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

[gilet]

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.

As I have pointed out in other posts and in the OP, the actions of the McCanns were neither considered by the AG of Portugal to have been neglect. They were in fact common at the time in many holiday locations.

The fact that they were not available in PDL officially was countered by the McCanns and their friends by increasing the frequency of the checks in comparison to professional checks and by the fact that they entered the premises which professional checks at the time did not do.

Your comment that no abduction could have taken place if the parents had been in that apartment is not accurate. It could have happened when the parents were asleep for example. There simply is no way of knowing what might have happened in other situations and your speculation is entirely that, speculation.

For example, I recall a very vivid poster on a Euroopean overnight sleeper train I was on a few years ago explaining that there had been a spate of attacks on people's belongings whilst asleep in the tiny sleeping compartments and to be extra vigilant. At the time I found it hard to believe that thefts could take place in such tiny spaces while people slept in them but they did. In similar ways an abduction could have happened with the parents in that apartment if the abductors had been sufficiently determined.

[gilet]

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.

It may well be common sense now.

It was not common sense back in 2007 or the professional holiday organisations would not have been offering exactly the same kind of service.

Your post is the perfect example of someone not recognising the significant factor of hindsight.

And I think your ad hominem abuse of me actually reflects your desperation rather than mine.

I am making precise and accurate points regarding the difference between the situation back in 2007 and the present.

You have made an abusive attack on me which shows you have completely misunderstood the point I am making (deliberately or otherwise).

At no point have I suggested that with the benefit of hindsight anyone should leave children in such circumstances. I have explained that it is with the hindsight resulting from the disappearance of Madeleine that the holiday organisations and all sensible people have changed their opinion. But that does not in any way change the fact that it was a perfectly acceptable action back in 2007 and there was no outcry about it prior to the disappearance of Madeleine.

Hindsight is the factor that anti McCann posters cannot comprehend. That is becoming ever more apparent as this thread develops.

[Lyall]

Did their friends do the same, gilet? Did they leave doors unlocked?

[gilet]

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

I am afraid that is your blinkered perception of my posting. It may well be that the errors of judgement such as yours in not appreciating the importance of hindsight when posting, the factual errors such as those in Hideho's films etc are largely on the anti McCann side of the fence and therefore by pointing them out I appear to be on the side of the McCanns but the fact remains that I have never claimed an abduction to be the only possible reason for the disappearance of Madeleine. Like the Police in this country and in Portugal I am fully aware that all options as to what happened remain possible.

Where I differ from anti McCanns is that they don't accept what the police in both countries say, that they don't realise that living with hindsight gives great advantages over what was available in 2007 and that they don't realise that posting lies as Hideho does is wrong.

[gilet]

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.

I have never said any of this is common practice now as you seem to imply. I think you need to read posts more carefully.

I have said that similar practices were not uncommon in 2007, though because they were and to ignore that fact as you are doing proves that you are unable to accept the benefit of hindsight with which you are posting.

[gilet]

Did their friends do the same, gilet? Did they leave doors unlocked?

I honestly don't recall. It is possible that the answer to your question lies in the statements made by the individuals involved. When reading them in the past I was not specifically looking for that detail. 

Perhaps if you are able at some point you could look at the statements and give us the answer?

[Lyall]

Plenty will actually agree with you about HdH's videos.

But there was an awful lot of history before 2007 you know. Are you seriously saying parents didn't have a care in the world about their children's safety before May of that year?

[Redblossom]

I have never said any of this is common practice now as you seem to imply. I think you need to read posts more carefully.

I have said that similar practices were not uncommon in 2007, though because they were and to ignore that fact as you are doing proves that you are unable to accept the benefit of hindsight with which you are posting.

i think you should take your own advice, I was not implying anything, or talking about listening services or then and now. By similar practices, you are referring to holiday listenig services, btw which were not on offer in PDL, which everyoje knows existed and still exist, even though not at MW resorts. The point which you cannot have missed was about leaving toddlers in an unsecured home. I doubt very much that this is a common practice, not then, not now.

[John]

Posters are again reminded of the forum rules.  Posts containing references to usernames from elsewhere will be removed without exception.

[gilet]

Plenty will actually agree with you about HdH's videos.

But there was an awful lot of history before 2007 you know. Are you seriously saying parents didn't have a care in the world about their children's safety before May of that year?

Thank you for the support in recognising that Hideho's videos are full of lies.

But at no point have I stated that pre-May 2007 people had not a care in the world for their children's safety. 

Their perception was simply different. They believed that the approach used by the professional holiday organisations who deployed people to check chalets, hotel rooms and apartments from the outside in a "child-minding" scheme were acting responsibly. They believed that such schemes were safe. The evidence for that is in their very existence.

I believe that a number of organisations had been looking at the practice in the period prior to 2007 but the practice still existed and was still in use. The fact that the McCanns actually went further than the professionals shows that their was no neglect involved on their part. Yes, a serious error of judgement with HINDSIGHT, but not at the time the judgement was made.

And we know that they are living with the effects of that judgement, that no matter what happens they will live with the effects of that judgement till they die.

But I can see no reason whatsoever for people like stephen25000 to effectively spam this forum with his glib claim about neglect without any admission that his outlook on the matter is with the benefit of hindsight which was not available to the McCanns when they made their decision other than a sad vindictiveness.

I have asked him if there is any other explanation for the content of his posts but he has, so far, been unwilling or unable to offer any.

[gilet]

i think you should take your own advice, I was not implying anything, or talking about listening services or then and now. By similar practices, you are referring to holiday listenig services, btw which were not on offer in PDL, which everyoje knows existed and still exist, even though not at MW resorts. The point which you cannot have missed was about leaving toddlers in an unsecured home. I doubt very much that this is a common practice, not then, not now.

I have addressed all the issues which you have repeated.

If that was not the implication of your earlier post then I am afraid the content was utterly meaningless. As you wish though.

I have made it clear previously that this service was not on offer in PDL which you must have missed.

I have also indicated that the McCann's checks were more frequent and ostensibly more effective (hindsight is what proves otherwise) than the professional checks.

At no point have I justified the leaving of the door unlocked as reasonable or sensible. That is all part of the admitted regret and despair that the McCanns feel over the issue. Not a reason for vindictive abuse of them though, in my opinion. You and stephen25000 clearly differ in opinion on that matter as you continually do abuse the McCanns for this decision in a way which I feel is very vindictive and which you can apparently offer no other explanation for.

You have made an interesting point in your post though, ie that such listening services still exist. I am shocked as i did not believe this to be the case. I would appreciate you posting links to the organisations which offer such services with some urgency (we are in the midst of the busy holiday season) as I would be more than willing to write to them and explain what I believe (with the benefit of the hindsight gained from the McCann case) how unwise these services are. I am somewhat surprised that you have not indicated that you have already done this.

I look forward to the list of organisations appearing as I think it is a matter of urgency that they be approached to explain their clearly dangerous policy.

[stephen25000]

Thank you for the support in recognising that Hideho's videos are full of lies.

But at no point have I stated that pre-May 2007 people had not a care in the world for their children's safety. 

Their perception was simply different. They believed that the approach used by the professional holiday organisations who deployed people to check chalets, hotel rooms and apartments from the outside in a "child-minding" scheme were acting responsibly. They believed that such schemes were safe. The evidence for that is in their very existence.

I believe that a number of organisations had been looking at the practice in the period prior to 2007 but the practice still existed and was still in use. The fact that the McCanns actually went further than the professionals shows that their was no neglect involved on their part. Yes, a serious error of judgement with HINDSIGHT, but not at the time the judgement was made.

And we know that they are living with the effects of that judgement, that no matter what happens they will live with the effects of that judgement till they die.

But I can see no reason whatsoever for people like stephen25000 to effectively spam this forum with his glib claim about neglect without any admission that his outlook on the matter is with the benefit of hindsight which was not available to the McCanns when they made their decision other than a sad vindictiveness.

I have asked him if there is any other explanation for the content of his posts but he has, so far, been unwilling or unable to offer any.

Here we go yet again, on the 'vindictiveness' bandwagon.

It is getting tiresome and has no foundation in reality.

Likewise with this 'hindsight' rubbish.

The bottom line  remains, whether you like it or not, Madeleine's disappearance stems from her and her siblings being left in that apartment, occasionally 'checked' but in an unlocked residence. This was and still remains the Achilles Heel of yours and others stance.

You can continue ad infinitum with the use of  the term  'vindictiveness'  and I could respond in kind if you wish. Your choice.

[gilet]

Posters are again reminded of the forum rules.  Posts containing references to usernames from elsewhere will be removed without exception.

Thank you. I hope the other aspects of the personal attack which stephen25000 levied on me are to be dealt with as well.

[Lyall]

I don't think I said those videos are "full of lies", gilet

I'd have no problem with what you wrote in reply to my post, except for the fact they say they left the door unlocked - clearly that isn't a feature of any professional scheme is it.

If they did in fact leave the door unlocked it may or may not legally be neglect, but I'd say it is definitely selfish.

[gilet]

Here we go yet again, on the 'vindictiveness' bandwagon.

It is getting tiresome and has no foundation in reality.

Likewise with this 'hindsight' rubbish.

The bottom line  remains, whether you like it or not, Madeleine's disappearance stems from her and her siblings being left in that apartment, occasionally 'checked' but in an unlocked residence. This was and still remains the Achilles Heel of yours and others stance.

You can continue ad infinitum with the use of  the term  'vindictiveness'  and I could respond in kind if you wish. Your choice.

I am sorry, stephen25000, but the fact remains that you are totally unable to offer any other explanation for your continued mantra and spamming of this forum with your claims about neglect.

I am therefore perfectly entitled to express my opinion that your posts are vindictive in nature due to the fact that they admit no understanding or acceptance of the very important role that hindsight does play (no matter how much you pretend otherwise) in this matter and no matter how much you declare they are not vindictive.

You are unable to offer any other reason for you continued torrent of these posts, you are unable to in any way reflect on the way in which the McCanns have admitted that their judgement was in hindsight wrong, and you are unable to admit that the climate of opinion about such checking schemes was different in 2007.

There is no Achilles heel in my arguments as you claim.

I have demonstrated clearly the difference of opinion in 2007 to that which exists today. The fact you cannot see that evident difference is a sign not of an Achilles heel in my argument but a defect in your reasoning.

You may not believe that the benefit of hindsight in posting has any basis in reality. That is your problem and very likely the reason that you appear to be trapped in a style of posting that gets you nowhere very slowly. The fact is such a benefit does exist and unless it is recognised then there is a tendency to believe what is currently known and accepted was always thus.

The reality is that checking arrangements as organised by the McCanns were acceptable in 2007 even by professional bodies. To pretend otherwise and to ignore the differences between opinion then and now, as you are trying to do, is to bury one's head in the sand.