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

[Mo Stache]

I am not the one relying solely on abduction.


Am I.  >@@(*&)

But you are the one avoiding to give a direct reply. What does my "relying soleley on abduction" theory got to do with you not replying to the question?

[gilet]

My replies in blue.

There it is in essence.


Your get out clause for the McCann's behaviour,hindsight.

It isn't a get out clause at all. Merely an explanation that such behaviour was not, as you groundlessly believe, unknown or totally lacking common sense back in 2007. The normal practice was I admit modified by the McCanns both to make it more safe by increasing frequency of checks and by entering the premises during most checks and also apparently making it less safe by leaving a door unlocked (not open by the way). Nonetheless the practice was common and accepted by holiday organisations at the time as normal.

Only with hindsight is it now seen to be abnormal.

You still seem to be unwilling to accept that you are posting with the benefit of that hindsight and such unwillingness makes it clear that you are not willing to be open minded about things. Sorry but that is the clear opinion I am forming based on the content of posts such as this by you.

Trouble with that was it wasn't just one night,they did it several nights in a row,whilst out drinking and eating.

Just as many holidaymakers at the time did the very same thing every night, using the professional visiting services which were not as frequent or accurate as the McCann system. No difference in the McCann behaviour other than that they believed their checks to be safer (wrongly we now know with hindsight).

You are attacking me personally by referring to me as a 'spammer' and being 'vindictive'.

No. I am not attacking you personally at all.

I am making the very valid point that you are in fact spamming this forum, in every thread you cannot stick to the topic at hand but insist on introducing the concept of neglect. That is not a personal attack. It is a statement of absolute fact about the posts that you are making.

As for vindictiveness. I have stated that my opinion of the content of your posts in light of the fact that they are posted with the benefit of hindsight and do not take into account many important factors related to that benefit, appears to me to be wholly vindictive. I have asked you to proffer other explanations but you have either chosen not to do so or been unable to do so. Till you offer any other explanation I believe that I am perfectly entitled to my opinion about the content of your posts, especially as I have offered evidence for my coming to those beliefs.

You aren't going to change my mind on this, and as to the NSPCC guidelines they were well entrenched and have nothing to do with the internet.

But were they well entrenched back in 2007? And if so why were holiday organisations so blatantly flouting them? And why was there no outcry in the press about such "visiting services" in holiday locations. And yes, I have done a Google search and I can find nothing? Can you offer anything to support your assertions?

[gilet]

Well let's see proof of abduction. >@@(*&)

This thread is not about abduction theories but about hindsight in posts.

Is this another attempt at distraction?

[Lyall]

This thread is not about abduction theories but about hindsight in posts.

Is this another attempt at distraction?

It's not hindsight to say it was not a good idea to leave children alone with doors unlocked before, since and during 2007.

You agreed with this. So why is it hindsight?

[Lyall]

gilet, not twenty minutes ago you wrote, in reply to stephen:

Just as many holidaymakers at the time did the very same thing every night, using the professional visiting services which were not as frequent or accurate as the McCann system. No difference in the McCann behaviour other than that they believed their checks to be safer (wrongly we now know with hindsight).


Two huge inaccuracies there. Yet you say you're not defending the parents? >@@(*&)

[gilet]

It's not hindsight to say it was not a good idea to leave children alone with doors unlocked before, since and during 2007.

You agreed with this. So why is it hindsight?

I am confused by the double negative in your post which makes it appear to mean the opposite of what I think you intend.

But I don't believe I have ever stated what you claim whichever one of the options is correct.

The hindsight relates to the fact that there is no allowance made for the fact that it was a normal practice prior to the disappearance of Madeleine to use visiting services in holiday destinations/resorts. There is nowhere that I can find any outcry whatsoever against the practice prior to that disappearance. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that this is now considered to be wholly unsafe.

 It is, in my view, wrong for posters to suggest that what the McCanns did was against common sense, was neglect etc. when at the time they did it, it was in fact a relatively common practice. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we know that to be the case.

If you or anyone else can show me to be wrong and give links to any outrcry about such visiting services prior to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann I will read them carefully and am prepared to change my opinion.

I would also repeat here my request to Redblossom regarding the statement she made that some organisations still operate such schemes. I would like to see details of these organisations and schemes, please, because I now believe that they are unsafe and would like to write to them expressing my concern. Unfortunately, even though I indicated that this was an urgent request as we are already in the school holiday season, she has chosen to ignore me. I hope she wasn't just posting this claim for some kind of effect and that she will get back to me very soon with the names of the organisations.

[gilet]

gilet, not twenty minutes ago you wrote, in reply to stephen:

Just as many holidaymakers at the time did the very same thing every night, using the professional visiting services which were not as frequent or accurate as the McCann system. No difference in the McCann behaviour other than that they believed their checks to be safer (wrongly we now know with hindsight).


Two huge inaccuracies there. Yet you say you're not defending the parents? >@@(*&)

There are no inaccuracies at all in that post that I can see. I stand by every word in it.

It is a fact that many holidaymakers at the time believed that their use of such visiting services was perfectly OK, that they did it many nights of their holidays as well. In that sense there is no difference between what the McCanns did and what those other holidaymakers did, except as I say the McCanns actually thought their modified system was safer than the professional one. With the benefit of hindsight they know as we know that belief was in fact wrong. The fact that the belief was wrong was not known when the decision was made though. That is called hindsight.

If you could point out clearly the errors, you are claiming exist in the post, I will address them.

[Lyall]

All that stout defence is meaningless if a door is left unlocked, gilet.

Unless you can demonstrate that other parents using their own 'visting service' also left doors unlocked.

[Lyall]

There were plenty of columnists in 2007 writing "we've all done it", but none of them then - or since - said they'd left children alone with doors unlocked.

The unlocked door makes all your other arguments irrelevant, gilet.

[Mo Stache]

I get the impression that those who don't support the McCann's can't understand that those who support the McCann's are able to support them without agreeing with everything they have done and said. I don't agree with everything they have done and said, but I still believe they didn't murder their daughter as is claimed by many. I support their search for their daughter or the search to find out what happened to her.

I have seen many anti McCann campaigners siding with a known registered sex offender to further their agenda against the McCann's. Do they agree with everything that person has done? I don't think so, but they support them. An example is Raymond Hewlett.   

If everyone who supports the McCann's is guilty of neglect (according to the anti McCann's) then all those who stood by Hewlett are guilty of sexual abuse. All those supporting Amaral are guilty of falsifying documents. etc...

[Redblossom]

All that stout defence is meaningless if a door is left unlocked, gilet.

Unless you can demonstrate that other parents using their own 'visting service' also left doors unlocked.

The others locked their patio and front doors every night.

Gilet, why would I post anything just for effect? All you have to do is use google and search for baby listening services. There are hundreds of hotels in the UK who offer this for starters. You better get alot of stamps ready. And no, I did not *chose* to ignore you, you shouldnt assume I am oggling this forum 24/7.

BTW, you keep harping on about the Mccanns doing a better job than nannies who only listen for crying/any other noises. How so? Did you not hear Gerry in his documentary saying that over the whole week he never once looked inside the kids room? He only listened. Apart from that last night? Hope all that is punctuated enough English for you.

[Lyall]

Mo, I think you should explain the logic of your first paragraph to gilet. I can't fault it but she or he is still attempting to defend the indefensible?

[gilet]

All that stout defence is meaningless if a door is left unlocked, gilet.

Unless you can demonstrate that other parents using their own 'visting service' also left doors unlocked.

I believe you are totally wrong.

It is only with the benefit of hindsight that the McCanns belief that their checking process was flawed is evident.

If you think they knew it was wrong prior to the disappearance you are, in my opinion, rather naive.

The fact is that visiting services were in use, that only since the disappearance of Madeleine have they been shown with hindsight to be flawed.

Anyone who can show different, please do so.

The McCanns have explained that they believed their system to be safe, that it was based on the professional systems but modified. They have also posted that they regret their decision and that in hindsight it was wrong.

The reality about many posts is that they do not accept that they are being written with the benefit of hindsight.

There is no flaw in the content or logic of the posts I have made whatsoever.

For posters not to acknowledge the reality of hindsight being a factor in the posts they make is the flaw.

[gilet]

There were plenty of columnists in 2007 writing "we've all done it", but none of them then - or since - said they'd left children alone with doors unlocked.

The unlocked door makes all your other arguments irrelevant, gilet.

I have never claimed that any said they left doors unlocked. That was a modification to the procedure and I have stated that I believe that was a step too far. The McCanns have also with the benefit of hindsight stated that their checking procedure was unsafe.

But your post has demonstrated that my OP was absolutely accurate. The general visiting practice was in fact seen as acceptable in 2007 and those who refuse to acknowledge that are being rather obtuse.

And none of your post addresses the point I was making that to continually spam the forum with accusations of neglect when the AG of Portugal specifically cleared the McCanns of that charge and when they were using a modified version of a generally accepted (at the time) practice is simply vindictive.

Nor have you indicated yet whether any of the others left doors open. I thought as you had shown interest in that you might have looked it up by now.

[stephen25000]

I believe you are totally wrong.

It is only with the benefit of hindsight that the McCanns belief that their checking process was flawed is evident.

If you think they knew it was wrong prior to the disappearance you are, in my opinion, rather naive.

The fact is that visiting services were in use, that only since the disappearance of Madeleine have they been shown with hindsight to be flawed.

Anyone who can show different, please do so.

The McCanns have explained that they believed their system to be safe, that it was based on the professional systems but modified. They have also posted that they regret their decision and that in hindsight it was wrong.

The reality about many posts is that they do not accept that they are being written with the benefit of hindsight.

There is no flaw in the content or logic of the posts I have made whatsoever.

For posters not to acknowledge the reality of hindsight being a factor in the posts they make is the flaw.

'The McCanns have explained that they believed their system to be safe, that it was based on the professional systems but modified'.

What professional systems ?

Anyone in hindsight can say they did wrong, but that does not excuse behaviour.

How is it 'professional' to leave children in an unlocked  apartment and be safe ?

They are mutually exclusive events.