Bamber tries to sell nude pictures of Sheila to The Sun newspaper

[Holly Goodhead]

It was VS I do believe them relevant - but it's you that doesn't in the M case but do in JB case

Anyway it was off topic - probably best discussed on the appropriate forum another time


It was a bit incompetent really for B to not delete the full post. as its a bit garbled as it stands.

I can start a thread here to discuss as it's relevant imo both in terms of how the press distort and how members here knowingly or unknowingly discriminate negatively and positively?  Thread title?  Maybe discrimination/prejudice? 

JB sgl 24 yoa farmer - supposedly attempting to sell sexual images of SC -  Brie/VS consider appalling and voice opinion of such.  Another black mark for JB.

McCanns married late 30's medi docs - leave 3 children 3 yoa and under alone in unlocked holiday apartment night after night whilst on a jolly up with medi friends - Brie/VS play down: suffered enough, wasn't really that far away/could see apartment/it wasn't their fault/perps fault.  No black mark.

I believe JB innocent and I don't believe the McCanns were involved in MM's disappearance so I'm not conflicted 

[kizzy]

I can start a thread here to discuss as it's relevant imo both in terms of how the press distort and how members here knowingly or unknowingly discriminate negatively and positively?  Thread title?  Maybe discrimination/prejudice? 

JB sgl 24 yoa farmer - supposedly attempting to sell sexual images of SC -  Brie/VS consider appalling and voice opinion of such.  Another black mark for JB.

McCanns married late 30's medi docs - leave 3 children 3 yoa and under alone in unlocked holiday apartment night after night whilst on a jolly up with medi friends - Brie/VS play down: suffered enough, wasn't really that far away/could see apartment/it wasn't their fault/perps fault.  No black mark.

I believe JB innocent and I don't believe the McCanns were involved in MM's disappearance so I'm not conflicted 

Spot on.

Different morals in different cases. imo. seems a bit hypocritical to me.

[APRIL]

Spot on.

Different morals in different cases. imo. seems a bit hypocritical to me.

But each case must be looked at individually. One can't compare the ethics of the M's with those of JB. The circumstances are entirely different.

[Caroline]

I can start a thread here to discuss as it's relevant imo both in terms of how the press distort and how members here knowingly or unknowingly discriminate negatively and positively?  Thread title?  Maybe discrimination/prejudice? 

JB sgl 24 yoa farmer - supposedly attempting to sell sexual images of SC -  Brie/VS consider appalling and voice opinion of such.  Another black mark for JB.

McCanns married late 30's medi docs - leave 3 children 3 yoa and under alone in unlocked holiday apartment night after night whilst on a jolly up with medi friends - Brie/VS play down: suffered enough, wasn't really that far away/could see apartment/it wasn't their fault/perps fault.  No black mark.

I believe JB innocent and I don't believe the McCanns were involved in MM's disappearance so I'm not conflicted 

Pity you're afraid to defend your stance on this case by not answering important on ON TOPIC questions.

[Holly Goodhead]

But each case must be looked at individually. One can't compare the ethics of the M's with those of JB. The circumstances are entirely different.

We're talking about behaviour in both cases that most find unacceptable:

- JB engaging with a tabloid hack supposedly to sell sexual images of SC.

- M's leaving 3 children, all 3 yoa and under, in an unlocked holiday apartment for 5 consecutive nights whilst they had a jolly up with medi friends in a nearby tapas bar.

[Caroline]

We're talking about behaviour in both cases that most find unacceptable:

- JB engaging with a tabloid hack supposedly to sell sexual images of SC.

- M's leaving 3 children, all 3 yoa and under, in an unlocked holiday apartment for 5 consecutive nights whilst they had a jolly up with medi friends in a nearby tapas bar.

As usual, you have an inability to match like for like.

[APRIL]

We're talking about behaviour in both cases that most find unacceptable:

- JB engaging with a tabloid hack supposedly to sell sexual images of SC.

- M's leaving 3 children, all 3 yoa and under, in an unlocked holiday apartment for 5 consecutive nights whilst they had a jolly up with medi friends in a nearby tapas bar.

Well, quite obviously, BOTH are entirely unacceptable, but they can't be compared. One is neither better nor worse than the other, only differently unacceptable.

[Caroline]

Well, quite obviously, BOTH are entirely unacceptable, but they can't be compared. One is neither better nor worse than the other, only differently unacceptable.

We came to the same conclusion, Holly can't compare like for like and it's something you need to know how to do in scientific experiments. I think that's why she won't answer my  question.

[APRIL]

We came to the same conclusion, Holly can't compare like for like and it's something you need to know how to do in scientific experiments. I think that's why she won't answer my  question.

Experiments carried out on less than like for like can't be compared, which makes them void.

[Caroline]

Experiments carried out on less than like for like can't be compared, which makes them void.

I know that and you know that - I found someone else who knows that and I think Holly kind of guessed that 

[Holly Goodhead]

Well, quite obviously, BOTH are entirely unacceptable, but they can't be compared. One is neither better nor worse than the other, only differently unacceptable.

Not saying they can be compared just saying they both need condemning but some try to excuse the M's poor behaviour whilst happy to chastise JB.

[Holly Goodhead]

Not sure what experiments have got to do with thread topic? 

[Caroline]

Not saying they can be compared just saying they both need condemning but some try to excuse the M's poor behaviour whilst happy to chastise JB.

This board is nothing to do the the M's and you can believe that someone is innocent while someone else is guilty! Selling pictures of your dead sister is nothing like leaving your child in circs  where you thought they were safe. It's incompetent but it happens all of the time - then there's Bamber! No comparison.

[APRIL]

Not saying they can be compared just saying they both need condemning but some try to excuse the M's poor behaviour whilst happy to chastise JB.

As we're all informed by our past experiences, I can't offer more than the suggestion that they may have left their own children alone and nothing untoward happened, whilst very few have ever tried, or can ever contemplate selling porny pics of a recently dead relative.

[Holly Goodhead]

This board is nothing to do the the M's and you can believe that someone is innocent while someone else is guilty! Selling pictures of your dead sister is nothing like leaving your child in circs  where you thought they were safe. It's incompetent but it happens all of the time - then there's Bamber! No comparison.

We are talking about behaviour that most find unacceptable and the fact that some will condemn some individuals and their poor behaviour but not others.  The M's behaviour amounts to neglect as far as nspcc is concerned.

I will set up a new thread as suggested by Kizzy.