UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: stephen25000 on September 29, 2013, 09:38:49 AM
-
So tell me exactly with statistics how many people have left their children:
All under 4; in an unlocked residence; with no protection; infrequent checks which are not independently verified; for several nights in a row; whilst out drinking and snacking with some associates ?
I await your reasoned answer backed up with data. 8((()*/
-
So tell me exactly with statistics how many people have left their children:
All under 4; in an unlocked residence; with no protection; infrequent checks which are not independently verified; for several nights in a row; whilst out drinking and snacking with some associates ?
I await your reasoned answer backed up with data. 8((()*/
You'll have a long wait stephen
We have been bluffed for a long time that the McCanns, and their equally cavalier chums, were living in some kind of 'Butlins' time warp
They were 'lulled' into a false sense of security you see ... by all the red-coats wandering around Praia de Luz shouting Hi Di Hi at all the campers
-
You'll have a long wait stephen
We have been bluffed for a long time that the McCanns, and their equally cavalier chums, were living in some kind of 'Butlins' time warp
They were 'lulled' into a false sense of security you see ... by all the red-coats wandering around Praia de Luz shouting Hi Di Hi at all the campers
Yes, you're right.
They come out of the closet with all their well worn cliches, and it isn't going to stop.
-
So tell me exactly with statistics how many people have left their children:
All under 4; in an unlocked residence; with no protection; infrequent checks which are not independently verified; for several nights in a row; whilst out drinking and snacking with some associates ?
I await your reasoned answer backed up with data. 8((()*/
You really are in denial aren't you Stephen. The service which has been offered for decades and used by probably hundreds of thousands of parents by now - is called a BABY Listening Service, the clue being in the word 'Baby'.
Parents leave their babies and children fast asleep and go out. Whilst they are out regular checks are made on them by members of staff listening outside doors. It is a legal service and and obviously considered to be safe otherwise there would be no demand for it - and it would never have existed. Nowadays it would seem that baby monitors are also used by parents who leave their chidren asleep whilst they go for their evening meal.
Whether you like it or not - parents on holiday have been doing the same as the McCanns for years - and despite your never ending attempts to put the McCanns forward as 'unique' in this respect - those are the facts.
Your further attempt to infer they were out drinking - with a few snacks, is just plain nasty IMO. They were having a three course evening meal, which included wine. Not a single person who observed them during those meals has ever claimed they were inebriated.
Wildly exaggerating the facts to make them suit your own agenda is not 'reasoned' argument. IMO
-
You'll have a long wait stephen
We have been bluffed for a long time that the McCanns, and their equally cavalier chums, were living in some kind of 'Butlins' time warp
They were 'lulled' into a false sense of security you see ... by all the red-coats wandering around Praia de Luz shouting Hi Di Hi at all the campers
You are completely out of touch....Mark warner was still advertising baby listening on its website at other resorts AFTER Maddie was abducted..no time warp you are wrong again. not only that I supplied details of one uk hotel..there must be more...advertising baby listening services at present...no time warp you are wrong again
-
I don't understand how you can feel anything but sympathy to a couple who left their children in an apt on a complex, the same as thousands of british families have done since the days of butlins and suffered a terrible tragedy
I feel enormous sympathy for the McCanns having lost their daughter, and also for the difficulties they have experienced since then, many of which have not been their fault. As a parent, I understand profoundly the idea that losing a child is just about the worst thing that coulc happen to a person.
My comment related to the simple fact that the McCanns themselves feel guilty for leaving their children - very natural feelings that will remain with them regardless of what anyone else says or does. In the words of Kate McCann: ' we've let her down.'
Feeling partially responsible for the disappearance, as Kate's words illustrate, must make their grief even more difficult to bear.
-
I feel enormous sympathy for the McCanns having lost their daughter, and also for the difficulties they have experienced since then, many of which have not been their fault. As a parent, I understand profoundly the idea that losing a child is just about the worst thing that coulc happen to a person.
My comment related to the simple fact that the McCanns themselves feel guilty for leaving their children - very natural feelings that will remain with them regardless of what anyone else says or does. In the words of Kate McCann: ' we've let her down.'
Feeling partially responsible for the disappearance, as Kate's words illustrate, must make their grief even more difficult to bear.
That's a kind and thoughtful post, Sherlock.
-
That's a kind and thoughtful post, Sherlock.
Yes, being critical of the McCanns - as I sometimes am - is nothing to do with not feeling sympathy.
It is important to be sympathetic, and also to try to say or do things that are of practical relevance and help to a person - the latter being an extension of the former.
Criticising the way the McCanns are handling this trial, for example, as many of us here are doing, is a reflection of the belief that some of the things the McCanns are doing are not working very well for them, and that they would be better off tackling things differently (such as preparing better witnesses), and is not necessarily an 'attack' on the McCanns as individuals.
Ultimately, as I said before on another thread, I think we all feel sympathy for the McCanns at a deep level, whether we like them as individuals or not, or always agree with their approach, because we would never ever like to be in their shoes with regard to our own children.
And of course, we also feel sorry for Madeleine.
-
You really are in denial aren't you Stephen. The service which has been offered for decades and used by probably hundreds of thousands of parents by now - is called a BABY Listening Service, the clue being in the word 'Baby'.
Parents leave their babies and children fast asleep and go out. Whilst they are out regular checks are made on them by members of staff listening outside doors. It is a legal service and and obviously considered to be safe otherwise there would be no demand for it - and it would never have existed. Nowadays it would seem that baby monitors are also used by parents who leave their chidren asleep whilst they go for their evening meal.
Whether you like it or not - parents on holiday have been doing the same as the McCanns for years - and despite your never ending attempts to put the McCanns forward as 'unique' in this respect - those are the facts.
Your further attempt to infer they were out drinking - with a few snacks, is just plain nasty IMO. They were having a three course evening meal, which included wine. Not a single person who observed them during those meals has ever claimed they were inebriated.
Wildly exaggerating the facts to make them suit your own agenda is not 'reasoned' argument. IMO
That never existed in Portugal and still doesn't exist - I repeat:LISTENING SERVICES ARE FORBIDDEN IN PORTUGAL. They had the possibility to hire the same baby-sitters that took care of their children during the day.
Even though that would constitute a severe crime in Portugal and in the UK, that is not the crux of the matter, in my opinion. The problem is that they didn't take care of their children as they should, one is missing, probably dead, and they have done everything to avoid the truth to be learned about how that child disappeared.
Being sympathetic with their loss is only human, but it is also human to be angry at them for impeding the truth to be found and for harming every person that do not believe them.
...and Benice, nobody invented the 14 bottles of wine orders that are in the files. Or do you believe that it was water and the employees made it up that it was wine?!
-
That never existed in Portugal and still doesn't exist - I repeat:LISTENING SERVICES ARE FORBIDDEN IN PORTUGAL. They had the possibility to hire the same baby-sitters that took care of their children during the day.
Even though that would constitute a severe crime in Portugal and in the UK, that is not the crux of the matter, in my opinion. The problem is that they didn't take care of their children as they should, one is missing, probably dead, and they have done everything to avoid the truth to be learned about how that child disappeared.
exactly luz why didnt they sit down with their friends in the apartment and havea drink thats what most parents do and the kids play together
-
That never existed in Portugal and still doesn't exist - I repeat:LISTENING SERVICES ARE FORBIDDEN IN PORTUGAL. They had the possibility to hire the same baby-sitters that took care of their children during the day.
Even though that would constitute a severe crime in Portugal and in the UK, that is not the crux of the matter, in my opinion. The problem is that they didn't take care of their children as they should, one is missing, probably dead, and they have done everything to avoid the truth to be learned about how that child disappeared.
Being sympathetic with their loss is only human, but it is also human to be angry at them for impeding the truth to be found and for harming every person that do not believe them.
...and Benice, nobody invented the 14 bottles of wine orders that are in the files. Or do you believe that it was water and the employees made it up that it was wine?!
I've tried to look at it like this: If something had happened to one of my children that I feared would result in my other child being removed from my care, what would I do?
Now, lets ignore my culpability (assuming that I wasn't directly responsible) in the first child's demise, I can't do anything for that child any more, however I can still protect this surviving child.
I can imagine committing pretty much any crime you care to name if I truly believed it was in the best interests of the rest of my family.
Should there have been an accident that was covered up, I can understand why, so I don't feel any particular anger about that.
I find it harder to sympathise with some of their actions over the following years, whether they are guilty of any crime or innocent victims of circumstance.
-
That never existed in Portugal and still doesn't exist - I repeat:LISTENING SERVICES ARE FORBIDDEN IN PORTUGAL. They had the possibility to hire the same baby-sitters that took care of their children during the day.
Even though that would constitute a severe crime in Portugal and in the UK, that is not the crux of the matter, in my opinion. The problem is that they didn't take care of their children as they should, one is missing, probably dead, and they have done everything to avoid the truth to be learned about how that child disappeared.
Being sympathetic with their loss is only human, but it is also human to be angry at them for impeding the truth to be found and for harming every person that do not believe them.
...and Benice, nobody invented the 14 bottles of wine orders that are in the files. Or do you believe that it was water and the employees made it up that it was wine?!
luz...stop telling lies..in the archiving report they talk of regular checks indicating the McCanns were not negligent
-
I've tried to look at it like this: If something had happened to one of my children that I feared would result in my other child being removed from my care, what would I do?
Now, lets ignore my culpability (assuming that I wasn't directly responsible) in the first child's demise, I can't do anything for that child any more, however I can still protect this surviving child.
I can imagine committing pretty much any crime you care to name if I truly believed it was in the best interests of the rest of my family.
Should there have been an accident that was covered up, I can understand why, so I don't feel any particular anger about that.
I find it harder to sympathise with some of their actions over the following years, whether they are guilty of any crime or innocent victims of circumstance.
What actions do you mean, Cariad?
-
I've tried to look at it like this: If something had happened to one of my children that I feared would result in my other child being removed from my care, what would I do?
Now, lets ignore my culpability (assuming that I wasn't directly responsible) in the first child's demise, I can't do anything for that child any more, however I can still protect this surviving child.
I can imagine committing pretty much any crime you care to name if I truly believed it was in the best interests of the rest of my family.
Should there have been an accident that was covered up, I can understand why, so I don't feel any particular anger about that.
I find it harder to sympathise with some of their actions over the following years, whether they are guilty of any crime or innocent victims of circumstance.
I couldn't agree more.
-
luz...stop telling lies..in the archiving report they talk of regular checks indicating the McCanns were not negligent
Those checks are not verified independently and you know that.
If they hadn't been negligent, Madeleine would be still with them.
-
luz...stop telling lies..in the archiving report they talk of regular checks indicating the McCanns were not negligent
This (Pamela Fenn's statement) shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
If said guard duty had been observed, in the possibility of this being an abduction, as was insistently mentioned and continues to be mentioned and is admissible to have happened, its occurrence might eventually have been rendered inviable.
-
What actions do you mean, Cariad?
Leaving the twins to go to Rome. Hiring a PR consultant and lawyering up at the first opportunity. Telling people that the shutters were broken when they weren't. Not answering questions, not agreeing to a reconstruction. Not investigating the forensic evidence.
I'm very aware that people don't always act as they believe they would in a stressful situation though, so I honestly can not predict what my own actions would be in those circumstances. I can't imagine leaving my remaining children though. It just seems counter intuitive to me.
-
Those checks are not verified independently and you know that.
If they hadn't been negligent, Madeleine would be still with them.
Checking most certainly is verified independently, by waiters who served them all week and report frequently returning meals to the kitchen to be re-heated because guests left the table to go back to the apartments to check on the children; by Jez Wilkins in his report of his discussion with Gerry when they met outside the apartment on May 3rd; by Stephen Carpenter, who was in the restaurant on May 3rd and speaks of people frequently absenting themselves from the table throughout the evening ...
-
That never existed in Portugal and still doesn't exist - I repeat:LISTENING SERVICES ARE FORBIDDEN IN PORTUGAL. They had the possibility to hire the same baby-sitters that took care of their children during the day.
Even though that would constitute a severe crime in Portugal and in the UK, that is not the crux of the matter, in my opinion. The problem is that they didn't take care of their children as they should, one is missing, probably dead, and they have done everything to avoid the truth to be learned about how that child disappeared.
Being sympathetic with their loss is only human, but it is also human to be angry at them for impeding the truth to be found and for harming every person that do not believe them.
...and Benice, nobody invented the 14 bottles of wine orders that are in the files. Or do you believe that it was water and the employees made it up that it was wine?!
As it was only a couple of days ago you were categoricaly claiming that NO personal details were released in the PJ files, a claim which proved to be completely untrue - can you provide proof of the illegality of Baby Listening Services in Portugal. IIRC the McCanns were not found to be neglectful - as their regular checking ruled out the criterion of 'abandonment', which was required to prove neglect.
Personally I would have to know a potential babysitter for a lot longer than a couple of minutes before I allowed them to spend time alone with my children in my apartment - no matter what their day job was.
As for the 14 bottles of wine, it seems increasingly obvious to me that you have believed every myth ever created in this case. If that was true then there must be a witness statement from at least one of the restaurant staff who served them, to prove it, but I do not recall having seen one.
On the 3rd May the McCanns and their friends did not sit down until 9.00 oclock - and at approx 10.00 oclock they left - which leaves about an hour during which they were eating a 3 course meal and leaving the table at intervals to check on their children. If you really believe they also managed to consume 14 bottles of wine in that short time, then I would be very surprised.
-
luz...stop telling lies..in the archiving report they talk of regular checks indicating the McCanns were not negligent
There were no listening services. Calling me names doesn't make it true.
The archiving Report says that there were indications that they were negligent.
-
Checking most certainly is verified independently, by waiters who served them all week and report frequently returning meals to the kitchen to be re-heated because guests left the table to go back to the apartments to check on the children; by Jez Wilkins in his report of his discussion with Gerry when they met outside the apartment on May 3rd; by Stephen Carpenter, who was in the restaurant on May 3rd and speaks of people frequently absenting themselves from the table throughout the evening ...
How many of these people saw any member of the party entering or leaving the apartment on all those nights they went to the tapas bar ?
P.S. Can you spell chemistry ? 8**8:/:
-
I've tried to look at it like this: If something had happened to one of my children that I feared would result in my other child being removed from my care, what would I do?
Now, lets ignore my culpability (assuming that I wasn't directly responsible) in the first child's demise, I can't do anything for that child any more, however I can still protect this surviving child.
I can imagine committing pretty much any crime you care to name if I truly believed it was in the best interests of the rest of my family.
Should there have been an accident that was covered up, I can understand why, so I don't feel any particular anger about that.
I find it harder to sympathise with some of their actions over the following years, whether they are guilty of any crime or innocent victims of circumstance.
I do enjoy reading your posts cariad, and this one is very honest and heartfelt
I agree with you absolutely, and have always felt that if Amaral is correct and a tragic accident occured in the apartment ( while the McCanns were absent ) then I can see how, perhaps in a panic and not thinking straight because they were distraught, they might have tried to protect their other children by covering up the accident
Even in those circumstances, I would still have compassion for the McCanns' ... what a desperately sad situation that would have been
-
How many of these people saw any member of the party entering or leaving the apartment on all those nights they went to the tapas bar ?
You think that after leaving the table, they might have been sloping off to the toilets to snort cocaine?
-
As it was only a couple of days ago you were categoricaly claiming that NO personal details were released in the PJ files, a claim which proved to be completely untrue - can you provide proof of the illegality of Baby Listening Services in Portugal. IIRC the McCanns were not found to be neglectful - as their regular checking ruled out the criterion of 'abandonment', which was required to prove neglect.
Personally I would have to know a potential babysitter for a lot longer than a couple of minutes before I allowed them to spend time alone with my children in my apartment - no matter what their day job was.
As for the 14 bottles of wine, it seems increasingly obvious to me that you have believed every myth ever created in this case. If that was true then there must be a witness statement from at least one of the restaurant staff who served them, to prove it, but I do not recall having seen one.
On the 3rd May the McCanns and their friends did not sit down until 9.00 oclock - and at approx 10.00 oclock they left - which leaves about an hour during which they were eating a 3 course meal and leaving the table at intervals to check on their children. If you really believe they also managed to consume 14 bottles of wine in that short time, then I would be very surprised.
Don't wait for Luz to accept she is wrong and apologise. ?>)()<
-
How many of these people saw any member of the party entering or leaving the apartment on all those nights they went to the tapas bar ?
P.S. Can you spell chemistry ? 8**8:/:
Stephen..I think you should be a detective...a Portuguese detective...you would fit in well
-
How many of these people saw any member of the party entering or leaving the apartment on all those nights they went to the tapas bar ?
You think that after leaving the table, they might have been sloping off to the toilets to snort cocaine?
More likely to visit the good old wc.
-
How many of these people saw any member of the party entering or leaving the apartment on all those nights they went to the tapas bar ?
You think that after leaving the table, they might have been sloping off to the toilets to snort cocaine?
Which doors did they use or did they listen at windows?
The questions can't be answered can they because there are no independent witnesses - on any of the nights.
-
...and Benice, nobody invented the 14 bottles of wine orders that are in the files. Or do you believe that it was water and the employees made it up that it was wine?!
Luz, Luz... There is a thread on the 14 bottles of wine issue.
Do you still really believe that those scribbles on the bottom of a page identifying all the guests in the restaurant that night referred to the T9 consumption? If so, it would mean that they also drank 8 x 1.5 litres of water within the space of just over an hour.
-
So tell me exactly with statistics how many people have left their children:
All under 4; in an unlocked residence; with no protection; infrequent checks which are not independently verified; for several nights in a row; whilst out drinking and snacking with some associates ?
I await your reasoned answer backed up with data. 8((()*/
I know I'm going to be persecuted by what I'm about to write, but I'm used to it.
First of all, from the limited experience that I have with British couples with young children, both in Britain and in Portugal, I've never witnessed any of them leaving 3 year old, or even until they were in their middle or late teens.
Second, even though it seems all of the 9 persons assumed to leaving their children alone, I have trouble believing it.
Third, and it's here that I will be flogged, because it's speculation, I think that whatever happened had little to do with the reported neglect, and that was used to justify the absence of the child.
If there was a fatal accident, and there was the need to occult the body, then there was some very serious crime committed that could be revealed by the poor child's corpse. As I said this is pure speculation on my part - I have no clue whatsoever.
-
The title is: "In hindsight the checks on the children were inadequate...are we sympathetic?"
I'm not sure hindsight comes into it. I would expect any parent to have more insight into the needs of their children and to care enough to put their children's needs before their own. Add in that these were doctors who must, surely, have learnt on their training and experience what can happen to young children left alone (see the thread on accidents) to know that three such young children should not be left out of sight and hearing
-
I know I'm going to be persecuted by what I'm about to write, but I'm used to it.
First of all, from the limited experience that I have with British couples with young children, both in Britain and in Portugal, I've never witnessed any of them leaving 3 year old, or even until they were in their middle or late teens.
Second, even though it seems all of the 9 persons assumed to leaving their children alone, I have trouble believing it.
Third, and it's here that I will be flogged, because it's speculation, I think that whatever happened had little to do with the reported neglect, and that was used to justify the absence of the child.
If there was a fatal accident, and there was the need to occult the body, then there was some very serious crime committed that could be revealed by the poor child's corpse. As I said this is pure speculation on my part - I have no clue whatsoever.
As you say, it's speculation on your part. Others may speculate that she'd been taken by little green men in an invisibility cloak.
What exactly are you trying to say? That she wasn't left alone that evening?
-
The AG seemed to accept it as sufficiently impressive to not bring child neglect charges. The Met seems to see it as part of the evidence that the parents are not persons of interest.
Now some odd peel on the internet may doubt it, but that means nothing.
... edit ...
Well of course the only way to test the veracity of their alleged checking arrangements would have been via the reconstruction, to see if it all fitted or if what they stated resulted in several people bumping in to each other at the same time.
Yet they refused.
Wonder why and what inference we can draw from their decision?
-
«We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.»
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/lisbon-appeals-court-ruling.html»
The fact is other prosecutors could have and can still find enough "indicative facts" from the very same process, added to new elements brought forward from the McCanns multiple documentaries and interviews, that could lead for a prosecution for child negligence. Dolo Eventual being a clear possibility. I've heard not one, but many Portuguese jurists, judges and lawyers say that. So there. The two prosecutors from Portimão who wrote the archival dispatch should have brought forward an accusation against the McCanns and their friends, under article 138º of the CPP [Artigo 138.º - Exposição ou abandono]. http://easilex.blogspot.pt/2008/08/casal-mccann-no-ser-acusado-de-crime-de.html http://octalberto.no.sapo.pt/exposicao_ou_abandono.htm
-
No. The Met have used HOLMES to check this. Far more effective and much cheaper than people bumbling around.
They may have done simulations (Campbell's system wasn't too successful in the Dando case was it) but is there any evidence the Portuguese have been impressed by them?
So far I think there has been no indication.
-
Why should the Portuguese be interested. This is merely forum froth.
>@@(*&) Isn't the idea to try to persuade the Portuguese to resume the investigation?
-
Forum froth? @)(++(*
-
What effect. Cite please.
K McCann's own book is the most obvious testament.
-
I feel enormous sympathy for Madeleine and the twins but not for the parents, they had choices and they could have taken the children with them and let them sleep in buggies, pooled all the kids in one apartment and eaten in the same apartment, used a listening device, I mean how much would it have cost to buy 2 really cheap mobiles (carphone warehouse sell them for £3) get a portual based sim card and left it on, stayed in.
If you want the single life, don't have kids.
Using a listening service is really it's a bit like throwing your kids in a pool and saying "Oh, well there's a life guard on duty", he might get to the kids in time but who's responsibilty is it?
I really don't understand why when people are on holiday they do things they wouldn't (well they might do for all I know) do if they were at home. The Mccanns have done a grand job of milking the sympathetic public through their mistake and now think everyone should be looking for THEIR daughter because they did not because they were too busy in the pub.
-
A number of off topic posts have been expunged. Please stay on topic to avoid the need for this.
-
I feel enormous sympathy for Madeleine and the twins but not for the parents, they had choices and they could have taken the children with them and let them sleep in buggies, pooled all the kids in one apartment and eaten in the same apartment, used a listening device, I mean how much would it have cost to buy 2 really cheap mobiles (carphone warehouse sell them for £3) get a portual based sim card and left it on, stayed in.
If you want the single life, don't have kids.
Using a listening service is really it's a bit like throwing your kids in a pool and saying "Oh, well there's a life guard on duty", he might get to the kids in time but who's responsibilty is it?
I really don't understand why when people are on holiday they do things they wouldn't (well they might do for all I know) do if they were at home. The Mccanns have done a grand job of milking the sympathetic public through their mistake and now think everyone should be looking for THEIR daughter because they did not because they were too busy in the pub.
Joanne. Stop the lies. Since when has a retaurant been called a pub!
Just trying to influence the unaware aren't you and whip up hatred against The Mccanns.
Please modify your post and get it right.
-
I feel enormous sympathy for Madeleine and the twins but not for the parents, they had choices and they could have taken the children with them and let them sleep in buggies, pooled all the kids in one apartment and eaten in the same apartment, used a listening device, I mean how much would it have cost to buy 2 really cheap mobiles (carphone warehouse sell them for £3) get a portual based sim card and left it on, stayed in.
If you want the single life, don't have kids.
Using a listening service is really it's a bit like throwing your kids in a pool and saying "Oh, well there's a life guard on duty", he might get to the kids in time but who's responsibilty is it?
I really don't understand why when people are on holiday they do things they wouldn't (well they might do for all I know) do if they were at home. The Mccanns have done a grand job of milking the sympathetic public through their mistake and now think everyone should be looking for THEIR daughter because they did not because they were too busy in the pub.
But here's the thing, they could have taken the kids with them as a group, they could have taken turns looking after them and they didn't. There we are. I agree, better choices, less selfish choices should have been made by them all. They made their choice, so did whoever took that child. They weren't negligent, in my opinion, they were selfish, and as a result they live with lynch mob baying and the loss of their child. Milking normal people with compassion, by the way.
Factual point: It was a Tapas Bar.................they weren't "in the pub"
-
Joanne. Stop the lies. Since when has a retaurant been called a pub!
Just trying to influence the unaware aren't you and whip up hatred against The Mccanns.
Please modify your post and get it right.
It's called (or rather was called) the Tapas Bar. A Bar is a lot closer to a pub than a restaurant.
Sadie with your penchant for flights of fancy based on your personal opinion, it's rather rich of you to be jumping in with a two footed tackle like this, isn't it?
-
But here's the thing, they could have taken the kids with them as a group, they could have taken turns looking after them and they didn't. There we are. I agree, better choices, less selfish choices should have been made by them all. They made their choice, so did whoever took that child. They weren't negligent, in my opinion, they were selfish, and as a result they live with lynch mob baying and the loss of their child. Milking normal people with compassion, by the way.
Factual point: It was a Tapas Bar.................they weren't "in the pub"
It wasn't the bar Jazzy. That is next door in the enclosed part.
It was the restaurant that they ate in.
The bar and the outdoor restaurant had a different ethos. They were quite different places with bar pulls and bottles of spirits with fixed optical spirit measures on the wall, behind the bar IIRC. That was in the indoor section.
But tables and chairs were in a dining setting in the restaurant.. I did not see anyone eating a meal in the bar
I think people could have eaten in the bar but they didn't. I would welcome some confirmation of this because I only peeped in the bar ... but sat and ate my meal in the restauant .... and it was 3 years ago. Drinks could be ordered at the table as is normal in a restaurant, but they had to be brought by the waiter from the next door building. Heavy drinkers went to the bar. Diners seemed to eat exclusively in the outside restaurant