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

[stephen25000]

'The general visiting practice was in fact seen as acceptable in 2007'

Since when has the NSPCC or the government said this was acceptable practice  ?

When you only have the parents and associates say so , that the visits were frequent  ?

[Lyall]

So you think other holidaymakers in PdL and other resorts also left doors unlocked at night prior to 2007 then, gilet?

The McCanns own friends say they didn't.

[gilet]

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.

So you cannot or are being deliberately obtuse and refusing to post details of all these hundreds of places that currently offer listening services. I understand.

Having already Googled the subject, I fear you are confusing a number of things. Some places offer baby listening services via an intercom system, but all I can find are within individual buildings, not resorts.

I assumed nothing about your activities but did note that you had posted on this forum after I asked the question, which suggested that at the time you were ignoring it.

Yes, I heard that and listening at internal doors is better than listening at external doors. Most people can understand simple facts like that.

[gilet]

'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.

You are clearly picking and choosing what posts to read as I have already replied to you.
I was referring to the professional holiday company systems.

The McCanns in their explanation stated that they believed that the system was safe because it was based on those company practices.

I have never excused the leaving of the patio doors open but I have been very clear that simply doing that is not proof that (as you claimed in another thread) the McCanns are wholly responsible for what happened. That is simply untrue.

The reality is that if an abduction took place the abductor bears responsibility too.

And you are deliberately ignoring the fact that the AG has cleared the McCanns of this neglect/abandonment which you continually ascribe to them.

Your posts take no account of the practices current at the time, nor of the fact that the McCanns have been cleared by the Portuguese authorities of what you claim, nor of the fact that they have admitted that with hindsight they were wrong to do what they did.

I am not as you attempt to claim, making excuses. I am simply explaining the fact that it is only in hindsight that the practice can be seen to be wrong and even then did not equate to neglect.

[gilet]

So you think other holidaymakers in PdL and other resorts also left doors unlocked at night prior to 2007 then, gilet?

The McCanns own friends say they didn't.

Not at all. No mention of other holidaymakers (beyond the Tapas group) has been made by me. I was replying to your earlier question which asked whether those individuals also left their door open.

I see that you now know the answer, though its not clear if you have done some research since asking about the issue earlier or were playing some kind of game by asking the question.

Whichever, could you give links to the statements which prove that they didn't leave the doors open for the benefit of other readers, please, as a bare statement of the fact is hardly in line with the forum rule to give sources for such claims?

[stephen25000]

From elsewhere but worth a read..............................

'I think the individual posting absolute cobb### about 'Hindsight' on the Justice forum needs to remember these words :
"A parent needs to ensure that children are safe if they are left alone. Leaving them for a short while, asleep, in a locked room with regular checks is acceptable. Leaving them for two hours, or with unlocked doors, is not."

A "forker", perhaps?
Hardly.

Anyone remember John Humphries interviewing a particularly learned and eminent professor and child care expert a few days after Madeleine disappeared?

If you have forgotten, then do go to the McCannfiles and read the transcript and the various scenarios.

Then try and claim that what the McCanns did was only wrong " in hindsight"

While you are at it, do notice that at the time the interview took place the media and the public were unaware that the flat had been unlocked......

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id52.html '

[Redblossom]

So you cannot or are being deliberately obtuse and refusing to post details of all these hundreds of places that currently offer listening services. I understand.

Having already Googled the subject, I fear you are confusing a number of things. Some places offer baby listening services via an intercom system, but all I can find are within individual buildings, not resorts.

I assumed nothing about your activities but did note that you had posted on this forum after I asked the question, which suggested that at the time you were ignoring it.

Yes, I heard that and listening at internal doors is better than listening at external doors. Most people can understand simple facts like that.

Obtuse? Refusing? Why should I do your donkey work for you? And did I say people use listening services in Mediterranean resorts in self catering apartments? No, I didnt. Do you know that none exist? You do make mountains out of molehills. All this, from a simple comment I made that people do use baby listening services today, whatever form it takes.

Oh, and you may have a point that listening outside a flat is not the same as listening inside it, but do you really? If  there are no visual checks, one has no idea if the kids are OK.

[gilet]

'The general visiting practice was in fact seen as acceptable in 2007'

Since when has the NSPCC or the government said this was acceptable practice  ?

When you only have the parents and associates say so , that the visits were frequent  ?

No-one has said the NSPCC said this was acceptable practice. I doubt that they ever did.

Though both you and I know it was acceptable practice in very many resorts at the time. Lyall has even posted her recollection of people indicating that at the time.

It was in fact you who introduced the NSPCC into the issue earlier by claiming that their current position is very much against such practices.

I made the point that that post has been made since 2007 and asked whether anything existed prior to that date. Do remember this thread is about the benefit of hindsight.

So far nobody has shown anything which would indicate any outcry or attempt to prevent such practices prior to 2007. That is the key point relating to hindsight.

[Lyall]

Not at all. No mention of other holidaymakers (beyond the Tapas group) has been made by me. I was replying to your earlier question which asked whether those individuals also left their door open.

I see that you now know the answer, though its not clear if you have done some research since asking about the issue earlier or were playing some kind of game by asking the question.

Whichever, could you give links to the statements which prove that they didn't leave the doors open for the benefit of other readers, please, as a bare statement of the fact is hardly in line with the forum rule to give sources for such claims?

Yes, I could 

[Lyall]

So far nobody has shown anything which would indicate any outcry or attempt to prevent such practices prior to 2007. That is the key point relating to hindsight.

No the key point is they didn't in fact use a practice other parents replicating a listening service might well have used - they left their door unlocked, unlike those other parents.

There's no hindsight in saying that wasn't a good idea prior to 2007, during it, or since.

[faithlilly]

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.

Taking into consideration all of the above you must also concede that the searching, understandable as it may have been, seriously comprimised the crime scene, making the time the apartment was sealed off almost irrelevant, as much, if not most of the retrievable evidence would have been destroyed even before he GNR arrived.

[gilet]

From elsewhere but worth a read..............................

'I think the individual posting absolute cobb### about 'Hindsight' on the Justice forum needs to remember these words :
"A parent needs to ensure that children are safe if they are left alone. Leaving them for a short while, asleep, in a locked room with regular checks is acceptable. Leaving them for two hours, or with unlocked doors, is not."

A "forker", perhaps?
Hardly.

Anyone remember John Humphries interviewing a particularly learned and eminent professor and child care expert a few days after Madeleine disappeared?

If you have forgotten, then do go to the McCannfiles and read the transcript and the various scenarios.

Then try and claim that what the McCanns did was only wrong " in hindsight"

While you are at it, do notice that at the time the interview took place the media and the public were unaware that the flat had been unlocked......

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id52.html '

I thought there was a forum rule about bringing posts from elsewhere.

But as you have kindly presented the words of Carolyn Hamilton then I am prepared to post them here for you as they support my argument rather than yours. Very odd you should link to them in those circumstances and very odd that your Amazon friend (I presume) should offer them as a sign that I am incorrect when they show nothing of the kind.

John Humphrys: I suppose all parents have three reactions to what has happened in the Algarve. The first obviously is to pray that the little girl will be returned safe and well to her parents. The second is deep sympathy for the parents of little Madeleine McCann, 4 days after she disappeared. The third is to ask would we have left a child in the same circumstances. Professor Carolyn Hamilton is the Head of the Children's Legal Centre a charity concerned with law and policy in this area. Professor Hamilton, what does the law say, is there a legal minimum age at which we can leave children?

Carolyn Hamilton: There isn't any minimum age in law. It's very much based on outcomes. It's based on 'are you placing a child at risk if you leave the child alone'. So parents have to weigh up all the factors and decide, is it safe to leave my child alone for a period of time. So for instance if you left a child alone for four hours, a small child, probably we would say 'no that's not'. But in the case of these parents, the children were asleep. We presume perhaps they were good sleepers they popped back every half an hour. The door was locked. The shutters were down on the windows.

JH: They weren't very far away.

CH:  They weren't very far away, at all. One would probably say that's a reasonable choice to take, that's a reasonable risk. There are those who say you should never leave your child alone for a minute, but perhaps that's not truly practical for any of us. And I think it also has to be remembered that sometimes children are abducted when the parents are in the house. That you can't sit in the room with the child all day and all night. But that's a very difficult decision to take, whether to leave a child alone or not.

JH: Well probably particularly on holiday I suppose in a way because you're in a hotel you think, you know, can we leave them in the room while we nip down to the restaurant for a couple of hours and I suppose most people would say that they would do that, depending obviously on the age of the child and whether they are good sleepers and all that. But it is an incredibly difficult decision to take all the time isn't it.

CH: It is a difficult decision to take but even babysitting services aren't really in the room with the child. It is difficult and I think it's fair to say that most people would leave their children alone for very short periods of time in those circumstances. It's not an unreasonable decision to take. It's just terribly unfortunate.

JH: But the problem is I suppose that in the end if you do it and something goes wrong then action can be taken against you.

CH: Yes, if you could be shown to have neglected the child or abandoned the child, yes, you could be committing a criminal offence and what the court would look at is all the factors. What did you do to make sure that child was safe, because that's what they really looking at. Was the child safe when you went out for a few minutes?

JH: Did you do all the reasonable things?

CH: Did you take every precaution that was reasonable? It's interesting that we have a website and 'Home Alone: Leaving Children On Their Own' is our most downloaded piece of information. It's what people want to know all the time. And it is a very unclear situation.

JH: Well, I've no doubt we'll get lots of emails about that and again if people want to join in the conversation on that on the message board that's available at 9 o'clock. Professor Hamilton. Thank you very much.

And we know that the Attorney General has demonstrated that they were not committing any offence of neglect, that their actions were reasonable and not illegal at all.

[gilet]

Taking into consideration all of the above you must also concede that the searching, understandable as it may have been, seriously comprimised the crime scene, making the time the apartment was sealed off almost irrelevant, as much, if not most of the retrievable evidence would have been destroyed even before he GNR arrived.

I do not concede that at all. It was the normal practice of people who confront the situation of a missing child.

It was totally unreasonable and wrong, in my opinon, though for the police officers and dog handlers to pollute the crime scene. They were detached individuals who should have known better and it is a fact that the most serious compromises to the crime scene were done by them as recorded in the files.

[gilet]

Yes, I could 

More silly smileys rather than information for readers.

Are you refusing to do so?

Or are you just playing a childish game?

[gilet]

No the key point is they didn't in fact use a practice other parents replicating a listening service might well have used - they left their door unlocked, unlike those other parents.

There's no hindsight in saying that wasn't a good idea prior to 2007, during it, or since.

I disagree. I think it is absolutely valid to identify the different mindsets regarding these issues in 2007 and 2013 and to point out that posting without recognition that you are doing so with the benefit of hindsight is self-defeating.