Establishing the identity of an abducted child by DNA.

[Eleanor]

I did not presume anything. I asked a question, as you are a mod and you were posting on the thread.

It was you who posted this reply:


 " Difficult, don't you agree, since everybody is at it.  I seriously do try not to wipe the entire Board.  Unless you think I should."

I replied

"I think you should show even handedness and impartiality. Brietta is a known troll for name calling people who do not believe 'lies'.  she has a posted quite  few insulting, derogatory remarks against posters who disagree with her.  I ask they be swiped OR mine be put back!

Sound fair?"

To Reply...

"However, you seem to have a problem with me personally."

I do not have  a problem with anyone on this forum- I don't take it too seriously.  Evenhandedness is a requirement of any forum with integrity. I have never called you names or been rude to you. OR discussed you with ADMIN.
...and How many supporters have I reported that have not been treated the same as others?

"Is it because I am an obvious McCann Supporter?" 

I think you have gone over a wall with that statement Elle,  My best friend is a McCANN supporter...oopsy.  Some people I work with /socialise with , are McCANN SUPPORTERS, We don't do name calling and such though.

"When did you last hear a McCann Supporter whinging about deleted posts? "

Hell yeah, now we are getting somewhere, could that be because they don't get theirs deleted such as the posts above I have mentioned?



"Do you really understand what Moderating is all about?"

 Do I have to know anything more than I already know? I was a mod in another chatroom many moons ago. I believe in freedom of speech, with responsibility, and within the realms of decency and the law. Is there anything else I should know?

Yes.  Stop assuming that you know who deleted your posts.  Why attack me?  Or am I the only one daft enough to discuss it with you?  None of us actually have to.

[Eleanor]

No. I rarely watch TV. Chain of Evidence?  The samples would become part of the chain of evidence, the taking of them is another matter. I would expect there to be very good reasons before someone could be forced to submit to a DNA test.

The ‘chain of evidence’ refers to the handling of evidence from the moment it is found and
seized, right through the prosecution process. It provides an audit trail showing where that
evidence has been at all times.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284166/Evidencev3_0EXT.pdf

Exactly.

[Miss Taken Identity]

1. I did not assume anything- I asked a question! was it fair and should that post be deleted.
2. I did not attack you- I have no reason to.
3. So, don't talk to me- I don't mind either way.

Have a nice weekend!

[G-Unit]

If you broaden your horizon just a little you will realise there may be more children in the world who could be affected by separation from their nearest and dearest than Madeleine McCann.

One only has to look at the huge migrations occurring on our doorsteps where it is inevitable that children will become parted from their parents or their parents may die to see the inherent dangers children face.
I can foresee situations where DNA testing may reunite families.

I find this resistance of some to recognise the possibility that Madeleine could have been any one of a number of children sighted in the past extraordinary ... and I remain somewhat perplexed that you seem to think that DNA elimination tests should not be used to eliminate look-a-likes.

We are not talking thousands upon thousands of children being invasively tested here ... we are talking very few donating cells from a mouth swab ... and apart from the little girl dumped by the roadside in a suitcase ... none for a period of some years.

So is your objection uniquely applicable to Madeleine McCann ... or is it a generalisation applicable to all missing children? 

Weird anyway that you envisage police conducting such tests without reasonable cause to do so.

It is precisely because I look at the wider picture that I refuse to accept that any family whose child looked like Madeleine should have been required to prove their child was their own by having it DNA tested. The inference being that they could have stolen their child from someone else. There are other ways to prove a child belongs to it's parents. No-one has previously mentioned reasonable  cause, so it needed saying. A 'sighting' is not, on it's own, reasonable cause.

[jassi]

It is precisely because I look at the wider picture that I refuse to accept that any family whose child looked like Madeleine should have been required to prove their child was their own by having it DNA tested. The inference being that they could have stolen their child from someone else. There are other ways to prove a child belongs to it's parents. No-one has previously mentioned reasonable  cause, so it needed saying. A 'sighting' is not, on it's own, reasonable cause.

Indeed it is not, it is merely a  possibility that requires normal police investigation.

It intrigues me what criteria would be considered at this late stage.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It is precisely because I look at the wider picture that I refuse to accept that any family whose child looked like Madeleine should have been required to prove their child was their own by having it DNA tested. The inference being that they could have stolen their child from someone else. There are other ways to prove a child belongs to it's parents. No-one has previously mentioned reasonable  cause, so it needed saying. A 'sighting' is not, on it's own, reasonable cause.

Indeed G.

also, there is the human rights of the child who would be subjected to such an intrusion-violation. Mass hysteria was the order of the day - whooped up by the family.

[Mr Gray]

Indeed G.

also, there is the human rights of the child who would be subjected to such an intrusion-violation. Mass hysteria was the order of the day - whooped up by the family.

mass hysteria whooped by people such as you....which child has been asked to take a dna test

[sadie]

Indeed G.

also, there is the human rights of the child who would be subjected to such an intrusion-violation. Mass hysteria was the order of the day - whooped up by the family.

Dont make such a big thing out of it.  Just a mouth swab is sufficient.


You prefer that a missing child might be left missing, stolen, rather than take a mouth swab?


Gawd strewth !!

[G-Unit]

so who would like to agree to stop the insults...don't think I will get many takers

I would like to see the insults stopped, but what would be left? some people would not be able to say anything at all. 

[Miss Taken Identity]

Dont make such a big thing out of it.  Just a mouth swab is sufficient.


You prefer that a missing child might be left missing, stolen, rather than take a mouth swab?


Gawd strewth !!

It is intrusive and a violation of a childs human right to remove anything of their person without their consent! 3 year olds would not understand what that meant.

[Mr Gray]

I would like to see the insults stopped, but what would be left? some people would not be able to say anything at all. 

so still no takers

[G-Unit]

Dont make such a big thing out of it.  Just a mouth swab is sufficient.


You prefer that a missing child might be left missing, stolen, rather than take a mouth swab?


Gawd strewth !!

A pair of careless parents mislaid their child. You didn't. Then you get a knock on the door saying your child looks like the missing child. You know it's yours. Why the goodness gracious should you have to prove it? The mouth swab is no big deal, it's the inference that you're a child snatcher that is insulting.

[jassi]

Here's an idea - why don't we DNA test every white girl in the world  between the ages of 10 & 14 - you never know, we might find Madeleine, though I seriously doubt it.

[Miss Taken Identity]

A pair of careless parents mislaid their child. You didn't. Then you get a knock on the door saying your child looks like the missing child. You know it's yours. Why the goodness gracious should you have to prove it? The mouth swab is no big deal, it's the inference that you're a child snatcher that is insulting.

...and could be intimidating and frightening for the child.

[Mr Gray]

A pair of careless parents mislaid their child. You didn't. Then you get a knock on the door saying your child looks like the missing child. You know it's yours. Why the goodness gracious should you have to prove it? The mouth swab is no big deal, it's the inference that you're a child snatcher that is insulting.

I think you mean the implication you are a child snatcher is insulting and I agree...so the implication that the mccanns are criminals is also extremely insulting to them..