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: mercury on October 28, 2015, 12:51:31 AM
-
kate mccann did in her book cast aspersions and suspicions on anyone in pdl...mYbe madeleine was drugged during the day.....disgusting
29
-
You sound as disgusting as kate mccann did in her book casting aspersions and suspicions on anyone in pdl...mYbe madeleine was drugged during the day.....disgusting
I hated myself for hating Kate's book. It was self-serving, hardly anything about Madeleine, but so much about Kate.
I suppose this will get whooshed too, but never once have the McCanns held their hands up and admitted that they were bloody stupid. Everyone else's fault but theirs. So far removed from how Kerry Needham has suffered, and blamed herself.
-
I hated myself for hating Kate's book. It was self-serving, hardly anything about Madeleine, but so much about Kate.
I suppose this will get whooshed too, but never once have the McCanns held their hands up and admitted that they were bloody stupid. Everyone else's fault but theirs. So far removed from how Kerry Needham has suffered, and blamed herself.
There are many examples of the Drs McCann "holding their hands up" ... unfortunately there are those who refuse to acknowledge the fact.
They are dealing with the situation by doing the practical thing of ensuring that Madeleine was kept in the public conciousness over the years. With the result that she is at last being searched for as she should have been from the minute she was taken from her bed in 2007.
-
There are many examples of the Drs McCann "holding their hands up" ... unfortunately there are those who refuse to acknowledge the fact.
They are dealing with the situation by doing the practical thing of ensuring that Madeleine was kept in the public conciousness over the years. With the result that she is at last being searched for as she should have been from the minute she was taken from her bed in 2007.
There is no evidence she was taken from her bed so yu have no right to state this as a fact, do learn this fact and stop spreading speculation or wishes or propaganda gosh, ta
-
There are many examples of the Drs McCann "holding their hands up" ... unfortunately there are those who refuse to acknowledge the fact.
They are dealing with the situation by doing the practical thing of ensuring that Madeleine was kept in the public conciousness over the years. With the result that she is at last being searched for as she should have been from the minute she was taken from her bed in 2007.
If only that was true.
I've read the book, watched Crimewatch, suffered the awful Lorraine Kelly rubbish, and cringed my way through the crap. Never ONCE has Kate admitted that she was at fault. I've watched her grasping Gerry's hand, which troubles me muchly.
Kate has never, ever, admitted that she made a massive mistake, by leaving her children in such a vulnerable position.
-
Km in her horrible book attacking everyone and casting aspersions sad ungrateful cow said perhaps the searches coukd have been better organised err hello....people spent all night and day and took time off work looking for your daugter who YOU left alone and disappeared whilst you did nothing except ring your bloody priest shameless bint
-
Km in her horrible book attacking everyone and casting aspersions sad ungrateful cow said perhaps the searches coukd have been better organised err hello....people spent all night and day and took time off work looking for your daugter who YOU left alone and disappeared whilst you did nothing except ring your bloody priest shameless bint
I take the opposite approach and assume complete innocence Mercury.
-
I take the opposite approach and assume complete innocence Mercury.
re the book she was casting aspersions against nursery staff that th ey might have drugged madeleine...sorry but thats out of order
-
If only that was true.
I've read the book, watched Crimewatch, suffered the awful Lorraine Kelly rubbish, and cringed my way through the crap. Never ONCE has Kate admitted that she was at fault. I've watched her grasping Gerry's hand, which troubles me muchly.
Kate has never, ever, admitted that she made a massive mistake, by leaving her children in such a vulnerable position.
and I have explained why
-
Amazing how so much can be interpreted one way or the other. Or is this normal?
-
Amazing how so much can be interpreted one way or the other. Or is this normal?
It depends on preconceptions.
-
It depends on preconceptions.
Opinions, do you mean?
-
I think it depends on understanding and experience of life. I fully understand why the McCanns do not want to blame themselves....I understand why they went jogging, tennis, sunbathing. If they were trying to regain their strength after a terrible trauma that is exactly what they should have done...ask any doctor
-
I think it depends on understanding and experience of life. I fully understand why the McCanns do not want to blame themselves....I understand why they went jogging, tennis, sunbathing. If they were trying to regain their strength after a terrible trauma that is exactly what they should have done...ask any doctor
Therein lies yours, the mccanns, and others like you and them.
The unwillingness to take responsibility for their actions and what they did wrong.
A symptom of the 'not me gov mentality'.
-
If only that was true.
I've read the book, watched Crimewatch, suffered the awful Lorraine Kelly rubbish, and cringed my way through the crap. Never ONCE has Kate admitted that she was at fault. I've watched her grasping Gerry's hand, which troubles me muchly.
Kate has never, ever, admitted that she made a massive mistake, by leaving her children in such a vulnerable position.
I'm at a loss to understand how the quotes below can be interpreted by anyone as 'Kate has never ever admitted she made a massive mistake....'' Could you explain why you don't see the following as an admission of guilt plz?
Quote from KMs book
.......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
Unquote
Quote
''Whatever we had or had not done right, we were Madeleine's 'parents and in our own eyes we had failed to keep her safe. We struggled to bear that sense of guilt and we always will.
-
I ultimately blame the abductor, as I tried to explain several times last night. Life is a series of choices and dangers, and I still think that the McCanns were lucky to not lose all 3 of their children. Maddy TOLD THEM that she was unhappy, and she and Sean had cried. So, to leave them again was selfish and thoughtless.
-
Therein lies yours, the mccanns, and others like you and them.
The unwillingness to take responsibility for their actions and what they did wrong.
A symptom of the 'not me gov mentality'.
So how do you interpret the following Stephen?
Quote
.......we were Madeleine's parents and in our own eyes we had failed to keep her safe..........
-
So how do you interpret the following Stephen?
Quote
.......we were Madeleine's parents and in our own eyes we had failed to keep her safe..........
Written in a book, designed to gain sympathy.
The mccanns had no thought of logic and commonsense on those 5 nights they left their children alone.
They only thought about themselves.
-
Therein lies yours, the mccanns, and others like you and them.
The unwillingness to take responsibility for their actions and what they did wrong.
A symptom of the 'not me gov mentality'.
as I said its a matter of understanding...and you obviously don't
-
as I said its a matter of understanding...and you obviously don't
I understand you perfectly.
You, like a few others are on here to defend the mccanns, come hell or high water.
-
Kate McCann certainly wasn't ready to admit she'd made a mistake when it counted, in 2007. The question she asks herself isn't hard to answer at all, the answer is obvious and would have been obvious to a lot of people before the event which occurred. Even after what happened Kate has difficulty acknowledging her lack of judgement;
"We've doubted what we did," Kate says. "It's hard to answer the question, 'Were we wrong to leave them?'......That night runs over and over in my mind and I'm sure people will learn from our mistake, if you want to call it that.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id16.html
the mccanns received professional counselling and would have been advised from the outset not to blame themselves...the explanation is that simple
-
Written in a book, designed to gain sympathy.
The mccanns had no thought of logic and commonsense on those 5 nights they left their children alone.
They only thought about themselves.
You forgot to put IMO.
You made the claim re 'the McCanns unwillingness to take responsibiity etc. I disputed it and gave evidence to disprove that claim.
The fact that you don't want to accept it and prefer to side-step to your usual mantra is your problem. It is still evidence that your claim was incorrect imo.
IMO posts which claim the McCanns have never ever admitted guilt/responsibility are libellous as that is clearly not true.
-
I'm at a loss to understand how the quotes below can be interpreted by anyone as 'Kate has never ever admitted she made a massive mistake....'' Could you explain why you don't see the following as an admission of guilt plz?
Quote from KMs book
.......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
Unquote
Quote
''Whatever we had or had not done right, we were Madeleine's 'parents and in our own eyes we had failed to keep her safe. We struggled to bear that sense of guilt and we always will.
With phrases such as 'however unwittingly' and 'whatever we had or had not done right' she certainly shows she feels little or no responsibility for what happened.
-
the mccanns received professional counselling and would have been advised from the outset not to blame themselves...the explanation is that simple
I'm afraid it's not as simple as you think. Giving advice is not part of a counsellor's job description.
Counsellors do not give advice, but help clients to make their own choices
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/counsellor_job_description.htm
-
I'm afraid it's not as simple as you think. Giving advice is not part of a counsellor's job description.
Counsellors do not give advice, but help clients to make their own choices
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/counsellor_job_description.htm
absolute rubbish...counsellors give advice. Don't you remember the mccanns being told not to show emotion. Counsellors will tell you how to make positive changes in your life...believe what you like ..I know what I am talking about....with respect as someone who does not accept doctors are intelligent...you do not.
When someone close to you dies, it can be a distressing and overwhelming experience – even when the death was expected.
In this guide, Understanding Bereavement, we explain the different emotions you may be feeling during your grieving and we provide suggestions to help you cope with your loss.
I think you would agree providing suggestions is giving advice
-
With phrases such as 'however unwittingly' and 'whatever we had or had not done right' she certainly shows she feels little or no responsibility for what happened.
what about the phrases "we were not there for Madeleine" and "we failed to keep her safe"? Do they not count?
-
With phrases such as 'however unwittingly' and 'whatever we had or had not done right' she certainly shows she feels little or no responsibility for what happened.
On the contrary Faith - IMO Kate is clearly saying............... 'whatever the whys and wherefors are - the fact is that at the end of the day we - her parents - had failed to keep her safe and we will never stop feeling guilty about that'. (not verbatim)
How can you change that into ''she certainly shows she feels little or no responsibility for what happened''?
-
You forgot to put IMO.
You made the claim re 'the McCanns unwillingness to take responsibiity etc. I disputed it and gave evidence to disprove that claim.
The fact that you don't want to accept it and prefer to side-step to your usual mantra is your problem. It is still evidence that your claim was incorrect imo.
IMO posts which claim the McCanns have never ever admitted guilt/responsibility are libellous as that is clearly not true.
You seem to have omitted the phrase that they were exhibiting 'responsible parenting skills'.
Anyone can write what they did after the event.
Unfortunately, they had no common sense at the time they left their children exposed to danger.
-
absolute rubbish...counsellors give advice. Don't you remember the mccanns being told not to show emotion. Counsellors will tell you how to make positive changes in your life...believe what you like ..I know what I am talking about....with respect as someone who does not accept doctors are intelligent...you do not.
When someone close to you dies, it can be a distressing and overwhelming experience – even when the death was expected.
In this guide, Understanding Bereavement, we explain the different emotions you may be feeling during your grieving and we provide suggestions to help you cope with your loss.
I think you would agree providing suggestions is giving advice
I think you'll find it was the UK police who advised the McCanns not to show emotion. I can't comment on your quote because there's no cite, but the words 'advice' and 'suggestion' don't mean the same thing. Counsellor's giving advice would be bad practice because they are telling the client to do what they would do if they were in the client's shoes.
Counselling myth #3 – counsellors give advice
Written by listed counsellor/psychotherapist: Caroline Le Vine
11th September, 2012
Caroline Le Vine
Generally speaking, we don’t. Given that someone’s come to me in distress and seeking support, it seems odd, perhaps, that I don’t tell them what to do that will make things better for them. The thing is that I don’t know what will make it better for them. My solution to the problem would be just that: MY solution. It would come from my heart and might be right for me. But it may well not be right for the person sitting with me. Only they can say what will make things better for them and they need to to work it out for themselves.
This is what clients do in counselling: work out what’s really happening, what’s really going wrong (which might not be what they originally thought it was) and then work out what they need to do differently in order to make things better for themselves. I know this is challenging – sometimes we want someone else to do it for us; to sort out the problem and make it go away. But we cannot grow as adults if we let someone else do what we need to do for ourselves.
Counsellors can’t know the answer to everyone else’s problems. What counsellors do know is how to provide a safe and encouraging place for people to explore the possibilities for themselves; how to listen attentively and respectfully and how to put myself in another’s place for a while.
http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor-articles/counselling-myth-3-counsellors-give-advice
-
I think you'll find it was the UK police who advised the McCanns not to show emotion. I can't comment on your quote because there's no cite, but the words 'advice' and 'suggestion' don't mean the same thing. Counsellor's giving advice would be bad practice because they are telling the client to do what they would do if they were in the client's shoes.
Counselling myth #3 – counsellors give advice
Written by listed counsellor/psychotherapist: Caroline Le Vine
11th September, 2012
Caroline Le Vine
Generally speaking, we don’t. Given that someone’s come to me in distress and seeking support, it seems odd, perhaps, that I don’t tell them what to do that will make things better for them. The thing is that I don’t know what will make it better for them. My solution to the problem would be just that: MY solution. It would come from my heart and might be right for me. But it may well not be right for the person sitting with me. Only they can say what will make things better for them and they need to to work it out for themselves.
This is what clients do in counselling: work out what’s really happening, what’s really going wrong (which might not be what they originally thought it was) and then work out what they need to do differently in order to make things better for themselves. I know this is challenging – sometimes we want someone else to do it for us; to sort out the problem and make it go away. But we cannot grow as adults if we let someone else do what we need to do for ourselves.
Counsellors can’t know the answer to everyone else’s problems. What counsellors do know is how to provide a safe and encouraging place for people to explore the possibilities for themselves; how to listen attentively and respectfully and how to put myself in another’s place for a while.
http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor-articles/counselling-myth-3-counsellors-give-advice
Counsellors certainly give clients advice on strategies to cope....as this person says they do not give advice generally as in ...change your job...leave your husband,,
so what do you think they do...just listen and say nothing
-
I think you'll find it was the UK police who advised the McCanns not to show emotion. I can't comment on your quote because there's no cite, but the words 'advice' and 'suggestion' don't mean the same thing. Counsellor's giving advice would be bad practice because they are telling the client to do what they would do if they were in the client's shoes.
Counselling myth #3 – counsellors give advice
Written by listed counsellor/psychotherapist: Caroline Le Vine
11th September, 2012
Caroline Le Vine
Generally speaking, we don’t. Given that someone’s come to me in distress and seeking support, it seems odd, perhaps, that I don’t tell them what to do that will make things better for them. The thing is that I don’t know what will make it better for them. My solution to the problem would be just that: MY solution. It would come from my heart and might be right for me. But it may well not be right for the person sitting with me. Only they can say what will make things better for them and they need to to work it out for themselves.
This is what clients do in counselling: work out what’s really happening, what’s really going wrong (which might not be what they originally thought it was) and then work out what they need to do differently in order to make things better for themselves. I know this is challenging – sometimes we want someone else to do it for us; to sort out the problem and make it go away. But we cannot grow as adults if we let someone else do what we need to do for ourselves.
Counsellors can’t know the answer to everyone else’s problems. What counsellors do know is how to provide a safe and encouraging place for people to explore the possibilities for themselves; how to listen attentively and respectfully and how to put myself in another’s place for a while.
http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor-articles/counselling-myth-3-counsellors-give-advice
so the counsellor works out what they need to do differently....does the counsellor then advise the client or does she keep the information to herself...she advises the client
-
Blaming others is a natural response to any disaster. Just yesterday I found that the bonnet release cable wouldn't release the bonnet of my car which appears to be on permanent loan to my youngest son. Without thinking I chewed the face off him assuming possibly wrongly that as I hadn't driven the car for several days that it couldn't possibly be my fault. He pointed out of course that I was the last person to have opened the bonnet. It is always someone elses fault!
I apologised of course 8(8-))
-
Counsellors certainly give clients advice on strategies to cope....as this person says they do not give advice generally as in ...change your job...leave your husband,,
so what do you think they do...just listen and say nothing
They may offer suggestions, to be accurate. A suggestion is not the same as advice.
Consider this sentence; My solicitor advised me to plead guilty. The solicitor is telling a client what to do, based on the solicitor's knowledge of the law. Ignoring your solicitor's advice would probably make your situation worse.
Now this sentence; My doctor suggested that I consider having chemotherapy. The decision is the patient's, the doctor is offering a choice.
-
Km in her horrible book attacking everyone and casting aspersions sad ungrateful cow said perhaps the searches coukd have been better organised err hello....people spent all night and day and took time off work looking for your daugter who YOU left alone and disappeared whilst you did nothing except ring your bloody priest shameless bint
agree 8((()*/
-
Blaming others is a natural response to any disaster. Just yesterday I found that the bonnet release cable wouldn't release the bonnet of my car which appears to be on permanent loan to my youngest son. Without thinking I chewed the face off him assuming possibly wrongly that as I hadn't driven the car for several days that it couldn't possibly be my fault. He pointed out of course that I was the last person to have opened the bonnet. It is always someone elses fault!
I apologised of course 8(8-))
john i think if the mcanns had said to the world dont do what we did etc it was wrong etc more people would have felt sorry for them but gerry said it was in the bounds of responsible parenting when non biased people know it wasnt &%&£(+
-
so the counsellor works out what they need to do differently....does the counsellor then advise the client or does she keep the information to herself...she advises the client
Read again. The counsellor helps the client to ''work out what they need to do differently in order to make things better for themselves'', she or he doesn't work it out for them.
-
john i think if the mcanns had said to the world dont do what we did etc it was wrong etc more people would have felt sorry for them but gerry said it was in the bounds of responsible parenting when non biased people know it wasnt &%&£(+
I think they were petrified and rightly so that they might be prosecuted for child neglect in Portugal. In the end it was a social worker who came to call in Rothley.
-
what about the phrases "we were not there for Madeleine" and "we failed to keep her safe"? Do they not count?
When they are prefixed by the phrases quoted above no.
-
Read again. The counsellor helps the client to ''work out what they need to do differently in order to make things better for themselves'', she or he doesn't work it out for them.
Of course she does...what do you think her training involves.....but if you google "counsellors don't give advice" as you have done...then you are going to get a skewed view of the practice
-
Certainly a counsellor gives advice. When I went on holiday with three toddlers and came back with two they were very helpful. I even got a voucher for the unused seat on the return journey.
-
In our book, we distinguished between two types of advice: process advice and substantive advice. Substantive advice is when therapists impose or give specific suggestions for specific solutions to problems. It’s essentially telling people the solutions to problems. We believe this type of advice is often counterproductive.
The second type, process advice, is when therapists teach their clients strategies for how to solve problems. To say,, “You might want to think about your commitments in terms of your own values and well-being,” for example, is different than saying, “I think you should dump the jerk!” First advice—process. Second advice—substantive (although a little extreme).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-ethical-therapist/201205/give-or-not-give-advice
so do counsellors give advice...yes they do
-
Of course she does...what do you think her training involves.....but if you google "counsellors don't give advice" as you have done...then you are going to get a skewed view of the practice
I googled so as to have a quote and to save arguing. I already knew it wasn't the job of a counsellor to advise clients what to do.
Your argument would carry more weight if you could provide a quote saying counsellor' s do advise clients? The problem you seem to be having is in understanding the difference between 'advice' and 'suggestion.'
-
So how do you interpret the following Stephen?
Quote
.......we were Madeleine's parents and in our own eyes we had failed to keep her safe..........
Not quite the same as...
.......we were Madeleine's parents and we had failed to keep her safe..........
-
snip>>>> "Denial may also be used by victims of trauma or disasters and may even be a beneficial initial protective response. In the long run, however, denial can prevent you from incorporating unpleasant information about yourself and your life and have potentially destructive consequences".<<<<< snip.
It's in 'ere:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201110/the-essential-guide-defense-mechanisms
-
In our book, we distinguished between two types of advice: process advice and substantive advice. Substantive advice is when therapists impose or give specific suggestions for specific solutions to problems. It’s essentially telling people the solutions to problems. We believe this type of advice is often counterproductive.
The second type, process advice, is when therapists teach their clients strategies for how to solve problems. To say,, “You might want to think about your commitments in terms of your own values and well-being,” for example, is different than saying, “I think you should dump the jerk!” First advice—process. Second advice—substantive (although a little extreme).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-ethical-therapist/201205/give-or-not-give-advice
so do counsellors give advice...yes they do
The author seems to have a problem distinguishing between advice and suggestion, but it's clear from the examples what the difference is. Advice is telling the client what they should do. Suggestion is a way of helping the client to identify the problems they are facing and to decide for themselves how to solve them.
-
Trauma counselling may well be different from the generic process.
Supporting someone to work through potentially old existential issues may not require the same approach as someone who is at immediate risk of totally shutting down due to a recent trauma.
In the former, there is often time to explore a niggling concern; the latter would seem to be more urgent and may initially require more pro-active instructions to follow for those in a zombie state.
-
john i think if the mcanns had said to the world dont do what we did etc it was wrong etc more people would have felt sorry for them but gerry said it was in the bounds of responsible parenting when non biased people know it wasnt &%&£(+
That is apparently what the Barrister said to Kate and Gerry, Carly.
International Family Law Group (IFLG) from Leicester.
Kate McCann's book "Madeleine" - Page 124-125?
Exerpt:-
There had already been some speculation in the
press, based on those erroneous reports that when
Madeleine was taken we were dining ‘hundreds of
metres away’, that we could face prosecution for
negligence. After examining the proximity of the
Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first
of all assured us that our behaviour could not be
deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the
bounds of reasonable parenting’.
-
The author seems to have a problem distinguishing between advice and suggestion, but it's clear from the examples what the difference is. Advice is telling the client what they should do. Suggestion is a way of helping the client to identify the problems they are facing and to decide for themselves how to solve them.
advise
/ədˈvʌɪz/
verb
verb: advise; 3rd person present: advises; past tense: advised; past participle: advised; gerund or present participle: advising
offer suggestions about the best course of action to someone.
"I advised him to go home"
synonyms: counsel, give counsel, give counselling, give guidance, guide, make recommendations, offer suggestions, offer opinions, give hints, give tips, give pointers, direct, give direction(s), instruct, give instruction, illuminate, educate
I think it's you who is having the problem admitting you are wrong...
-
The author seems to have a problem distinguishing between advice and suggestion, but it's clear from the examples what the difference is. Advice is telling the client what they should do. Suggestion is a way of helping the client to identify the problems they are facing and to decide for themselves how to solve them.
the author you are correcting is...
Sharon K. Anderson, Ph.D., is a Professor of Counseling and Career Development in the School of Education at Colorado State University. She is also a licensed psychologist. Her research and writing focuses on issues such as professional ethics in psychology and counseling including multiple relationships, ethical acculturation, professional ethical identity, and ethical decision making.
but of course according to you she won't be very intelligent..so what does she know compared to you
-
That is apparently what the Barrister said to Kate and Gerry, Carly.
International Family Law Group (IFLG) from Leicester.
Kate McCann's book "Madeleine" - Page 124-125?
Exerpt:-
There had already been some speculation in the
press, based on those erroneous reports that when
Madeleine was taken we were dining ‘hundreds of
metres away’, that we could face prosecution for
negligence. After examining the proximity of the
Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first
of all assured us that our behaviour could not be
deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the
bounds of reasonable parenting’.
They needed to consult a barrister?
-
They needed to consult a barrister?
Probably the brother -in-law of a friend of a friend @)(++(*
-
When they are prefixed by the phrases quoted above no.
whyever not?
-
They needed to consult a barrister?
Apparently so, Slarti. He was part of a family law firm....According to the book, he was recommended by a friend of Gerry's
-
I googled so as to have a quote and to save arguing. I already knew it wasn't the job of a counsellor to advise clients what to do.
Your argument would carry more weight if you could provide a quote saying counsellor' s do advise clients? The problem you seem to be having is in understanding the difference between 'advice' and 'suggestion.'
advice is a suggestion, it's not an order!
-
That is apparently what the Barrister said to Kate and Gerry, Carly.
International Family Law Group (IFLG) from Leicester.
Kate McCann's book "Madeleine" - Page 124-125?
Exerpt:-
There had already been some speculation in the
press, based on those erroneous reports that when
Madeleine was taken we were dining ‘hundreds of
metres away’, that we could face prosecution for
negligence. After examining the proximity of the
Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first
of all assured us that our behaviour could not be
deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the
bounds of reasonable parenting’.
I wonder how much he actually understood about Portuguese law, given that the decision not to prosecute the McCanns does not mention 'reasonable parenting'. I wonder what the distance had to be to constitute 'unreasonable parenting'.
Having read both Amaral's book and Kate's book, both struck me as examples of PR or finger-pointing.
And returning strictly to the thread topic, I have heard or read many instances of qualified acceptance of blame by the McCanns, but I cannot remember a single unquailed one.
So if posters could enlighten me with examples of unqualified examples, I would be most grateful.
-
They needed to consult a barrister?
or barista? it's the same phonetically
-
I wonder how much he actually understood about Portuguese law, given that the decision not to prosecute the McCanns does not mention 'reasonable parenting'. I wonder what the distance had to be to constitute 'unreasonable parenting'.
Having read both Amaral's book and Kate's book, both struck me as examples of PR or finger-pointing.
And returning strictly to the thread topic, I have heard or read many instances of qualified acceptance of blame by the McCanns, but I cannot remember a single unquailed one.
So if posters could enlighten me with examples of unqualified examples, I would be most grateful.
I have no idea shining..Just quoting from the book.
-
I'm afraid it's not as simple as you think. Giving advice is not part of a counsellor's job description.
Counsellors do not give advice, but help clients to make their own choices
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/counsellor_job_description.htm
This is who counselled the McCanns in Pdl in May 2007 - as you will see one of the first things on their list of services is offering advice 24/7
http://www.ccpsupport.co.uk/Trauma%20Care
-
I wonder how much he actually understood about Portuguese law, given that the decision not to prosecute the McCanns does not mention 'reasonable parenting'. I wonder what the distance had to be to constitute 'unreasonable parenting'.
Having read both Amaral's book and Kate's book, both struck me as examples of PR or finger-pointing.
And returning strictly to the thread topic, I have heard or read many instances of qualified acceptance of blame by the McCanns, but I cannot remember a single unquailed one.
So if posters could enlighten me with examples of unqualified examples, I would be most grateful.
The McCanns are not entirely to blame for Madeleine's disappearance so why do you expect them to state that they are?
-
I wonder how much he actually understood about Portuguese law, given that the decision not to prosecute the McCanns does not mention 'reasonable parenting'. I wonder what the distance had to be to constitute 'unreasonable parenting'.
Having read both Amaral's book and Kate's book, both struck me as examples of PR or finger-pointing.
And returning strictly to the thread topic, I have heard or read many instances of qualified acceptance of blame by the McCanns, but I cannot remember a single unquailed one.
So if posters could enlighten me with examples of unqualified examples, I would be most grateful.
I think there is a single, simple, reason why your request is unreasonable: responsibility for Madeleine's abduction rests with Madeleine's abductor ...
-
I think there is a single, simple, reason why your request is unreasonable: responsibility for Madeleine's abduction rests with Madeleine's abductor ...
Always given she was abducted. The Met. today still refer to "disappearance":
"The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has today, 28 October announced the new structure and changes to the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann".
The responsibility for electing to leave three children under the age of four unattended by an adult for indeterminate periods of time was that of the parents.
-
Always given she was abducted. The Met. today still refer to "disappearance":
"The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has today, 28 October announced the new structure and changes to the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann".
The responsibility for electing to leave three children under the age of four unattended by an adult for indeterminate periods of time was that of the parents.
It's amazing how this "disappearance" word has become such a straw of hope to clutch at for the desperate "sceptic". Is this the word used by the Met or the media anyway, do we know?
-
It's amazing how this "disappearance" word has become such a straw of hope to clutch at for the desperate "sceptic". Is this the word used by the Met or the media anyway, do we know?
I believe the statement is on the MPS website, so you can check for yourself.
-
Always given she was abducted. The Met. today still refer to "disappearance":
"The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has today, 28 October announced the new structure and changes to the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann".
The responsibility for electing to leave three children under the age of four unattended by an adult for indeterminate periods of time was that of the parents.
Our decision and rationale has been discussed with Mr and Mrs McCann.
Mr and Mrs McCann said: "We would like to thank all the staff from Operation Grange for the meticulous and painstaking work that they have carried out over the last four and a half years. The scale and difficulty of their task has never been in doubt.
"We are reassured that the investigation to find Madeleine has been significantly progressed and the MPS has a much clearer picture of the events in Praia da Luz leading up to Madeleine's abduction in 2007.
"Given that the review phase of the investigation is essentially completed, we fully understand the reasons why the team is being reduced.
"We would also like to thank the Home Office for continuing to support the investigation.
-
It's amazing how this "disappearance" word has become such a straw of hope to clutch at for the desperate "sceptic". Is this the word used by the Met or the media anyway, do we know?
Well Alf why not read the MPS Webpage and when you have had time to inwardly digest, as used to be said, post your opinion on it. We are always pleased to read your opinions errrm? But then if your customary methodology is anything to go by 'twill be merely a shedful of questions and sarcy comments.
-
I believe the statement is on the MPS website, so you can check for yourself.
As is the word "abduction" from the original remit, which hasn't been removed - oh well, there's still hope the McCanns gonna get banged up then!
-
Our decision and rationale has been discussed with Mr and Mrs McCann.
Mr and Mrs McCann said: "We would like to thank all the staff from Operation Grange for the meticulous and painstaking work that they have carried out over the last four and a half years. The scale and difficulty of their task has never been in doubt.
"We are reassured that the investigation to find Madeleine has been significantly progressed and the MPS has a much clearer picture of the events in Praia da Luz leading up to Madeleine's abduction in 2007.
"Given that the review phase of the investigation is essentially completed, we fully understand the reasons why the team is being reduced.
"We would also like to thank the Home Office for continuing to support the investigation.
A quote from the McCanns, so?
-
If the McCanns were seriously in the frame for hiding the child's body following an accident or murder would this have been included as part of the investigation?
"Officers have investigated more than 60 persons of interest. A total of 650 sex offenders have also been considered as well as reports of 8,685 potential sightings of Madeleine around the world".
-
Not quite the same as...
.......we were Madeleine's parents and we had failed to keep her safe..........
What is the difference IYO?
-
My last word on the subject;
Counselling 'makes pain worse for victims'
by JAMES CHAPMAN, Daily Mail
Counselling victims of traumatic events can do more harm than good, say researchers.
A study has found that it rarely has any positive effect, and can actually hinder natural recovery.
Experts say counselling can prime people to expect they will suffer psychological symptoms, which makes this more likely.
Talking about the stressful event again and again could also increase the trauma.
The research, published in today's New Scientist magazine, adds to growing evidence that getting on with life may be healthier than pouring out your heart to a therapist.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-186286/Counselling-makes-pain-worse-victims.html#ixzz3psyxgqpW
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
What is the difference IYO?
It is unequivocal.
-
My last word on the subject;
Counselling 'makes pain worse for victims'
by JAMES CHAPMAN, Daily Mail
Counselling victims of traumatic events can do more harm than good, say researchers.
A study has found that it rarely has any positive effect, and can actually hinder natural recovery.
Experts say counselling can prime people to expect they will suffer psychological symptoms, which makes this more likely.
Talking about the stressful event again and again could also increase the trauma.
The research, published in today's New Scientist magazine, adds to growing evidence that getting on with life may be healthier than pouring out your heart to a therapist.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-186286/Counselling-makes-pain-worse-victims.html#ixzz3psyxgqpW
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I'm not surprised it's your last word on the subject because, as far as the McCanns are concerned at least, they did receive advice from their counsellors. The end.
-
It is unequivocal.
Quote
.......we were Madeleine's parents and in our own eyes we had failed to keep her safe..........
Unquote
Sorry you've lost me. Can you explain why the words 'and in our own eyes' changes the meaning in any way of Kate's stated belief that they had failed to keep their daughter safe?
-
Quote
.......we were Madeleine's parents and in our own eyes we had failed to keep her safe..........
Unquote
Sorry you've lost me. Can you explain why the words 'and in our own eyes' changes the meaning in any way of Kate's stated belief that they had failed to keep their daughter safe?
Maybe Slarti thinks that Kate believes that in other people's eyes there hadn't failed to keep her safe? Otherwise, god knows!
-
My last word on the subject;
Counselling 'makes pain worse for victims'
by JAMES CHAPMAN, Daily Mail
Counselling victims of traumatic events can do more harm than good, say researchers.
A study has found that it rarely has any positive effect, and can actually hinder natural recovery.
Experts say counselling can prime people to expect they will suffer psychological symptoms, which makes this more likely.
Talking about the stressful event again and again could also increase the trauma.
The research, published in today's New Scientist magazine, adds to growing evidence that getting on with life may be healthier than pouring out your heart to a therapist.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-186286/Counselling-makes-pain-worse-victims.html#ixzz3psyxgqpW
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
so getting on with life...trying to be as normal as possible...going jogging...playing tennis
-
Maybe Slarti thinks that Kate believes that in other people's eyes there hadn't failed to keep her safe? Otherwise, god knows!
That is the implication of the sentence as stands.
-
That is the implication of the sentence as stands.
Perhaps you can explain why it matters then? If IN THEIR OWN EYES they are guilty, why is that not enough for you?
-
The McCanns are not entirely to blame for Madeleine's disappearance so why do you expect them to state that they are?
As it happens, I am of the opinion that the most likely explanation is that the event would have occurred even if the patio door was locked.
However, the search thereafter is influenced by perception, both professional and public, of the action of the McCanns.
Optimising the chance for finding Madeleine depends on optimising that perception. If I had been one of the McCann parents, I would have taken the hit. I would have come out with a clear and unequivocal statement that I f****d up. It is a mea culpa moment.
Do you have such an example? I'm still working with - well I shouldn't have done it but someone else is worse. Two wrongs.
-
As it happens, I am of the opinion that the most likely explanation is that the event would have occurred even if the patio door was locked.
However, the search thereafter is influenced by perception, both professional and public, of the action of the McCanns.
Optimising the chance for finding Madeleine depends on optimising that perception. If I had been one of the McCann parents, I would have taken the hit. I would have come out with a clear and unequivocal statement that I f****d up. It is a mea culpa moment.
Do you have such an example? I'm still working with - well I shouldn't have done it but someone else is worse. Two wrongs.
So basically you think they should have said "We believe Madeleine was taken by a stranger and frankly it's entirely our fault that she was"? How utterly absurd. How about focusing on the person who took her, and putting some guilt onto their shoulders? What's an abductor to think when he reads it was all the victim's parents fault anyway? doesn't that rather let him off the hook and make him feel great about himself? C'mon, be reasonable!
-
As it happens, I am of the opinion that the most likely explanation is that the event would have occurred even if the patio door was locked.
However, the search thereafter is influenced by perception, both professional and public, of the action of the McCanns.
Optimising the chance for finding Madeleine depends on optimising that perception. If I had been one of the McCann parents, I would have taken the hit. I would have come out with a clear and unequivocal statement that I f****d up. It is a mea culpa moment.
Do you have such an example? I'm still working with - well I shouldn't have done it but someone else is worse. Two wrongs.
RE: this bit - are you meaning "I shouldn't have left my kids alone for up to 30 minutes at a time, but an abductor is worse for taking one of them" - er, well isn't that true, or do you see both events as equally as bad as each other?
-
As it happens, I am of the opinion that the most likely explanation is that the event would have occurred even if the patio door was locked.
However, the search thereafter is influenced by perception, both professional and public, of the action of the McCanns.
Optimising the chance for finding Madeleine depends on optimising that perception. If I had been one of the McCann parents, I would have taken the hit. I would have come out with a clear and unequivocal statement that I f****d up. It is a mea culpa moment.
Do you have such an example? I'm still working with - well I shouldn't have done it but someone else is worse. Two wrongs.
I would say you do not know how you would react in that situation...personally I don't think the mccanns did f**k up..
-
I would say you do not know how you would react in that situation...personally I don't think the mccanns did f**k up..
Of course you wouldn't say anything else.
-
I would say you do not know how you would react in that situation...personally I don't think the mccanns did f**k up..
Nor do I. They simply didn't see it coming, and nor would I have done. And they weren't prosecuted in Portugal because there was No Intent to neglect or cause harm.
-
So basically you think they should have said "We believe Madeleine was taken by a stranger and frankly it's entirely our fault that she was"? How utterly absurd. How about focusing on the person who took her, and putting some guilt onto their shoulders? What's an abductor to think when he reads it was all the victim's parents fault anyway? doesn't that rather let him off the hook and make him feel great about himself? C'mon, be reasonable!
I said two wrongs and I meant two wrongs.
Your debating tactic needs an overhaul. Repeatedly going to 100% extremes - it's all our fault (I never said that, in fact what I said was I happen to think this would have occurred even if they had not left the patio door open) - followed by an emotional aside with no basis in truth - how utterly absurd - is cumbersome to put it mildly.
Be reasonable? WHAT? I say it most probably would have happened if the patio doors were locked and you ask me to be reasonable? Honestly?
-
I said two wrongs and I meant two wrongs.
Your debating tactic needs an overhaul. Repeatedly going to 100% extremes - it's all our fault (I never said that, in fact what I said was I happen to think this would have occurred even if they had not left the patio door open) - followed by an emotional aside with no basis in truth - how utterly absurd - is cumbersome to put it mildly.
Be reasonable? WHAT? I say it most probably would have happened if the patio doors were locked and you ask me to be reasonable? Honestly?
What did you mean by "the parents should have taken the hit" then? You've already criticised them for giving only a qualified admittance of guilt, but why should they not qualify their admission, as they are not wholly to blame? If you don't like my debate tactics then don't engage.
-
I said two wrongs and I meant two wrongs.
Your debating tactic needs an overhaul. Repeatedly going to 100% extremes - it's all our fault (I never said that, in fact what I said was I happen to think this would have occurred even if they had not left the patio door open) - followed by an emotional aside with no basis in truth - how utterly absurd - is cumbersome to put it mildly.
Be reasonable? WHAT? I say it most probably would have happened if the patio doors were locked and you ask me to be reasonable? Honestly?
I am certain the mccanns would have been advised not to blame themselves for what happened...it would serve no purpose except to push them into an ever deepening depression
-
I am certain the mccanns would have been advised not to blame themselves for what happened...it would serve no purpose except to push them into an ever deepening depression
and to publicly blame themselves would have only helped an abductor to feel that he was not really at fault.
-
and to publicly blame themselves would have only helped an abductor to feel that he was not really at fault.
Ah, the abductor mantra yet again.
Very boring Alfred.
-
What did you mean by "the parents should have taken the hit" then? You've already criticised them for giving only a qualified admittance of guilt, but why should they not qualify their admission, as they are not wholly to blame? If you don't like my debate tactics then don't engage.
This is precisely what I find cumbersome about your debating tactics.
"What did you mean by "the parents should have taken the hit" then?" You said this, while I didn't. What I said was I would have taken the hit.
The McCanns didn't then and haven't since, unless you have clear example. In the absence of a clear example, what stands is qualified examples, and if my child or grandchild had been stolen, trust me, I would seek clarity.
Please don't repeat the 'they are not wholly to blame angle'. I said that in my original post, as is clear for all to see.
-
This is precisely what I find cumbersome about your debating tactics.
"What did you mean by "the parents should have taken the hit" then?" You said this, while I didn't. What I said was I would have taken the hit.
The McCanns didn't then and haven't since, unless you have clear example. In the absence of a clear example, what stands is qualified examples, and if my child or grandchild had been stolen, trust me, I would seek clarity.
Please don't repeat the 'they are not wholly to blame angle'. I said that in my original post, as is clear for all to see.
clarity is exactly what the mccanns are seeking
-
clarity is exactly what the mccanns are seeking
Clarity ????
Talk about clichés.
-
This is precisely what I find cumbersome about your debating tactics.
"What did you mean by "the parents should have taken the hit" then?" You said this, while I didn't. What I said was I would have taken the hit.
The McCanns didn't then and haven't since, unless you have clear example. In the absence of a clear example, what stands is qualified examples, and if my child or grandchild had been stolen, trust me, I would seek clarity.
Please don't repeat the 'they are not wholly to blame angle'. I said that in my original post, as is clear for all to see.
Why is what you would have done relevant to this discussion, unless as an implicit criticism because they did not do what you would have done?
-
and to publicly blame themselves would have only helped an abductor to feel that he was not really at fault.
...and we wouldn't want an abductor not to feel as guilty.
-
...and we wouldn't want an abductor not to feel as guilty.
I don't really know if an abductor would be capable of feeling guilt particularly if he has been reading what his apologists have to say not only about his lack of culpability but about his very existence.
-
I don't really know if an abductor would be capable of feeling guilt particularly if he has been reading what his apologists have to say not only about his lack of culpability but about his very existence.
to doubt that there was an abductor is not to "apologise for a real one"
Please dont use the word aplogists for an abductor its very very ugly and untrue
-
...and we wouldn't want an abductor not to feel as guilty.
??? Doesn't that go without saying?
-
If I were the abductor of Madeleine McCann reading about how it is her parents to blame for "facilitating" my crime, I would feel completely let off the hook.
-
If I were the abductor of Madeleine McCann reading about how it is her parents to blame for "facilitating" my crime, I would feel completely let off the hook.
How strange.
-
If I were the abductor of Madeleine McCann reading about how it is her parents to blame for "facilitating" my crime, I would feel completely let off the hook.
Not if SY have you feeling "hot under the collar" due to their progress, as per Briettas conclusions lol
And dont be so facetious......no one is saying the abductor...gosh... the more the abductor is mentioned the more he sounds like dr who....is let off if he exists.....alleged abduction entirely his/her fault/blame
-
How strange.
What is strange?
-
What is strange?
Your post 96. It scarcely makes sense.
-
Your post 96. It scarcely makes sense.
Why not? If you committed a criminal act but read online that everyone blamed your victims and not you (including the victims themselves) for the criminal act wouldn't that make you feel better about yourself?
-
...and we wouldn't want an abductor not to feel as guilty.
Well it was Ok becaus Kate forgave the abductor/s.... whilst hating Amaral.. Hmm
-
Well it was Ok becaus Kate forgave the abductor/s.... whilst hating Amaral.. Hmm
ever heard of context
-
Why not? If you committed a criminal act but read online that everyone blamed your victims and not you (including the victims themselves) for the criminal act wouldn't that make you feel better about yourself?
That is not what is happening or has been said is it?
-
That is not what is happening or has been said is it?
Have you read Stephen's signature line? Multiply that sentiment by x number of "sceptics" and yes, that has been said and is what is happening. Then you have those like Shining in Luz who believes the McCanns should perform a public Mea Culpa shouldering the responsibility for Madeleine's disappearance, without reference to any mitigating circumstances or qualifications. Now do you understand?
-
back on topic...
apportioning blame is someone trying to get off the hook, a chancer, liar, frauster not to be trusted. There is nothing wrong with owning up to mistakes/bad judgements etc. In deed it is honerable, something those parents are not.IMO
There are signs that something was not right.
1. Gerry asking DP to go check Kate and the kids? Why?
2. Maddie making it clear to her parents she was afraid> waking up crying looking for them and no one was there.
3. Gerry looking at his beautiful daughter sleeping but sensing someone was in the apartment- but he just walks out and left the children anyway. I mean..wow
-
Have you read Stephen's signature line? Multiply that sentiment by x number of "sceptics" and yes, that has been said and is what is happening. Then you have those like Shining in Luz who believes the McCanns should perform a public Mea Culpa shouldering the responsibility for Madeleine's disappearance, without reference to any mitigating circumstances or qualifications. Now do you understand?
You said:
"If I were the abductor of Madeleine McCann reading about how it is her parents to blame for "facilitating" my crime, I would feel completely let off the hook".
You seem to have pounced on the word "facilitate", when G-Unit or Faithlilly or whoever used it, like a chicken on a June bug.
So let's rewrite your sentence substituting a synonym for facilitate.
"If I were the abductor of Madeleine McCann reading about how it is her parents to blame for making my crime easier, I would feel completely let off the hook".
Why? that is like weird man. They made it easier for you to commit the crime but you remain responsible for its commission.
It could be of course you didn't understand what facilitate means.
In response to the emboldened bit:
As for reading Stephens signature and something by Luz then multiplying it by the number sceptics to go past? What is that about? I presume you are just deflecting.
-
so to get back on track we can be fairly certain Kate was advised by professional help not to blame herself. Anyone who understands psychology would understand this
-
You said:
"If I were the abductor of Madeleine McCann reading about how it is her parents to blame for "facilitating" my crime, I would feel completely let off the hook".
You seem to have pounced on the word "facilitate", when G-Unit or Faithlilly or whoever used it, like a chicken on a June bug.
So let's rewrite your sentence substituting a synonym for facilitate.
"If I were the abductor of Madeleine McCann reading about how it is her parents to blame for making my crime easier, I would feel completely let off the hook".
Why? that is like weird man. They made it easier for you to commit the crime but you remain responsible for its commission.
It could be of course you didn't understand what facilitate means.
In response to the emboldened bit:
As for reading Stephens signature and something by Luz then multiplying it by the number sceptics to go past? What is that about? I presume you are just deflecting.
OK, you think it's weird, I think it's weird that you think it's weird. My view remains the same - if I committed the crime but all around me were saying it was the fault of the victims for allowing me to commit the crime then I would feel let off the hook. You disagree (as you usually do with most views I express) - I can live with that.
-
so to get back on track we can be fairly certain Kate was advised by professional help not to blame herself. Anyone who understands psychology would understand this
Being back on track means gerry and kate mccann being accountable for their actions.
They are to blame.
-
so to get back on track we can be fairly certain Kate was advised by professional help not to blame herself. Anyone who understands psychology would understand this
We don't know that, it's just a guess. As far as I know they didn't see a psychologist?
However. Any parent losing a child in any circumstances whatsoever would be overcome with guilt, it's perfectly natural. What it isn't is helpful. Dwelling on what was done or not done won't change anything, so I would imagine the focus of the counsellor was on trying to help the parents to understand this, to move on, and to focus on what could be done in the future. Hence their repeated statements about the abductor being the criminal, not them.
If there was an abduction that makes perfect sense. An abduction is a criminal offence. Leaving children unattended is careless and stupid, but not necessarily criminal.
-
Everyone minimises their own involvement in a Blame Situation. It's a human condition. And most of us don't even realise what we are doing. There isn't a human being alive who hasn't at sometime blamed someone else for their own inadequacies. Hence, "Only those without blame should cast the first stone." Someone said that a very long time ago. There is no one without blame. Think on that before you all rush to cast the first stone.
-
OK, you think it's weird, I think it's weird that you think it's weird. My view remains the same - if I committed the crime but all around me were saying it was the fault of the victims for allowing me to commit the crime then I would feel let off the hook. You disagree (as you usually do with most views I express) - I can live with that.
So you are back again with an erroneous statement to support your argument.
-
So you are back again with an erroneous statement to support your argument.
There is no error in my statement.
-
There is no error in my statement.
I am curious to know why if you had committed a crime you would place more credence on what a bunch of superannuated internet chatterboxes thought rather than the cops?
Me? I'd worry about the cops.
-
We don't know that, it's just a guess. As far as I know they didn't see a psychologist?
However. Any parent losing a child in any circumstances whatsoever would be overcome with guilt, it's perfectly natural. What it isn't is helpful. Dwelling on what was done or not done won't change anything, so I would imagine the focus of the counsellor was on trying to help the parents to understand this, to move on, and to focus on what could be done in the future. Hence their repeated statements about the abductor being the criminal, not them.
If there was an abduction that makes perfect sense. An abduction is a criminal offence. Leaving children unattended is careless and stupid, but not necessarily criminal.
we know that with Kate's own medical training she would understand simple principles such as not blaming yourself when you are the victim act and the importance of trying to carry on life as normal as possible
-
I am curious to know why if you had committed a crime you would place more credence on what a bunch of superannuated internet chatterboxes thought rather than the cops?
Me? I'd worry about the cops.
Until recently there was no requirement for the criminal/s involved in Madeleine McCann's abduction to worry about the cops.
None were looking.
It is only down to the efforts of Madeleine's parents that we are where we are today. I think that may be a pretty powerful cathartic coping mechanism.
-
we know that with Kate's own medical training she would understand simple principles such as not blaming yourself when you are the victim act and the importance of trying to carry on life as normal as possible
They had to get a grip. They had the twins to consider as well as the search for Madeleine. If they had continued their distress and trauma into total meltdown ... how would that have helped?
-
Until recently there was no requirement for the criminal/s involved in Madeleine McCann's abduction to worry about the cops.
None were looking.
It is only down to the efforts of Madeleine's parents that we are where we are today. I think that may be a pretty powerful cathartic coping mechanism.
That doesn't really address the subject matter now does it?
So regardless of what the cops are doing you share Alf's view that, having committed a crime, one should feel one is home free because of the opinions of a few internet gossips rather than the law?
Chacun a son gout as they say in the better parts of Hackney.
-
We don't know that, it's just a guess. As far as I know they didn't see a psychologist?
However. Any parent losing a child in any circumstances whatsoever would be overcome with guilt, it's perfectly natural. What it isn't is helpful. Dwelling on what was done or not done won't change anything, so I would imagine the focus of the counsellor was on trying to help the parents to understand this, to move on, and to focus on what could be done in the future. Hence their repeated statements about the abductor being the criminal, not them.
If there was an abduction that makes perfect sense. An abduction is a criminal offence. Leaving children unattended is careless and stupid, but not necessarily criminal.
Quote in red> If they did, they forgot to take him to Portugal for their TRIAL to evidence their mental state due to Amarals book.
Looks like that one is off the table, now where were we? ah, yes.
Drs are infamous for apportioning blame in all medical negligence claims, I know this to be true! It is also true that they must never accept liability for any wrong doing to paitients. Even though it is a black and white case of negligence! This forces patients to take them to civil court to claim damages. This takes years. But HR and NHS lawyers do get involved right away -damage limtation!
Drs McCANNS would be aware of this how to protect yourself against allegations even if they are true. Cold calculating Hmm...
-
we know that with Kate's own medical training she would understand simple principles such as not blaming yourself when you are the victim act and the importance of trying to carry on life as normal as possible
Makes you wonder why she needed counselling. Gerry and she being so intelligent and well trained they could have counselled each other by the sound of things. Are you saying she acted the victim?
-
I am curious to know why if you had committed a crime you would place more credence on what a bunch of superannuated internet chatterboxes thought rather than the cops?
Me? I'd worry about the cops.
I fully accept that you don't get it, so no matter how many times I make my point you still won't get it - I'm not going to bother labouring the point again for your benefit. You think I'm wrong? Fine. Let's move on.
-
Quote in red> If they did, they forgot to take him to Portugal for their TRIAL to evidence their mental state due to Amarals book.
Looks like that one is off the table, now where were we? ah, yes.
Drs are infamous for apportioning blame in all medical negligence claims, I know this to be true! It is also true that they must never accept liability for any wrong doing to paitients. Even though it is a black and white case of negligence! This forces patients to take them to civil court to claim damages. This takes years. But HR and NHS lawyers do get involved right away -damage limtation!
Drs McCANNS would be aware of this how to protect yourself against allegations even if they are true. Cold calculating Hmm...
I feel for them because when they make a mistake it can be life and death. I wouldn't have liked my work mistakes to carry such a penalty. On the other hand a common illness such as appendicitis can be mismanaged so badly that someone ends up almost dying. I know of a case where someone attended their GP surgery on Monday with stomach pains and were given laxatives. Two days later they attended A & E in agony and spitting blood. They were left on a ward until 11pm on Friday before being operated on, by which time the appendix had ruptured and they were riddled with sepsis. Their lung collapsed with the infection and they spent 10 days in an induced coma in ICU while the doctors fought to save their life. They did, but what a mess.
-
we know that with Kate's own medical training she would understand simple principles such as not blaming yourself when you are the victim act and the importance of trying to carry on life as normal as possible
But she wasn't the main victim.
-
But she wasn't the main victim.
who said she was...but she is a victim
-
we know that with Kate's own medical training she would understand simple principles such as not blaming yourself when you are the victim act and the importance of trying to carry on life as normal as possible
Sorry, what?
Kate's medical training surely said things like - don't leave 3 children under 4 for half an hour on their own whilst you enjoy yourself some way off?
When you are the victim, i.e. your child has been stolen, do not blame yourself? Get on with life as normally as possible? Really?
We should have a 'post of the year competition' on here. Despite the very dark subject matter, it would still raise some eyebrows.
-
Quote in red> If they did, they forgot to take him to Portugal for their TRIAL to evidence their mental state due to Amarals book.
Looks like that one is off the table, now where were we? ah, yes.
Drs are infamous for apportioning blame in all medical negligence claims, I know this to be true! It is also true that they must never accept liability for any wrong doing to paitients. Even though it is a black and white case of negligence! This forces patients to take them to civil court to claim damages. This takes years. But HR and NHS lawyers do get involved right away -damage limtation!
Drs McCANNS would be aware of this how to protect yourself against allegations even if they are true. Cold calculating Hmm...
more doctor hate...Hmm.....I've posted before that how much of this nastiness towards the mccanns is because they are doctors
-
So we have established that Kate's reluctance to blame herself is nothing sinister but part of a survival mechanism....as is trying to keep a normal life...jogging...tennis etc
-
more doctor hate...Hmm.....I've posted before that how much of this nastiness towards the mccanns is because they are doctors
Well I supposed with their experience you would have expected them to know better.
-
Well I supposed with their experience you would have expected them to know better.
so the fact that they are doctors does play a part in their persecution...thought so
-
So we have established that Kate's reluctance to blame herself is nothing sinister but part of a survival mechanism....as is trying to keep a normal life...jogging...tennis etc
Their normal life should have been put on hold.
After all dave, they were 'SEARCHING' for Madeleine weren't they. 8(0(*
-
so the fact that they are doctors does play a part in their persecution...thought so
Some of the things the McCanns said and did are puzzling. They become even more puzzling when said and done by doctors. They are not criticised because they are doctors, but because they seem to lack basic attributes and knowledge which doctors could be expected to possess.
-
Some of the things the McCanns said and did are puzzling. They become even more puzzling when said and done by doctors. They are not criticised because they are doctors, but because they seem to lack basic attributes and knowledge which doctors could be expected to possess.
As I recall, according to you these doctorly attributes were: nerves of steel, the ability to sit exams and give people nasty injections and the ability to lie convincingly. Anything else?
-
so the fact that they are doctors does play a part in their persecution...thought so
I am sure you agree they are intelligent people, so mistakes on their behalf attract more opprobrium than perhaps would be the case with less intelligent individuals.
-
As I recall, according to you these doctorly attributes were: nerves of steel, the ability to sit exams and give people nasty injections and the ability to lie convincingly. Anything else?
Here's a couple for you;
I would expect a doctor to be able to list the dangers (other than abduction) of leaving young children home alone.
I would expect a doctor to know what to do to check if their children had been sedated.
-
Here's a couple for you;
I would expect a doctor to be able to list the dangers (other than abduction) of leaving young children home alone.
I would expect a doctor to know what to do to check if their children had been sedated.
And you know that the McCanns aren't able to do these things do you?
-
And you know that the McCanns aren't able to do these things do you?
Judging by the evidence it appears not.
-
Judging by the evidence it appears not.
In your opinon
Perhaps you could list all the accidents experienced by children under baby listening in the last 50 years
Shouldn't take too long
-
In your opinon
Perhaps you could list all the accidents experienced by children under baby listening in the last 50 years
Shouldn't take too long
Looking at the balcony, the steps, the chairs left near the wall, I would not have decided to leave unsupervised children alone with a slightly open door leading to that balcony. Just in case, you understand. Others may believe it was a sensible decision, of course.
-
Looking at the balcony, the steps, the chairs left near the wall, I would not have decided to leave unsupervised children alone with a slightly open door leading to that balcony. Just in case, you understand. Others may believe it was a sensible decision, of course.
So baby listening services have a fantastic safety record
-
So baby listening services have a fantastic safety record
I have no idea, and don't see what that has to do with it anyway. A baby-listening service wasn't involved in this case.
There is evidence that people left the restaurant at times but no evidence as to who they were, how long they were gone, at what intervals, or where they went.
Only one person was seen near the apartment block; Gerald McCann between 8.45pm and 9.15pm. The person who saw him assumed he had been to his apartment to check his children, but didn't see him enter or exit the apartment.
-
I have no idea, and don't see what that has to do with it anyway. A baby-listening service wasn't involved in this case.
There is evidence that people left the restaurant at times but no evidence as to who they were, how long they were gone, at what intervals, or where they went.
Only one person was seen near the apartment block; Gerald McCann between 8.45pm and 9.15pm. The person who saw him assumed he had been to his apartment to check his children, but didn't see him enter or exit the apartment.
It has a lot to do with it...if leaving young children sleeping was so dangerous then where are all the incidences of children coming to harm...you are overstating the risks
-
It has a lot to do with it...if leaving young children sleeping was so dangerous then where are all the incidences of children coming to harm...you are overstating the risks
Just because the data has not been collated and provided online doesn't mean that incidents don't happen.
-
It has a lot to do with it...if leaving young children sleeping was so dangerous then where are all the incidences of children coming to harm...you are overstating the risks
They have no relevance because there wasn't one in PdL.
-
Just because the data has not been collated and provided online doesn't mean that incidents don't happen.
it means no serious incidents happened
-
They have no relevance because there wasn't one in PdL.
they are relevant when assessing the dangers faced by a child being left asleep in a holiday apartment...the problem you have is the safety record of such is extremely good
-
they are relevant when assessing the dangers faced by a child being left asleep in a holiday apartment...the problem you have is the safety record of such is extremely good
How do you figure that out?
Danger (risk) is danger (risk). A "listening service" is a control measure aimed at mitigating that risk. The risk remains regardless of the control measure. In this instance they key factor is/was uncertainty.
-
How do you figure that out?
Danger (risk) is danger (risk). A "listening service" is a control measure aimed at mitigating that risk. The risk remains regardless of the control measure. In this instance they key factor is/was uncertainty.
quite simply...what are the potential risks of a listening service...lets look at the last 50 yrs...how many serious incidents...none...extremely low risk
-
quite simply...what are the potential risks of a listening service...lets look at the last 50 yrs...how many serious incidents...none...extremely low risk
Are you including only professional listening services Davel or are you also including DIY listening services?
-
How do you figure that out?
Danger (risk) is danger (risk). A "listening service" is a control measure aimed at mitigating that risk. The risk remains regardless of the control measure. In this instance they key factor is/was uncertainty.
Indeed Alice, Their daughter told them she was awake and knew that she and her baby brother and sister were alone. Maddie was only 3 years old!!!
Risks:
1. leaving the children alone
2. leaving a door open in case they need to escape any danger ( not defining what danger is)
3. ignoring a very blatant warning sign (distressed wandering child alone in the flat)
The listening/checking service they provided did not work.
-
Are you including only professional listening services Davel or are you also including DIY listening services?
I cant find any serious incident for either...therefore the evidence supports they are extremely safe
-
they are relevant when assessing the dangers faced by a child being left asleep in a holiday apartment...the problem you have is the safety record of such is extremely good
I don't have a problem at all. There was no listening service in PdL because it was unsuitable. A group pf people decided they knew better, but they were wrong.
-
it means no serious incidents happened
No it doesn't, it just means the data isn't available online.
-
I don't have a problem at all. There was no listening service in PdL because it was unsuitable. A group pf people decided they knew better, but they were wrong.
everyone on here realises that the possibility of a stranger abduction in these circumstances was so remote as to be virtually impossible...that's what the mccanns thought...and I agree with you...they were wrong
-
everyone on here realises that the possibility of a stranger abduction in these circumstances was so remote as to be virtually impossible...that's what the mccanns thought...and I agree with you...they were wrong
You misunderstand. In common with a lot of other people I don't agree with listening services because they can't deal with silent problems or wandering within the room or apartment, only with crying. For the same reason the group were wrong to believe that setting up their own listening service was the answer to their childcare problems. The McCanns took it a stage further and left at least one door open, which added an additional level of risk. All the children were at risk of waking, climbing, falling, cutting themselves etc. The McCann children were at risk of all the above and of exiting the apartment. This group seemed to have no concept of what can happen to children left unsupervised. If they did realise they choose to ignore it and carry on with their selfish behaviour regardless.
-
You misunderstand. In common with a lot of other people I don't agree with listening services because they can't deal with silent problems or wandering within the room or apartment, only with crying. For the same reason the group were wrong to believe that setting up their own listening service was the answer to their childcare problems. The McCanns took it a stage further and left at least one door open, which added an additional level of risk. All the children were at risk of waking, climbing, falling, cutting themselves etc. The McCann children were at risk of all the above and of exiting the apartment. This group seemed to have no concept of what can happen to children left unsupervised. If they did realise they choose to ignore it and carry on with their selfish behaviour regardless.
all in your very limited opinion. The EVIDENCE shows that listening services are extremely safe...no one counted on an abduction..as all the sceptics claim is impossible...that's exactly what the mccanns thought...bless them
-
all in your very limited opinion. The EVIDENCE shows that listening services are extremely safe...no one counted on an abduction..as all the sceptics claim is impossible...that's exactly what the mccanns thought...bless them
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
-
You misunderstand. In common with a lot of other people I don't agree with listening services because they can't deal with silent problems or wandering within the room or apartment, only with crying. For the same reason the group were wrong to believe that setting up their own listening service was the answer to their childcare problems. The McCanns took it a stage further and left at least one door open, which added an additional level of risk. All the children were at risk of waking, climbing, falling, cutting themselves etc. The McCann children were at risk of all the above and of exiting the apartment. This group seemed to have no concept of what can happen to children left unsupervised. If they did realise they choose to ignore it and carry on with their selfish behaviour regardless.
There is also the risk of children getting access to alcohol, prescribed drugs, and suffering cot death, all of which listening would not be of any use as these occurances would be silent!
It would only flag up child crying or choking.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
yet you never criticise posters who claim listening services are dangerous...based on NO evidence...
if listening services were dangerous we would see reported incidents...we dont
-
all in your very limited opinion. The EVIDENCE shows that listening services are extremely safe...no one counted on an abduction..as all the sceptics claim is impossible...that's exactly what the mccanns thought...bless them
It's immaterial whether listening services are safe or not. There wasn't one because the experts; Mark Warner, felt a listening service was not suitable for this site. The group decided they knew better.
David Payne, of course, didn't join in with the checking. His risk assessment went as follows;
we had chatted about what we felt was you know reasonably err you know safe, and we say safe in the perspective of you know both our children at that stage were in cots, you know I think the two main things that you would be concerned about or you know obviously not retrospectively now but certainly before the holiday was whether the child was gonna wake up crying you or whether the child could get you know away from the area where they were.
His children were both in cots and he took a baby monitor which he felt was enough to make his children safe;
they can't get out their cots and the monitor you know covered the crying issue.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Jane Tanner had a monitor also, but it wasn't as good as the Payne's. Her worry was Ella waking and wandering;
one of our concerns was Ella waking up and wandering, I mean like I say we didn’t think she would but that was probably our, you know so she couldn’t get out the actual apartment, that was err so we did make sure that was dead locked every night.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
-
Could we get back On Topic, please.
-
It's immaterial whether listening services are safe or not. There wasn't one because the experts; Mark Warner, felt a listening service was not suitable for this site. The group decided they knew better.
David Payne, of course, didn't join in with the checking. His risk assessment went as follows;
we had chatted about what we felt was you know reasonably err you know safe, and we say safe in the perspective of you know both our children at that stage were in cots, you know I think the two main things that you would be concerned about or you know obviously not retrospectively now but certainly before the holiday was whether the child was gonna wake up crying you or whether the child could get you know away from the area where they were.
His children were both in cots and he took a baby monitor which he felt was enough to make his children safe;
they can't get out their cots and the monitor you know covered the crying issue.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Jane Tanner had a monitor also, but it wasn't as good as the Payne's. Her worry was Ella waking and wandering;
one of our concerns was Ella waking up and wandering, I mean like I say we didn’t think she would but that was probably our, you know so she couldn’t get out the actual apartment, that was err so we did make sure that was dead locked every night.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
So at least two people in that group had thought about the 'wake and wandering' issue as a risk factor, both had taken a wee bit more caution.
So why do Kate & Gerry not share this thought and why do they not even take responsibility for their desicion to leave a door unlocked? Who else should shoulder blame?
-
Erm, The Abductor?
-
Erm, The Abductor?
Oh they knew there was going to be an abduction? oh right.. I thought we were talking about risks and responsibility.
The McCANN family felt it was safe. 'like sitting in your garden' but Jane Tanner and David Payne did a risk assessment, and took some kind of action they believed to reduce the risk. The McCanns claim there was no risk and Maddie couldn't walk and wander- even though they left a door unlocked! now if they didn't think their daughter could walk n wander why leave the door unlocked? did they plan this abduction?
Is this why Kate knew right away? but why use a jemmie and window when a door is left unlocked?
-
Oh they knew there was going to be an abduction? oh right.. I thought we were talking about risks and responsibility.
The McCANN family felt it was safe. 'like sitting in your garden' but Jane Tanner and David Payne did a risk assessment, and took some kind of action they believed to reduce the risk. The McCanns claim there was no risk and Maddie couldn't walk and wander- even though they left a door unlocked! now if they didn't think their daughter could walk n wander why leave the door unlocked? did they plan this abduction?
Is this why Kate knew right away? but why use a jemmie and window when a door is left unlocked?
If the patio door was open 'a hand's width' then in theory they could have returned to check after half an hour away and found three screaming children on the balcony. If not, why not?
-
re the book she was casting aspersions against nursery staff that th ey might have drugged madeleine...sorry but thats out of order
I don't remember Kate saying the nursery staff may have drugged Madeleine mercury, where is this in Kate's book?
I remember her saying regarding the stain on Madeleine's pyjama's that she thought maybe the abductor had tried to drug her the night before.
-
I don't remember Kate saying the nursery staff may have drugged Madeleine mercury, where is this in Kate's book?
I remember her saying regarding the stain on Madeleine's pyjama's that she thought maybe the abductor had tried to drug her the night before.
She wrote maybe someone drugged her during the day !! madeleine was in the care of her nanny...purleese!!!
-
She wrote maybe someone drugged her during the day !! madeleine was in the care of her nanny...purleese!!!
I doubt her nanny would have been expected to tatse her food first
-
I doubt her nanny would have been expected to tatse her food first
That makes you as pathetic as kate mccann in her book apart from the fact she has never looked like a distraught mother...ever...no relevant emotions to be seen at all, just anger, arrogance, cintrol freakery and the like, how disturbing.....is that
cue barrage, thats what the truth does, ferret out the rats up the drainspipes lol
-
She wrote maybe someone drugged her during the day !! madeleine was in the care of her nanny...purleese!!!
Please say where in Kate's book she wrote that, I have read Kate's book and I really don't remember her saying it. Please give me a page number.
-
That makes you as pathetic as kate mccann in her book apart from the fact she has never looked like a distraught mother...ever...no relevant emotions to be seen at all, just anger, arrogance, cintrol freakery and the like, how disturbing.....is that
cue barrage, thats what the truth does, ferret out the rats up the drainspipes lol
Mercury, I am really surprised at you, even though you are obviously anti McCann, I have always found your posts worthy of reading, apart from our spat about the cadaver dogs.
That remark 'she has never looked like a distraught mother...ever' is such a ridiculous one to make, Kate looked every bit a distraught mother to all that saw her on the evening of the 3rd of May, how do you explain the fact that the Ocean Club manager himself stated that he heard her cry and he has never in his life heard a cry like it. Please don't make comments like that when you have absolutely no proof as you were not there.
-
Mercury, I am really surprised at you, even though you are obviously anti McCann, I have always found your posts worthy of reading, apart from our spat about the cadaver dogs.
That remark 'she has never looked like a distraught mother...ever' is such a ridiculous one to make, Kate looked every bit a distraught mother to all that saw her on the evening of the 3rd of May, how do you explain the fact that the Ocean Club manager himself stated that he heard her cry and he has never in his life heard a cry like it. Please don't make comments like that when you have absolutely no proof as you were not there.
Bridget O'Donnel WAS there and observed the following:
Quote from The Evening Standard.
Snip.......................................
Ms O'Donnell said that two days after Madeleine vanished the appearance of the McCanns - later made official suspects - was in complete contrast to their relaxed manner even in the minutes before the alarm was raised.
"The physical transformation of these two human beings was sickening... Kate's back and shoulders, her hands, her mouth had reshaped themselves into the angular-manifestation of a silent scream," she said, reinforcing claims that Mrs McCann could not be implicated in her daughter's disappearance because even an actor could not fake such anguish.
"Gerry was upright, his lips now drawn into a thin, impenetrable line."
Snip................
Unquote
Any claim that Kate has never looked like a distraught mother is simply not true as several eye witnesses have confirmed - and showing piccies of her smiling on other occasions will not alter that fact.
IIRC Kerry Needham was similarly castigated by a passenger on a bus for 'smiling'. Such ignorance is appallingly cruel IMO.
-
Bridget O'Donnel WAS there and observed the following:
Quote from The Evening Standard.
Snip.......................................
Ms O'Donnell said that two days after Madeleine vanished the appearance of the McCanns - later made official suspects - was in complete contrast to their relaxed manner even in the minutes before the alarm was raised.
"The physical transformation of these two human beings was sickening... Kate's back and shoulders, her hands, her mouth had reshaped themselves into the angular-manifestation of a silent scream," she said, reinforcing claims that Mrs McCann could not be implicated in her daughter's disappearance because even an actor could not fake such anguish.
"Gerry was upright, his lips now drawn into a thin, impenetrable line."
Snip................
Unquote
Any claim that Kate has never looked like a distraught mother is simply not true as several eye witnesses have confirmed - and showing piccies of her smiling on other occasions will not alter that fact.
IIRC Kerry Needham was similarly castigated by a passenger on a bus for 'smiling'. Such ignorance is appallingly cruel IMO.
Ah, more Mills and Boon type quotes.
Same old 'poor mccann' act.
It may work with the supporters, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence will see through all this type of pro-mccann propaganda.
-
Ah, more Mills and Boon type quotes.
Same old 'poor mccann' act.
It may work with the supporters, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence will see through all this type of pro-mccann propaganda.
are you suggesting that McCann supporters ..such as myself...do not have a modicum of intelligence
-
Ah, more Mills and Boon type quotes.
Same old 'poor mccann' act.
It may work with the supporters, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence will see through all this type of pro-mccann propaganda.
There is no need for what you call 'Mills and Boon' quotes, the McCann's were clearly distraught at finding their daughter missing there were many witnesses to that fact and people like you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting they were play acting.
Imagine being the parents of a missing child and someone saying they were putting on an act.
In your opinion then they were laughing and patting themselves on the back because their daughter was dead.
-
are you suggesting that McCann supporters ..such as myself...do not have a modicum of intelligence
Not just you and I and other McCann supporters davel, but all the witnesses who saw the McCann's that night, plus the SY detectives who have had years of experience dealing with cases where someone has gone missing.
The man is unbelievably arrogant.
-
Ah, more Mills and Boon type quotes.
Same old 'poor mccann' act.
It may work with the supporters, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence will see through all this type of pro-mccann propaganda.
The McCanns did look bad in the early days, but we don't know why. It could be because their daughter was abducted, and it could also be for other reasons.
-
Ah, more Mills and Boon type quotes.
Same old 'poor mccann' act.
It may work with the supporters, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence will see through all this type of pro-mccann propaganda.
Are you claiming that Bridget O'Donell (who had never met the McCanns before this holiday) is blatently lying when she describes the terrible state of anguish that the McCanns were in - and which she saw with her own eyes?
Why would she do that?
-
Are you claiming that Bridget O'Donell (who had never met the McCanns before this holiday) is blatently lying when she describes the terrible state of anguish that the McCanns were in - and which she saw with her own eyes?
Why would she do that?
She was giving an opinion.
As we know, an opinion counts for nothing.
-
Your posts are disgusting Stephen, there is no need for what you call 'Mills and Boon' quotes, the McCann's were clearly distraught at finding their daughter missing there were many witnesses to that fact and people like you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting they were play acting.
Imagine being the parents of a missing child and someone saying they were putting on an act.
In your opinion then they were laughing and patting themselves on the back because their daughter was dead.
There's something seriously wrong with your way of thinking.
I don't think it possible for thinking to be as seriously flawed as that. I think it possible there are wind up merchants around who come up with preposterous notions and throw them about just to see who will bite.
-
Your posts are disgusting Stephen, there is no need for what you call 'Mills and Boon' quotes, the McCann's were clearly distraught at finding their daughter missing there were many witnesses to that fact and people like you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting they were play acting.
Imagine being the parents of a missing child and someone saying they were putting on an act.
In your opinion then they were laughing and patting themselves on the back because their daughter was dead.
There's something seriously wrong with your way of thinking.
Oh dear.
You mccann supporters are so predictable in your responses it has become quite sad.
You can't get over the fact that all the investigations have led into a blind alley as regards abduction.
As to '...seriously wrong with your way of thinking...', that applies to you and your fellows who stick religiously to the 'abduction'.
Quite sad really.
-
Oh dear.
You mccann supporters are so predictable in your responses it has become quite sad.
You can't get over the fact that all the investigations have led into a blind alley as regards abduction.
As to '...seriously wrong with your way of thinking...', not that applies to you and your fellows who stick religiously to the 'abduction'.
Quite sad really.
i kinda find it disturbing that they pin their hopes that a abductor abducted maddie therefore takign away the blame of the mcanns do they realsie what abductors do?? look at our case here in australia with the 2 year old in the suitcase and her murdered mother ( which was not maddie and never was) denial is a bad thing
-
Oh dear.
You mccann supporters are so predictable in your responses it has become quite sad.
You can't get over the fact that all the investigations have led into a blind alley as regards abduction.
As to '...seriously wrong with your way of thinking...', that applies to you and your fellows who stick religiously to the 'abduction'.
Quite sad really.
Sy seem to agree
-
Sy seem to agree
and we know they have found zip.
Next.
-
Topic please.. without personal remarks
-
i kinda find it disturbing that they pin their hopes that a abductor abducted maddie therefore takign away the blame of the mcanns do they realsie what abductors do?? look at our case here in australia with the 2 year old in the suitcase and her murdered mother ( which was not maddie and never was) denial is a bad thing
I tend to agree in principle. What I find disturbing is the belief the child was abducted, remains alive, that it is a semi-satisfactory state of affairs which will ultimately have a happy ending. Any one who thinks otherwise is branded as deficient in someway.
The girl, if alive, is going on13 and will have spent more time without her parents than with them.
-
Oh dear.
You mccann supporters are so predictable in your responses it has become quite sad.
You can't get over the fact that all the investigations have led into a blind alley as regards abduction.
As to '...seriously wrong with your way of thinking...', that applies to you and your fellows who stick religiously to the 'abduction'.
Quite sad really.
We are discussing whether the McCann's showed grief when Madeleine was missing Stephen not abduction.
You don't believe Madeleine was abducted, you believe she died due to an accident in 5a so you think the McCann's were pretending to grieve for a dead daughter, is that what you are saying? Putting on an act of being devastated their child was dead?
-
I tend to agree in principle. What I find disturbing is the belief the child was abducted, remains alive, that it is a semi-satisfactory state of affairs which will ultimately have a happy ending. Any one who thinks otherwise is branded as deficient in someway.
The girl, if alive, is going on13 and will have spent more time without her parents than with them.
i agree alice if the 1% chance maddie was abducted and is alive she would have no memories of kate and gerry and would have been traumatised brainwashed etc stockholm sydrome and all that
-
I tend to agree in principle. What I find disturbing is the belief the child was abducted, remains alive, that it is a semi-satisfactory state of affairs which will ultimately have a happy ending. Any one who thinks otherwise is branded as deficient in someway.
The girl, if alive, is going on13 and will have spent more time without her parents than with them.
I think Madeleine is likely long dead, and no one (apart from McCann "sceptics") has branded me as deficient. Work that one out!
-
i kinda find it disturbing that they pin their hopes that a abductor abducted maddie therefore takign away the blame of the mcanns do they realsie what abductors do?? look at our case here in australia with the 2 year old in the suitcase and her murdered mother ( which was not maddie and never was) denial is a bad thing
Of course the McCann's know what abductors do Carly, they are intelligent people.
What has the murdered two year old have to do with anything?
The fact is if Madeleine is with an abductor, then she needs to be found and judging by what you are saying you knowing what abductors do and all that, I would think you would agree. Or do you think, oh well she has been with him for over eight years, leave her there?
-
Sorry Anna could you separate my post from Stephen's please?
Thanking you in advance.
-
i agree alice if the 1% chance maddie was abducted and is alive she would have no memories of kate and gerry and would have been traumatised brainwashed etc stockholm sydrome and all that
Oh well no point in trying to find her then is there? Let the person who abducted her go scot free to do it again.
-
Oh well no point in trying to find her then is there? Let the person who abducted her go scot free to do it again.
why do you use emotional blackmail lace?? no one has said anything like that we are just pointing out reality
-
why do you use emotional blackmail lace?? no one has said anything like that we are just pointing out reality
reality is that SY are investigating a criminal act by a stranger and the parents are not suspects...perhaps I could point that out
-
We are discussing whether the McCann's showed grief when Madeleine was missing Stephen not abduction.
You don't believe Madeleine was abducted, you believe she died due to an accident in 5a so you think the McCann's were pretending to grieve for a dead daughter, is that what you are saying? Putting on an act of being devastated their child was dead?
You should realize your tactics on this forum will not work with me ?
Now tell me why should I believe in abduction when there is no quantitative evidence at all to support it ?
and of course, you won't accept accidental death, will you ?
As to the mccanns showing their feelings, well the first time I saw them, I saw shock on their faces.
-
why do you use emotional blackmail lace?? no one has said anything like that we are just pointing out reality
I am not using emotional blackmail carly, you seem to like the sound of that.
What I am saying is that you said we use abduction to take the blame away from the McCann's when if she was abducted she would have gone through hell.
To me that seems to say, don't imagine that she has been abducted as if she has she wouldn't know the McCann's anymore and would suffer from Stockholm syndrome and have a link to her abductor.
Which to me is disgusting, whether or not she will remember her parents or not she needs to be found and the person who took her punished.
Who is to say she won't remember her parents, there was a case of a Chinese boy who was abducted at four and he never forgot his parents, he loved the family he was brought up with but he found his birth parents when he grew up.
-
You should realize your tactics on this forum will not work with me ?
Now tell me why should I believe in abduction when there is no quantitative evidence at all to support it ?
and of course, you won't accept accidental death, will you ?
As to the mccanns showing their feelings, well the first time I saw them, I saw shock on their faces.
no one is bothered if you don't accept abduction...it is of no importance
-
You should realize your tactics on this forum will not work with me ?
Now tell me why should I believe in abduction when there is no quantitative evidence at all to support it ?
and of course, you won't accept accidental death, will you ?
As to the mccanns showing their feelings, well the first time I saw them, I saw shock on their faces.
What tactics are you talking about Stephen?
I am not asking you to believe in abduction.
I don't accept accidental death no, but then again it is not what we are discussing.
What I said was, YOU believe in accidental death, yet you say the McCann's were play acting when they were distraught, so in other words what you are saying is, even though in your mind Madeleine had died of an accident the parents didn't care and were not crying or looking distraught.
-
What tactics are you talking about Stephen?
I am not asking you to believe in abduction.
I don't accept accidental death no, but then again it is not what we are discussing.
What I said was, YOU believe in accidental death, yet you say the McCann's were play acting when they were distraught, so in other words what you are saying is, even though in your mind Madeleine had died of an accident the parents didn't care and were not crying or looking distraught.
Do you want me to place on here again, examples of the mccanns laughing, even just days after Madeleine's disappearance.
I am also quite aware of what advice they would be given by PR people when photographed.
Do you remember when kate mccann did 'the Diana pose' ?
-
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01158/portal-graphics-20_1158775a.jpg)
-
Do you want me to place on here again, examples of the mccanns laughing, even just days after Madeleine's disappearance.
I am also quite aware of what advice they would be given by PR people when photographed.
Do you remember when kate mccann did 'the Diana pose' ?
so you think laughter indicates a lack of grief...what do you think your so called Diana pose means...all it means is a complete lack of knowledge by you
-
Do you want me to place on here again, examples of the mccanns laughing, even just days after Madeleine's disappearance.
I am also quite aware of what advice they would be given by PR people when photographed.
Do you remember when kate mccann did 'the Diana pose' ?
What laughing because their child was dead?
Or laughing because a balloon escaped?
Or being sarcastic about someone?
Kerry Needham had the same response when she laughed at a joke on a bus, someone said 'you shouldn't be laughing when he is still missing'.
Laughing is a natural response Stephen, so is smiling, that is unless it's you maybe?
-
Do you want me to place on here again, examples of the mccanns laughing, even just days after Madeleine's disappearance.
I am also quite aware of what advice they would be given by PR people when photographed.
Do you remember when kate mccann did 'the Diana pose' ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2689936/Ill-family-one-day-Brave-girl-15-lost-parents-siblings-Houston-shooting-speaks-community-memorial-leaving-hospital.html
have a look at that article...you will learn something
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2689936/Ill-family-one-day-Brave-girl-15-lost-parents-siblings-Houston-shooting-speaks-community-memorial-leaving-hospital.html
have a look at that article...you will learn something
I predict that Stephen will take nothing away whatsoever from that article.
-
I read a very interesting article called 'When a child is missing' it covered everything from what to say to the parents down to giving advice to the parents, it seems as though the McCann's were given a lot of the advice that was in the article.
One paragraph said 'it's ok to laugh' and explained that laughing is as good as having a good cry, it cleanses.
I will try and find the article.
-
I read a very interesting article called 'When a child is missing' it covered everything from what to say to the parents down to giving advice to the parents, it seems as though the McCann's were given a lot of the advice that was in the article.
One paragraph said 'it's ok to laugh' and explained that laughing is as good as having a good cry, it cleanses.
I will try and find the article.
I wouldn't bother Lace - it won't make any difference to those who want to believe that the McCanns were light-hearted and full of joy that their child was missing.
-
Merely because I hear the 'poor mccann' act for the umpteenth time, try to remember it won't wash with me, and neither will any of the mccann supporters who try the sob act either.
GET REAL.
-
Merely because I hear the 'poor mccann' act for the umpteenth time, try to remember it won't wash with me, and neither will any of the mccann supporters who try the sob act either.
GET REAL.
the reality is that the mccanns have lost their daughter...any decent human would feel sympathy for them
-
the reality is that the mccanns have lost their daughter...any decent human would feel sympathy for them
I agree. Whatever the circumstances, she is lost to them.
-
the reality is that the mccanns have lost their daughter...any decent human would feel sympathy for them
Any decent human would not have left very small vulnerable children alone
FACT
-
Any decent human would not have left very small vulnerable children alone
FACT
not a fact...an opinion...fact
-
not a fact...an opinion...fact
It is a FACT.
She would not have been missing if not for the action of those parents.
FACT.
-
It is a FACT.
She would not have been missing if not for the action of those parents.
FACT.
no it's MW fault for promoting baby listening services ...and Butlins...and every other place that promotes them
-
I think Madeleine is likely long dead, and no one (apart from McCann "sceptics") has branded me as deficient. Work that one out!
At least we agree on one thing then Alf. As for the rest, simples: "don't shoot your own side"
-
no it's MW fault for promoting baby listening services ...and Butlins...and every other place that promotes them
What the hell are you on about ?
The mccanns deliberately left their children for 5 nights in a row .
They could have easily employed a nanny to look after the children.
-
What the hell are you on about ?
The mccanns deliberately left their children for 5 nights in a row .
They could have easily employed a nanny to look after the children.
i sometimes wonder if davel is a wind up troll to distract us no one could be that dumb could they??
-
i sometimes wonder if davel is a wind up troll to distract us no one could be that dumb could they??
No, he's not dumb.
His intentions and actions are quite deliberate.
-
At least we agree on one thing then Alf. As for the rest, simples: "don't shoot your own side"
Actually no. No one pro or anti objects to someone believing that Madeleine is long deceased per se, so IMO you are wrong to say that they do. What some people object to is the certainty with which some people cling to this belief, by asserting it as a fact and pretending that they know how she met her end and why.
-
Actually no. No one pro or anti objects to someone believing that Madeleine is long deceased per se, so IMO you are wrong to say that they do. What some people object to is the certainty with which some people cling to this belief, by asserting it as a fact and pretending that they know how she met her end and why.
OK my mistake then we don't share a belief she is dead.
I believe she is.
The rest of your post is far to complicated for a bear of very little brain like me.
-
Actually no. No one pro or anti objects to someone believing that Madeleine is long deceased per se, so IMO you are wrong to say that they do. What some people object to is the certainty with which some people cling to this belief, by asserting it as a fact and pretending that they know how she met her end and why.
There is no-one from Madeleine's immediate family to any sentient adult who has a modicum of knowledge of the case who is unaware of the possibility that she may be dead.
The apportioning of blame to her parents in various campaigns which have been organised over an eight year period is an aspect which I find particularly distasteful and disturbing.
No holds have been barred and most of them are designed to impede everything Madeleine's parents have attempted to do on her behalf.
-
OK my mistake then we don't share a belief she is dead.
I believe she is.
The rest of your post is far to complicated for a bear of very little brain like me.
I do believe she is dead, I don't however insist that she is, or spend my days trying to persuade people that she is, nor do I think that those who believe she might still be alive and be being looked after are worthy of scorn and derision. Sorry, that was probably too complicated again.
-
I do believe she is dead, I don't however insist that she is, or spend my days trying to persuade people that she is, nor do I think that those who believe she might still be alive and be being looked after are worthy of scorn and derision. Sorry, that was probably too complicated again.
I believe she is dead.
I don't insist she is dead.
I don't know the what, where,when, how, why and who of it. There are limited choices however for the broad picture.
I guess we all have our own ground rules about upon whom we will pour scorn. No one reason is more or less worthy than another.
You are right it was too complicated.
-
I believe she is dead.
I don't insist she is dead.
I don't know the what, where,when, how, why and who of it. There are limited choices however for the broad picture.
I guess we all have our own ground rules about upon whom we will pour scorn. No one reason is more or less worthy than another.
You are right it was too complicated.
I disagree. I think pouring scorn on people who hope for the best is less worthy than pouring scorn on those who spend their lives campaigning hard to convince people that a child is dead and that her parents dunnit, despite any evidence to support either contention. Again, you are almost to certain to disagree, we are poles apart aren't we? Thank God!
-
I disagree. I think pouring scorn on people who hope for the best is less worthy than pouring scorn on those who spend their lives campaigning hard to convince people that a child is dead and that her parents dunnit, despite any evidence to support either contention. Again, you are almost to certain to disagree, we are poles apart aren't we? Thank God!
That is rather leading out for a "my sentiments exactly" 8(0(*
-
On a more on-topic note - re: those on here who like to apportion blame on the McCanns for absolutely everything - I wonder if this is a coping mechanism for stuff that is going on in their own lives? Just a thought...
-
On a more on-topic note - re: those on here who like to apportion blame on the McCanns for absolutely everything - I wonder if this is a coping mechanism for stuff that is going on in their own lives? Just a thought...
Well I suppose those who support may have abandoned their own kids in the past and need someone to tell them it was reasonable...
Or we could stop this pointless sniping.
-
Well I suppose those who support may have abandoned their own kids in the past and need someone to tell them it was reasonable...
Or we could stop this pointless sniping.
It's all pointless and most of it is sniping. Sooooo.....what next?
-
It's all pointless and most of it is sniping. Sooooo.....what next?
We could try discussing the facts in the case...
-
We could try discussing the facts in the case...
Hmm...here is the barely literate opening post for this thread.
Let's discuss it shall we?
kate mccann did in her book cast aspersions and suspicions on anyone in pdl...mYbe madeleine was drugged during the day.....disgusting
-
I think apportioning blame is a natural human trait. It starts at quite a young age; 'It wasn't me it was him/her/the dog/the cat'. It was frowned upon when I was young, it was 'telling tales'. On the other hand it was a good to own up and take responsibility. A harsh lesson really. If it wasn't you you weren't supposed to reveal the culprit. If it was you, no blaming someone else - own up! So either way you were the one in trouble. All you had for comfort was your integrity.
In the McCann case the parents freely admitted that they left the children in an unlocked apartment, but also strove to downplay it. They were naive, they checked the children regularly, they weren't far away (just like being in the garden), it was 'within the bounds of responsible parenting', and, most interestingly, ''I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."
Immediately after the disappearance the Portuguese authorities began to be blamed by the parents and others for various perceived shortcomings. They left the group all alone, they didn't close roads and airports, they didn't seal the apartment, they didn't collect forensics, they smoked (?) in the Police Station, they didn't offer refreshments, they drove too fast. They were ridiculed and given childish nicknames.
When the dogs were brought in from the UK they were labelled 'incredibly unreliable' and 'unscientific', with a case in the US being used as an example. Unfortunately the case was solved and the dogs were exonerated.
The SIO then wrote his book. He was blamed for hampering the search, libeling the children, and hurting the parents. Following a civil defamation trial most of the points weren't proved, except the one of harming the parents.
It seems the McCann parents did quite a lot of blaming, and those who support them do the same. Anyone who dares to point out that leaving children home alone isn't 'responsible', that the PJ carried out a huge task to the best of their ability, that police dogs are incredibly useful or that Amaral's book didn't hamper the search is attacked. They are accused of lacking empathy, telling lies, being stupid, and trolling.
It seems to me that the parents have blamed everyone for everything which has befallen them, and done their utmost to escape any blame themselves. Perhaps it has helped them to cope, but they ran the risk of 'protesting too much' and it has resulted in people becoming interested, researching the case, and deciding that the parents aren't convincing.
-
Well I suppose those who support may have abandoned their own kids in the past and need someone to tell them it was reasonable...
Or we could stop this pointless sniping.
as you have brought it up ...I left my children in similar circumstances 20 odd years ago ... I wouldn't do it now....
however I am sure there are millions of children who have been exposed to second hand cigarette smoke all their lives by their parents...these children have been harmed
-
I think apportioning blame is a natural human trait. It starts at quite a young age; 'It wasn't me it was him/her/the dog/the cat'. It was frowned upon when I was young, it was 'telling tales'. On the other hand it was a good to own up and take responsibility. A harsh lesson really. If it wasn't you you weren't supposed to reveal the culprit. If it was you, no blaming someone else - own up! So either way you were the one in trouble. All you had for comfort was your integrity.
In the McCann case the parents freely admitted that they left the children in an unlocked apartment, but also strove to downplay it. They were naive, they checked the children regularly, they weren't far away (just like being in the garden), it was 'within the bounds of responsible parenting', and, most interestingly, ''I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."
Immediately after the disappearance the Portuguese authorities began to be blamed by the parents and others for various perceived shortcomings. They left the group all alone, they didn't close roads and airports, they didn't seal the apartment, they didn't collect forensics, they smoked (?) in the Police Station, they didn't offer refreshments, they drove too fast. They were ridiculed and given childish nicknames.
When the dogs were brought in from the UK they were labelled 'incredibly unreliable' and 'unscientific', with a case in the US being used as an example. Unfortunately the case was solved and the dogs were exonerated.
The SIO then wrote his book. He was blamed for hampering the search, libeling the children, and hurting the parents. Following a civil defamation trial most of the points weren't proved, except the one of harming the parents.
It seems the McCann parents did quite a lot of blaming, and those who support them do the same. Anyone who dares to point out that leaving children home alone isn't 'responsible', that the PJ carried out a huge task to the best of their ability, that police dogs are incredibly useful or that Amaral's book didn't hamper the search is attacked. They are accused of lacking empathy, telling lies, being stupid, and trolling.
It seems to me that the parents have blamed everyone for everything which has befallen them, and done their utmost to escape any blame themselves. Perhaps it has helped them to cope, but they ran the risk of 'protesting too much' and it has resulted in people becoming interested, researching the case, and deciding that the parents aren't convincing.
Yeah, the parents should have just shut up, publicly self-flagellated, begged the world for forgiveness and then quietly taken all the shit that was thrown at them and their family on the chin. That would have been what you'd have done, eh G-Unit?
Puh-lease!!
-
I think apportioning blame is a natural human trait. It starts at quite a young age; 'It wasn't me it was him/her/the dog/the cat'. It was frowned upon when I was young, it was 'telling tales'. On the other hand it was a good to own up and take responsibility. A harsh lesson really. If it wasn't you you weren't supposed to reveal the culprit. If it was you, no blaming someone else - own up! So either way you were the one in trouble. All you had for comfort was your integrity.
In the McCann case the parents freely admitted that they left the children in an unlocked apartment, but also strove to downplay it. They were naive, they checked the children regularly, they weren't far away (just like being in the garden), it was 'within the bounds of responsible parenting', and, most interestingly, ''I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."
Immediately after the disappearance the Portuguese authorities began to be blamed by the parents and others for various perceived shortcomings. They left the group all alone, they didn't close roads and airports, they didn't seal the apartment, they didn't collect forensics, they smoked (?) in the Police Station, they didn't offer refreshments, they drove too fast. They were ridiculed and given childish nicknames.
When the dogs were brought in from the UK they were labelled 'incredibly unreliable' and 'unscientific', with a case in the US being used as an example. Unfortunately the case was solved and the dogs were exonerated.
The SIO then wrote his book. He was blamed for hampering the search, libeling the children, and hurting the parents. Following a civil defamation trial most of the points weren't proved, except the one of harming the parents.
It seems the McCann parents did quite a lot of blaming, and those who support them do the same. Anyone who dares to point out that leaving children home alone isn't 'responsible', that the PJ carried out a huge task to the best of their ability, that police dogs are incredibly useful or that Amaral's book didn't hamper the search is attacked. They are accused of lacking empathy, telling lies, being stupid, and trolling.
It seems to me that the parents have blamed everyone for everything which has befallen them, and done their utmost to escape any blame themselves. Perhaps it has helped them to cope, but they ran the risk of 'protesting too much' and it has resulted in people becoming interested, researching the case, and deciding that the parents aren't convincing.
a totally subjective post highlighting your biased viewpoint
-
The McCanns, it seems, should have
1)publicly apologised for the "neglect",
2) asked to be prosecuted for it, despite the fact that no neglect law had been broken in Portugal
3)stated publicly that they were solely responsible for Madeleine's fate, no one else was to blame
4)allowed the police to build a case against them without question or any murmur of dissent,
5) agreed that the dogs were infallible and therefore that their daughter was almost certainly dead,
6) answered all self-incriminating questions put to them,
7) Not complained about any shortcomings within the investigation (despite the fact that these had been remarked upon by other professionals and despite the fact that the investigation had turned on them as number one suspects)
8) allowed the bent ex-cop to profit from the case by libelling them from start to finish, without complaint
9) allowed the British media to libel and smear them, without complaint
Anything else?
-
The McCanns, it seems, should have
1)publicly apologised for the "neglect",
2) asked to be prosecuted for it, despite the fact that no neglect law had been broken in Portugal
3)stated publicly that they were solely responsible for Madeleine's fate, no one else was to blame
4)allowed the police to build a case against them without question or any murmur of dissent,
5) agreed that the dogs were infallible and therefore that their daughter was almost certainly dead,
6) answered all self-incriminating questions put to them,
7) Not complained about any shortcomings within the investigation (despite the fact that these had been remarked upon by other professionals and despite the fact that the investigation had turned on them as number one suspects)
8) allowed the bent ex-cop to profit from the case by libelling them from start to finish, without complaint
9) allowed the British media to libel and smear them, without complaint
Anything else?
yes...they should come on this forum and answer question...any innocent person would it seems
-
.......and yet again we see the self flaggerating, poor me act by the mccann supporters on behalf of their heroes.
I must remember...
They did nothing wrong
They did nothing wrong
They did nothing wrong.......
Well if you repeat something enough times some people will believe it.
However, not if you have even a basic measure of common sense.
I wonder how many millions upon millions of people, would never have 'done a mccann' even before 2007 ?
-
yes...they should come on this forum and answer question...any innocent person would it seems
Of course they should. They could then apologise to each "sceptic" personally for causing such discomfort and upset to them.
-
Of course they should. They could then apologise to each "sceptic" personally for causing such discomfort and upset to them.
No, just Madeleine.
For exhibiting 'responsible parenting skills'.
-
I think apportioning blame is a natural human trait. It starts at quite a young age; 'It wasn't me it was him/her/the dog/the cat'. It was frowned upon when I was young, it was 'telling tales'. On the other hand it was a good to own up and take responsibility. A harsh lesson really. If it wasn't you you weren't supposed to reveal the culprit. If it was you, no blaming someone else - own up! So either way you were the one in trouble. All you had for comfort was your integrity.
In the McCann case the parents freely admitted that they left the children in an unlocked apartment, but also strove to downplay it. They were naive, they checked the children regularly, they weren't far away (just like being in the garden), it was 'within the bounds of responsible parenting', and, most interestingly, ''I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."
Immediately after the disappearance the Portuguese authorities began to be blamed by the parents and others for various perceived shortcomings. They left the group all alone, they didn't close roads and airports, they didn't seal the apartment, they didn't collect forensics, they smoked (?) in the Police Station, they didn't offer refreshments, they drove too fast. They were ridiculed and given childish nicknames.
When the dogs were brought in from the UK they were labelled 'incredibly unreliable' and 'unscientific', with a case in the US being used as an example. Unfortunately the case was solved and the dogs were exonerated.
The SIO then wrote his book. He was blamed for hampering the search, libeling the children, and hurting the parents. Following a civil defamation trial most of the points weren't proved, except the one of harming the parents.
It seems the McCann parents did quite a lot of blaming, and those who support them do the same. Anyone who dares to point out that leaving children home alone isn't 'responsible', that the PJ carried out a huge task to the best of their ability, that police dogs are incredibly useful or that Amaral's book didn't hamper the search is attacked. They are accused of lacking empathy, telling lies, being stupid, and trolling.
It seems to me that the parents have blamed everyone for everything which has befallen them, and done their utmost to escape any blame themselves. Perhaps it has helped them to cope, but they ran the risk of 'protesting too much' and it has resulted in people becoming interested, researching the case, and deciding that the parents aren't convincing.
In the same vein, why do you think Amaral is unable to shoulder any part of the blame whatsoever for his own downfall?
-
In the same vein, why do you think Amaral is unable to shoulder any part of the blame whatsoever for his own downfall?
The unshakable belief he is in the right and should shoulder no responsibility for his own actions?
-
In the same vein, why do you think Amaral is unable to shoulder any part of the blame whatsoever for his own downfall?
I have to say the two sides exhibit similar views on the world. Amaral blamed the British Ambassador, media attention, Leicester Police, and UK political pressures for his team's failures. It can't be denied that the PJ were subjected to lots of pressure and advice from the world and his wife. Would any other police force have insisted on investigating the group immediately and thoroughly in the face of those pressures? It's hard to say as I can't recall anything similar. He has acknowledged that it was a mistake not to.
-
The unshakable belief he is in the right and should shoulder no responsibility for his own actions?
If his peers believed he was right he wouldn't have been removed from the investigation.
If the libel court judge believed he was in the right he wouldn't have lost everything he earned from his book.
He lost material goods because of his actions yet is deemed a humble hero.
The McCanns lost their child yet are deemed despicable.......
-
If his peers believed he was right he wouldn't have been removed from the investigation.
If the libel court judge believed he was in the right he wouldn't have lost everything he earned from his book.
He lost material goods because of his actions yet is deemed a humble hero.
The McCanns lost their child yet are deemed despicable.......
Its a funny old life
-
Its a funny old life
And it says an awful lot about people today.
-
And it says an awful lot about people today.
I think it says a lot about PR and media management. The parents wanted to use the media to publicise the disappearance. As Jon Corner warned, they then became the story. Huge media support turned into huge media vilification. The population of two countries watched, read, listened and formed opinions. Some formed stronger opinions and here we all are, years later.
-
If his peers believed he was right he wouldn't have been removed from the investigation.
If the libel court judge believed he was in the right he wouldn't have lost everything he earned from his book.
He lost material goods because of his actions yet is deemed a humble hero.
The McCanns lost their child yet are deemed despicable.......
Red bit: Oh but he would have been removed.
The libel case has not reach the buffers yet.
Some folk may think Sr Amaral is a noble folk hero and that the McCanns are the most slighted couple in the universe. I share neither view.
-
Please say where in Kate's book she wrote that, I have read Kate's book and I really don't remember her saying it. Please give me a page number.
I had the book on kindle at one stage, no more, it is definely in there and not plucked out of my imagination...so many people here have it in physical or digital form, I am sure someone will oblige...or maybe not
-
I had the book on kindle at one stage, no more, it is definely in there and not plucked out of my imagination...so many people here have it in physical or digital form, I am sure someone will oblige...or maybe not
or maybe you have quoted it incorrectly
-
Can we keep it reasonably polite please.
-
If his peers believed he was right he wouldn't have been removed from the investigation.
If the libel court judge believed he was in the right he wouldn't have lost everything he earned from his book.
He lost material goods because of his actions yet is deemed a humble hero.
The McCanns lost their child yet are deemed despicable.......
His peers gave evidence for him in the defamation action I believe.
The trial is not yet over. We could still have rounds 2,3 or even 4 to come.
He has not yet lost his goods.
People love an underdog.
The McCanns lost a child and became suspects in the case.
-
His peers gave evidence for him in the defamation action I believe.
The trial is not yet over. We could still have rounds 2,3 or even 4 to come.
He has not yet lost his goods.
People love an underdog.
The McCanns lost a child and became suspects in the case.
No one likes a bent cop
-
apart from a few hundred "sceptics".
They think he's been cleared
-
I don't recall Tony Bennett's status as an "underdog" winning him much public sympathy, and the same goes for Amaral. He can't seem to muster much of an army of support in his own country for a start.
-
Please say where in Kate's book she wrote that, I have read Kate's book and I really don't remember her saying it. Please give me a page number.
As I was saying before being rudely interrupted and accused, I had the kindle version which I lost but have managed to retrieive the info, here you go, chapter 8
Quote
Had Madeleine been specifically targeted, either for herself or because someone knew that apartment 5A would be a breeze to raid? Not only did its corner position allow for easy access and escape, but, unlike many other residences, it had no protective wrought-iron bars at the windows and no security light.
Could Madeleine’s apparently excessive tiredness on that last Thursday afternoon have been caused by some kind of tranquillizer administered earlier in the day, or even the night before? It had been noticeable, but then we’d been approaching the end of our break and the children had all been extremely active for almost a week. It might simply have been, as we’d thought at the time, the holiday catching up with her. Inevitably, though, since we cannot yet know for sure, a little nugget of doubt remains.
Unqute
-
Only the McCanns said Madeleine was tired and worn out. DP said they were happy at 6:30 not worn out or asleep. No nanny said Madeleine was tired. Yet another inconsistency.
-
Only the McCanns said Madeleine was tired and worn out. DP said they were happy at 6:30 not worn out or asleep. No nanny said Madeleine was tired. Yet another inconsistency.
She probably was tired but no more much than any other day ..a three year old all day at a creche, doing swimming and sailing and whatever else, going to the pool with parents in between too, of course she would be tired rather than being drugged the night before !!! In some ridiculous "dry run" of an abduction honestly! or the next day! during the day
Neither scenarios sound logical or plausible in any way shape or form IMO
My question was who would KM think drugged her earlier in the day!!!
-
I think she would be tired on WED with the sleep she missed on TUE but apparently she never stopped - a hyperactive child. Be a monster chase me usually at the playground until 6:30 except for 3 May.
"She's go so much energy Madeleine and that was one thing even our friends commented on while we were there. Wow she keeps going." KM
The clean couple and CC
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/05_02/mccannPA270507_468x646.jpg)
-
Only the McCanns said Madeleine was tired and worn out. DP said they were happy at 6:30 not worn out or asleep. No nanny said Madeleine was tired. Yet another inconsistency.
So you don't believe that the children were tired or worn out? Is tiredness a constant state or something which develops over the course of the day? Was DP a better judge of the children's state than their own mother?
-
So you don't believe that the children were tired or worn out? Is tiredness a constant state or something which develops over the course of the day? Was DP a better judge of the children's state than their own mother?
I don't care who is the better judge. Only the truth matters.
-
I don't care who is the better judge. Only the truth matters.
On the day she went missing Madeleine was so tired that she asked her mummy to carry her home.
-
On the day she went missing Madeleine was so tired that she asked her mummy to carry her home.
According to KM, well, since when has that source been the harbinger of truth?
You just cannot take everything uttered by the parents as unquestionable truth....theres a word Im looking for.....but just cant quite manage to nail the head on at the moment
Not saying she lied on this particular issue...just hoping you get the general JIST
As its tumbleweed day I shall see you later
(http://philadams.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/tumbleweed.jpg)
-
So you don't believe that the children were tired or worn out? Is tiredness a constant state or something which develops over the course of the day? Was DP a better judge of the children's state than their own mother?
Kate was certainly a better judge of knowing if Maddie was drugged that day to make her tired, being an anaesthetists. A specialist field in putting people under sedation. knowing, weight, height and what drug to use should have been easy for her to deduce?
Also, being a doctor she did check to see if the twins were breathing. Strange she sould think they were drugged as the reason for them not waking up and not the reason she gave earlier i.e they were very tired. So what is it to be: drugged or sound sleep? oh the changes, the changes.
Trying to make a story fit just makes it all seem too messy. Playing the detective makes me more suspicious