for them, as people started to turn against them.
The constant pushing by detectives and pink man, the fact they disclosed that the child had a rare eye defect (AGAINST ALL ADVICE), THE phone number which brought in all the sightings from all over the world, RUINED any chances the child could have had to be found alive if she was abducted by child pedophile ring.
The child was simply TOO HOT TO HANDLE.
Then the suing began......WHAT amazes me no one was allowed to write anything NEGATIVE about the McCanns to do so would get them CARTER RUCKED, yet only recently The Sun and other Red tops were allowed to print things like MADDY FOUND IN GREECE, MADDY FOUND IN IRELAND. ROMA GYPSIES CHILD ABDUCTORS, BLACK TRACTOR MAN MURDERING DRUG ADDICT, and not one word said against any of this...NOT ONE CARTER RUCK or sue.......WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE............IS NOT GOOD FOR THE GANDER OBVIOUSLY.
ALL THESE THINGS make people ANGRY. The injustice of it, the xenopobia carried alonside the McCanns case, the amount of families TORN APART by it.....the debris is HUGE...........
The Madness or the Tiger devoured her...........
The McCanns should have stopped with the poster campaign and let the police do their job.
What they did had the opposite effect. The police were so overcome by sightings, and creepy people that any real detective work was lost. They had to check EVERYTHING. They were villified by McCann supporters it became almost sickening. The same police force who have high level of expertise in child disappearance, and NOT ONE child has ever been SNATCHED from a bed in Portugal.
IF THIS CHILD HAD GONE MISSING IN THE UK....I bet your bottom dollar Scotland Yard would never have allowed the McCanns to get involved or interfere in anyway.
The FMC became not about Madeleine but it changed to Get Amaral Campaign........it became nasty, and left a horrible taste in the mouth....... This was ENCOURAGED BY MRS MCCANN in her own book, who had the AUDACITY to say “I think I could probably forgive Madeleine's abductor, yet wants harm to Amaral.....
I would say at the beginning of this journey 80% of my family and friends thought the child had been abducted they believed EVERYTHING the McCanns said, now its about 5%...The rest of them are just FED UP OF READING about it, they are sick to death of it, what a real shame for the child...when they hear the word McCann they turn the T.V. over, they no longer read the BULLcrap in the papers, and their eyes just roll and they sigh.....
Even hardened McCann supporters like my care worker has turned away from them.
No the tiger was unleashed by the McCanns and sadly the Tiger devoured her.............
Excellent, concise and to the point... 8@??)(
-
They were NOT in a BAR. The bar was in the indoor building next door. They were in an outside restaurant
Get it right Stephen
Please can we have sources for the figure you mention
Yes, they were in a tented restaurant pavilion located adjacent to the bar building with a bar service on tap. I will add that the pavilion had plastic windows through which it was nigh impossible to make anything out clearly at a distance in the dark. A point very well made by Sky's Martin Brunt some time ago if you remember?
-
So are you saying that The Social Services were unaware of all the parents doing this in holiday camps and holiday resorts both in The UK and abroad? Or were they turning a blind eye? Or perhaps it just wasn't considered to be an offence?
Still spinning, nearly seven years later. 8-)(--)
Other parents don't leave bloomin' doors and windows unlocked do they.
If creche staff had left many children alone in unsecured rooms would you be excusing that? Of course you wouldn't.
-
Facts and figures.
''SCOTLAND Yard's bill for its probe into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has topped £6million, The Sun can reveal.
In the last three months a major public appeal for information has pushed the cost of Operation Grange up by £1.64million - and the total is now likely to rocket to £10million-plus.
A Freedom of Information request showed the bill for Grange - launched in May 2011 - had reached £6,343,116 by November 30.
It includes £88,199.652 on travel, with officers regularly flying to Praia da Luz, the Portuguese resort where Madeleine, then three, vanished in May 2007.
The probe was set up after her parents Kate and Gerry, both 45, of Rothley, Leics, wrote an open letter in The Sun asking the PM for help.
A two-year review identified 200 potential leads and a new investigation - including a Crimewatch reconstruction - prompted 5,000 calls.
Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood, in charge of Grange, said: "All this has produced a large volume of work."
-
So can we therefore assume that the other families in the group who left their children have been visited by social workers and action taken...I don't think so
But that's the point, Jane and Russell took it in turns to be there with their daughter and the Paynes had a baby listening monitor in operation.
-
They were NOT in a BAR. The bar was in the indoor building next door. They were in an outside restaurant
Get it right Stephen
Please can we have sources for the figure you mention
Try reading..............
It was called the 'Ocean Club tapas bar'
-
Excellent, concise and to the point... 8@??)(
Then the suing began......WHAT amazes me no one was allowed to write anything NEGATIVE about the McCanns to do so would get them CARTER RUCKED, yet only recently The Sun and other Red tops were allowed to print things like MADDY FOUND IN GREECE, MADDY FOUND IN IRELAND. ROMA GYPSIES CHILD ABDUCTORS, BLACK TRACTOR MAN MURDERING DRUG ADDICT, and not one word said against any of this...NOT ONE CARTER RUCK or sue.......WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE............IS NOT GOOD FOR THE GANDER OBVIOUSLY.
Some of the things the papers wrote about Tractor Man were a bit out of order 'Junkie Suspect' & 'The Beast who snatched Maddie' sensationalist hype over a guy who so far we have seen not a shred of evidence against other than he was black, once worked at the ocean club & was in Portugal at the time she dissapeared.
-
So are you saying that The Social Services were unaware of all the parents doing this in holiday camps and holiday resorts both in The UK and abroad? Or were they turning a blind eye? Or perhaps it just wasn't considered to be an offence?
As I have already said, I have no idea, Eleanor - unlike some I am quite prepared to admit if I do not know something.
But the McCanns were not in a hotel. were they? They were in an apartment with open access to a road. I really cannot understand this constant reference to "hotels"
-
Still spinning, nearly seven years later. 8-)(--)
Other parents don't leave bloomin' doors and windows unlocked do they.
If creche staff had left many children alone in unsecured rooms would you be excusing that? Of course you wouldn't.
Thanks, Lyall - you worded it better than me!
-
Best post I've seen on here in the month that I've been a member. 8((()*/
As far as the 50m back garden argument goes....yes lots of country houses have bigger gardens but sitting outside drinking or dining usually doesn't involve a 50m hike to the patio area.
For the sake of clarity, the restaurant was 50m away from the apartment by line of sight but a walking distance of about 71m as depicted by the yellow line on the map below.
(http://i.imgur.com/f8IRXqq.jpg)
This thread gives some insight into what could or could not be seen from the restaurant at night.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2635.msg85155#msg85155
-
As I have already said, I have no idea, Eleanor - unlike some I am quite prepared to admit if I do not know something.
But the McCanns were not in a hotel. were they? They were in an apartment with open access to a road. I really cannot understand this constant reference to "hotels"
But , but kate had letters from other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over! She wasn't exagerating.
Kate: 'Well, I have actually come to terms a little bit with... with that, Jenny, I mean, you know... I know the, errm, I know the situation that we were in that night and uh, I've said all along, I didn't feel I was taking a risk. Errm, yeah, I... I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken. Errm, I'd also like to mention I've had so much support from so many people. I've had so many letters and comments sent me.. sent to me from other families, and particularly other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over, do not blame yourself.'
-
For the sake of clarity, the restaurant was 50m away from the apartment by line of sight but a walking distance of about 71m as depicted by the yellow line on the map below.
(http://i.imgur.com/f8IRXqq.jpg)
This thread gives some insight into what could or could not be seen from the restaurant at night.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2635.15
The fact is, John, that the children were left out of sight and hearing, and that really is all that matters.
However the difference between "as the crow flies" and "walking distance" are relevant when the 50 metres is constantly quoted. A couple of years ago I had chemotherapy. In the few days in between session that I felt well enough to go down to our local town for a little bit of shopping, I became very aware a) of how hilly it is around here! - gentle slopes but slopes none the less and b) the idea that "as the crow flies" is relevant is nonsense. Had I been able to fly directly to the relevant bus stop, life would have been much easier. Instead, an uphill walk, a down hill walk, cross the road, along the road, turn left etc. As the crow flies was totally irrelevant - as it was in the McCann case.
-
Thanks, Lyall - you worded it better than me!
Cheers, CPN ?{)(**
I find their absolute devotion fascinating. And a little bit scary.
-
But , but kate had letters from other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over! She wasn't exagerating.
Kate: 'Well, I have actually come to terms a little bit with... with that, Jenny, I mean, you know... I know the, errm, I know the situation that we were in that night and uh, I've said all along, I didn't feel I was taking a risk. Errm, yeah, I... I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken. Errm, I'd also like to mention I've had so much support from so many people. I've had so many letters and comments sent me.. sent to me from other families, and particularly other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over, do not blame yourself.'
All the more worrying. And all the more reason for the McCanns to say it was not the right thing to do.
-
So exactly what were The McCanns supposed to tolerate from The Media Headlines?
"Gerry is not Madeleine's Father." "Madeleine died from a drug overdose." "The McCanns are Swingers."
Just to mention a few. And it went on for months. Neither would it have stopped if The McCanns had ignored it.
I find this much more scary than any devotion that I have to the rule of law. It is in fact obscene.
-
So exactly what were The McCanns supposed to tolerate from The Media Headlines?
"Gerry is not Madeleine's Father." "Madeleine died from a drug overdose." "The McCanns are Swingers."
Just to mention a few. And it went on for months. Neither would it have stopped if The McCanns had ignored it.
I find this much more scary than any devotion that I have to the rule of law. It is in fact obscene.
I agree with you, I wouldn't begin to attempt to defend what the press did Sept 07 onwards. But even then it was almost all front page sensationalist stuff (not too dissimilar to many of the articles they still publish... about other people). There was even then almost no unfavourable editorial or informed critical articles by columnists.
But the front pages of most of the papers were a disgrace I agree.
-
You can count on your fingers how many columnists were brave enough to write articles, Eleanor. Even then.
-
Still spinning, nearly seven years later. 8-)(--)
Other parents don't leave bloomin' doors and windows unlocked do they.
If creche staff had left many children alone in unsecured rooms would you be excusing that? Of course you wouldn't.
Whether it be by accident or design - of course other parents will have done the same - and no doubt will do the same again in the future. Why are we always being asked to believe that all parents in the world except the McCanns are perfect and never ever get anything wrong when it comes to childcare arrangements? It's a preposterous idea IMO.
-
Whether it be by accident or design - of course other parents will have done the same - and no doubt will do the same again in the future. Why are we always being asked to believe that all parents in the world except the McCanns are perfect and never ever get anything wrong when it comes to childcare arrangements? It's a preposterous idea IMO.
It's an area that will always be discussed because it is behaviour that is completely alien to most people, however much you try to excuse it. It's so alien that many people - myself included - don't think the McCanns or their friends ever did it. And if they didn't then their story is fabricated, for whatever reason.
They knew at the time that leaving the children in an apartment that wasn't secure wouldn't be understood by their own family (never mind the world), which is why they didn't immediately own up to the patio door being unlocked.
It appears they did tell the police the next day but they didn't tell their family did they.
-
Whether it be by accident or design - of course other parents will have done the same - and no doubt will do the same again in the future. Why are we always being asked to believe that all parents in the world except the McCanns are perfect and never ever get anything wrong when it comes to childcare arrangements? It's a preposterous idea IMO.
Firstly I object to this constant derogatory calling of those of us who would not leave our children in this way "perfect". No, I was not a perfect parent - but I can assure you that having had my child, he came first and I would never have left him in a situation where he could have come into danger of any kind in order to put my own enjoyment first. Secondly, the fact that other parents have done the same does not make it right - indeed it increases the need to say loud and clear that the needs and the safety of your children come before your needs.
-
Firstly I object to this constant derogatory calling of those of us who would not leave our children in this way "perfect". No, I was not a perfect parent - but I can assure you that having had my child, he came first and I would never have left him in a situation where he could have come into danger of any kind in order to put my own enjoyment first. Secondly, the fact that other parents have done the same does not make it right - indeed it increases the need to say loud and clear that the needs and the safety of your children come before your needs.
I don't think you have any right to try and impose your views on other parents...social services do...why are they not tackling the hotels that offer baby listening services which contravene their guidelines...perhaps they don't think they are that much of a problem
-
Sorry if I "ignored" a posting of yours before, Benice. I am not on here full time and do not always read everything to catch up when I have been away, it depends on my time available. I usually answer posts directed to me unless the poster has been rude, then I do not see why I should bother to answer
If there was indeed an abductor I never have and never, ever would justify his / her actions. But it comes back to the lack of admission that leaving the children alone was wrong and others should not do it - and as I have said many times before also, not because of possible abduction, which its very rare but because of possible dangers in the home (in this case not a familiar home, but a holiday apartment) Leave the "abductor" out of it - it is still wrong to leave young children alone and unsupervised; and yet Kate said in the introduction to the Crime Watch programme that they had done "nothing wrong". So no, I do not want sack cloth and ashes; I personally would like a consistent acknowledgement that they DID do some thing wrong in leaving the children alone and others should not repeat it - not for reason of possible abduction either, but for the myriad of other reasons which have led to the government and NSPCC guideline on this matter.
Thank you for your reply.
I think you will find that any parents who have signed up a baby listening service in the past - (which always entails leaving sleeping children alone for periods of time - no matter who is doing the checking) would also say they did not think they were doing anything wrong when they made that decision. Just like the McCanns they thought it was OK at the time - otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
Why would you think it would be a good idea for the McCanns to insult the intelligence of other parents by advising them not to repeat what they did? Any parent who knew what happened to Madeleine would surely be able to work that out for themselves PDQ.
Also I can just imagine the torrent of abuse that would be hurled at them if they did what you think they should do , e.g. ''How dare those wicked McCanns tell me how to look after my kids'' .....or..... ''I've never left my kids ever - they're the ones who need lecturing not me.''...... or ... 'Who the hell do they think they are - they're the ones who left their kids not us''...... and so on and so forth. And that IMO would be the one and only very unproductive outcome and would serve no useful purpose at all to your 'cause'.
I'm sure there are plenty of parents who - (not because they have read any NCPCC guidelines, but purely because of what happened to Madeleine ) will have vowed never to leave their children in the same way when on holiday, but who might have done, if this dreadful tragedy had not occurred. Surely from your POV - that is a step in the right direction for the future safety of children - without having to continually bash the parents whose unwitting actions brought about that change of attitude - but who will also be suffering for the rest of their lives because of it.
-
I don't think you have any right to try and impose your views on other parents...social services do...why are they not tackling the hotels that offer baby listening services which contravene their guidelines...perhaps they don't think they are that much of a problem
Hotel listening services are marginally better than no listening service....the mccans had no baby monitor, nor a listening in capability via the phone..... hotel security is better overall than unlocked doors and windows (in a private flat on the corner of a rosd accessible to any tom dick and harry) and security who can get in and out of hotel rooms, CPN is correct, that if anything had happened they wouldnt have had a clue being out of ear and eyeshot..... they wouldnt even had had a clue with their checks which GM said were only ever auditory and never visual! Still, best to stop flogging this dead donkey hey? And pretend what they did was absolutely fine...what with leaving doors open and not knowing if they locked the front door to stop anyone getting in and more importantly out....
-
Firstly I object to this constant derogatory calling of those of us who would not leave our children in this way "perfect". No, I was not a perfect parent - but I can assure you that having had my child, he came first and I would never have left him in a situation where he could have come into danger of any kind in order to put my own enjoyment first. Secondly, the fact that other parents have done the same does not make it right - indeed it increases the need to say loud and clear that the needs and the safety of your children come before your needs.
Im sure all those parents of children you see in A&E depts with broken limbs etc, and those parents whose children have drowned in baths and garden pools also always put their children first in their own minds. And I would agree with them. But human error is trait which we can all be guilty of - not just the McCanns, which is the myth being constantly perpetuated IMO.
-
Whether it be by accident or design - of course other parents will have done the same - and no doubt will do the same again in the future. Why are we always being asked to believe that all parents in the world except the McCanns are perfect and never ever get anything wrong when it comes to childcare arrangements? It's a preposterous idea IMO.
Missed this. What is the design in deliberately leaving windows or doors unlocked when you leave three toddlers on their own? In an insecured house and go out? BBL to see......what I am missing here.....
>@@(*&)
-
Hotel listening services are marginally better than no listening service....the mccans had no baby monitor, nor a listening in capability via the phone..... hotel security is better overall than unlocked doors and windows (in a private flat on the corner of a rosd accessible to any tom dick and harry) and security who can get in and out of hotel rooms, CPN is correct, that if anything had happened they wouldnt have had a clue being out of ear and eyeshot..... they wouldnt even had had a clue with their checks which GM said were only ever auditory and never visual! Still, best to stop flogging this dead donkey hey? And pretend what they did was absolutely fine...what with leaving doors open and not knowing if they locked the front door to stop anyone getting in and more importantly out....
but hotel listening services break the guidelines that CPN has told us must be enforced...
-
I don't think you have any right to try and impose your views on other parents...social services do...why are they not tackling the hotels that offer baby listening services which contravene their guidelines...perhaps they don't think they are that much of a problem
This is my last reply to you, davel because you are always undermining and rude. If you wish to come back at me to have the last word as you usually do, that is fine - your prerogative.
I have already said I do not know about the attitude of Social Services to any hotel using a listening service - so I cannot comment further, and you are wasting your time with your fixation on hotels and listening services. In any case, as already said tonight, the McCanns were NOT staying in a hotel so it is irrelevant.
So I do not have any right to try and impose my views on other parents. As far as I am concerned I have every right to try and protect children from all forms of abuse including neglect; if that includes commenting on different aspects of child rearing, so be it. Do you think people just walk into being a Children's Social Worker (or a Child Care Officer, as it was called when I qualified) It entailed a degree, taken when university was attended by 4% of the population in the UK, not 44%, then a post graduate Diploma in Social Work, specialising in Child Care - which involved many aspects, including, of course, child development. (My teaching Diploma was taken much later) I have had to advise parents on many, many aspects of child rearing in order to protect the children, and will continue to advise if I wish - in order to protect children from negligent parents. If they don't like it - fine. But some do and appreciate it. I am thinking in particular of a cousin of my son who has said time and again that she is so grateful for the discussions we have had on the up-bringing of her sons and the advise I gave, and how much easier it has been since she took my advice.
Now, I will say no more because the next thing I shall be accused of is showing off. But the care for and concern for children remains at the root of my concern about this case and others similar
Enjoy your reply to this; and don't expect another reply because you will not get one
-
This is my last reply to you, davel because you are always undermining and rude. If you wish to come back at me to have the last word as you usually do, that is fine - your prerogative.
I have already said I do not know about the attitude of Social Services to any hotel using a listening service - so I cannot comment further, and you are wasting your time with your fixation on hotels and listening services. In any case, as already said tonight, the McCanns were NOT staying in a hotel so it is irrelevant.
So I do not have any right to try and impose my views on other parents. As far as I am concerned I have every right to try and protect children from all forms of abuse including neglect; if that includes commenting on different aspects of child rearing, so be it. Do you think people just walk into being a Children's Social Worker (or a Child Care Officer, as it was called when I qualified) It entailed a degree, taken when university was attended by 4% of the population in the UK, not 44%, then a post graduate Diploma in Social Work, specialising in Child Care - which involved many aspects, including, of course, child development. (My teaching Diploma was taken much later) I have had to advise parents on many, many aspects of child rearing in order to protect the children, and will continue to advise if I wish - in order to protect children from negligent parents. If they don't like it - fine. But some do and appreciate it. I am thinking in particular of a cousin of my son who has said time and again that she is so grateful for the discussions we have had on the up-bringing of her sons and the advise I gave, and how much easier it has been since she took my advice.
Now, I will say no more because the next thing I shall be accused of is showing off. But the care for and concern for children remains at the root of my concern about this case and others similar
Enjoy your reply to this; and don't expect another reply because you will not get one
Strange as it may seem to you I find you very rude and will be more than happy for you not to reply to my posts. I on the other hand will continue to reply to any post I wish to.
You continually criticise the listening service carried out by the McCanns and claim that this would definitely lead to action by social services...I think you are talking rubbish...just my opinion...as social services are taking no action against hotels that by your definition are continually breaking their guidelines. You and people like you are heaping more misery on the mcCanns and I think that is disgraceful. As long as you continue to criticise the McCanns I will continue to defend them...simple.
the fact that you find me rude is of no consequence...the fact that you support posters who are rude and act disgracefully tells us all we need to know about you
-
Thank you for your reply.
I think you will find that any parents who have signed up a baby listening service in the past - (which always entails leaving sleeping children alone for periods of time - no matter who is doing the checking) would also say they did not think they were doing anything wrong when they made that decision. Just like the McCanns they thought it was OK at the time - otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
Why would you think it would be a good idea for the McCanns to insult the intelligence of other parents by advising them not to repeat what they did? Any parent who knew what happened to Madeleine would surely be able to work that out for themselves PDQ.
Also I can just imagine the torrent of abuse that would be hurled at them if they did what you think they should do , e.g. ''How dare those wicked McCanns tell me how to look after my kids'' .....or..... ''I've never left my kids ever - they're the ones who need lecturing not me.''...... or ... 'Who the hell do they think they are - they're the ones who left their kids not us''...... and so on and so forth. And that IMO would be the one and only very unproductive outcome and would serve no useful purpose at all to your 'cause'.
I'm sure there are plenty of parents who - (not because they have read any NCPCC guidelines, but purely because of what happened to Madeleine ) will have vowed never to leave their children in the same way when on holiday, but who might have done, if this dreadful tragedy had not occurred. Surely from your POV - that is a step in the right direction for the future safety of children - without having to continually bash the parents whose unwitting actions brought about that change of attitude - but who will also be suffering for the rest of their lives because of it.
Excellent post Benice...my sentiments exactly
-
Thank you for your reply.
I think you will find that any parents who have signed up a baby listening service in the past - (which always entails leaving sleeping children alone for periods of time - no matter who is doing the checking) would also say they did not think they were doing anything wrong when they made that decision. Just like the McCanns they thought it was OK at the time - otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
Why would you think it would be a good idea for the McCanns to insult the intelligence of other parents by advising them not to repeat what they did? Any parent who knew what happened to Madeleine would surely be able to work that out for themselves PDQ.
Also I can just imagine the torrent of abuse that would be hurled at them if they did what you think they should do , e.g. ''How dare those wicked McCanns tell me how to look after my kids'' .....or..... ''I've never left my kids ever - they're the ones who need lecturing not me.''...... or ... 'Who the hell do they think they are - they're the ones who left their kids not us''...... and so on and so forth. And that IMO would be the one and only very unproductive outcome and would serve no useful purpose at all to your 'cause'.
I'm sure there are plenty of parents who - (not because they have read any NCPCC guidelines, but purely because of what happened to Madeleine ) will have vowed never to leave their children in the same way when on holiday, but who might have done, if this dreadful tragedy had not occurred. Surely from your POV - that is a step in the right direction for the future safety of children - without having to continually bash the parents whose unwitting actions brought about that change of attitude - but who will also be suffering for the rest of their lives because of it.
Benice - I really do not have time to answer all your points. But the reason why I think the McCanns should acknowledge fault is because their insistence that they did nothing wrong contradicts any idea that the same thing should not be done by others and is therefore dangerous. There needs to be a consistent approach to this. To say so would not insult the intelligence of other parents (IMO), it could be worded that they realise they were wrong and can only hope others do not do the same. But to deny their role in this gives totally the wrong message.
As to the torrent of abuse they might receive - I can assure you it would not be worse that the abuse I have received, both while working and since on forums. But more important is the safety of children and if you have to receive abuse to ensure that- so be it!
Sorry about the delay in replying! - my son arrived back from New Years Eve away in the middle of this post and we (naturally!) got talking
-
Hotel listening services are marginally better than no listening service....the mccans had no baby monitor, nor a listening in capability via the phone..... hotel security is better overall than unlocked doors and windows (in a private flat on the corner of a rosd accessible to any tom dick and harry) and security who can get in and out of hotel rooms, CPN is correct, that if anything had happened they wouldnt have had a clue being out of ear and eyeshot..... they wouldnt even had had a clue with their checks which GM said were only ever auditory and never visual! Still, best to stop flogging this dead donkey hey? And pretend what they did was absolutely fine...what with leaving doors open and not knowing if they locked the front door to stop anyone getting in and more importantly out....
I agree that hotel services are better...but according to cpn are in breach of guidelines....why are they not condemned by social services....because they are merely guidelines not laws
-
Im sure all those parents of children you see in A&E depts with broken limbs etc, and those parents whose children have drowned in baths and garden pools also always put their children first in their own minds. And I would agree with them. But human error is trait which we can all be guilty of - not just the McCanns, which is the myth being constantly perpetuated IMO.
Agreed (re accidents etc) I have sat beside parents while they looked at their damaged child in the hospital bed saying "but I only..." But they sure learnt from whatever it was that happened. The McCanns had the advantage of their training as doctors, let alone knowing that two of the children had cried the night before; they were not as ignorant as many of the parents I had to work with
-
of course far,far more children are seriously hurt when they are in the house with parents present than when they are left alone. Therefore according to red's school of statistics its safer if the children are left on their own.
-
of course far,far more children are seriously hurt when they are in the house with parents present than when they are left alone. Therefore according to red's school of statistics its safer if the children are left on their own.
That's the whole point isn't it. Far fewer accidents have occurred when children have been left on their own because far fewer children are actually left on their own. Most accidents occur when the parents are either present or nearby. Is that what you are attempting to articulate Dave?
The bottom line is children should never be left on their own whether it is a villa in Rothley or an apartment in Praia da Luz.
-
This point about child listening services etc is so tiresome.
The Ocean Club did not OFFER THIS SERVICE as it was felt they could not guarantee child safety this way.
The Ocean Club offered a night CRECHE which ALL parents using the day creche could use.
The Ocean Club also offered babysitting services.
The Apartments at PDL were privately OWNED. It would be like myself winning the lottery and thinking right I am going to buy a flat and use it in the summer months and enjoy the facilities of the club located close by. Which owners could do. Bit like in towns where there are Butlins, people living in the towns can use the facilities for a small fee.
So I have an apartment in PDL, and I have a flat in uk.
IF I had children and was living in my flat in the UK, and decided to pop out to my local pub which was located about 70 metres away and my children were snatched or in a fire, I would have been arrested and charged.
So pray what is the difference? Or am I totally missing the plot here...
The flat in PDL 5A was a PRIVATELY OWNED flat set on the edge of a club, and the owners had included this flat with Warner facilities. I believe Warner is the agent and they run the facilities and offer holiday packages with accommodation bit like Hoseasons and haven.
Warner offer a child friendly facility, with day clubs for the kids so the parents can get a break, and even creche facilities close to the Tapas bar so the children can chill out watching DVDS whilst their parents enjoy a drink and a meal. Its PERFECT for parents.
I just wonder BEFORE the McCanns and their troop arrived HOW MANY people actually left their children in the flats and trooped off to one of the Warners restaurants.
I believe on night the McCanns and friends went to the Millenuium which is quite a long walk away could be a myth but it was stated this was the night a child was heard crying........
Anyway it would be very interesting how many people did leave their children prior...I bet you NO ONE DID.
Why the hell would you? You have every opportunity to use good quality creche facilities, you can enjoy a meal and drink and pick the kids up almost right by your side at 11pm and still enjoy yourself, without the constant walking and checking. As to using baby monitors no way. These are so not meant for this type of distance.
The whole thing makes no sense to me. Why the hell would you go on holiday to a child friendly park, and not use the facilities offered so that you too can have some peace and quiet.
The McCanns KNEW there was no child listening services Mrs McCann said that herself, and anyway you would soon find that out if you just googled...........
The FLAT was a FLAT not a hotel room contained inside an area with receptionists and security, the FLAT was a FLAT not contained in an area with security guards on the front gates..........
The FLAT was a FLAT like many other flats in PDL open and vulnerable to anyone walking about who felt like stealing or burglarising your property.
Jeez you just would not leave children on their own no way no how, and if you did SHAME ON YOU and IF YOU DID IN THE UK, you would have had the blooming plod knocking on your door and been arrested for going out drinking and eating and leaving your kids on their own.
Enough already.....
-
This point about child listening services etc is so tiresome.
The Ocean Club did not OFFER THIS SERVICE as it was felt they could not guarantee child safety this way.
The Ocean Club offered a night CRECHE which ALL parents using the day creche could use.
The Ocean Club also offered babysitting services.
The Apartments at PDL were privately OWNED. It would be like myself winning the lottery and thinking right I am going to buy a flat and use it in the summer months and enjoy the facilities of the club located close by. Which owners could do. Bit like in towns where there are Butlins, people living in the towns can use the facilities for a small fee.
So I have an apartment in PDL, and I have a flat in uk.
IF I had children and was living in my flat in the UK, and decided to pop out to my local pub which was located about 70 metres away and my children were snatched or in a fire, I would have been arrested and charged.
So pray what is the difference? Or am I totally missing the plot here...
The flat in PDL 5A was a PRIVATELY OWNED flat set on the edge of a club, and the owners had included this flat with Warner facilities. I believe Warner is the agent and they run the facilities and offer holiday packages with accommodation bit like Hoseasons and haven.
Warner offer a child friendly facility, with day clubs for the kids so the parents can get a break, and even creche facilities close to the Tapas bar so the children can chill out watching DVDS whilst their parents enjoy a drink and a meal. Its PERFECT for parents.
I just wonder BEFORE the McCanns and their troop arrived HOW MANY people actually left their children in the flats and trooped off to one of the Warners restaurants.
I believe on night the McCanns and friends went to the Millenuium which is quite a long walk away could be a myth but it was stated this was the night a child was heard crying........
Anyway it would be very interesting how many people did leave their children prior...I bet you NO ONE DID.
Why the hell would you? You have every opportunity to use good quality creche facilities, you can enjoy a meal and drink and pick the kids up almost right by your side at 11pm and still enjoy yourself, without the constant walking and checking. As to using baby monitors no way. These are so not meant for this type of distance.
The whole thing makes no sense to me. Why the hell would you go on holiday to a child friendly park, and not use the facilities offered so that you too can have some peace and quiet.
The McCanns KNEW there was no child listening services Mrs McCann said that herself, and anyway you would soon find that out if you just googled...........
The FLAT was a FLAT not a hotel room contained inside an area with receptionists and security, the FLAT was a FLAT not contained in an area with security guards on the front gates..........
The FLAT was a FLAT like many other flats in PDL open and vulnerable to anyone walking about who felt like stealing or burglarising your property.
Jeez you just would not leave children on their own no way no how, and if you did SHAME ON YOU and IF YOU DID IN THE UK, you would have had the blooming plod knocking on your door and been arrested for going out drinking and eating and leaving your kids on their own.
Enough already.....
Excellent post.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
This point about child listening services etc is so tiresome.
The Ocean Club did not OFFER THIS SERVICE as it was felt they could not guarantee child safety this way.
The Ocean Club offered a night CRECHE which ALL parents using the day creche could use.
The Ocean Club also offered babysitting services.
The Apartments at PDL were privately OWNED. It would be like myself winning the lottery and thinking right I am going to buy a flat and use it in the summer months and enjoy the facilities of the club located close by. Which owners could do. Bit like in towns where there are Butlins, people living in the towns can use the facilities for a small fee.
So I have an apartment in PDL, and I have a flat in uk.
IF I had children and was living in my flat in the UK, and decided to pop out to my local pub which was located about 70 metres away and my children were snatched or in a fire, I would have been arrested and charged.
So pray what is the difference? Or am I totally missing the plot here...
The flat in PDL 5A was a PRIVATELY OWNED flat set on the edge of a club, and the owners had included this flat with Warner facilities. I believe Warner is the agent and they run the facilities and offer holiday packages with accommodation bit like Hoseasons and haven.
Warner offer a child friendly facility, with day clubs for the kids so the parents can get a break, and even creche facilities close to the Tapas bar so the children can chill out watching DVDS whilst their parents enjoy a drink and a meal. Its PERFECT for parents.
I just wonder BEFORE the McCanns and their troop arrived HOW MANY people actually left their children in the flats and trooped off to one of the Warners restaurants.
I believe on night the McCanns and friends went to the Millenuium which is quite a long walk away could be a myth but it was stated this was the night a child was heard crying........
Anyway it would be very interesting how many people did leave their children prior...I bet you NO ONE DID.
Why the hell would you? You have every opportunity to use good quality creche facilities, you can enjoy a meal and drink and pick the kids up almost right by your side at 11pm and still enjoy yourself, without the constant walking and checking. As to using baby monitors no way. These are so not meant for this type of distance.
The whole thing makes no sense to me. Why the hell would you go on holiday to a child friendly park, and not use the facilities offered so that you too can have some peace and quiet.
The McCanns KNEW there was no child listening services Mrs McCann said that herself, and anyway you would soon find that out if you just googled...........
The FLAT was a FLAT not a hotel room contained inside an area with receptionists and security, the FLAT was a FLAT not contained in an area with security guards on the front gates..........
The FLAT was a FLAT like many other flats in PDL open and vulnerable to anyone walking about who felt like stealing or burglarising your property.
Jeez you just would not leave children on their own no way no how, and if you did SHAME ON YOU and IF YOU DID IN THE UK, you would have had the blooming plod knocking on your door and been arrested for going out drinking and eating and leaving your kids on their own.
Enough already.....
Its tiresome...and I agree ..because posters keep attacking the McCanns re the childcare arrangements. yOu keep attacking...as you are doing now ...and I will keep defending.
You seem to accept that hotel listening services are just acceptable...yet there is a risk..it seems you accept that risk...that's what the McCanns did...life is all about risks.
I notice no one has criticised Schumacher for skiing off piste. What a stupid thing to do some might say..its his own fault..but no he gets sympathy,and quite rightly too
-
Its tiresome...and I agree ..because posters keep attacking the McCanns re the childcare arrangements. yOu keep attacking...as you are doing now ...and I will keep defending.
You seem to accept that hotel listening services are just acceptable...yet there is a risk..it seems you accept that risk...that's what the McCanns did...life is all about risks.
I notice no one has criticised Schumacher for skiing off piste. What a stupid thing to do some might say..its his own fault..but no he gets sympathy,and quite rightly too
The 'wisdom' of davel....
'You seem to accept that hotel listening services are just acceptable...yet there is a risk..it seems you accept that risk...that's what the McCanns did...life is all about risks.'
i.e. It was OK to leave your children at risk whilst out drinking and leaving your children unprotected.
NICE ONE.
-
The 'wisdom' of davel....
'You seem to accept that hotel listening services are just acceptable...yet there is a risk..it seems you accept that risk...that's what the McCanns did...life is all about risks.'
i.e. It was OK to leave your children at risk whilst out drinking and leaving your children unprotected.
NICE ONE.
You obviously don't understand the post...the first time you let your child cross the road alone...is a risk...life is all about taking and minimising risks
-
You obviously don't understand the post...the first time you let your child cross the road alone...is a risk...life is all about taking and minimising risks
I understand your post perfectly well.
The Mccanns were arrogant and insipidly negligent in leaving their children unprotected.
NO EXCUSES AT ALL.
-
No excuses given...none needed...I don't care what you think about the childcare arrangements,,,totally unimportant..none of your business
No excuses needed ?
What planet are you on ??? 8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
-
There is no point to making excuses after the event.
In hindsight I sometimes wonder how any of my children survived at all, although I certainly wasn't perpetually anxious at the time. I decided early on that this would be the road to a nervous breakdown and a continual suppression of any freedom at all.
-
There is no point to making excuses after the event.
In hindsight I sometimes wonder how any of my children survived at all, although I certainly wasn't perpetually anxious at the time. I decided early on that this would be the road to a nervous breakdown and a continual suppression of any freedom at all.
Eleanor, I was not perpetually anxious either - but I early on decided that the safety of this being I had brought into the world was mine. So I taught him how to cope with various things, eg re crossing the road: to use the local zebra crossing, look both ways etc, did it with him numerous times from babyhood onwards, of course, then watched him do it by himself and them let him set sail doing it himself etc. And he was taught to do things according to his age and understanding, not when he was not old or experienced enough to understand implications. Has it created a neurotic adult? - no way. It has created a very confidant, capable adult. I believe your job as a parent is to work yourself out of a job!! But to do it in a safe and responsible way.
But all this comes throughout childhood as the chid is led safely to adulthood - it is not at ages 2 and 3
-
Eleanor, I was not perpetually anxious either - but I early on decided that the safety of this being I had brought into the world was mine. So I taught him how to cope with various things, eg re crossing the road: to use the local zebra crossing, look both ways etc, did it with him numerous times from babyhood onwards, of course, then watched him do it by himself and them let him set sail doing it himself etc. And he was taught to do things according to his age and understanding, not when he was not old or experienced enough to understand implications. Has it created a neurotic adult? - no way. It has created a very confidant, capable adult. I believe your job as a parent is to work yourself out of a job!! But to do it in a safe and responsible way.
But all this comes throughout childhood as the chid is led safely to adulthood - it is not at ages 2 and 3
Funny you should say that. My eldest son must have been about three when I went running to rescue him from a swing. I stopped myself because that was when I realised that I couldn't forever protect him.
My middle son was about four when he used to run off to The Kampong to play with his Chinese friends, and I didn't stop him from doing that.
My youngest son was just a baby when I allowed his Amah to take him home with her for Chinese New Year overnight.
No, I didn't much like any of it. But you have to start somewhere, and then hope for the best from all people.
Sadly, Madeleine was abducted by a s..m bag of some kind.
-
Where is your proof that she is alive?
did I say she is alive,i wouldn't know one way or another but there certainly aint no proof shes dead. 8-)(--)
-
Funny you should say that. My eldest son must have been about three when I went running to rescue him from a swing. I stopped myself because that was when I realised that I couldn't forever protect him.
My middle son was about four when he used to run off to The Kampong to play with his Chinese friends, and I didn't stop him from doing that.
My youngest son was just a baby when I allowed his Amah to take him home with her for Chinese New Year overnight.
No, I didn't much like any of it. But you have to start somewhere, and then hope for the best from all people.
Sadly, Madeleine was abducted by a s..m bag of some kind.
Totally irrelevant, and off topic(!), but out of interest - where were you living?
-
did I say she is alive,i wouldn't know one way or another but there certainly aint no proof shes dead.
Quite . However, it is an either/or position. If you don't believe she is dead, then you must believe she is alive.
Unless she is found, we will never know for sure.
-
Quite . However, it is an either/or position. If you don't believe she is dead, then you must believe she is alive.
Unless she is found, we will never know for sure.
you are clever well done 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Totally irrelevant, and off topic(!), but out of interest - where were you living?
In Singapore. But it isn't necessarily Off Topic since it pertains to what a parent will do to protect or find a missing child.
I often did not know where my children were at any hour of the day. But I trusted people. And I still do.
It would never have entered my head that someone would have abducted one of them.
-
Have you seen her recently?
no actually.have you found her body ?
-
In Singapore. But it isn't necessarily Off Topic since it pertains to what a parent will do to protect or find a missing child.
I often did not know where my children were at any hour of the day. But I trusted people. And I still do.
It would never have entered my head that someone would have abducted one of them.
But you knew, or at least partly knew, the people concerned - eg your Amah, your son's friends. So it is not really the same. And it was a long time ago, I guess, and Singapore does seem very ordered, structured - at least from my brief visits there. And it was on what was then home territory to you, and presumably also to your children if you were living there, not foreign territory
-
But you knew, or at least partly knew, the people concerned - eg your Amah, your son's friends. So it is not really the same. And it was a long time ago, I guess, and Singapore does seem very ordered, structured - at least from my brief visits there. And it was on what was then home territory to you, and presumably also to your children if you were living there, not foreign territory
Have you ever been to a Kampong? Or seen a bunch of Chinese children from a Kampong? And I only knew where he had been because he told me.
But I did trust these people, although I have to say that my child rearing was not condoned by most Brits.
But that's it, you see. You have to trust somewhere along the way. You can't spend your life imagining every horror story.
It is so easy for me to see what Kate and Gerry did. And why they are now shifting their own hell to find Madeleine.
-
Have you ever been to a Kampong? Or seen a bunch of Chinese children from a Kampong? And I only knew where he had been because he told me.
But I did trust these people, although I have to say that my child rearing was not condoned by most Brits.
But that's it, you see. You have to trust somewhere along the way. You can't spend your life imagining every horror story.
It is so easy for me to see what Kate and Gerry did. And why they are now shifting their own hell to find Madeleine.
No I haven't - I've been, as I said, briefly (overnight) in Singapore on the way to and from Australia, and somewhat different but also in the far east, spent 2 weeks in Hong Kong (before its return to China) But, as I said, you lived there (as I understand it) and consciously or not, made your decisions based on what you knew there, and how you felt about your Amah. That is not the same as leaving your children alone on strange territory.
For various reasons I used to have to go into hospital when my son was young, but was always very careful who I left him with, who was always the same person, so there was consistency, and I used to write a note for my friend to read to him in the morning so he was reassured! For me, the operative word is 'reassurance'
-
No I haven't - I've been, as I said, briefly (overnight) in Singapore on the way to and from Australia, and somewhat different but also in the far east, spent 2 weeks in Hong Kong (before its return to China) But, as I said, you lived there (as I understand it) and consciously or not, made your decisions based on what you knew there, and how you felt about your Amah. That is not the same as leaving your children alone on strange territory.
For various reasons I used to have to go into hospital when my son was young, but was always very careful who I left him with, who was always the same person, so there was consistency, and I used to write a note for my friend to read to him in the morning so he was reassured! For me, the operative word is 'reassurance'
What a difference between you and me. Although I doubt that either of us was wrong. Just different. But I don't make a habit of critising other people.
I refused to go into a sanatorium when I had Tuberculosis because my presence was more important to me than written reassurance.
Fortunately Social Services eventually agreed with me. But then they would have to have carried me out kicking and screaming.
In the end, you pays your money and you takes your choice. And you try to be kind to people who make different choices.
-
You obviously don't understand the post...the first time you let your child cross the road alone...is a risk...life is all about taking and minimising risks
We take risks that benefit the child, not ourselves. We allow our children to cross a road alone so that some day they can get to school or work. We allow them out to play with their friends so that they can develop social skill and be autonomous.
I suffered when my boys took those first steps towards a selfhood. They didn't.
The Mccanns took a risk that only benefited themselves. It's not the same thing at all.
-
We take risks that benefit the child, not ourselves. We allow our children to cross a road alone so that some day they can get to school or work. We allow them out to play with their friends so that they can develop social skill and be autonomous.
I suffered when my boys took those first steps towards a selfhood. They didn't.
The Mccanns took a risk that only benefited themselves. It's not the same thing at all.
Sense at last!
I wonder what the life training/skills/preparation was in leaving two two year old and a three year old alone....to wake up, have an accident, anythng, wonder where mum and dad are? Oh I remember, maybe its finding your way out and going down a road to look for mum and dad in the nearby restaraunt......some of these arguments being touted are ludicrous and chalk and cheese with actual facts IMO
-
We take risks that benefit the child, not ourselves. We allow our children to cross a road alone so that some day they can get to school or work. We allow them out to play with their friends so that they can develop social skill and be autonomous.
I suffered when my boys took those first steps towards a selfhood. They didn't.
The Mccanns took a risk that only benefited themselves. It's not the same thing at all.
It is a culmination of the overall effect. The lives of parent's shouldn't end when they have children. Otherwise they would become non people, and of no use to anyone.
Personally, I think that Mothers shouldn't work. I never did until my children were grown. But I would never tell a working mother that she should not do this.
I hassled the lack of money and stayed at home. Does that make me a better parent?
-
We take risks that benefit the child, not ourselves. We allow our children to cross a road alone so that some day they can get to school or work. We allow them out to play with their friends so that they can develop social skill and be autonomous.
I suffered when my boys took those first steps towards a selfhood. They didn't.
The Mccanns took a risk that only benefited themselves. It's not the same thing at all.
if I said the pope was a catholic...you too would not agree with me...didn't say it was the same...but life is full of risks...
-
whatever the McCanns do it will be construed by those who doubt them as evidence of guilt...bizarre but true...if they sue they are vexatatious litigants and if they don't sue then the story is true. I cannot see how any guilty person would continue to make sure the case is kept in the public eye and is further investigated. They have had every opportunity to fade into the background
Bang on right, for my money.
At one time, it was predicted that they would fade away, and when they didn't, were accused of 'milking' it.
Damned if you do; damned if you don't.
The McCanns are simply determined to do everything possible to try to find their abducted daughter including, yes, enlisting the help of the media.
Why some people find that incompatible with also resenting, and striking back against, lies and falsehoods by the media is beyond me.
To some extent, yes, they have unleashed something like a Frankenstein's Monster that has the ability to turn against them as well as be helpful.
But they have retained some measure of control against the worst excesses of the press, which (in my opinion) is a good thing.
-
Some?
Before October it was total.
-
No I haven't - I've been, as I said, briefly (overnight) in Singapore on the way to and from Australia, and somewhat different but also in the far east, spent 2 weeks in Hong Kong (before its return to China) But, as I said, you lived there (as I understand it) and consciously or not, made your decisions based on what you knew there, and how you felt about your Amah. That is not the same as leaving your children alone on strange territory.
For various reasons I used to have to go into hospital when my son was young, but was always very careful who I left him with, who was always the same person, so there was consistency, and I used to write a note for my friend to read to him in the morning so he was reassured! For me, the operative word is 'reassurance'
Strange ...in other countries leaving a young child alone in hospital overnight would be unheard of...parents allowed to stay with them...different cultures..different values
-
Strange ...in other countries leaving a young child alone in hospital overnight would be unheard of...parents allowed to stay with them...different cultures..different values
it might help if you actually read posts properly before inserting your knee jerk erroneous reactions...CPN did not say she left her son in hospital overnight, read it properly, SHE had to go to hospital and left her son with her friend....meanwhile your wish is granted, you are on ignore
8((()*/
-
Deleted double post
-
it might help if you actually read posts properly before inserting your knee jerk erroneous reactions...CPN did not say she left her son in hospital overnight, read it properly, SHE had to go to hospital and left her son with her friend....meanwhile your wish is granted, you are on ignore
8((()*/
No you need to read it properly,,,try again...she left a note to be read IN THE MORNING....now if I am on ignore that means you don't address posts to me...try again
-
No you need to read it properly,,,try again...she left a note to be read IN THE MORNING....now if I am on ignore that means you don't address posts to me...try again
And I will break my rule because yet again you seem to be both being abusive and twisting to suit yourself. Let us try in words of one syllable (except where there is not a one syllable word)
1) I had to go into hospital (sorry that has 3 syllables) not my son
2) My son stayed with my best friend (and her kids)
3) He stayed there each time so he was with a friend he knew well and felt safe with, and he got used to the pattern.
4) Each time I left a note for my friend to read to him in the morning (in her flat) to show him his mum was thinking about him
OK?
-
You see, I don't make a point of being perfect. And nor do I expect others to be. I just try to be kind. This has taught my children that charity is above so much else. My children are kind, which is all that I require of them.
-
Off topic posts will be removed. No exceptions!!
If you want to discuss parenting in general start a new thread in the off topic board.
-
Are well you see. That is different. Bringing up a child steeped in hatred and bile if fine, so long as you never leave that child alone.
Yes & if you go on holiday and manage to return home with the same amount of children that you left with then you must be doing something right.
-
Yes & if you go on holiday and manage to return home with the same amount of children that you left with then you must be doing something right.
you mean like the needhams
-
There is also a previous thread already started relating to the McCanns and parenting issues, and parenting in general:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3029.0
-
There is also a previous thread already started relating to the McCanns and parenting issues, and parenting in general:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3029.0
Thank you so much...will revive the thread later
-
We take risks that benefit the child, not ourselves. We allow our children to cross a road alone so that some day they can get to school or work. We allow them out to play with their friends so that they can develop social skill and be autonomous.
I suffered when my boys took those first steps towards a selfhood. They didn't.
The Mccanns took a risk that only benefited themselves. It's not the same thing at all.
What about folk who put their children in a car to take them to school/shops for no other reason that it's easier, or more convenient for them than walking with the children. After all what parent doesn't know that thousands of children have been killed in car accidents but still do it - and on many occasions it's to suit themselves and not necessarily their children. And what about the parents who you see talking on their mobile phones whilst driving cars with children in them? I've seen that happen more times than I care to remember.
Anyone who has watched 'You've been Framed' should know how vastly people differ about deciding what is dangerous or not. I've been horrified to watch some of the obviously (to me) dangerous situations they not only watch their toddlers getting into, but actually carry on filming them rather than stepping in to stop them from putting themselves further into harms way.
This continual insistence by some that the McCanns are bad parents because they once made a poor judgement is inexplicable to me - as I don't believe a parent exists who has not at some time also made a poor judgement which could have ended badly - but were lucky enough that it didn't - and so instead of going on to remember it for the rest of their lives, they have simply forgotten all about it.
-
This continual insistence by some that the McCanns are bad parents because they once made a poor judgement is inexplicable to me - as I don't believe a parent exists who has not at some time also made a poor judgement which could have ended badly - but were lucky enough that it didn't - and so instead of going on to remember it for the rest of their lives, they have simply forgotten all about it.
That is a very valid point Benice but from reading comments it appears that most people are incensed by Kates comment
on Crimewatch when she blurted out that they had not done anything wrong. Well Hello Kate, I've news for you...
-
What about folk who put their children in a car to take them to school/shops for no other reason that it's easier, or more convenient for them than walking with the children. After all what parent doesn't know that thousands of children have been killed in car accidents but still do it - and on many occasions it's to suit themselves and not necessarily their children. And what about the parents who you see talking on their mobile phones whilst driving cars with children in them? I've seen that happen more times than I care to remember.
Anyone who has watched 'You've been Framed' should know how vastly people differ about deciding what is dangerous or not. I've been horrified to watch some of the obviously (to me) dangerous situations they not only watch their toddlers getting into, but actually carry on filming them rather than stepping in to stop them from putting themselves further into harms way.
This continual insistence by some that the McCanns are bad parents because they once made a poor judgement is inexplicable to me - as I don't believe a parent exists who has not at some time also made a poor judgement which could have ended badly - but were lucky enough that it didn't - and so instead of going on to remember it for the rest of their lives, they have simply forgotten all about it.
It wasn't just one night they exhibited 'poor judgement'.
They did the same thing for several successive evenings, and if not for the events of the 3 rd May, would have undoubtedly continued to do so.
-
That is a very valid point Benice but from reading comments it appears that most people are incensed by Kates comment
on Crimewatch when she blurted out that they had not done anything wrong. Well Hello Kate, I've news for you...
Some people may be incensed but I am sure that kate has been advised by psychologists not to blame herself for what happened to Maddie...after all Maddie would have been Ok if it wasn't for the abductor...its a common strategy to help victims of crime cope...and as far as Im concerned...Kate and the whole McCann family are the victims of an horrific crime. those who criticise her are perhaps those who think there was no abductor
-
It wasn't just one night they exhibited 'poor judgement'.
They did the same thing for several successive evenings, and if not for the events of the 3 rd May, would have undoubtedly continued to do so.
like many families have done since the days of butlins but due to what happened to maddie will not do again...you raeally are like a stuck record but as along as you criticise I will defend
-
like many families have done since the days of butlins but due to what happened to maddie will not do again...you raeally are like a stuck record but as along as you criticise I will defend
You defend the indefensible, so the question is why ? >@@(*&)
-
You defend the indefensible, so the question is why ? >@@(*&)
its a very simple answer. if I am walking along the street and I see someone being attacked it is my natural instinct to help...what do you think my motive is?
-
its a very simple answer. if I am walking along the street and I see someone being attacked it is my natural instinct to help...what do you think my motive is?
If the person being attacked had concealed their daughters corpse would you still help?
-
If the person being attacked had concealed their daughters corpse would you still help?
why has someone concealed their daughters corpse
-
why has someone concealed their daughters corpse
If they had would you was the question.
And I'd imagine it probably has happened at least once during mankinds existence.
-
What about folk who put their children in a car to take them to school/shops for no other reason that it's easier, or more convenient for them than walking with the children. After all what parent doesn't know that thousands of children have been killed in car accidents but still do it - and on many occasions it's to suit themselves and not necessarily their children. And what about the parents who you see talking on their mobile phones whilst driving cars with children in them? I've seen that happen more times than I care to remember.
Anyone who has watched 'You've been Framed' should know how vastly people differ about deciding what is dangerous or not. I've been horrified to watch some of the obviously (to me) dangerous situations they not only watch their toddlers getting into, but actually carry on filming them rather than stepping in to stop them from putting themselves further into harms way.
This continual insistence by some that the McCanns are bad parents because they once made a poor judgement is inexplicable to me - as I don't believe a parent exists who has not at some time also made a poor judgement which could have ended badly - but were lucky enough that it didn't - and so instead of going on to remember it for the rest of their lives, they have simply forgotten all about it.
This is a topic that is discussed on the other thread to which I was referring.
Placing children in cars is probably the riskiest thing to do with them as far as their physical safety is concerned. Yet we don't keep our children from using cars. We accept that their use us unavoidable, and we take the necessary precautions - seatbelts, car seats, not using phone, etc. (theoretically).
There is no way for us to avoid risky situations. The question is 'what are the sensible and adequate precautions to take in the circumstances?'
Anyway, I derail this thread as I write so let's start a new one or use the old one above.
-
I think the point being missed here is that the McCanns made a 'conscious' decision to place their very young infants at risk
Not at risk of abduction, certainly ( that was so obscure a possibility that any parent could be forgiven for not even considering it )
Not even at risk from accident, perhaps ... there is a possibility that the McCanns were ignorant of such dangers and did not consider them either
But they were certainly aware that they were leaving their very young children at risk of waking up alone, frightened, crying, and distressed
It was that 'awareness' that lead to them checking at half hour intervals, afterall ... to see if their children were crying
And that's what they refuse to acknowledge when they claim they 'did nothing wrong' .... that they wilfully, and with forethought, considered that the risk of their their infants waking up, feeling frightened and distressed was worth it
... for a night out with their mates
-
This is a topic that is discussed on the other thread to which I was referring.
Placing children in cars is probably the riskiest thing to do with them as far as their physical safety is concerned. Yet we don't keep our children from using cars. We accept that their use us unavoidable, and we take the necessary precautions - seatbelts, car seats, not using phone, etc. (theoretically).
There is no way for us to avoid risky situations. The question is 'what are the sensible and adequate precautions to take in the circumstances?'
Anyway, I derail this thread as I write so let's start a new one or use the old one above.
Placing a child in a car and then leaving the child in the car whilst you go off shopping in the heat of the day, causing the child to suffocate is a CRIMINAL ACT. Parents have done this and been charged for it and lanquish in prison.
LEAVING a child in any circumstances is not acceptable.
LEAVING a child in an apartment night after night is increasing the childs risk of DEATH or INJURY....
Many children sadly have died in FIRES, whilst parents go out and leave them just for 10 minutes.
Anyone using a mobile phone in this country is breaking the law.
There is a photo of a class idiot in the papers today, showing his small child the huge waves coming over a wall which nearly engulfed them. Someone took a PHOTO of this. I would have rang the police. This person was neglectful and should be cautioned......what an idiot.
We cant always legislate for stupidity but we can ourselves try and make it safe for our kids. NEVER leaving them alone night after night is good parenting....FFS. Call herself a DEVOUT CATHOLIC no way.
-
I think the point being missed here is that the McCanns made a 'conscious' decision to place their very young infants at risk
Not at risk of abduction, certainly ( that was so obscure a possibility that any parent could be forgiven for not even considering it )
Not even at risk from accident, perhaps ... there is a possibility that the McCanns were ignorant of such dangers and did not consider them either
But they were certainly aware that they were leaving their very young children at risk of waking up alone, frightened, crying, and distressed
It was that 'awareness' that lead to them checking at half hour intervals, afterall ... to see if their children were crying
And that's what they refuse to acknowledge when they claim they 'did nothing wrong' .... that they wilfully, and with forethought, considered that the risk of their their infants waking up, feeling frightened and distressed was worth it
... for a night out with their mates
For once, I have to disagree with you, Icabodcrane.
Not even at risk from accident, perhaps ... there is a possibility that the McCanns were ignorant of such dangers and did not consider them either
Both the McCanns were doctors, one was a GP. The chances that they, and especially she were / was ignorant of the possible danger of accidents is very very remote, considering this would have ben part of the training and the chances that Kate McCann had had a child patient attending A&E for an accident in the home very high. (There are 60,381 licensed doctors on the GP Register, whereas "each year more than 1 million children age under 15 are taken to accident and emergency (A&E) after being injured in or around the home. Many more children are treated at home by their parents, carers or GP." - http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/accidents-to-children-in-the-home/pages/introduction.aspx So the chances that Kate McCann, in particular, did not know about accidents to children in the home , quite apart from plain common sense, are remote.
In addition, if she knew of any patient on her list leaving children in this way she would be expected to report it to the relevant authorities and attend any subsequent case conferences. So I really cannot buy ignorance of the possible dangers (adding that with stone floors, as in Portugal, and on relatively unfamiliar territory, the dangers would be greater)
-
For once, I have to disagree with you, Icabodcrane.
Not even at risk from accident, perhaps ... there is a possibility that the McCanns were ignorant of such dangers and did not consider them either
Both the McCanns were doctors, one was a GP. The chances that they, and especially she were / was ignorant of the possible danger of accidents is very very remote, considering this would have ben part of the training and the chances that Kate McCann had had a child patient attending A&E for an accident in the home very high. (There are 60,381 licensed doctors on the GP Register, whereas "each year more than 1 million children age under 15 are taken to accident and emergency (A&E) after being injured in or around the home. Many more children are treated at home by their parents, carers or GP." - http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/accidents-to-children-in-the-home/pages/introduction.aspx So the chances that Kate McCann, in particular, did not know about accidents to children in the home , quite apart from plain common sense, are remote.
In addition, if she knew of any patient on her list leaving children in this way she would be expected to report it to the relevant authorities and attend any subsequent case conferences. So I really cannot buy ignorance of the possible dangers (adding that with stone floors, as in Portugal, and on relatively unfamiliar territory, the dangers would be greater)
Precisely CPN.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
You will all be going on with the same arguments for the next 20 years ...Icad has admitted that the risk from serious accident or abduction was extremely unlikely....they were doing what countless families have done before them.. the abduction will lessen the numbers of children left alone in such circumstances..move on and get a life
-
You will all be going on with the same arguments for the next 20 years ...Icad has admitted that the risk from serious accident or abduction was extremely unlikely....they were doing what countless families have done before them.. the abduction will lessen the numbers of children left alone in such circumstances..move on and get a life
Abduction ???
-
You will all be going on with the same arguments for the next 20 years
I do so hope not
-
I do so hope not
who would have thought six years later the same criticisms would be made...we have had some progress...icad has admitted that the chances of abduction or serious accident was extremely low...some sanity at last
-
who would have thought six years later the same criticisms would be made...we have had some progress...icad has admitted that the chances of abduction or serious accident was extremely low...some sanity at last
I really think much of the continuing criticism - on this issue - only comes because there are still people excusing the inexcusable.
Just ask Mrs McCann's mother.
-
For once, I have to disagree with you, Icabodcrane.
Not even at risk from accident, perhaps ... there is a possibility that the McCanns were ignorant of such dangers and did not consider them either
Both the McCanns were doctors, one was a GP. The chances that they, and especially she were / was ignorant of the possible danger of accidents is very very remote, considering this would have ben part of the training and the chances that Kate McCann had had a child patient attending A&E for an accident in the home very high. (There are 60,381 licensed doctors on the GP Register, whereas "each year more than 1 million children age under 15 are taken to accident and emergency (A&E) after being injured in or around the home. Many more children are treated at home by their parents, carers or GP." - http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/accidents-to-children-in-the-home/pages/introduction.aspx So the chances that Kate McCann, in particular, did not know about accidents to children in the home , quite apart from plain common sense, are remote.
In addition, if she knew of any patient on her list leaving children in this way she would be expected to report it to the relevant authorities and attend any subsequent case conferences. So I really cannot buy ignorance of the possible dangers (adding that with stone floors, as in Portugal, and on relatively unfamiliar territory, the dangers would be greater)
im sure kate knew about the risk of accidents...which has been fully discussed before...fire and stairs are the real risk factors that Kate would have taken into account
-
im sure kate knew about the risk of accidents...which has been fully discussed before...fire and stairs are the real risk factors that Kate would have taken into account
Pull Plugs. Hide sharp objects. Hide Medicines and other toxic substances. Hide Matches. In fact all things to be done before going to bed in case the little horrors get up in the middle of the night. Just plain common sense.
-
Pull Plugs. Hide sharp objects. Hide Medicines and other toxic substances. Hide Matches. In fact all things to be done before going to bed in case the little horrors get up in the middle of the night. Just plain common sense.
...remain close by in case you are needed.
-
...remain close by in case you are needed.
and don't leave your children by themselves whilst out eating and drinking.
-
...remain close by in case you are needed.
Don't drink anything. And don't go to sleep. Sleeping pills are a definite No No.
-
and don't leave your children by themselves whilst out eating and drinking.
And if you do then at least make sure you leave the sofa pushed right up against the wall.
-
And if you do then at least make sure you leave the sofa pushed right up against the wall.
What about don't smoke...don't smoke cannabis ...as it is likely your children will copy you
-
What about don't smoke...don't smoke cannabis ...as it is likely your children will copy you
8)--))
At least you have a sense of humour.
-
I can't say the same about some of your mates though 8(8-))
-
What about don't smoke...don't smoke cannabis ...as it is likely your children will copy you
What about, more children have died in tragic household accidents than have died from smoking cannabis.
-
drugs ruin lives....off topic anyway
Sedatives?
-
Placing a child in a car and then leaving the child in the car whilst you go off shopping in the heat of the day, causing the child to suffocate is a CRIMINAL ACT. Parents have done this and been charged for it and lanquish in prison.
LEAVING a child in any circumstances is not acceptable.
LEAVING a child in an apartment night after night is increasing the childs risk of DEATH or INJURY....
Many children sadly have died in FIRES, whilst parents go out and leave them just for 10 minutes.
Anyone using a mobile phone in this country is breaking the law.
There is a photo of a class idiot in the papers today, showing his small child the huge waves coming over a wall which nearly engulfed them. Someone took a PHOTO of this. I would have rang the police. This person was neglectful and should be cautioned......what an idiot.
We cant always legislate for stupidity but we can ourselves try and make it safe for our kids. NEVER leaving them alone night after night is good parenting....FFS. Call herself a DEVOUT CATHOLIC no way.
Using a mobile is illegal in which country?
-
You will all be going on with the same arguments for the next 20 years ...Icad has admitted that the risk from serious accident or abduction was extremely unlikely....they were doing what countless families have done before them.. the abduction will lessen the numbers of children left alone in such circumstances..move on and get a life
Well now, that is not what I said at all is it ?
Yes, the risk of abduction was so remote that it might, reasonably, not be considerd as a risk at all
The risk of accidents, however, is not remote , and is something responsible and adaquate parents would consisder
I was allowing for the possibility that the McCanns were not responsible and adequate parents during that holiday, and that, as such, the risk of accidents did not even occur to them ( highly unlikely given that they are not below average intelligence, but a possibility, nevertheless )
The real point I was making was that whilst they may not have considered abduction as a risk ( quite reasonably ), and whilst they may not have considered the risk of accidents ( far less reasonably ), they DID consider the risk of their very young children waking and crying, frightened and distressed
They knew there was a risk of that happening ... indeed, that was the very reason they did their half hourly checks ... just in case their young infants were awake, frightened and crying for them ( perhaps having been doing so for up to half an hour )
The McCanns were 'OK' with that possibility they were OK with the possibilty that their three infants might be frightened, crying and distressed in finding themselves alone
Perhaps some members here agree with them ... perhaps some members here also think there is 'nothing wrong' with very young infants being frightened and distressed, because mum and dad are not there when they wake ... perhaps some members here think, as the McCanns did, that it's no big deal, and worth the risk for a night out with mates
-
Well now, that is not what I said at all is it ?
Yes, the risk of abduction was so remote that it might, reasonably, not be considerd as a risk at all
The risk of accidents, however, is not remote , and is something responsible and adaquate parents would consisder
I was allowing for the possibility that the McCanns were not responsible and adequate parents during that holiday, and that, as such, the risk of accidents did not even occur to them ( highly unlikely given that they are not below average intelligence, but a possibility, nevertheless )
The real point I was making was that whilst they may not have considered abduction as a risk ( quite reasonably ), and whilst they may not have considered the risk of accidents ( far less reasonably ), they DID consider the risk of their very young children waking and crying, frightened and distressed
They knew there was a risk of that happening ... indeed, that was the very reason they did their half hourly checks ... just in case their young infants were awake, frightened and crying for them ( perhaps having been doing so for up to half an hour )
The McCanns were 'OK' with that possibility they were OK with the possibilty that their three infants might be frightened, crying and distressed in finding themselves alone
Perhaps some members here agree with them ... perhaps some members here also think there is 'nothing wrong' with very young infants being frightened and distressed, because mum and dad are not there when they wake ... perhaps some members here think, as the McCanns did, that it's no big deal, and worth the risk for a night out with mates
Its ok I understood exactly what you said the first time.....
-
Please start a new thread regarding parenting / safety issues or return to the old one.
This thread relates to the McCanns' campaign strategy only.
I will ask the higher-ups to move these posts over if you wish to continue the discussion.
-
Using a mobile is illegal in which country?
Colombo is probably from the uk so means uk but dozens of countries have made this illegal including portugal
So the point of your question was?
See list of countries where its banned!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#List_of_countries_with_bans
-
Well now, that is not what I said at all is it ?
Yes, the risk of abduction was so remote that it might, reasonably, not be considerd as a risk at all
The risk of accidents, however, is not remote , and is something responsible and adaquate parents would consisder
I was allowing for the possibility that the McCanns were not responsible and adequate parents during that holiday, and that, as such, the risk of accidents did not even occur to them ( highly unlikely given that they are not below average intelligence, but a possibility, nevertheless )
The real point I was making was that whilst they may not have considered abduction as a risk ( quite reasonably ), and whilst they may not have considered the risk of accidents ( far less reasonably ), they DID consider the risk of their very young children waking and crying, frightened and distressed
They knew there was a risk of that happening ... indeed, that was the very reason they did their half hourly checks ... just in case their young infants were awake, frightened and crying for them ( perhaps having been doing so for up to half an hour )
The McCanns were 'OK' with that possibility they were OK with the possibilty that their three infants might be frightened, crying and distressed in finding themselves alone
Perhaps some members here agree with them ... perhaps some members here also think there is 'nothing wrong' with very young infants being frightened and distressed, because mum and dad are not there when they wake ... perhaps some members here think, as the McCanns did, that it's no big deal, and worth the risk for a night out with mates
I agree with you that the most probable thing to happen would be the children waking and being distressed...this is just as likely to happen in a hotel scenario and that is why I don't see why these don't attract the same criticism
-
I agree with you that the most probable thing to happen would be the children waking and being distressed...this is just as likely to happen in a hotel scenario and that is why I don't see why these don't attract the same criticism
You would hardly compare a roadside apartment with two entrances to a hotel room would you? Madeleine most probably awoke and walked out the front door just as she did every day they were there. She either went down a manhole or someone picked her up. Either way she never left PdL.
-
You would hardly compare a roadside apartment with two entrances to a hotel room would you?
I think children would be just as distressed waking up in a hotel room alone
-
I think children would be just as distressed waking up in a hotel room alone
Yes, true but at least they wouldn't be tempted to stray.
-
Yes, true but at least they wouldn't be tempted to stray.
Out of an open patio door leading to two death traps....balcony to fall over or stair gate onto concrete steps....yes, exactly like a secure hotel stepping into a corridoor wandering .iF the door was unlocked....and most likely to be seen by tennnts staff or guests pdq.....
-
I agree with you that the most probable thing to happen would be the children waking and being distressed...this is just as likely to happen in a hotel scenario and that is why I don't see why these don't attract the same criticism
I totally agree. This ongoing 'campaign'to convince people that the McCanns are uniquely evil is ridiculous. They are no different to any other parent who has make a wrong decision at some time in their lives whlst bringing up their childen. The only difference is those other parents were lucky enough to get away with it with no harm done whereas the McCanns had the misfortune to be the ''one''....... in a ''millions to one'' tragedy.
-
Using a mobile is illegal in which country?
in the UK it is ILLEGAL to use a mobile phone whilst driving your car.
-
Out of an open patio door leading to two death traps....balcony to fall over or stair gate onto concrete steps....yes, exactly like a secure hotel stepping into a corridoor wandering .iF the door was unlocked....and most likely to be seen by tennnts staff or guests pdq.....
so once again a poster defending the hotel system but criticising the McCanns
-
The point has been raised that it is sometimes hard to discern whether the actions the McCanns have taken since the disappearance of their daughter ( hiring detectives, orchestrating media campaigns, libel claims, etc.) are part of a controlled strategy by the McCanns, or are the result of the McCanns having become caught up in a modern media frenzy that is beyond their influence.
Are they stuck on the back of a runaway tiger, as Redblossom puts it - or are they cleverly in control?
Stuck on the back of a runaway tiger has my vote. Were they cleverly in control surely they would have hired help from the top drawer?. Apart from the lawyers the rest seem to have been hired on the Aardvark and Acme theory (the first you come to in Yellow pages). Or is that just my perception or is it a clever double blind.......oh hell. As I have said elsewhere a well publicised pot like the Madeleine Fund will attract chancers.