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

[gilet]

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.

I apologise for inferring that you supported fully my belief that Hideho's films are "full of lies". I meant to state that I am appreciative of your support that there are problems with some of them. I hope you appreciate that I have been replying to at least three or four different posters for some time now and I am replying at speed to each post.

As for your second point. I agree with you. Leaving the doors open was not part of a normal checking procedure and because it may have been a factor in an abduction I am sure that it accounts for a large part of the regret and anguish which the McCanns have expressed and which will be with them for the rest of their lives no matter what happens in the future.

But it can never excuse the role any abductor himself/themselves would have had if such was the crime which occurred. Had that person not committed such an evil act then Madeleine would in all probability not gone missing.

And it cannot in itself justify the continued spamming of the forum with glib claims of neglect. Such spamming without recognition that the practice in general was in fact acceptable in 2007 (albeit with locked doors), without recognition of the regret and anguish felt and expressed in public by the McCanns in my view is simply vindictive. I have asked those who act in this way for some other explanation of their behaviour but they have offered none.

[stephen25000]

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.

Professional bodies ?

Such as the NSPCC and Government guidelines  ?


You clearly believe it OK to leave young children without even a babysitter and unprotected, in an unlocked residence.

I am staggered that anyone with a rational mind could think that way.

You state personal attacks by me on you, yet that is exactly what you are doing to me in your previous and other replies.

Going nowhere is precisely the point you have reached in this debate. The catalyst which led to Madeleine's disappearance is so clear cut and undeniable, but you won't accept that.

As I said, simply staggering.

P.S. You do realize that I don't have to answer to you or anyone as to why I post here, unless in your apparent egocentric view of the world, you believe it does.

[gilet]

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. .(Such posts as you are repetitively making will never solve the case, will never bring about change, will never do anything at all other than show the nature of the person posting them.) The fact is the benefit of hindsight in all activities 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.

[Lyall]

I apologise for inferring that you supported fully my belief that Hideho's films are "full of lies". I meant to state that I am appreciative of your support that there are problems with some of them. I hope you appreciate that I have been replying to at least three or four different posters for some time now and I am replying at speed to each post.

As for your second point. I agree with you. Leaving the doors open was not part of a normal checking procedure and because it may have been a factor in an abduction I am sure that it accounts for a large part of the regret and anguish which the McCanns have expressed and which will be with them for the rest of their lives no matter what happens in the future.

But it can never excuse the role any abductor himself/themselves would have had if such was the crime which occurred. Had that person not committed such an evil act then Madeleine would in all probability not gone missing.

And it cannot in itself justify the continued spamming of the forum with glib claims of neglect. Such spamming without recognition that the practice in general was in fact acceptable in 2007 (albeit with locked doors), without recognition of the regret and anguish felt and expressed in public by the McCanns in my view is simply vindictive. I have asked those who act in this way for some other explanation of their behaviour but they have offered none.

I think it's because you keep claiming what they did was acceptable, when clearly it isn't acceptable to leave doors unlocked. Not now or before 2007 either.

I understand you are in several threads at once, so I took no offence, but you'd have one less front to be fighting on if you weren't attempt to justify the unjustifiable in this one. 8-)(--)

You agree there's no excuse for leaving a door unlocked, so there's no reason to keep defending on this front is there?

[Redblossom]

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.

Sarcasm will get you nowhere fast. Sardonic is a great word.

You had not addressed the point about leaving toddlers alone in an unsecured home, as you claim, if you had, I wouldnt have had to raise it, and point out to you doing it is neither, as you claimed, common or unacceptable,  as you said in your reply to Lyall,  so its no use backtracking now. The fact that it went over your head is not my problem. Your comment had nothng to do with the topic of this thread, IE Hindsight.

 But have it your way, as you will, if it pleases you, you can have the last word.Think Im done here.
 

[Mo Stache]

I think it's because you keep claiming what they did was acceptable, when clearly it isn't acceptable to leave doors unlocked. Not now or before 2007 either.

I understand you are in several threads at once, so I took no offence, but you'd have one less front to be fighting on if you weren't attempt to justify the unjustifiable in this one. 8-)(--)

You agree there's no excuse for leaving a door unlocked, so there's no reason to keep defending on this front is there?

On the issue of doors locked and unlocked; whether unlocked doors is proof of abuse/neglect.

Police launch manhunt after six-year-old girl abducted from bath.

David Ward
The Guardian, Thursday 29 December 2005

Police on Tyneside were yesterday hunting a man who snatched a six-year-old girl as she took a bath in a downstairs bathroom, assaulted her in a car and left her naked in a nearby street.
The girl was reported missing from her home in North Shields, east of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, by her mother on Tuesday evening and was found about 15 minutes later by a neighbour who had joined the search. Northumbria police, who are treating the incident as a sexually motivated assault, last night appealed for any witnesses who may have seen or heard anything on Tuesday night to come forward.

The area in which she was found was cordoned off while forensic teams carried out a search and officers made door-to-door inquiries in the surrounding streets. Specialist officers were also called in to interview the girl, who was thought to have been grabbed from the bath by the attacker after he entered the house through the back door. She told police she did not know the man.

She was said to be in a distressed state but was back safely with her mother, who is separated from the girl's father. Detectives said that the girl had suffered no serious physical injury during the attack.

"This little girl has had a very frightening experience and we are making every possible effort to find the man responsible," said Detective Chief Inspector Jim Napier, who is leading the investigation.

"Thankfully she was found safe and she was missing for a very short time, but she was obviously extremely distressed. We are carrying out extensive inquiries in the area and want to speak to anyone who saw a man acting suspiciously in the area at the time."

Mr Napier said that no one had been arrested. "We are at quite an early stage of the inquiry. We have specially trained officers with the young girl trying to tease the information out of her.

"I am relatively satisfied that she has been taken out in a car, albeit for a very short time. It is difficult to be specific as to how long she was missing but it was in the region of about a quarter of an hour.

"It's being treated as a sexually motivated assault. She was naked when found, having been taken out of the bath. Naturally the mother is upset as to what has happened and her primary concern at the moment is for the welfare of her child.

"We have spoken to the father. We don't have a suspect at the moment but it is routine in an investigation like this to examine the background of close family members.

"The girl is extremely distressed and upset about what has happened."

He added: "The main thing from our point of view is witnesses. Without minimising what has happened to this girl, this is a very rare occurrence."

Officers want to speak to anyone who saw children near the girl's home between 4pm and 5pm on Tuesday. They also want to hear from anyone who may have seen a man, possibly middle-aged, wearing a dark coat and gloves and loitering in the area either on foot or in a car.

Police are also asking anyone who saw or heard a car being driven erratically in the area between 7pm and 7.30pm to contact them. The car was said to have been making a "loud squeaking noise", possibly from its tyres or engine. [unquote]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/29/childprotection.society

I can't recall this mother being prosecuted for abuse/neglect because she left her door unlocked. I think people are missing the obvious point in that door locked or unlocked, no one has the right to enter a property without permission. 

[gilet]

I think it's because you keep claiming what they did was acceptable, when clearly it isn't acceptable to leave doors unlocked. Not now or before 2007 either.

I understand you are in several threads at once, so I took no offence, but you'd have one less front to be fighting on if you weren't attempt to justify the unjustifiable in this one. 8-)(--)

You agree there's no excuse for leaving a door unlocked, so there's no reason to keep defending on this front is there?

I am not defending anyone for leaving the door unlocked.

I am explaining my view that to post about neglect which the actions of the McCanns were not in either the eyes of the Attorney General of Portugal or the current opinion of the time (2007) without reference to the fact that we are now posting with hindsight is both inaccurate and when done without any other apparent motive, is in my view extremely vindictive.

I am fully entitled to that opinion and to express that opinion.

As i say, no other explanation for the continued posting of such claims has been forthcoming.

[Lyall]

But your opening post on the thread is very much defending the parents on this issue.

You seem to be dedicated to constructing a defence for them, but then you have to admit the defence only works if doors aren't left unlocked.

But a door was left unlocked, so what's the point of suffering in the trench on this front?

It's puzzling.

[stephen25000]

On the issue of doors locked and unlocked; whether unlocked doors is proof of abuse/neglect.

Police launch manhunt after six-year-old girl abducted from bath.

David Ward
The Guardian, Thursday 29 December 2005

Police on Tyneside were yesterday hunting a man who snatched a six-year-old girl as she took a bath in a downstairs bathroom, assaulted her in a car and left her naked in a nearby street.
The girl was reported missing from her home in North Shields, east of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, by her mother on Tuesday evening and was found about 15 minutes later by a neighbour who had joined the search. Northumbria police, who are treating the incident as a sexually motivated assault, last night appealed for any witnesses who may have seen or heard anything on Tuesday night to come forward.

The area in which she was found was cordoned off while forensic teams carried out a search and officers made door-to-door inquiries in the surrounding streets. Specialist officers were also called in to interview the girl, who was thought to have been grabbed from the bath by the attacker after he entered the house through the back door. She told police she did not know the man.

She was said to be in a distressed state but was back safely with her mother, who is separated from the girl's father. Detectives said that the girl had suffered no serious physical injury during the attack.

"This little girl has had a very frightening experience and we are making every possible effort to find the man responsible," said Detective Chief Inspector Jim Napier, who is leading the investigation.

"Thankfully she was found safe and she was missing for a very short time, but she was obviously extremely distressed. We are carrying out extensive inquiries in the area and want to speak to anyone who saw a man acting suspiciously in the area at the time."

Mr Napier said that no one had been arrested. "We are at quite an early stage of the inquiry. We have specially trained officers with the young girl trying to tease the information out of her.

"I am relatively satisfied that she has been taken out in a car, albeit for a very short time. It is difficult to be specific as to how long she was missing but it was in the region of about a quarter of an hour.

"It's being treated as a sexually motivated assault. She was naked when found, having been taken out of the bath. Naturally the mother is upset as to what has happened and her primary concern at the moment is for the welfare of her child.

"We have spoken to the father. We don't have a suspect at the moment but it is routine in an investigation like this to examine the background of close family members.

"The girl is extremely distressed and upset about what has happened."

He added: "The main thing from our point of view is witnesses. Without minimising what has happened to this girl, this is a very rare occurrence."

Officers want to speak to anyone who saw children near the girl's home between 4pm and 5pm on Tuesday. They also want to hear from anyone who may have seen a man, possibly middle-aged, wearing a dark coat and gloves and loitering in the area either on foot or in a car.

Police are also asking anyone who saw or heard a car being driven erratically in the area between 7pm and 7.30pm to contact them. The car was said to have been making a "loud squeaking noise", possibly from its tyres or engine. [unquote]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/29/childprotection.society

I can't recall this mother being prosecuted for abuse/neglect because she left her door unlocked. I think people are missing the obvious point in that door locked or unlocked, no one has the right to enter a property without permission.

It has not been proved anyone entered the McCann's apartment.

[Lyall]

I am explaining my view that to post about neglect which the actions of the McCanns were not in either the eyes of the Attorney General of Portugal or the current opinion of the time (2007) without reference to the fact that we are now posting with hindsight is both inaccurate and when done without any other apparent motive, is in my view extremely vindictive.

It's not inaccurate. You've just agreed it was not acceptable to leave doors unlocked before 2007.

[Mo Stache]

It has not been proved anyone entered the McCann's apartment.

It has not been disproven that anyone entered the McCann's apartment. The crime scene was so contaminated, it was possible that the person who entered the apartments forensic 'footprint' was not found. 

[Mo Stache]

It's not inaccurate. You've just agreed it was not acceptable to leave doors unlocked before 2007.

Is it acceptable to remove a child from an apartment/house/property with doors locked or unlocked, without permission?

[gilet]

Professional bodies ?

Such as the NSPCC and Government guidelines  ?

I was specifically referring to professional bodies as in holiday organisations whose policies were clearly in line with most of what the McCanns were undertaking as a checking system.

But, your introduction of those NSPCC guidelines is very interesting. When were they posted online? Did they exist prior to 2007 or are they in fact (as I think very likely) a posting which has come about with the benefit of hindsight of the events of 2007?

Could you please show anything prior to 2007 which makes the same points?

You clearly believe it OK to leave young children without even a babysitter and unprotected, in an unlocked residence.

I am staggered that anyone with a rational mind could think that way.

Utterly incorrect and a downright lie. I do not believe any such thing and if you had been reading my posts with care then you would know that.

Once again you are totally confused because you are not able to understand or not willing to accept the concept that you and I are posting with the benefit of hindsight. You are fully confirming the point I made in the OP of this thread.

I have demonstrated that there was a belief prior to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann that checking systems similar to the one they used existed and were acceptable.

I have also demonstrated that with the knowledge of that disappearance and the benefit of hindsight such beliefs are no longer acceptable.

I am actually staggered that you cannot see the difference between the actual content of my posts and the appalling and wholly inaccurate caricature of those posts which you have either deliberately or through poor reading presented.

You state personal attacks by me on you, yet that is exactly what you are doing to me in your previous and other replies.

I have made absolutely no personal attack on you and challenge you to back up that slur. I have outlined why I believe the content of your posts to be vindictive and without understanding of the nature of hindsight. That is not a personal attack, it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what you have previously posted and continue to post.

Going nowhere is precisely the point you have reached in this debate. The catalyst which led to Madeleine's disappearance is so clear cut and undeniable, but you won't accept that.

I have gone a little further than you may believe, in that I have identified a very serious flaw in the content of the posts you are making. By making no allowance for the fact that you are posting with hindsight, by making no allowance or showing no understanding that things have changed considerably since 2007 and by making no allowance for the fact that the McCanns have in public expressed regret and anguish over the decision they made then, by making no allowance for the fact that the McCanns were specifically cleared (yes, cleared) by the AG of Portugal of neglect/abandoning the children, then I believe your spamming of this forum, your constant claims of neglect are in fact simply vindictive statements with no other motive and so far you have been unable to deny this.

I have never denied the catalyst of the disappearance as you suggest. I have simply put it in context which you are unable or unwilling to recognise.

As I said, simply staggering.

Yes, simply staggering that any rational person should be so unwilling to even recognise that the concept of hindsight exists and that it is relevant to their posts about events which occurred in 2007.


P.S. You do realize that I don't have to answer to you or anyone as to why I post here, unless in your apparent egocentric view of the world, you believe it does.

Of course I realise you don't have to answer but you have chosen to take part in debate here and debate invariably consists of questions and answers.

When someone in any debate suddenly refuses to answer then people watching or reading are entitled to wonder why? Why would someone be unwilling as in this case for example to give their motive for spamming a forum with such claims of neglect? Why would they refuse to acknowledge the clear value of hindsight? Is it simple unwillingness or is it because they simply cannot? Valid thoughts, don't you agree?

[stephen25000]

It has not been disproven that anyone entered the McCann's apartment. The crime scene was so contaminated, it was possible that the person who entered the apartments forensic 'footprint' was not found.

Again the assumption that someone was there. Merely an assumption.

Meanwhile the McCann's and associates had trampled the scene before the local constabulary arrived.

[Mo Stache]

Those claiming that the cause of Madeleine being missing was because of an unlocked door, please explain how an unlocked door without the presence of an abductor resulted in her disappearance. Remember - walk and wander has been eliminated by the police.   

The unlocked door facilitated the abduction, but without the abductor she would not be missing!!! She would still be in an unlocked apartment.