Hindsight: Some posters just cannot get their heads around the concept.

[gilet]

I hope Admin and mods will forgive me for bringing this post here and answering rather than disrupting the 5A distances thread as would appear to have been the aim of the poster with his off-topic contribution to that thread.

Understandable to trample the apartment  ?


Understandable to leave 3 children alone   ?

Yes and Yes for these reasons.

The principal reason is that your question (as do all your responses) lacks the understanding that you are posting with the full benefit of hindsight. You appear completely unable to remove yourself from that perspective and to place yourself in the situation of people back in 2007 dealing with events at that time as these people were.

"Understandble to trample the apartment?"

A wholly pejorative term which I don't recall being used by the police in the files. Please correct me if I am wrong.

When you see a child is not in their bed, the first thing you do is think they are somewhere else in the house/apartment. Your initial reaction is not that the most unlikely thing, an abduction has taken place. Therefore before contacting police or anyone else you do a full search of the place, opening wardrobes (Children like to play games don't you know? Especially on holiday.), looking in every room, looking under objects, and generally making a bit of a mess. All to be expected. The police would not be happy if called out and the child was playing a game.

Then you start to think the worst. You can think of nothing else but the worst and you get others involved. Husband, neighbours etc. In this case husband and friends. As with your initial reaction, they don't want to think the worst and hope that they will find the child by looking where you may have missed.

How do I know this? Well I was involved in such a search many years ago as a neighbour. The family two doors away had a boy (about six as I recall) who was not playing in the garden as his mother had believed when she called him for tea. She had looked for him all over the house before going to the neighbour on the other side of my house where they also had a child about the same age, hoping he was playing there. I heard the commotion and immediately searched my garden and shed too (there was a path behind the gardens and my gate was never locked). The mother went home and searched her property again with the assistance of one of the neighbours while I went with some others looking along the path and out into the streets around. Luckily we found him wandering casually back from the local shop where he had tried to get some sweets though he had no money. The shopkeeper was standing at the shop door making sure he got back home OK.

All was well in that case and having acknowledged the shopkeeper who I knew well, I went with another neighbour and returned with the child via the back path to his house and mother. It was clear how frantic she had been in her initial search because there were objects lying all round near their small garden shed where she presumably thought he might have been and which she had presumably dragged out thinking he may have been behind them.

She hadn't immediately thought of an abduction. Such things were furthest from her mind in the initial few minutes of her search. However, by the time she realised he was not in the house or garden they came to the fore.

Back to PDL. I suspect that may well have been the perfectly normal reaction of Kate. Initial belief that there may have been an easy explanation. A visit to the toilet? Open that door. A visit to the kitchen for a drink? Open that door, look around. A game? Open the cupboards, pull the sofa from the wall. And so on, becoming more frantic by the second and all happening within less than a couple of minutes.

Then wanting to involve others in the search. Now starting to believe the worst but hoping they would prove her wrong. And the same initial reaction from Gerry and the friends, thinking the simplest solution most probable, checking all possibilities, becoming more frantic as each minute passes and they didn't find her and only then believing the worst scenario possible.

Then the demands for outside help. Knowing that time passing is in itself a threat if someone has taken the child. And the calls for police.

Perhaps only those who have been through such an experience as a parent can fully appreciate the panic but surely everyone can understand that the initial reaction is to panic and to do things which may not seem sensible with the benefit of hindsight? The emotions of a parent who cannot find their child far outweigh the training even of a doctor (maybe a couple of days of lectures on police practices) and intellect of a professional.

I am afraid stephen25000 your question shows no understanding of the situation and is written and asked entirely with the benefit of hindsight, something not available to the McCanns or their friends on that fateful night.


Understandable to leave 3 children alone?

This question also demonstrates the fact that you are posting without understanding the difference between your situation and that of the McCanns back in 2007.

It is perfectly clear (if you have actually read) the Archival report that the McCanns did not believe they were in fact leaving "3 children alone". That is why they were never charged with neglect or abandonment.

Kate and Gerry and the other Tapas members implemented what they believed was a system to ensure that the children were being cared for, in a way which they knew professional holiday organisations elsewhere implemented on a regular basis. Indeed their system was better than those the professionals offered in that they went into the premises which the professionals did not,  more often than those professionals.

They were within sight (if not sound) of the apartment and were lulled into a false sense of security by this and by their use of what, at the time, was a not uncommon holiday system of looking after the children.

There was no outcry about this system in other resorts or holiday locations till after the disappearance of Madeleine that I recall. It was only with hindsight that the failings were discussed. It was an accepted practice and as I say, the Tapas group believed that they had in fact gone a little further even than the professionals in their care.

But, you stephen25000 and others do not seem to understand any of this. You post as if before 2007, you had been decrying such child care systems vociferously. But you had not.

You are doing so with the benefit of that hindsight I referred to. As I say there was never an outcry previously. People accepted the system and used it willingly.

Gerry and Kate McCann must have immediately regretted their decision. Indeed they have told us that. They will live with the regrets for the rest of their lives no matter what happens in the future. If only they had had the benefit of hindsight that you post with now.

------

If, stephen25000, you have lacked the understanding in the past of that crucial difference between your posting now and the situation back in 2007 then I hope you will now appreciate it a little better.

If you have been posting with that understanding, though, I fear you have been demonstrating a horrific level of vindictiveness towards a couple who have admitted their mistake, who have done everything in their power to atone for that mistake but who you have chosen to continually vilify with your spammed and very glib remarks.

If you have some other explanation as to why you insist on posting these glib remarks about neglect which fly in the face of the remarks of the Archival report and which show absolutely no understanding of the fact that you are posting with the benefit of hindsight that was not available to the McCanns then I would be very interested in reading them.

If you don't provide any then I fear readers, like me, will either have to presume that you are posting without understanding the benefit of hindsight you have, or you are deliberately posting vindictively.

[Luz]

/snip/

When you see a child is not in their bed, the first thing you do is think they are somewhere else in the house/apartment. Your initial reaction is not that the most unlikely thing, an abduction has taken place. Therefore before contacting police or anyone else you do a full search of the place, opening wardrobes (Children like to play games don't you know? Especially on holiday.), looking in every room, looking under objects, and generally making a bit of a mess. All to be expected. The police would not be happy if called out and the child was playing a game.

Then you start to think the worst. You can think of nothing else but the worst and you get others involved. Husband, neighbours etc. In this case husband and friends. As with your initial reaction, they don't want to think the worst and hope that they will find the child by looking where you may have missed.

/snip/

Back to PDL. I suspect that may well have been the perfectly normal reaction of Kate. Initial belief that there may have been an easy explanation. A visit to the toilet? Open that door. A visit to the kitchen for a drink? Open that door, look around. A game? Open the cupboards, pull the sofa from the wall. And so on, becoming more frantic by the second and all happening within less than a couple of minutes.

/snip/

Then wanting to involve others in the search. Now starting to believe the worst but hoping they would prove her wrong. And the same initial reaction from Gerry and the friends, thinking the simplest solution most probable, checking all possibilities, becoming more frantic as each minute passes and they didn't find her and only then believing the worst scenario possible.

Then the demands for outside help. Knowing that time passing is in itself a threat if someone has taken the child. And the calls for police.

Perhaps only those who have been through such an experience as a parent can fully appreciate the panic but surely everyone can understand that the initial reaction is to panic and to do things which may not seem sensible with the benefit of hindsight? The emotions of a parent who cannot find their child far outweigh the training even of a doctor (maybe a couple of days of lectures on police practices) and intellect of a professional.

I am afraid stephen25000 your question shows no understanding of the situation and is written and asked entirely with the benefit of hindsight, something not available to the McCanns or their friends on that fateful night.


Understandable to leave 3 children alone?

This question also demonstrates the fact that you are posting without understanding the difference between your situation and that of the McCanns back in 2007.

It is perfectly clear (if you have actually read) the Archival report that the McCanns did not believe they were in fact leaving "3 children alone". That is why they were never charged with neglect or abandonment.

Kate and Gerry and the other Tapas members implemented what they believed was a system to ensure that the children were being cared for, in a way which they knew professional holiday organisations elsewhere implemented on a regular basis. Indeed their system was better than those the professionals offered in that they went into the premises which the professionals did not,  more often than those professionals.

They were within sight (if not sound) of the apartment and were lulled into a false sense of security by this and by their use of what, at the time, was a not uncommon holiday system of looking after the children.

There was no outcry about this system in other resorts or holiday locations till after the disappearance of Madeleine that I recall. It was only with hindsight that the failings were discussed. It was an accepted practice and as I say, the Tapas group believed that they had in fact gone a little further even than the professionals in their care.

But, you stephen25000 and others do not seem to understand any of this. You post as if before 2007, you had been decrying such child care systems vociferously. But you had not.

You are doing so with the benefit of that hindsight I referred to. As I say there was never an outcry previously. People accepted the system and used it willingly.

Gerry and Kate McCann must have immediately regretted their decision. Indeed they have told us that. They will live with the regrets for the rest of their lives no matter what happens in the future. If only they had had the benefit of hindsight that you post with now.

------

If, stephen25000, you have lacked the understanding in the past of that crucial difference between your posting now and the situation back in 2007 then I hope you will now appreciate it a little better.

If you have been posting with that understanding, though, I fear you have been demonstrating a horrific level of vindictiveness towards a couple who have admitted their mistake, who have done everything in their power to atone for that mistake but who you have chosen to continually vilify with your spammed and very glib remarks.

If you have some other explanation as to why you insist on posting these glib remarks about neglect which fly in the face of the remarks of the Archival report and which show absolutely no understanding of the fact that you are posting with the benefit of hindsight that was not available to the McCanns then I would be very interested in reading them.

If you don't provide any then I fear readers, like me, will either have to presume that you are posting without understanding the benefit of hindsight you have, or you are deliberately posting vindictively.

"Really?!!! She left the twins unguarded and ran to the Tapas to cry out: They have taken her... She admitted that as soon as she opened the bedroom door she knew the child had been abducted. When questioned (remember the 48 questions she refused to answer, she "NO COMMENT"). It was reiterated on many interviews, namely when she attended the trial to suppress G.Amaral's book - luckily it ended up showing their true colours - the well being of their child was never their priority, but their well being.

stephen 25000 got it very accurately.

[stephen25000]

I hope Admin and mods will forgive me for bringing this post here and answering rather than disrupting the 5A distances thread as would appear to have been the aim of the poster with his off-topic contribution to that thread.

Yes and Yes for these reasons.

The principal reason is that your question (as do all your responses) lacks the understanding that you are posting with the full benefit of hindsight. You appear completely unable to remove yourself from that perspective and to place yourself in the situation of people back in 2007 dealing with events at that time as these people were.

"Understandble to trample the apartment?"

A wholly pejorative term which I don't recall being used by the police in the files. Please correct me if I am wrong.

When you see a child is not in their bed, the first thing you do is think they are somewhere else in the house/apartment. Your initial reaction is not that the most unlikely thing, an abduction has taken place. Therefore before contacting police or anyone else you do a full search of the place, opening wardrobes (Children like to play games don't you know? Especially on holiday.), looking in every room, looking under objects, and generally making a bit of a mess. All to be expected. The police would not be happy if called out and the child was playing a game.

Then you start to think the worst. You can think of nothing else but the worst and you get others involved. Husband, neighbours etc. In this case husband and friends. As with your initial reaction, they don't want to think the worst and hope that they will find the child by looking where you may have missed.

How do I know this? Well I was involved in such a search many years ago as a neighbour. The family two doors away had a boy (about six as I recall) who was not playing in the garden as his mother had believed when she called him for tea. She had looked for him all over the house before going to the neighbour on the other side of my house where they also had a child about the same age, hoping he was playing there. I heard the commotion and immediately searched my garden and shed too (there was a path behind the gardens and my gate was never locked). The mother went home and searched her property again with the assistance of one of the neighbours while I went with some others looking along the path and out into the streets around. Luckily we found him wandering casually back from the local shop where he had tried to get some sweets though he had no money. The shopkeeper was standing at the shop door making sure he got back home OK.

All was well in that case and having acknowledged the shopkeeper who I knew well, I went with another neighbour and returned with the child via the back path to his house and mother. It was clear how frantic she had been in her initial search because there were objects lying all round near their small garden shed where she presumably thought he might have been and which she had presumably dragged out thinking he may have been behind them.

She hadn't immediately thought of an abduction. Such things were furthest from her mind in the initial few minutes of her search. However, by the time she realised he was not in the house or garden they came to the fore.

Back to PDL. I suspect that may well have been the perfectly normal reaction of Kate. Initial belief that there may have been an easy explanation. A visit to the toilet? Open that door. A visit to the kitchen for a drink? Open that door, look around. A game? Open the cupboards, pull the sofa from the wall. And so on, becoming more frantic by the second and all happening within less than a couple of minutes.

Then wanting to involve others in the search. Now starting to believe the worst but hoping they would prove her wrong. And the same initial reaction from Gerry and the friends, thinking the simplest solution most probable, checking all possibilities, becoming more frantic as each minute passes and they didn't find her and only then believing the worst scenario possible.

Then the demands for outside help. Knowing that time passing is in itself a threat if someone has taken the child. And the calls for police.

Perhaps only those who have been through such an experience as a parent can fully appreciate the panic but surely everyone can understand that the initial reaction is to panic and to do things which may not seem sensible with the benefit of hindsight? The emotions of a parent who cannot find their child far outweigh the training even of a doctor (maybe a couple of days of lectures on police practices) and intellect of a professional.

I am afraid stephen25000 your question shows no understanding of the situation and is written and asked entirely with the benefit of hindsight, something not available to the McCanns or their friends on that fateful night.


Understandable to leave 3 children alone?

This question also demonstrates the fact that you are posting without understanding the difference between your situation and that of the McCanns back in 2007.

It is perfectly clear (if you have actually read) the Archival report that the McCanns did not believe they were in fact leaving "3 children alone". That is why they were never charged with neglect or abandonment.

Kate and Gerry and the other Tapas members implemented what they believed was a system to ensure that the children were being cared for, in a way which they knew professional holiday organisations elsewhere implemented on a regular basis. Indeed their system was better than those the professionals offered in that they went into the premises which the professionals did not,  more often than those professionals.

They were within sight (if not sound) of the apartment and were lulled into a false sense of security by this and by their use of what, at the time, was a not uncommon holiday system of looking after the children.

There was no outcry about this system in other resorts or holiday locations till after the disappearance of Madeleine that I recall. It was only with hindsight that the failings were discussed. It was an accepted practice and as I say, the Tapas group believed that they had in fact gone a little further even than the professionals in their care.

But, you stephen25000 and others do not seem to understand any of this. You post as if before 2007, you had been decrying such child care systems vociferously. But you had not.

You are doing so with the benefit of that hindsight I referred to. As I say there was never an outcry previously. People accepted the system and used it willingly.

Gerry and Kate McCann must have immediately regretted their decision. Indeed they have told us that. They will live with the regrets for the rest of their lives no matter what happens in the future. If only they had had the benefit of hindsight that you post with now.

------

If, stephen25000, you have lacked the understanding in the past of that crucial difference between your posting now and the situation back in 2007 then I hope you will now appreciate it a little better.

If you have been posting with that understanding, though, I fear you have been demonstrating a horrific level of vindictiveness towards a couple who have admitted their mistake, who have done everything in their power to atone for that mistake but who you have chosen to continually vilify with your spammed and very glib remarks.

If you have some other explanation as to why you insist on posting these glib remarks about neglect which fly in the face of the remarks of the Archival report and which show absolutely no understanding of the fact that you are posting with the benefit of hindsight that was not available to the McCanns then I would be very interested in reading them.

If you don't provide any then I fear readers, like me, will either have to presume that you are posting without understanding the benefit of hindsight you have, or you are deliberately posting vindictively.

As expected, mere diversion.

The children were left unattended in a foreign country, which they did not know, and had little knowledge of the local language.


hindsight is not essential in seeing common sense.

There is no excuse under the sun for doing what they did.

Their lack of common sense in leaving 3 young children in an unlocked apartment goes beyond reason.


As to the case, it was shelved, and if you care to read other threads on here the findings are plain to see, and there is no need to cherry pick the parts you prefer, and the others you wish to ignore.

..........irrelevant  comment removed .......

[gilet]

"Really?!!! She left the twins unguarded and ran to the Tapas to cry out: They have taken her... She admitted that as soon as she opened the bedroom door she knew the child had been abducted. When questioned (remember the 48 questions she refused to answer, she "NO COMMENT"). It was reiterated on many interviews, namely when she attended the trial to suppress G.Amaral's book - luckily it ended up showing their true colours - the well being of their child was never their priority, but their well being.

stephen 25000 got it very accurately.

Exactly, on realising that Madeleine was not in the apartment, she did as i suggested, believe the worst possible scenario.

I also pointed out that in the panic of the situation she was not acting as logically as those who are posting here with the benefit of hindsight demand she should have been acting. Her reactions were haphazard and unpredictable as in all cases of panic.

Your post once again goes to prove my point that anti McCanns are ignoring the fact that they are posting with the benefit of hindsight in order to make vindictive points. Thank you.

[gilet]

My response in blue.

As expected, mere diversion.

As expected a glib answer. This is not diversion at all but a thoughtful response to the posts you glibly make about neglect. It addresses the fundamental flaw in all your posts which you seem unable to either see or you choose to completely ignore.

Whichever, the flaw in your posts exists and makes the content of them invalid.

The children were left unattended in a foreign country, which they did not know, and had little knowledge of the local language.

Utterly irrelevant. The children were not left unattended out in the open in that country, wandering the streets looking for people to speak to, but in a small apartment in which they knew the location of the bathroom, bedrooms, kitchen and living room. Your crazy exaggeration of the situation makes you look rather frantic in your effort to defend your posting.


hindsight is not essential in seeing common sense.

Hindsight is essential in current posting if genuine understanding is to be achieved. If you have any actual response to the content of my post other than this inane generalisation I would be interested in seeing it.

There is no excuse under the sun for doing what they did.

Their lack of common sense in leaving 3 young children in an unlocked apartment goes beyond reason.

Having demonstrated the precise "excuse"/reason for the actions being to a large part excusable (when hindsight is removed) I disagree entirely with you.  I have shown that this comment from you is demonstrating either a complete lack of understanding of the fact that you are posting with the benefit of hindsight or a deliberate ignoring of that fact in order to present a vindictive and inaccurate portrayal of the McCann actions. By repeating yourself and making the same glib statements about neglect, you are not answering the allegation I have made, merely confirming it.

As to the case, it was shelved, and if you care to read other threads on here the findings are plain to see, and there is no need to cherry pick the parts you prefer, and the others you wish to ignore.

Yesterday, I made it perfectly clear that you are not able to separate out the two cases which were dealt with in the Archival report. The case of neglect against the McCanns which was thoroughly dismissed with a very carefully outlined legal reasoning and the case of the disappearance of Madeleine which was shelved. Once again you confirm your inability to understand the difference. It does you no credit that you have not managed to separate the two. It merely confirms that you lack a proper understanding of the case.

......  response to irrelevant comment removed .....

[Luz]

If it was not tragic I would call it funny.

People are still holding to the neglect myth to explain a child's demise. If there was simple neglect, that was not the reason why this child disappeared.

I believe the little evidence there is that she was dead in 5A on the 3rd of May 2007 and a big cover up operation was put forward to avoid finding her little body and what it could reveal.

[gilet]

If it was not tragic I would call it funny.

People are still holding to the neglect myth to explain a child's demise. If there was simple neglect, that was not the reason why this child disappeared.

I believe the little evidence there is that she was dead in 5A on the 3rd of May 2007 and a big cover up operation was put forward to avoid finding her little body and what it could reveal.

I have to agree with you about this neglect proposition being a myth but my reasons for doing so are probably not the same as yours. It's good to see that you are also debunking stephen25000's comments albeit from a different direction.

I am glad that you have confirmed that there is only "little evidence" that Madeleine may be dead. There is, of course, absolutely no proof of that. And there is equally only "little evidence" of potential abduction and absolutely no proof of that either.

I am sorry that on the basis of this "little evidence" that you choose to ignore the fact that there is also a possibility that she may be alive. I would have hoped that all posters could bring themselves to have hope in their hearts for an innocent little child. Apparently, from your post it is not possible in your case.

I would be most interested if you could open up a new thread with all the evidence for this "big cover-up". I mean real evidence, not the ramblings of Amaral, of course. Please do so at your earliest convenience because, as I say, it would be very interesting to see the documents and full evidence to support the theory. I have heard so much about this "big cover-up" and nobody seems to post the direct evidence. I look forward to the new topic.

[Lyall]

There's no excuse for leaving children alone at night in apartments with doors and windows unlocked, gilet.

None.

[stephen25000]

"Really?!!! She left the twins unguarded and ran to the Tapas to cry out: They have taken her... She admitted that as soon as she opened the bedroom door she knew the child had been abducted. When questioned (remember the 48 questions she refused to answer, she "NO COMMENT"). It was reiterated on many interviews, namely when she attended the trial to suppress G.Amaral's book - luckily it ended up showing their true colours - the well being of their child was never their priority, but their well being.

stephen 25000 got it very accurately.

Thanks Luz.

[gilet]

There's no excuse for leaving children alone at night in apartments with doors and windows unlocked, gilet.

None.

I beg to differ. Your post indicates yet more lack of understanding of the fact that this took place in 2007. Six years of accumulated hindsight and complete indifference to the fact that this was in reality a not uncommon and clearly acceptable action back then, no matter how much you may care to ignore that fact. 

If you can demonstrate that prior to 2007 you were showing concerns about this practice then I may accept your post as more reasonable. Till then I will continue to point out that you are posting with hindsight and apparently not recognising that fact.

[Lyall]

I beg to differ. Your post indicates yet more lack of understanding of the fact that this took place in 2007. Six years of accumulated hindsight and complete indifference to the fact that this was in reality a not uncommon and clearly acceptable action back then, no matter how much you may care to ignore that fact. 

If you can demonstrate that prior to 2007 you were showing concerns about this practice then I may accept your post as more reasonable. Till then I will continue to point out that you are posting with hindsight and apparently not recognising that fact.

It's common sense.

Your obvious desperation to absolve the parents from any blame at all doesn't assist your other arguments I think - you just appear mad when you attempt to tell the world it's perfectly fine to leave three children alone like that.

[stephen25000]

What beggers belief is that the people who believe the abduction fairy tale still defend the Mccanns, if they hadn't gone out, there wouldn't have been an abduction.

Even with that some try to make the excuse it could have still happened.

Well there's a finite probability that all the molecules and  atoms  of gases could aggregate in one corner of my living room, but it doesn't mean it will happen.

[gilet]

The only reason someone would have all their friends walk round the apartment was to either divert attention of spoil evidence. There was infact absolutely no reason why they should have been in the apartment given that KM said she searched it 3 times and if they wanted to help, they should have all gone in different directions searching and not congragated in the apartment.

There is no reason why any of them should have left their kids alone and then to run about leaving 2 kids alone after 'they've taken her' is stupid.

You need to stop advocating her behaviour and their behaviour. Them leaving 3 kids alone contrabuted to this, if you beleive the abduction scenario but neglect carries a shorter prison sentance than murder-I believe.

Yet again you are posting with the benefit of hindsight and are totally unwilling or unfortunately unable to understand the reality of the situation.

I wholly disagree with you and I am sure others do as well. There was every reason for them to have searched once again. Panic, lack of willingness to believe such a terrible thing could have happened. The need to comfort Kate. The fact that the twins were still there. The fact that anyone with any real understanding of such situations knows that even the police demand someone stays there in case the child returns all mean that the presence in the apartment of some or all of those people at some stage in the early moments after the disappearance was both normal and, in fact, essential.

Your unwillingness to countenance any of those issues seems to indicate a very narrow-minded approach to the case.

As for neglect I will reply about this when replying to the later repetitive post you have made.

[stephen25000]

Yet again you are posting with the benefit of hindsight and are totally unwilling or unfortunately unable to understand the reality of the situation.

I wholly disagree with you and I am sure others do as well. There was every reason for them to have searched once again. Panic, lack of willingness to believe such a terrible thing could have happened. The need to comfort Kate. The fact that the twins were still there. The fact that anyone with any real understanding of such situations knows that even the police demand someone stays there in case the child returns all mean that the presence in the apartment of some or all of those people at some stage in the early moments after the disappearance was both normal and, in fact, essential.

Your unwillingness to countenance any of those issues seems to indicate a very narrow-minded approach to the case.

As for neglect I will reply about this when replying to the later repetitive post you have made.

You criticize others for being narrow minded, yet all you do is defend the Mccanns to the hilt, and nothing else.

[Redblossom]

I beg to differ. Your post indicates yet more lack of understanding of the fact that this took place in 2007. Six years of accumulated hindsight and complete indifference to the fact that this was in reality a not uncommon and clearly acceptable action back then, no matter how much you may care to ignore that fact. 

If you can demonstrate that prior to 2007 you were showing concerns about this practice then I may accept your post as more reasonable. Till then I will continue to point out that you are posting with hindsight and apparently not recognising that fact.

This has nothing to do with hindsight. It is common practice and common sense to, IF, you are going to leave your children on their own, and are going to be out of ear and eyeshot of them, you at least secure the house. To say to Lyall it is common practice and acceptable to do the opposite is disingenuous, as that was the gist of his/her comment.