Was Mrs Gaspar being ludicrously paranoid regarding Payne bathing her daughter?

ufercoffy wrote:I disagree. I think babies and very young toddlers would mind someone other than their parents bathing them - unless they were familiar with that person.

For instance, I bathe my 4 month old grandson at least 3 times a week and he's perfectly ok about it, but when his other nanna tried to bathe him he kicked up a fuss because he's only seen her once before and she was pretty much a stranger to him.

Babies feel very insecure if they're not with their mum or dad and very young toddlers are aware enough to know if it's mum or dad or a friend/stranger who's bathing them.

As far as I'm aware, David Payne is not a close relative of Madeleine and imo should NOT have been bathing any child other than his own.

Fookin pervert

Judge Mental wrote:You are quite right about this age we now live in, kololi. However, one would always have regarded a person with much suspicion had they ever offered to bathe one's own children. And one would have vehemently denied them that access and happily booted them from one end of Malaga to the other.

Your mention of the age we live in is pertinent. Over the past three years particularly, one has found that one could easily find oneself immersed in page after page of information concerning local councillors, MPs, policemen, doctors, nursery workers and all other manner of authority figures and people in positions of trust who have been tried, convicted or fined and placed on the sex offenders register. Of course there are also those who have seemingly managed to evade prosecution for many decades.

Where did all these paedophiles suddenly emerge from? One was so sure that there would be very few paedophiles in Great Britain, yet one cannot turn the page of a newspaper these days without finding that another doctor has been under so much stress with work that he has resorted to 'just looking' at children and babies being sexually abused. One turns the page again, only to find that another councillor is being accused of interfering with young adolescent boys and procuring them for his friends' sexual purposes. Obviously there have always been monsters who are aroused by babies and children, but how would one have discovered there were quite so many of these despicable people, had it not been for the internet which has provided us with all the information that was previously left to rot at the backs of filing cabinets?

The FOI act would have been of little comfort with regard to some cases, had some people not had the foresight to keep hard copies of detailed information and meetings, dating back years, that can now be scanned into computers and shared worldwide. One recently read an FOI response wherein mention was made that a flood had destroyed the pares somebody was requesting.

Therefore, when we look back upon horrendous cases like Haut de la Garenne and such like, we should be reminded that not everybody has had their turn in the dock yet.

Had Operation Ore been remotely successful, one would have expected at least one court per town to be totally dedicated to paedophile related crimes. The City of London alone may have needed at least one court per furlong.

Kololi wrote:"Was Mrs Gaspar being ludicrously paranoid regarding Payne bathing her daughter?"

No, I don't think Mrs Gaspar was being ludicrously paranoid regarding Mr Payne bathing her daughter.

Not sure that babies and very young toddlers would worry about who bathed them tbh but in the day and age that we live in, I think that most mums and dads would be a tadge wary of allowing other people to bathe their children.

Cherry wrote:kololi - Possibly, for reasons that we are not entitled to know, they felt that there was nothing to show that Mr Payne had a history of paedo type behaviour so no further action would be taken.

I dont think we can make that assumption though imo, we know that in some cases the Police protect paedophiles, Westminster is said to be riddled with them with very few so far been arrested and brought to account, the media were suppressed by Blair in relation to Operation Ore because it was uncovering government ministers, celebrities, well known people etc., we know GM was connected to the government, we know he said they were calling in some favours, we know that LP held back the Gaspar statements wasnt it until Amaral was out the way? In this country the Police are protecting elite paedophile rings - it is the same in some other countries as well - therefore I dont think we can assume that there was nothing to show that DP had a history of paedo type behaviour. Obviously nobody can say categorically that he did - we will have to wait and see what transpires.


Oh, its a given the govt. is notoriously well-known for covering up all manners of misdemeanour, even darker matters, than paedophile allegations or activities when it concerns politicians. In fact it's their nature and interest to do so - self perservation at all cost.

Still, I seriously doubt the govt adeptness at lying and manupilative tactics stretched anywhere near DP. Why should they protect him? He is not politician though he's civil servant under NHS. There are plenty departments that come under the govt umbrella....their long arm protection can't possibly extend to blanket cover for all civil servants.

For them (politician) to cover up for DP it would mean the police have to fill them in on that, now why would the police do that?

I agree it would have been difficult for Mrs. Gaspar to go to the Police initially regarding her suspicions, it would have been her word against his and GM but in light of what she then heard about Madeleine disappearing she certainly did the right thing by reporting her suspicions then, I also think it was a very brave thing for her to do, many would have not done so and buried their head in the sand imo, not an easy thing to do to report someone she had been on holiday with.

aiyoyo wrote:Sorry I dont understand that talk in riddles.

I dont think madame gaspar made that statement for a lark. Nonetheless the fact remains unaltered she didnt think it was serious enough to lodge a complaint at that time. Why did she wait two years? She's a doctor herself and should know all about proper conduct where children are concerned.

Just saying her DP off limit to her daughter bath time may just be a follow up passing comment because of her discomfort with the behaviour of two imbeciles which though she was disturbed about, didnt translate into her going to the authorities to make complaint at that time, which can only mean she not disturbed to the extent of paranoid - but obviously post Maddie appearance that took on a different perspective for her hence the statement; again just a precaution measure in case there was something in it (as in a past record) and it's time the police investigate either to eliminate the cause of her concerns, or to see whether it had anything to do with disappeared child concerned -just my take of thing anyway.

Again imho I believe she is doing her public duty in view of the circumstance, and not because she was fully convinced that aspect co-relates to Maddie disappearance.

Any chance of posting up her statement to determine whether it was stated beyond shadow of doubt DP asked to bathe people's children? Or was her bath remark taken out of context?

As to the oft-asked question of why the two imbeciles, especially DP, didnt rebut, my take is: if he did come out in public to rebut he would only be drawing attention to himself which can generate unwanted public wrath.

Am guessing because of no prior record combined with police satisfaction with results of their investigation of that aspect was good enough to let it drop and be, and do nothing about it as best option.

If there was nothing in it, and he'd be foolish to come out and protest because it would be a case of the chinese saying: the more you try to undo a paint unnecessarily, the more you paint over the darker it becomes; the more brush stroke the more condense the matter.

Imo he'd been advised to say nothing in order not to bring unnecessary and unwanted attention not only to himself but to the lot as a whole.

ufercoffy wrote:Has David Payne sued the Gaspars yet?

Cherry wrote:It wouldnt have been Gamble he rung would it?