The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Another question

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 07.12.09 11:57

clarity wrote:
@Ruby wrote:well if Madeleine had been cared for adequately at three, she would have had the chance to walk to primary school.

the situations you mention have sod all to do with it, just yet another weak attempt at normalising what the McCanns did.

people aren't buying it, nor will they ever, but keep going, i like to see your efforts. never mind

well the situation had everything to do with it, parents make decisions based on what they know, it is self evident that Madeleines parents did not know there was a risk she could be abducted from her bed that night.


clarity, same old argument as usual. No one would leave their kids alone in apartment for various other reasons, as I mentioned a couple of pages ago. But I will re-state it again, vomiting, choking, ingesting medicines or cleaning fluids, falling, electrical equipment, fire etc etc. Need I go on. So you are saying that the parents based their decisions on what they know. So a 3 year old could not possible do any of the above things. It is not OK to leave tiny children on their own, with the parents away from the building.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 07.12.09 12:11

denying the facts doesn't get anyone anywhere but fine if you need to believe that no-one uses baby listening services for your theory to fit then go for it, have fun with that, it makes you a bit thick and bit cruel but hey, no matter, as long as you feel good about it, that's all that matters, facts are over-rated anyway.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Ruby on 07.12.09 12:15

clarity wrote:
@Ruby wrote:pull the other one - it's got fucking bells on.

they were doctors.

the portuguese prosecuter stated it and after seeing all the evidence, reading all the statements and knowing his own country, he should know.

I'm not sure why a doctor more than any other parent would know more about the crime stats of portugal though, perhaps you can explain.

the crime stats of portugal have bugger all to do with it.
you shoehorn in 'abduction' in nearly every post, as though by osmosis it will convince people it happened.
little kids should not have been left on their own for many reasons but you know that really so stop taking the piss.
i know the next move is usually 'babylistening' but could we skip it today? oh. too late.

Ruby

Posts : 688
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 07.12.09 12:23

clarity wrote:denying the facts doesn't get anyone anywhere but fine if you need to believe that no-one uses baby listening services for your theory to fit then go for it, have fun with that, it makes you a bit thick and bit cruel but hey, no matter, as long as you feel good about it, that's all that matters, facts are over-rated anyway.


Resorting to calling Me thick and cruel, you are so sad clarity. Lost the argument have we, shame.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Ruby on 07.12.09 12:32

well said.

they do show themselves up, don't they?

Ruby

Posts : 688
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by MaryB on 07.12.09 13:03

Was it thick or a bit cruel to leave children under four home alone. Or was it both.

MaryB

Posts : 204
Reputation : 45
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by sans_souci on 07.12.09 15:08

smith wrote:
badmanners wrote:The pros never said he would pull out or plead guilty.

But the antis have been saying for over a year that the McCanns would NEVER take anyone to court because they were guilty as hell and frightened a court would reveal 'the truth'.

How wrong they were, eh?

Badmanners hello. I don't know about the others but certainly I have always said that the parents will never go into court - ie into the box etc. I may well be wrong, as I was about my conviction that the case would not be shelved. Well, we shall see.

Having said that, and trying at this early stage of proceedings before we start insulting each other to try and find some sort of common ground, I would be delighted if Amaral & the McCanns could deal with the case in open court: at least then there would be some sort of judicial ruling rather than this state of virtual civil war between the two sides where nothing is ever decided and only opinions and emnity reign.

Well Smith, the two sides will bicker 'til the cows come home, arguments full of words and bluster and, in reality, signifying nothing.

It matters not a jot nor one iota whether the case is held in camera or in open court, before a jury or a bench. The only thing that is of any significance is the verdict of the court. So I am sure there will be a judicial ruling. And I am pretty sure that whichever way it goes there will be cries of "FIX" from the supporters of the 'losing' party. And the discussion, arguments and vitriol will continue, amplified by the internet.

sans_souci

Posts : 58
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Autumn on 07.12.09 16:17

They were cruel enough to leave their very young children alone and frightened in the dark, night after night - if they seriously thought that was ok, makes you wonder the extent of neglect that the McCanns inflicted upon these children. Lets hope social services are keeping a close eye on the the twins, their parents are clueless, selfish idiots.

Autumn

Posts : 2603
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

More heat, less light

Post by Guest on 07.12.09 16:31

Sans-souci hello. I've actually just about finished posting on this site - not a flounce - but yours made sense, especially about the internet being something quite new in the way it seems to encourage unpleasantness. The equally unreliable treacly luvyduvy stuff which SYM nails so perfectly does not exactly balance the other out.

I think I finally gave up on forums very recently. A few days ago I read, for the first time, a comments section on the Spectator website, in this case regarding the climate change/dodgy emails debate.

The Spectator is a long established and famously well mannered magazine as well as a highly influential one;it is read by more old Etonians (whose manners, at least, are normally impeccable) than any other journal except Sporting Life and most of its readers and contributors know not only how to use a knife and fork but how to communicate with good manners as well. I've contributed to their letter pages a few times in the past and to get a letter published at all requires a certain restraint, even when the thrust of what one is saying is essentially vicious.

But the comments section on the Spectator on-line, the other day was just like the bitchfest stuff here! Just the same rudeness, offhandedness etc etc. Yet many of them must be the same readers.

Nah, the internet is a fantastic information resource and a great place to shop but for debate it just stinks.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by preciousramotswe on 07.12.09 17:42

@Autumn wrote:They were cruel enough to leave their very young children alone and frightened in the dark, night after night - if they seriously thought that was ok, makes you wonder the extent of neglect that the McCanns inflicted upon these children. Lets hope social services are keeping a close eye on the the twins, their parents are clueless, selfish idiots.

Cruel?

Autumn, for your information, what the McCanns did was exactly what my parents - and countless generations before and even since - have done. As we were fast asleep and oblivious we never knew just how awfully cruel they were being, and it's just as well as I'm sure I would have had a very unhappy childhood if I had thought for one moment that my parents were being cruel and neglectful for two weeks at Butlins/Pontins every summer.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Even the prosecutor couldn't accept that PDL in 2007 should have been considered more dangerous than Llanduddno in 1963, and really there is no reason to doubt his assessment - other than the obvious fact that I am here and Madeleine isn't.

I have never been able to understand, truly, why some individuals are fixated on labelling this as 'cruelty' despite the evidence for the massive amount of real cruelty perpetrated against children in our society, cruelty so extreme and loathsome that it makes most people want to weep.

preciousramotswe

Posts : 269
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 07.12.09 18:18

candyfloss wrote:
clarity wrote:denying the facts doesn't get anyone anywhere but fine if you need to believe that no-one uses baby listening services for your theory to fit then go for it, have fun with that, it makes you a bit thick and bit cruel but hey, no matter, as long as you feel good about it, that's all that matters, facts are over-rated anyway.


Resorting to calling Me thick and cruel, you are so sad clarity. Lost the argument have we, shame.

Evidently not.

You are denying known facts in an attempt to make an argument from nothing. I understand why, you want to blame someone because the idea that someone could enter a childs bedroom and take them away without a trace is scary. But don't kick out at other people just to make yourself feel better, it's unpleasant.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by MaryB on 07.12.09 18:55

But the children were not fast asleep. Or so we are told. They cried for their parents on at least one occasion. Mrs Fenn heard them crying for a considerable time. This constant justifying of this type of parenting is more than a little tiresome.

MaryB

Posts : 204
Reputation : 45
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Patty O'Daws on 07.12.09 19:49

@MaryB wrote:But the children were not fast asleep. Or so we are told. They cried for their parents on at least one occasion. Mrs Fenn heard them crying for a considerable time. This constant justifying of this type of parenting is more than a little tiresome.

The twins were faxt asleep on the night of the abduction.

Patty O'Daws

Posts : 111
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by marigold on 07.12.09 20:26

It's very cruel to be aware that your child was crying for you on a previous night when you were out for hours. OK so SOME selfish parents will leave their children if they are sure they will remain oblivious but the Mccanns knew that their child was NOT always asleep throughout and was actually distressed and alone yet they STILL went out again. This is breathtaking in its indifference to a childs wellbeing.

marigold

Posts : 234
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 07.12.09 22:14

@marigold wrote:It's very cruel to be aware that your child was crying for you on a previous night when you were out for hours. OK so SOME selfish parents will leave their children if they are sure they will remain oblivious but the Mccanns knew that their child was NOT always asleep throughout and was actually distressed and alone yet they STILL went out again. This is breathtaking in its indifference to a childs wellbeing.


Yes, to admit that Madeleine said where were you when Sean and Amelie were crying, and then to ignore this and go out again is something I just can't get my head around.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by marigold on 07.12.09 22:40

candyfloss wrote:
@marigold wrote:It's very cruel to be aware that your child was crying for you on a previous night when you were out for hours. OK so SOME selfish parents will leave their children if they are sure they will remain oblivious but the Mccanns knew that their child was NOT always asleep throughout and was actually distressed and alone yet they STILL went out again. This is breathtaking in its indifference to a childs wellbeing.


Yes, to admit that Madeleine said where were you when Sean and Amelie were crying, and then to ignore this and go out again is something I just can't get my head around.

Yes and they STILL say what they did was within the bounds of responsible parenting! Says who?

marigold

Posts : 234
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Gerry - 'I was lucky not to have the kids with me that evening'

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.12.09 0:23

candyfloss wrote:Yes, to admit that Madeleine said where were you when Sean and Amelie were crying, and then to ignore this and go out again is something I just can't get my head around.
I think according to Kate McCann (cough), it was Sean and Madeleine who were doing the crying.

But then, again, according to Kate McCann (nasty cough), Madeleine skipped away happily after casually bringing up the subject of her and Sean crying the previous night while their parents were not there.

Some people have even claimed that Madeleine never said: "Mummy, I'm having the best fun ever" and questioned whether Gerry McCann (a) was an exceptionally long time on the loo during his 9.00 check, as he claimed and (b) whether he really did look down on Madeleine and think how lucky he was to have such a beautiful daughter.

And let's not forget that the McCanns nearly didn't go out on that Thursday evening at all. It was an agonising decision. But dinner and drink at the Tapas bar with friends won out in the end - and, as David James Smith wrote in 'The Times' in December 2007, how lucky Gerry felt that he didn't have to have his children with him at the table, unlike that unfortunate couple from Hetfordshire.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by vaguely on 16.12.09 20:05

If you're so certain then why have you given in to Carter Ruck.

Why don't you stand by your words?

What I don't think Kate or Gerry McCann have ever said is that if their grandchild were to have an accident whilst in their care that they would consider covering it up.


thinking

vaguely

Posts : 440
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by lj on 16.12.09 22:51

Well that's vague. Do the McCanns have grandchildren now?

lj

Posts : 3274
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Old Nick on 16.12.09 22:57

@Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Yes, to admit that Madeleine said where were you when Sean and Amelie were crying, and then to ignore this and go out again is something I just can't get my head around.
I think according to Kate McCann (cough), it was Sean and Madeleine who were doing the crying.

But then, again, according to Kate McCann (nasty cough), Madeleine skipped away happily after casually bringing up the subject of her and Sean crying the previous night while their parents were not there.

Some people have even claimed that Madeleine never said: "Mummy, I'm having the best fun ever" and questioned whether Gerry McCann (a) was an exceptionally long time on the loo during his 9.00 check, as he claimed and (b) whether he really did look down on Madeleine and think how lucky he was to have such a beautiful daughter.

And let's not forget that the McCanns nearly didn't go out on that Thursday evening at all. It was an agonising decision. But dinner and drink at the Tapas bar with friends won out in the end - and, as David James Smith wrote in 'The Times' in December 2007, how lucky Gerry felt that he didn't have to have his children with him at the table, unlike that unfortunate couple from Hetfordshire.

Tony your cough is getting worse - I hope you're keeping warm like I told you. I do worry.

Old Nick

Posts : 154
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-01
Age : 50
Location : Hades

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 25.12.09 23:35

Ocean Beach Club in Praia da Luz was chosen after seeing an advertisment.
Facilities: créches and the baby listening service.
On arrival the group found out the baby listening service was not available, since the recess is spread over the village and that service is not feasible in that situation.
So actually they were misinformed.
They've chosen for the solution to check themselves every half an hour.

I remember reading (in the PJ files??) that Kate already left the Tapas Restaurant at 9.30pm and was on her way towards the apartment for her check on the children, when she was caught by Matt Oldfield.
He offered to check for her and Kate returned to the dinner table.
So the timeline is:
Parents 8.30pm children at sleep, parents leave for Tapas Restaurant
Gerry 9.05pm checking the children
Kate 9.30pm on her way to the apartment
Matt 9.30pm takes over to check the McCann children as well
Kate 10.00pm checking the children, discovers Madeleine is gone.

Is this neglect? No.
Was this such an idiotic decision? Afterwards: yes. Maddie is gone.
Are these worthless parents? No, they love their children dearly, but like many parents, they have a false expectation of safety.
But then: since when must parents be 100% perfect. I do not know 1 100% perfect parent.

In fact, the group of friends did exactly what 100.000 tourists do every year when they are on holiday with their children in a hotel. The children go to sleep and the parents go to the hotel restaurant to eat. They inform the reception that their children are alone in the room asleep and they will ask the reception for a check every half an hour if everything is okay. (baby listening service)
Safe? No.

This happens every year and it never goes wrong. In Praia da Luz everything went wrong and we all know that it is unsafe to leave children alone this way.
An unknown baby-sitter is no guarantee that nothing can go wrong.
If Madeleine was a target she would have been taken at any other moment.

It is strange to say, but I think the children were checked more frequently on their holiday, than it is the case at home.
At home with the children sleeping upstairs in their room, no parent goes checking every half an hour. They just have a quick look at the door before they go to their own bed.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Guest on 26.12.09 0:08

Please bring Madeleine home. What more is there to say?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Autumn on 26.12.09 4:17

Raffle wrote:Please bring Madeleine home. What more is there to say?

Kate and Gerry, please co-operate with the police - return for a reconstruction, as requested, and answer the simple questions.

Autumn

Posts : 2603
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Ruby on 26.12.09 4:19

Aristocrat wrote:Ocean Beach Club in Praia da Luz was chosen after seeing an advertisment.
Facilities: créches and the baby listening service.
On arrival the group found out the baby listening service was not available, since the recess is spread over the village and that service is not feasible in that situation.
So actually they were misinformed.
They've chosen for the solution to check themselves every half an hour.

I remember reading (in the PJ files??) that Kate already left the Tapas Restaurant at 9.30pm and was on her way towards the apartment for her check on the children, when she was caught by Matt Oldfield.
He offered to check for her and Kate returned to the dinner table.
So the timeline is:
Parents 8.30pm children at sleep, parents leave for Tapas Restaurant
Gerry 9.05pm checking the children
Kate 9.30pm on her way to the apartment
Matt 9.30pm takes over to check the McCann children as well
Kate 10.00pm checking the children, discovers Madeleine is gone.

Is this neglect? No.
Was this such an idiotic decision? Afterwards: yes. Maddie is gone.
Are these worthless parents? No, they love their children dearly, but like many parents, they have a false expectation of safety.
But then: since when must parents be 100% perfect. I do not know 1 100% perfect parent.

In fact, the group of friends did exactly what 100.000 tourists do every year when they are on holiday with their children in a hotel. The children go to sleep and the parents go to the hotel restaurant to eat. They inform the reception that their children are alone in the room asleep and they will ask the reception for a check every half an hour if everything is okay. (baby listening service)
Safe? No.

This happens every year and it never goes wrong. In Praia da Luz everything went wrong and we all know that it is unsafe to leave children alone this way.
An unknown baby-sitter is no guarantee that nothing can go wrong.
If Madeleine was a target she would have been taken at any other moment.

It is strange to say, but I think the children were checked more frequently on their holiday, than it is the case at home.
At home with the children sleeping upstairs in their room, no parent goes checking every half an hour. They just have a quick look at the door before they go to their own bed.


The old 'nobody's perfect' refrain yet again... my god it's tragic.
Do you have any idea how wrong you are and how biased you look trying to normalize a completely unacceptable practice?
Think if you say it enough times the British populace will somehow be magically convinced ?
IT'S NOT WORKING (and you know it).
Wake up and get a new mantra because NOBODY'S BUYING IT.

Ruby

Posts : 688
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another question

Post by Ruby on 26.12.09 4:23

@Autumn wrote:
Raffle wrote:Please bring Madeleine home. What more is there to say?

Kate and Gerry, please co-operate with the police - return for a reconstruction, as requested, and answer the simple questions.

Yes exactly. And instead of 'ooh look over there... Tangiers... Australia... no, back in a cave in Praia de Luz... anywhere but at us' ffs get them to rule your best mate out.

You know, the one with the paedo characteristics who, it sounds like, might have been the last person to see her. It has got SO beyond a joke, they are just taking the p*** and you MUST know it.

Aah, that's better :megashock:

Ruby

Posts : 688
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum