Kate McCann exposes security breach at MW

[gilet]

@ gilet

From Madeleine :

'It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.'

So in Kate's rather strange, responsibility free mind, it was not her and her feckless husband who put their children in danger but, and please note her absolutely hypocritical horror, the poor receptionist who made them vulnerable by the leaving of a note in the staff message book.

Priceless !!

As I said this would be better in its own thread rather than being used to disrupt a thread on an entirely different topic.

There is nothing hypocritical or strange about Kate McCann commenting on such a security breach.

If I went into a restaurant and saw that my full name and address was visible to every other diner then I would be appalled at the fact that others could recognise that I was not at home at that time.

This security breach could indeed have contributed to the lack of safety of the children by exposing them to abduction.

The McCanns have openly admitted their error of judgement. It is not hypocritical to then expose the fact that the restaurant itself could also have contributed to an abduction.

I really cannot understand how you think it is hypocritical to expose such a blatant security breach.

[faithlilly]

@ gilet

From Madeleine :

'It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.'

So in Kate's rather strange, responsibility free mind, it was not her and her feckless husband who put their children in danger but, and please note her absolutely hypocritical horror, the poor receptionist who made them vulnerable by the leaving of a note in the staff message book.

Priceless !!

As I said this would be better in its own thread rather than being used to disrupt a thread on an entirely different topic.

There is nothing hypocritical or strange about Kate McCann commenting on such a security breach.

If I went into a restaurant and saw that my full name and address was visible to every other diner then I would be appalled at the fact that others could recognise that I was not at home at that time.

This security breach could indeed have contributed to the lack of safety of the children by exposing them to abduction.

The McCanns have openly admitted their error of judgement. It is not hypocritical to then expose the fact that the restaurant itself could also have contributed to an abduction.

I really cannot understand how you think it is hypocritical to expose such a blatant security breach.

That's a bit like saying I've not got heart disease because I've smoked twenty a day for fifty years but because they didn't put health warning on the cigarette packets.

It's the kind of nonsense argument made by someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions.

[gilet]

That's a bit like saying I've not got heart disease because I've smoked twenty a day for fifty years but because they didn't put health warning on the cigarette packets.

It's the kind of nonsense argument made by someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions.

Absolutely not.

Are you saying health warnings should not be put on cigarettes? Are you saying it is perfectly acceptable for restaurants to leave very personal information available to all and sundry with the possible security implications?

Or what is your point.

Because Kate McCann recognises this security issue which you seem to fail to recognise does not make her wrong.

It makes her absolutely right and you wrong in my opinion. This was a blatant breach of confidential information with potentially dire implications.

Why are you apparently defending people who expose children to danger in this way?

I really cannot see any objection to Kate McCann pointing out that the reference on that booking sheet was clearly dangerous to her children.

Your guess that she is exposing this for the reason you suggest is simply your opinion. It is not mine though because I think such security breaches should be exposed.

[gilet]

Why are you apparently defending people who expose children to danger in this way?
*****
Oh the irony

So leaving an open apartment accessable to all and sundry is NOT lapse in security
So telling complete strangers in the restaraunt and elsewhere what they were doing is NOT lapse in security
So leaving three babies alone out of ear and eyeshot is NOT exposing them to danger of any kind whatsoever

The brass neck of some, too funny for words, the blame shifting in this case is too staggering for words


BOI

So you continually lie about having me on ignore. Why am I not surprised?

And you post a very rude term to me.

Why am I not surprised.

It is rather early, don't you think for your abuse to begin.

As for the rest of your comment. There is nothing ironical in expressing concern about a security lapse on the part of the restaurant staff.

The McCanns have admitted their mistakes.

However that does NOT excuse the restaurant for their lapse.

[gilet]

Blah Blah,  its up to me and me only when I decide when to read and respond to blocked people,whenever the fancy takes me, and what rude term is that then? your wailing of *abuse* at every poster who disagrees with you here is so terribly tiresome, when you engage in the most awful abuse yourself, calling people liars with your knee jerk bile filled reactions, how many of those posts have you made today? Did you count? You have been on here all day posting negativity hour on hour on hour

It is just that you have proclaimed to this forum on at least two occasions that you have me on ignore. Therefore you have lied.  When people lie about little things....

It is up to me as and when I post and only me. It is absolutely none of your business.

There is nothing negative about making it very clear that people like Icabodcrane cannot back up his claim about Kennedy, that Matthew Wyse does not know that there is no police station in PDL and that he cannot back up his claim about security escorts. There is nothing negative about my laughing at your frantic back pedalling.

And why am I not surprised that your only comment is a blather of abuse towards me while you ignore the very valid point I made regarding the security flaw in the restaurant?

 

[gilet]

It truly beggars belief that Faithlilly and Redblossom cannot understand that the security breach at the Restaurant could have contributed to the abduction.

[faithlilly]

That's a bit like saying I've not got heart disease because I've smoked twenty a day for fifty years but because they didn't put health warning on the cigarette packets.

It's the kind of nonsense argument made by someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions.

Absolutely not.

Are you saying health warnings should not be put on cigarettes? Are you saying it is perfectly acceptable for restaurants to leave very personal information available to all and sundry with the possible security implications?

Or what is your point.

Because Kate McCann recognises this security issue which you seem to fail to recognise does not make her wrong.

It makes her absolutely right and you wrong in my opinion. This was a blatant breach of confidential information with potentially dire implications.

Why are you apparently defending people who expose children to danger in this way?

I really cannot see any objection to Kate McCann pointing out that the reference on that booking sheet was clearly dangerous to her children.

Your guess that she is exposing this for the reason you suggest is simply your opinion. It is not mine though because I think such security breaches should be exposed.

The receptionist was not responsible for the security of Madeleine and her siblings, her feckless parents were and while I realise that must be an atrocious burden of guilt for any parent to bare and also understand the temptation to try and dilute that guilt there is no getting away from the fact that if the McCanns had been looking after their children in their apartment as the should have been, their children would not have been in any danger, receptionist note or no receptionist note.

[gilet]

Blah Blah,  its up to me and me only when I decide when to read and respond to blocked people,whenever the fancy takes me, and what rude term is that then? your wailing of *abuse* at every poster who disagrees with you here is so terribly tiresome, when you engage in the most awful abuse yourself, calling people liars with your knee jerk bile filled reactions, how many of those posts have you made today? Did you count? You have been on here all day posting negativity hour on hour on hour

It is just that you have proclaimed to this forum on at least two occasions that you have me on ignore. Therefore you have lied.  When people lie about little things....

It is up to me as and when I post and only me. It is absolutely none of your business.

There is nothing negative about making it very clear that people like Icabodcrane cannot back up his claim about Kennedy, that Matthew Wyse does not know that there is no police station in PDL and that he cannot back up his claim about security escorts. There is nothing negative about my laughing at your frantic back pedalling.

And why am I not surprised that your only comment is a blather of abuse towards me while you ignore the very valid point I made regarding the security flaw in the restaurant?

Blah Blah, throwing dummy out now are we with irrelevancies? care to explain the horrid term I used to refer to you? interesting ommission

No omission on my part. I referred the matter to Admin rather than deal with you who I now know to be a liar. The abuse is still in your post for all to see.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

to my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence

doesn't sound like a bad accusation or passing the book to me.

[Mrs. B]

It truly beggars belief that Faithlilly and Redblossom cannot understand that the security breach at the Restaurant could have contributed to the abduction.

Yes, it could have been a contributing factor, though as the AG pointed out, nobody could have foreseen that somebody would abduct a child from the resort & that must also include the staff at the restaurant.

[gilet]

That's a bit like saying I've not got heart disease because I've smoked twenty a day for fifty years but because they didn't put health warning on the cigarette packets.

It's the kind of nonsense argument made by someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions.

Absolutely not.

Are you saying health warnings should not be put on cigarettes? Are you saying it is perfectly acceptable for restaurants to leave very personal information available to all and sundry with the possible security implications?

Or what is your point.

Because Kate McCann recognises this security issue which you seem to fail to recognise does not make her wrong.

It makes her absolutely right and you wrong in my opinion. This was a blatant breach of confidential information with potentially dire implications.

Why are you apparently defending people who expose children to danger in this way?

I really cannot see any objection to Kate McCann pointing out that the reference on that booking sheet was clearly dangerous to her children.

Your guess that she is exposing this for the reason you suggest is simply your opinion. It is not mine though because I think such security breaches should be exposed.

The receptionist was not responsible for the security of Madeleine and her siblings, her feckless parents were and while I realise that must be an atrocious burden of guilt for any parent to bare and also understand the temptation to try and dilute that guilt there is no getting away from the fact that if the McCanns had been looking after their children in their apartment as the should have been, their children would not have been in any danger, receptionist note or no receptionist note.

I never said that the parents were not responsible. They have freely admitted this fact.

The fact that you still refuse to acknowledge that the security flaw at the restaurant was both wrong and could have been a contributory factor to an abduction is very revealing of your mindset.

Just because the parents were in part to blame does not mean that others did not play a part.

The fact is that the quotation you posted refers to a serious breach of protocol and security on the part of the restaurant.

I gave the parallel example earlier of a restaurant having diner's addresses on view for all to see. Should the diner be robbed because of such a security breach the logic of your one-sided argument is that the robbery is the fault of the diner and the restaurant bears no responsibility whatsoever because the diner should in fact have been at home.

As I said it beggars belief.

[Redblossom]

It truly beggars belief that Faithlilly and Redblossom cannot understand that the security breach at the Restaurant could have contributed to the abduction.

Then provide the note and evidence of when and where it was displayed

[faithlilly]

That's a bit like saying I've not got heart disease because I've smoked twenty a day for fifty years but because they didn't put health warning on the cigarette packets.

It's the kind of nonsense argument made by someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions.

Absolutely not.

Are you saying health warnings should not be put on cigarettes? Are you saying it is perfectly acceptable for restaurants to leave very personal information available to all and sundry with the possible security implications?

Or what is your point.

Because Kate McCann recognises this security issue which you seem to fail to recognise does not make her wrong.

It makes her absolutely right and you wrong in my opinion. This was a blatant breach of confidential information with potentially dire implications.

Why are you apparently defending people who expose children to danger in this way?

I really cannot see any objection to Kate McCann pointing out that the reference on that booking sheet was clearly dangerous to her children.

Your guess that she is exposing this for the reason you suggest is simply your opinion. It is not mine though because I think such security breaches should be exposed.

The receptionist was not responsible for the security of Madeleine and her siblings, her feckless parents were and while I realise that must be an atrocious burden of guilt for any parent to bare and also understand the temptation to try and dilute that guilt there is no getting away from the fact that if the McCanns had been looking after their children in their apartment as the should have been, their children would not have been in any danger, receptionist note or no receptionist note.

I never said that the parents were not responsible. They have freely admitted this fact.

The fact that you still refuse to acknowledge that the security flaw at the restaurant was both wrong and could have been a contributory factor to an abduction is very revealing of your mindset.

Just because the parents were in part to blame does not mean that others did not play a part.

The fact is that the quotation you posted refers to a serious breach of protocol and security on the part of the restaurant.

I gave the parallel example earlier of a restaurant having diner's addresses on view for all to see. Should the diner be robbed because of such a security breach the logic of your one-sided argument is that the robbery is the fault of the diner and the restaurant bears no responsibility whatsoever because the diner should in fact have been at home.

As I said it beggars belief.

We have no verification that either guests or visitors had access to the book simply Kate's assumption that they may have had and as she also assumed that three small children would be safe in a dark, unlocked apartment with access to a main road  I think I'll be forgiven for questioning her judgement on that one too.

[Redblossom]

to my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence

doesn't sound like a bad accusation or passing the book to me.

no different to suggesting creche staff drugged madeleine duriing the day and thats why she was so tired

[gilet]

We have no verification that either guests or visitors had access to the book simply Kate's assumption that they may have had and as she also assumed that three small children would be safe in a dark, unlocked apartment with access to a main road  I think I'll be forgiven for questioning her judgement on that one too.

The evidence is clear enough in the book itself. If other diners did not have access then certainly all the staff did. That in itself is bad enough.

If you wish to discuss the other point please have the decency to open a new thread to do so because it is not what this thread is about.