The breathtaking hypocrisy of those that support the McCanns

[carlymichelle]

This is only my personal thoughts. If they'd used the walk-around babysitting service or evening crèche and something happened to Madeleine then I'd think that the Ocean Club is partly responsible; not the McCanns, but they chose to check on their children every half hour (or so they say) so their children become their responsibility (or am I thinking to simplistically?) It doesn't matter if their checking was the same sort of routine as the walk-around babysitting service, it's that a child went missing while under their distant half-hourly supervision.

Couple that with the knowledge that Madeleine and one of her siblings had been crying the night before, asking why her parents hadn't come to them, then it gets a little more difficult for me to understand why they still went out the following night.

   exactly maddie  and the twins were the mcanns  resposibility      as parents  they  should have been  with them  thats    a  parents resposibility and they brushed  aside maddies distress and still went out and then she vanished

[C.Edwards]

Does that mean we can all (pro or anti) leave the Almeida Interim Report behind?

Why?  It was reiterated/reconfirmed at the 2010 trial, wasn't it?

[gilet]

Why?  It was reiterated/reconfirmed at the 2010 trial, wasn't it?

Of course it was confirmed at that trial. But as the INTERIM report.
After further investigation further reports have been made.
Had you not noticed?

It was one of the biggest flaws in Bennett's case too. He was rightly chastised for relying on the INTERIM report and ignoring later reports.

[Montclair]

Of course it was confirmed at that trial. But as the INTERIM report.
After further investigation further reports have been made.
Had you not noticed?

It was one of the biggest flaws in Bennett's case too. He was rightly chastised for relying on the INTERIM report and ignoring later reports.

Tony Bennett's case concerned an undertaking he signed and which he breached. The case did not study the veracity of interim reports or any other reports.

[C.Edwards]

Of course it was confirmed at that trial. But as the INTERIM report.
After further investigation further reports have been made.
Had you not noticed?

It was one of the biggest flaws in Bennett's case too. He was rightly chastised for relying on the INTERIM report and ignoring later reports.

Sorry, I must have missed the bit in the AG final report saying, "this report dismisses all the findings of the PJ report and supersedes the opinion of all those who worked towards it".  Could you possibly just highlight that bit for me?

[Luz]

Does that mean we can all (pro or anti) leave the Almeida Interim Report behind?

No we can't. In my opinion Tavares de Almeida report , was the only one that reflected the investigation made. Rebelo only tried to clean it up and close it.
Was it complete? No it was not, and I think there is a lot more to be done. However, until the family and close friends are not fully investigated the investigation can't go on.

[gilet]

Tony Bennett's case concerned an undertaking he signed and which he breached. The case did not study the veracity of interim reports or any other reports.

You are wrong.
I suggest you red the full judgement.

[Luz]

You are wrong.
I suggest you red the full judgement.

You are wrong, Montclair is right. You read the court papers.

[blonk]

You are wrong, Montclair is right. You read the court papers.

The full judgment by Mr Justice Tugendhat can be read here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/283.html

[stephen25000]

The full judgment by Mr Justice Tugendhat can be read here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/283.html

His view is irrelevant and nothing to do with the case.

[j.rob]

Well I would agree with the title of the thread but I also think the McCanns are hypocrites. It's not so much the babylistening arrangements, per se, although I do they they were verging on negligence (eg: a child in their apartment reported crying for one and a quarter hours by a neighbour.) Plus they did not check as often as they said they did.

It's more they hypocricy of blaming everyone else rather than taking a long good look at themselves.

'Someone' took Madeleine from her bed, so they claim. They cannot prove this, because they were not there. So it is by definition one of a number of possibilities. Unless they were there when whatever happened happened, in which case they were not telling the truth about not being in the apartment when she 'was taken'. Of if they KNOW what happened, as they claim then they must either have been there, have had something to do with it or some knowledge of what happened.

So, by definition, if they KNOW that Madeleine was abducted - and let's slightly redefine the term and say if they know she was taken by someone. Then that suggests they had something to do with it, because otherwise they couldn't KNOW.

On this basis, I chose to believe that they DID know that someone removed Madeleine from their apartment, as they had some prior knowledge of how it happened and who was going to do it.

That is my deduction based entirely on what they had said about the events both before and after, their behaviour both before and after and witness reports etc.

My hypothesis is that the children were sedated, for whatever reason. Kate herself brought up this theory as an explanation for how the abductor may have been able to take away Madeleine without the twins waking up. It also would explain for the very deep sleep that the twins were in that night.

[sadie]

Well I would agree with the title of the thread but I also think the McCanns are hypocrites. It's not so much the babylistening arrangements, per se, although I do they they were verging on negligence (eg: a child in their apartment reported crying for one and a quarter hours by a neighbour.) Plus they did not check as often as they said they did.

How do YOU KNOW ?  I believe them. 

SY believes them

The PJ believes them.

Who are you to know better?

[j.rob]

   exactly maddie  and the twins were the mcanns  resposibility      as parents  they  should have been  with them  thats    a  parents resposibility and they brushed  aside maddies distress and still went out and then she vanished

Indeed, a very good point. If a child had gone missing from the creche or during a baby listening or monitoring service, presumably that would mean that whoever was running the creche or baby monitoring would have some questions to answer about how and why it could happen. Had Madeleine been abducted from the creche, say, I imagine the McCanns would have held the creche at least partly responsible for a massive failure in health and safety.

Of course, in reality, child abduction by a stranger IS rare......which accounts for how many people were and presumably still are, happy to use baby monitoring devices whereby your child sleeps in an unlocked room and someone either at reception or a patrolling nanny listens for crying or other signs of disturbance. It is by no means a fail-safe system (I've used it myself and it would have been very easy for someone to let themselves into the room and steal a child). But the fact that it has hardy ever happened (to my knowledge) suggests that in practice it worked quite well.

The point about Kate McCann specifically mentioning an incident of one of their children crying and then asking 'why did you not come?' is a very good one. One would like to have thought that this comment would have made the McCanns more vigilent about checking. But the following night, the one when Madeleine went missing apparently, the checks appear to have been even less frequent. There are very conflicting reports from friends about when and how they checked. How they got in and out of the apartment and whether they even went in at all. It seemed to be an incredibly sloppy arrangement - especially when you consider that a neighbour heard one of the McCann children cry for over an hour earlier in the week and then Kate herself mentioned the crying incident.

One can only conclude - given the lax arrangements for checking on their children on the night Madeleine disappeared - that Kate mentioned Madeleine's comment for the sole purpose of propping up her theory that someone may have disturbed the children during their sleep. And that that someone may have been the alleged abductor who was watching their movements and then came back the following night and stole Madeleine.

So rather than being alarmed by the fact that the McCann children were left to cry alone at night - as reported by a neighbour and by Kate herself - and rather than comforting them and putting in place more robust babysitting arrangements in place, the parents on the last evening were content to apparently let one of their friends listen outside the window, not even going in. So not even checking on their own children, despite the crying and despite Madeleine asking why they left them crying.

And then when Kate eventually checks at 10pm or whenever it was - she observes the scene as described by her with the curtains billowing and the door more open. And within about 10 minutes has formed a conclusion about what happened which completely contradicts both the parents stated belief system that it was safe to leave the children in the apartment with an unlocked shutter (in case of fire) and that stranger abduction was so rare as to not be something to worry about.

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark, methinks.

[j.rob]

How do YOU KNOW ?  I believe them. 

SY believes them

The PJ believes them.

Who are you to know better?

They gave conflicting accounts of their checking system. For instance they claimed they checked on their own children but then on the final evening - despite the crying incident Madeleine reported - someone else did a check and did not even to into the apartment.

There are also reports from Ocean Club staff that conflict with their half hourly checking system. Why was one of the children crying in their apartment for an hour and a quarter one evening?

[Aiofe]

Back to the OP:

CEdwards wrote:

"If I was to say, "the McCanns should have been locked up for child neglect for leaving their kids in danger," then we all know what answer we will get from the McCann fanclub, "they didn't break any laws as the Portuguese system requires INTENT to harm so there!"

Pardon me, but isn't this breathtaking hypocrisy?  It's saying it's ok that they did something that WOULD have had them prosecuted in this country because they did it in a country where they didn't break the law.

How do you live with yourselves using that kind of "logic"?  Let alone then trying to take the moral high ground in saying anyone doubting the word according to the McCanns is a "[ censored word ]", "p......", "unempathetic" or worse."

I would like to analyse what is being said here.

First, I should make it clear that I support the McCanns right to fair treatment as a matter of justice, but do not support or much like the McCanns. I do have empathy with them as They have been pilloried by a cult intent on blaming them for Madeleine whatever the facts, provable or assumed. I have children and never did what they did; I am their main carer and have been present with them every moment of their lives when they have not been under some other care- relatives, school etc. What the McCanns did was ill-advised, dangerous and risky.

But it is TRUE to say that they broke no laws. This is not Hypocrisy but factual.

Part of the Anti-McCann cult belief is that all things McCann must be evil. Most cults have such a policy about outsiders and opposers. It is only by blaming a scapegoat that they can protect their own belief system where it is open to attack.

Saying as C.Edwards does that

If I was to say, "the McCanns should have been locked up for child neglect for leaving their kids in danger," then we all know what answer we will get from the McCann fanclub, "they didn't break any laws as the Portuguese system requires INTENT to harm so there!" Pardon me, but isn't this breathtaking hypocrisy?

Is a completely true statement and is not open to rational attack. Many people, pros and [ censored word], will criticise the McCanns childcare as a moral issue, but moral issues are societal and have a wide range of acceptability. This acceptance ranges from when people think that behaviour ought to be open to criticism, when it should be socially sanctioned and when it should be formally (criminally or administratively) sanctioned. What we are dealing with here is belief systems.

What C.Edwards is actually saying is

"Because someone else's totally legal and possibly rational belief system differs from mine, they are hypocrites." All he is saying is that "My beliefs are better than yours". He tries to tie it up with criminality, but that is beside the point as the action was not actionable criminally.

Once the statement is reduced to the bare bones it is meaningless. All he is saying behind the false screen is "I am in my assessment better than you!" Not so convincing, is it?

He then goes on to say

"How do you live with yourselves using that kind of "logic"?"

Which is meaningless. The statement he complains of is totally logical; it is his analysis that is illogical, conflating as it does individual belief with fact.

Further he says:

" It's saying it's ok that they did something that WOULD have had them prosecuted in this country because they did it in a country where they didn't break the law."

Which again is nonsense on stilts hiding behind words.

Are we to say that our childcare should be ruled by the same laws everywhere? It happens to be the case that their behaviour was almost certainly not criminally actionable in either Portugal or England. It is however likely that in many states in the US it is illegal to do what they did. What does this tell us? It tells us that standards vary. Should we hold everyone here to the standards of childcare in the US? Many quite normal activities in the UK would be banned. People would be arrested for allowing children to play naked on the beach, giving children aged 19 alcohol at home with a meal could be a criminal offence, blanket bans on children on the streets after pm could be enforced and parents criminalised for allowing it. However we would be quite entitled to beat children severely with sticks or belts, and if they misbehaved more, assign them on a parent's signature to a dehumanising boot camp at age 9.

Different strokes for different folks.

Many of the problems here are based on myths arising from the cult like behaviour by pros and [ censored word], and I hope to develop that theme over the next few days.

For the time being I will leave you with some thoughts about cult behaviour.

The main indicators that cult thinking is in operation is evidence of Group Compliance, Dependence on strong leaders who seek to control the direction of though of the members, avoiding dissent within the cult and increasing the opprobrium for outsiders.

Look at the dynamics of many of the altercations here and it is quite clear that there are two cult like positions in conflict.