The Felicia Cabrita story about the 14 bottles of wine.

[sadie]

Where did I say they were drunk ?

I was referring to the effects of alcohol in general.

A lack of statements by other bar staff does not mean nobody else didn't serve the party on any of those days, or can you prove otherwise ?

Can you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt how much each member of the party consumed on each of those nights ?

[/b][/color]

Nobody can do, either way.

But the facts point to them being very moderate drinkers



Stephen you are like a stuck record, getting on everyones nerves with your wumming.  Give it a rest.  There's a good chap

[gilet]

Where did I say they were drunk ?

I was referring to the effects of alcohol in general.

A lack of statements by other bar staff does not mean nobody else didn't serve the party on any of those days, or can you prove otherwise ?

Can you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt how much each member of the party consumed on each of those nights ?

It is you making the allegation that drink affected the behaviour of the McCanns.

So far you have shown not one jot of evidence for that other than a news article which actually proved your claims to be wrong.

When you show some evidence of what you are claiming then we will all be a little clearer as to why you are unable to deal with this obsession of yours about neglect (another issue which evidence actually shows did not exist).

The only evidence of what was consumed appears to be from witness statements which show that there was nothing unusual about the consumption of alcohol by this group, that it consisted of a bottle of wine each at most over a period of three hours while eating and some after dinner drinks which were taken to the bar.

As I say, I await evidence of any further drinking on their part and some indication from you as to why you believe the consumption of alcohol as evidenced so far has any bearing on the case at all.

A child is missing not because the parents drank a half bottle of wine each that night as the records you presented us with prove but for other reasons but you cannot get past this obsession of yours to deal with the actual disappearance can you?

Please prove me wrong by either offering your evidence for greater alcohol consumption than the evidence so far proves or by indicating what effect those four bottles on the night of May 3rd had on the actual disappearance.

[Rachel Granada]

I  never understand why people still bang on and on about the babysitting arrangements .  The McCann's  know that - they will have to live with it for ever,

The Portuguese have  said that  although unwise after the event it was not unlawful. For me it is there for the grace of god type of thing. It certainly made a lot more people aware on holiday about things.

But surely the reason most people are still involved in the case is to find out WHAT Happened - where is Madeleine who took her , how did they do it and why . It is to solve the mystery .

If the McCann's are involved in the disappearance as some people here think then why go on about the babysitting. That's like accusing Hitler of tax evasion - I mean hello

Sensible post, south and I like your tax evasion analogy.  The quality of debate would improve on here if people would stop banging on and on about the children being left, IMO.

[gilet]

Sensible post, south and I like your tax evasion analogy.  The quality of debate would improve on here if people would stop banging on and on about the children being left, IMO.

The question of the children being supervised by regular checking and the fact that with hindsight that was not a good decision has been done to death here and elsewhere. It has also been fully admitted as an error by the McCanns and one with which, whatever happens in the future, will dog them to their graves.

But it has no bearing on the actual disappearance and what happened on that night. Harping on about this cannot help in any way towards an understanding of what actually happened to Madeleine McCann.

It is perfectly clear that certain posters use it as a kind of mantra to deflect topics which they are unable to respond to on topic. Where they have no reply to the points being made they resort to this mantra of neglect.

The methodology is clear to all readers and reflects very badly on those who continue to do this.

[DCI]

Felicia Cabrita, got hold of sensitive documents, of the Taps 7 and Jez Wilkins in May 2007. Witness statements, witness names, addresses and telephone numbers and this is so dangerous it could have ended in tragedy.
The really alarming thing is that no one in authority has done anything about this appalling breach of witness security and confidence.

I could be a good journalist if papers were deliberatly left open in a police station office,on a desk for me to see.
Secrecy Laws an all that erm "Hello"
Why would a journalist be in a police station office anyway?

[Rachel Granada]

Felicia Cabrita, got hold of sensitive documents, of the Taps 7 and Jez Wilkins in May 2007. Witness statements, witness names, addresses and telephone numbers and this is so dangerous it could have ended in tragedy.
The really alarming thing is that no one in authority has done anything about this appalling breach of witness security and confidence.

I could be a good journalist if papers were deliberatly left open in a police station office,on a desk for me to see.
Secrecy Laws an all that erm "Hello"
Why would a journalist be in a police station office anyway?

Agreed, DCI.  The leaks were disgusting.  It could very well be that someone has important information but won't go to the PJ even today just because of these leaks in the past.  Who could trust them not to blab to journalists?

[stephen25000]

It is you making the allegation that drink affected the behaviour of the McCanns.

So far you have shown not one jot of evidence for that other than a news article which actually proved your claims to be wrong.

When you show some evidence of what you are claiming then we will all be a little clearer as to why you are unable to deal with this obsession of yours about neglect (another issue which evidence actually shows did not exist).

The only evidence of what was consumed appears to be from witness statements which show that there was nothing unusual about the consumption of alcohol by this group, that it consisted of a bottle of wine each at most over a period of three hours while eating and some after dinner drinks which were taken to the bar.

As I say, I await evidence of any further drinking on their part and some indication from you as to why you believe the consumption of alcohol as evidenced so far has any bearing on the case at all.

A child is missing not because the parents drank a half bottle of wine each that night as the records you presented us with prove but for other reasons but you cannot get past this obsession of yours to deal with the actual disappearance can you?

Please prove me wrong by either offering your evidence for greater alcohol consumption than the evidence so far proves or by indicating what effect those four bottles on the night of May 3rd had on the actual disappearance.

The point I have made repeatedly is simple.

Their socializing  at the Tapas Bar,  for several successive nights, meant the children were not being taken care of.

It was supposed to be a family holiday, so why didn't they have their meals and drink in the apartment, or failing that hire a babysitter to watch over them.

They never needed to go to the Tapas Bar to drink or eat.

All we have from one waiter's statement, was how much he can recollect serving them, but there were others , for whom we have no statements. So you do not know how much alcohol they consumed. Earlier you said 4 bottles, now you are saying one bottle of wine and after dinner drinks...............................


They didn't do either.

On top of that, as is well known, the children were in an unblocked apartment, again inexcusable. Don't bother with hindsight again, commonsense should have told them not to do that. They were in a foreign country and never should have taken risks with their children's security.

However, they did, simply to place their social habits above their duties as parents and guardians of their children.

So why is the drinking relevant ?

Well if you can't see that you never will.

[Rachel Granada]

The question of the children being supervised by regular checking and the fact that with hindsight that was not a good decision has been done to death here and elsewhere. It has also been fully admitted as an error by the McCanns and one with which, whatever happens in the future, will dog them to their graves.

But it has no bearing on the actual disappearance and what happened on that night. Harping on about this cannot help in any way towards an understanding of what actually happened to Madeleine McCann.

It is perfectly clear that certain posters use it as a kind of mantra to deflect topics which they are unable to respond to on topic. Where they have no reply to the points being made they resort to this mantra of neglect.

The methodology is clear to all readers and reflects very badly on those who continue to do this.

I have seen that tactic many times on here, it seems to be "if in doubt, bang on about the childcare".

Debate would be very much enriched if that old chestnut were left alone.  As you said, it has been done to death here and elsewhere over the years.

[stephen25000]

I have seen that tactic many times on here, it seems to be "if in doubt, bang on about the childcare".

Debate would be very much enriched if that old chestnut were left alone.  As you said, it has been done to death here and elsewhere over the years.

To the contrary, the lack of childcare is the catalyst which led to Madeleine's disappearance. You can ignore it to your heart's content, but that won't go away.

Do you really believe, that if the apartment had been locked and the Mccanns were there inside, having their dinner and drinks, or just relaxing talking with their friends, Madeleine would have 'disappeared' ?

[Rachel Granada]

To the contrary, the lack of childcare is the catalyst which led to Madeleine's disappearance. You can ignore it to your heart's content, but that won't go away.

Do you really believe, that if the apartment had been locked and the Mccanns were there inside, having their dinner and drinks, or just relaxing talking with their friends, Madeleine would have 'disappeared' ?

We've done this to death, Stephen.  Many, many times.  It stifles debate to have this constantly on repeat, like a stuck record.  We need to move past this to enrich debate.

[gilet]

The point I have made repeatedly is simple.

Their socializing  at the Tapas Bar,  for several successive nights, meant the children were not being taken care of.

It was supposed to be a family holiday, so why didn't they have their meals and drink in the apartment, or failing that hire a babysitter to watch over them.

They never needed to go to the Tapas Bar to drink or eat.

All we have from one waiter's statement, was how much he can recollect serving them, but there were others , for whom we have no statements. So you do not know how much alcohol they consumed. Earlier you said 4 bottles, now you are saying one bottle of wine and after dinner drinks...............................


They didn't do either.

On top of that, as is well known, the children were in an unblocked apartment, again inexcusable. Don't bother with hindsight again, commonsense should have told them not to do that. They were in a foreign country and never should have taken risks with their children's security.

However, they did, simply to place their social habits above their duties as parents and guardians of their children.

So why is the drinking relevant ?

Well if you can't see that you never will.

It is merely your opinion that the children were not "being taken care of", though I do wonder what you expect the parents to be doing other than regular checking on them in their bedroom when they are asleep as part of this "taking care of" them.

It is not the opinion of the legal authorities who recognised that the regular checking arrangements which the McCanns and the others had in place was indeed a perfectly acceptable checking on their children.

Family holiday or not, you are forgetting that children sleep and do so quite early when young. Taking care of them is then just a matter of occasional checking on them (if even that) which the McCanns did on a very regular basis.

You are stuck in a groove, Stephen25000, obsessively repeating the same old mantra to deliberately disrupt threads because you are simply unable to debate the issues within each of the threads you seek to trash.

[stephen25000]

It is merely your opinion that the children were not "being taken care of", though I do wonder what you expect the parents to be doing other than regular checking on them in their bedroom when they are asleep as part of this "taking care of" them.

It is not the opinion of the legal authorities who recognised that the regular checking arrangements which the McCanns and the others had in place was indeed a perfectly acceptable checking on their children.

Family holiday or not, you are forgetting that children sleep and do so quite early when young. Taking care of them is then just a matter of occasional checking on them (if even that) which the McCanns did on a very regular basis.

You are stuck in a groove, Stephen25000, obsessively repeating the same old mantra to deliberately disrupt threads because you are simply unable to debate the issues within each of the threads you seek to trash.

I am not here to trash threads or disrupt.

I am merely expressing my views on this case.

What you want on here is a forum rather like 2 others I could mention where everyone praises and supports the Mccanns.

From mine and other perspectives, I can equally argue you are here to disrupt and trash threads.

[sadie]

No, of course it isn't, but that is blatantly obvious.

Can you explain to me logically, why in order to have a 'good time', you have to drink alcohol ?

So why as I asked earlier, why didn't the Mccanns on their 'family holiday' eat and drink at the apartment ?

Stephen

I personally dont need drink to have a good time and to relax in company.

I am comfortable, relaxed,  with all levels of society .. and well used to being left on my own with strangers at parties etc.  And, if I am in the mood, can let my hair down as well as the next person.  I enjoy a glass of good wine occasionally, but I dont need alcohol actually tbh.

However, I am aware that some need a spot of alcohol to relax and enjoy themselves.  Personally that is fine with me, but seems it is not with you?  Are you teetotal? 

I believe in live and let live, so long as certain boundaries are not crossed.  I see no evidence of any boundaries being crossed here and I cannot understand your, at times, vitriolic attacks on the tapas group for having a drink with their meals.



What I will say, is that I do like good meals on holiday ... and not having to cook them myself.

If I have to cook, then it is not a holiday to me. 

The eating of meals, expecially trying different foods/chefs abroad is a great pleasure to me.  And, I imagine, being with a group of friends would make the experience even more fun.

Additionally, the Mccann children especially (also the Oldfield children IIRC) were used to a certain bedtime routine, with fairly strict timelines.  To break that routine could cause awful sleeping problems with unhappy grizzling kids. 

Our kids were late at going to bed, they didn't seem to need much sleep, so we never had the problems that some do on holiday.  We all ate at about 7 or 7.30, then a bath and off to bed for the little ones, and hopefully before 9 pm to give us a little peaceful time before we retired.



Everyone is different Stephen.

[gilet]

I am not here to trash threads or disrupt.

I am merely expressing my views on this case.

What you want on here is a forum rather like 2 others I could mention where everyone praises and supports the Mccanns.

From mine and other perspectives, I can equally argue you are here to disrupt and trash threads.

There is a major difference, though. I can point to many, many threads where you have deliberately gone off topic and introduced your mantra about neglect thus disrupting those threads. I doubt you can find one where I have done anything like that.

People reading can see that I don't do that and you could never demonstrate that I do do it. Whereas people reading can see you do it every single day here. Those people will understand exactly what I mean about your disrupting threads and will recognise that though you claim I do so, I don't in fact do anything of the sort. If you believe I do, please do give examples.

The very evidence of your actions is right here where you have clearly taken this thread from the question of the number of bottles of wine. I have responded to that but will not do so any more as it is exactly what you are so desperate for.

What I want is a forum where posters are capable of actual debate on the issues which the thread is about, not sidetracking as you do.

What I want is a forum where posters are capabale of genuine intellectual debate and don't resort to the throwing of insults like "Liar!" or "McCann apologist" or the more vulgar abusive terms that Redblossom regularly uses when they are unable to contribute properly.

What you think I want is not what I actually want. Truth will come from debate not stuck-in-the-groove repetition of mantras.

[stephen25000]

There is a major difference, though. I can point to many, many threads where you have deliberately gone off topic and introduced your mantra about neglect thus disrupting those threads. I doubt you can find one where I have done anything like that.

People reading can see that I don't do that and you could never demonstrate that I do do it. Whereas people reading can see you do it every single day here. Those people will understand exactly what I mean about your disrupting threads and will recognise that though you claim I do so, I don't in fact do anything of the sort. If you believe I do, please do give examples.

The very evidence of your actions is right here where you have clearly taken this thread from the question of the number of bottles of wine. I have responded to that but will not do so any more as it is exactly what you are so desperate for.

What I want is a forum where posters are capable of actual debate on the issues which the thread is about, not sidetracking as you do.

What I want is a forum where posters are capabale of genuine intellectual debate and don't resort to the throwing of insults like "Liar!" or "McCann apologist" or the more vulgar abusive terms that Redblossom regularly uses when they are unable to contribute properly.

What you think I want is not what I actually want. Truth will come from debate not stuck-in-the-groove repetition of mantras.

No, the only 'debate ' you want is for people to agree with you.

That is your mantra.

It isn't debate.