Re: Gerry McCann promotes exciting new missing child smart phone app

by Joss 04.11.14 14:48

tiny wrote:"Every parent has lost their child, even if it is momentarily - in a playground, in a supermarket -"

ERR NO GERRY ,MOST PARENTS TAKE LOOKING AFTER THIER CHILDREN SERIOUSLY.

it a bit like going out drinking and leaving your 3 babies on there own(Mitchel I think) we all do it, NO WE DONT.

Exactly, There seems to be a big disconnect between the McC's and their children from what we know about them in this case. And i really wish those that think it was the "normal" thing to do with three very young children would stop speaking for all other parents. They can only vouch for the McC's, and no one else. I am totally appalled at how two professional doctors would think what happened here would in any way shape or form believe that it was normal behaviour. It is taking a very huge risk at the expense of minor children, and it has had devastating results for them. Why can't they just be honest?

by tiny 04.11.14 14:53

Joss wrote:
tiny wrote:"Every parent has lost their child, even if it is momentarily - in a playground, in a supermarket -"

ERR NO GERRY ,MOST PARENTS TAKE LOOKING AFTER THIER CHILDREN SERIOUSLY.

it a bit like going out drinking and leaving your 3 babies on there own(Mitchel I think) we all do it, NO WE DONT.
Exactly, There seems to be a big disconnect between the McC's and their children from what we know about them in this case. And i really wish those that think it was the "normal" thing to do with three very young children would stop speaking for all other parents. They can only vouch for the McC's, and no one else. I am totally appalled at how two professional doctors would think what happened here would in any way shape or form believe that it was normal behaviour. It is taking a very huge risk at the expense of minor children, and it has had devastating results for them. Why can't they just be honest?

they would be in jail as would some of the tapas friends and a few other as well no doubt.the mccanns are very sick f******

by Joss 04.11.14 15:07

tiny wrote:
Joss wrote:
tiny wrote:"Every parent has lost their child, even if it is momentarily - in a playground, in a supermarket -"

ERR NO GERRY ,MOST PARENTS TAKE LOOKING AFTER THIER CHILDREN SERIOUSLY.

it a bit like going out drinking and leaving your 3 babies on there own(Mitchel I think) we all do it, NO WE DONT.
Exactly, There seems to be a big disconnect between the McC's and their children from what we know about them in this case. And i really wish those that think it was the "normal" thing to do with three very young children would stop speaking for all other parents. They can only vouch for the McC's, and no one else. I am totally appalled at how two professional doctors would think what happened here would in any way shape or form believe that it was normal behaviour. It is taking a very huge risk at the expense of minor children, and it has had devastating results for them. Why can't they just be honest?
they would be in jail as would some of the tapas friends and a few other as well no doubt.the mccanns are very sick f******

Yes they would. I imagine that their fear of facing their actions was just somewhere they really couldn't go. And if that was the case, why do they keep up such a public facade? If they do it thinking people might look at them sympathetically it seems to be having the opposite effect. Do most guilty people engage in such high profile exposure ongoingly for such a long time? I would imagine they keep a very low profile, unless of course they have already been charged and convicted, and then they would already be in jail.
Maybe its a case of if someone tells themselves and others a lie for long enough that they and everyone else will actually start to believe it eventually?

by tiny 04.11.14 15:18

I don't think we need this missing people thing,because if you had lost a child or an adult goes missing,you would report it to the police first then you would put it on f/b and twitter to get a bigger audience keeping a eye out for them.

by j.rob 04.11.14 15:18

How repulsive. What a nerve they have.

When is Kate going to answer those 48 questions?

by j.rob 04.11.14 15:20

I can't believe that Hugh Grant has got himself involved with this. Why? He can't be so thick as to believe them, surely?

by tiny 04.11.14 15:21

j.rob wrote:How repulsive. What a nerve they have.

When is Kate going to answer those 48 questions?

Never in a million years,and as for repulsive, oh so true

by jeanmonroe 04.11.14 15:22

j.rob wrote:I can't believe that Hugh Grant has got himself involved with this. Why? He can't be so thick as to believe them, surely?

Er, 'HACKED OFF' campaign?

by tiny 04.11.14 15:23

j.rob wrote:I can't believe that Hugh Grant has got himself involved with this. Why? He can't be so thick as to believe them, surely?

Perhaps he is using them for his own end.it keeps him in the limelight as well

by j.rob 04.11.14 15:32

NickE wrote:The wider agenda.

Yes - this was always the wider agenda. This really is disgusting, though.

The McCanns did not even bother to use their mobiles to contact that police that evening. Neither did any of their friends. They deliberately delayed contacting police too, imo.

And then they didn't bother to search. And you would have thought, wouldn't you, that Gerry or one of his friends would have immediately woken up Jez Wilkins, who he allegedly bumped into at around 9pm outside his apartment? He would be a crucial eye-witness as he was allegedly wandering around the resort that evening with his pram so he could easily have seen someone suspicious.

But no - he is only woken up at 1pm. And doesn't join the searches because, by then he was told there was nothing that he could do. Because the first few 'crucial' hours had been lost.

Someone is taking the P*** with this, surely?

By the Mcs own admission (as written in Kate's book) all three of their children were left alone in the apartment unsupervised and unchecked for around 45 minutes!! That's a huge amount of time. Completely and totally irresponsible parenting.

by Joss 04.11.14 15:37

tiny wrote:I don't think we need this missing people thing,because if you had lost a child or an adult goes missing,you would report it to the police first then you would put it on f/b and twitter to get a bigger audience keeping a eye out for them.

Yes that is usually what happens in such cases, and apart from the investigators social media is a very good avenue to get the word out there. I would think a support group for victims and families of the missing could be beneficial if they needed something like that. It would make them feel less alone in such awful circumstances, and people they could call on if they were having a particularly bad day.
I am speaking from the experience of a grief support group where i met some wonderful people that understood just what i was going through, and they became very supportive friends as well.

by Brian Griffin 04.11.14 15:54

j.rob wrote:I can't believe that Hugh Grant has got himself involved with this. Why? He can't be so thick as to believe them, surely?

Well, you've got David Beckham and J.K. Rowling in it giving them cash according to Sonia Poulton, so they've got lots of sleb support.

In my opinion.

by tiny 04.11.14 16:04

Do you really think that slebs give 2 f about the mccanns ,they are using them, imo.

by secrets and lies 04.11.14 16:16

This has made me feel truly sick.

Again the same facial expressions, the same holding of hands, the same "poor us". This refusal to just go away and mind their children.

I do believe there is a wider agenda behind this case and that we will watch it's progression in the coming years. We may yet see how the McCanns will be used as spokespeople for whatever that agenda may be. However, if there is a conspiracy to sell us big-money microchipping of children, for example, it seems like a huge risk for investors to use the McCann brand. There is already a level of weariness about this case, surely? And not just amongst us here.

The more these people appear in public as "ambassadors" the more likely Joe and Joanna public may be to turn on them? If they are greedy enough to over-expose themselves in this type of "advocacy" setting their may be a high price to pay. I do not believe the average British citizen has any illusions about the child neglect that is at the root of this case, regardless of what other agendas may also be involved.

Just how ghastly is it for the media and whomever is behind this product to promote two people who have been negligent towards their children. In that regard, I wait to watch this backfire upon them.

by Guest 04.11.14 19:22

tiny wrote:
j.rob wrote:I can't believe that Hugh Grant has got himself involved with this. Why? He can't be so thick as to believe them, surely?

Perhaps he is using them for his own end.it keeps him in the limelight as well

He also donated £5,000 to K's 2013 London Marathon:

https://www.justgiving.com/KateMcCann-Marathon/20

by JackieL 04.11.14 20:14

Ladyinred wrote:
tiny wrote:
j.rob wrote:I can't believe that Hugh Grant has got himself involved with this. Why? He can't be so thick as to believe them, surely?

Perhaps he is using them for his own end.it keeps him in the limelight as well
He also donated £5,000 to K's 2013 London Marathon:

https://www.justgiving.com/KateMcCann-Marathon/20

Guess it must be a HACKEDOFF thing - he's repaying a favour to them as they're all part of the HackedOff group.

by secrets and lies 04.11.14 20:30

Every year in the run up to Christmas time the McCann brand seems to reappear as if this particular season might somehow be a nice cash-cow. I expect this year is going to be more of the same.

by Guest 05.11.14 6:03

[quote="aquila"]I haven't been into the city centre where I live for ages.

Does anyone who lives in a city (other than London) see digital media boards daily producing images of missing people/children?[/quote]

No. Not yet. Of course not.

This could well change, if someone started flogging them too, in order to follow up the huge demand for the App, in its turn following the well known marked increase in the number of missing children

Cui bono?

by Guest 05.11.14 6:11

[quote="missbeetle"][img]https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/%3Ca%20href=[/img][img]https://2img.net/h/i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii530/cocquerelle/ken_zps0b31139b.png[/img]

These two look like Ken and Barbie come to life.

Co-ordinating in French navy, Gerry with his consultant-oh-yes-I-am's stripes...

...and that cupcake icing pink tie...! It gets worse every time I see it.

Kate's muted sequins are shrouded in a pea-hennish cardigan...

...and I like how her hair matches the lampshade.

Whilst the floral arrangement between them recalls the images of their missing daughter Madeleine -

-candy pink hydrangeas mixed in with those of a rather sinister shade... Ugly.

Is that the shadow of Clarence over Gerry's left shoulder...??[/quote]

This advert has been filmed so time ago; hydrangeas do not bloom in october/november.

So what's the point to all of this?

by Doug D 05.11.14 9:04

Portia, it’s reasonable to assume it was filmed on 8^th October I think as it’s all part of the same campaign.

Missing People
October 7 at 8:59pm

‘We’re delighted to be celebrating the launch of the enhanced Child Rescue Alert system at the new Mondrian London Hotel tomorrow evening.’

The Mail article with them standing in front of the ‘Missing People’ board wearing the same clothes is dated 9^th October 2014, although it doesn’t actually say it was the day before.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2786177/Social-media-powerful--McCann.html

by plebgate 05.11.14 9:43

Can anyone who watched this on GMB, please tell me if there was a message to Maddie or an appeal to her abductor to return her safely ?

by j.rob 06.11.14 15:00

Madeleine, it would appear, is entirely forgotten in the 'wider agenda'. How a couple who, though their own negligence and thoughtlessness (at least) managed to 'lose' a child could be ambassadors for 'missing people' is anyone's guess?

Still, I suppose if other parents follow their lead in terms of babysitting arrangements then that might boost the numbers of missing children to promote their cause.

What an extraordinary situation. Putting the foxes in charge of the hen coop.

by Snifferdog 06.11.14 15:57

J.rob wrote:
What an extraordinary situation. Putting the foxes in charge of the hen coop.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Well said!
eek

by Liz Eagles 06.11.14 16:57

It seems to me that it's all about the Mystery of Missing People - this charity that has so much sway and 'authority'.

I can think of no other charity that is openly supported by police forces.

I can think of no other charity that produces so very many statistics on how many people go missing.

I can think of no other charity that can use the logos of ACPO and the attendance of Chief Constables to give a hearty talk at the charity's first annual conference.

I can think of no other charity that actually doesn't pay for advertising (I call it beggervision).

I can think of no other charity that can command such presence on television.

I can think of no other charity that has a website that doesn't actually tell you what it actually does, what is the actual delivery to those who have found themselves missing a loved one.

I can think of no other charity that is given such privilege above all other charities.

I can think of no other charity that is worthy of investigation.

Just my opinion of course.

ETA: Missing People and Child Rescue Alert wouldn't have helped a jot in the disappearance of April Jones.