Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

by Avery 28.12.09 21:49

Interesting in the examples cited above they discuss activies that resulted in injuries to self. Doing stupid things that result in injury to self is not at all the same as doing stupid things that harm other people. When you injure others you are charged with assault, when you kill others it is manslaughter and yes people do throw it in your face. When you leave your child alone and it results in harm to the child you are charged with neglect at the very least.

by aiyoyo 28.12.09 21:59

Avery wrote:Interesting in the examples cited above they discuss activies that resulted in injuries to self. Doing stupid things that result in injury to self is not at all the same as doing stupid things that harm other people. When you injure others you are charged with assault, when you kill others it is manslaughter and yes people do throw it in your face. When you leave your child alone and it results in harm to the child you are charged with neglect at the very least.

ABSOLUTELY!

So much for abduction a la style spectacular!

by twinkle 28.12.09 22:10

This makes me want to scream sometimes.
They left the kids and performed checks on a regular basis.
So if they had used a baby listening service and she went missing who would be to blame?

by Guest 28.12.09 22:23

twinkle wrote:This makes me want to scream sometimes.
They left the kids and performed checks on a regular basis.
So if they had used a baby listening service and she went missing who would be to blame?

I agree

by Nits 28.12.09 22:26

twinkle wrote:This makes me want to scream sometimes.
They left the kids and performed checks on a regular basis.
So if they had used a baby listening service and she went missing who would be to blame?

Erm

The Abductor or maybe the baby listening service.

No difference at all same scenario different listeners

Nits

by Finally 28.12.09 22:33

Unfortunately Twinkle we live in a blame culture now where people tend to view even simple accidents in such a way as somebody potentially causing them harm through negligence.

If they had gone as far as putting the children in the nursery, which was available if I recall rightly, and Madeleine had been stolen from there do you honestly believe that the McCanns would have simply said, "oh well" and left it at that? I wouldn't have if it had been my child and I doubt they would either. They would have wanted to know how it occurred and whether it was caused through a member of staff's negligence. If negligence was proven I would guess that the complex and that member of staff would have felt the wrath of the McCanns and the public in general. Do you think it would have stood up to scrutiny if a member of the nursery staff had declared but I checked her every 30 minutes? Would negligence under these circumstances be judged differently than it has been when considering the McCanns own babysitting arrangements?

I don't for one minute believe that they harmed her in any way other than through sloppy babysitting arrangements but I must admit to feeling that we must never forget the result that their judgement had for one of their children. Some may view that as me being cruel towards them but if we forget there will be more Madeleines for sure.

We may have different ideas on right and wrong when looking after children and we may all have different opinions of who did what and how and why the little girl has vanished, but at the end of the day it is likely that we all want the same thing, for Madeleine McCann to be reunited with her family.

Take care

by twinkle 28.12.09 22:36

Nits wrote:
twinkle wrote:This makes me want to scream sometimes.
They left the kids and performed checks on a regular basis.
So if they had used a baby listening service and she went missing who would be to blame?

Erm

The Abductor or maybe the baby listening service.

No difference at all same scenario different listeners

Nits

This is my point though Nits, I haven't made it clear probably.
It seems the people who scream neglect, also seem to think of some kind of involvement in her disappearance being at the hands of her parents.
I can understand the problem people have with the children being left, I have had the same problem.
But when I stepped back at looked at the situation from a baby listening point of view. Would the baby listening service be held as irresponsible and held accountable for her abduction(if there was one), if it was a planned abduction that was carried out in the time between each visit.

by twinkle 28.12.09 22:44

Candy & Confectionery Recipes > Simple Fudge

How to make simple fudge:
A simple fudge recipe. See Cooking with Sugar for information on the tricky process of boiling sugar.

Ingredients

2 cups (1lb) granulated sugar
1/2 pint milk
4 tablespoons (2oz) butter
(see measure conversions for more information)

Method

- Put the ingredients into a strong saucepan.
- Put saucepan onto the lowest heat of the smallest ring and stir with a wooden spoon until the sugar has dissolved.

It is EXTREMELEY IMPORTANT that all the sugar is dissolved. Test for this by tapping the wooden spoon on the bottom of the pan. If there is any undissolved sugar there it will "crunch" under the spoon. Just leave the pan on the lowest setting and it will boil. Boil steadily leaving the heat at the lowest setting. Do not turn the heat up. Stir only VERY occasionally and gently just to make sure the mixture isn't burning. Just do this (i.e. boil and stir VERY occasionally) until the mixture forms into a soft ball when a little is dropped from a spoon into a saucer of cold water. This means that you can squeeze the mixture dropped into the cold water together with your fingers and it will form a very soft ball. THIS CAN TAKE WHAT SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME, up to about 20 mins but the most important thing is what happens when you test a drop of mixture in the saucer of water. BE VERY CAREFUL NOT TO BURN YOURSELF BECAUSE THE FUDGE MIXTURE IS VERY HOT.

- Remove from the heat and stir with a wooden spoon (careful it is very hot) until the mixture starts to thicken. It is now beginning to set and will do so rapidly.
- Pour into a prepared tin greased with butter or vegetable oil.
- When nearly set cut into pieces.

by Nits 28.12.09 22:53

twinkle wrote:
Nits wrote:
twinkle wrote:This makes me want to scream sometimes.
They left the kids and performed checks on a regular basis.
So if they had used a baby listening service and she went missing who would be to blame?

Erm

The Abductor or maybe the baby listening service.

No difference at all same scenario different listeners

Nits

This is my point though Nits, I haven't made it clear probably.
It seems the people who scream neglect, also seem to think of some kind of involvement in her disappearance being at the hands of her parents.
I can understand the problem people have with the children being left, I have had the same problem.
But when I stepped back at looked at the situation from a baby listening point of view. Would the baby listening service be held as irresponsible and held accountable for her abduction(if there was one), if it was a planned abduction that was carried out in the time between each visit.

I may be wrong but I dont think the Baby Listening service would have left the doors unlocked. Anyway I havent got a clue who is or is not guilty.hence I sit on the fence until something somewhere makes my mind up.

Nits

Whats with the fudge recipie is it in the right place ?

by Finally 28.12.09 22:59

Yummy - fudge.

by twinkle 28.12.09 23:01

Nits wrote:
twinkle wrote:
Nits wrote:
twinkle wrote:This makes me want to scream sometimes.
They left the kids and performed checks on a regular basis.
So if they had used a baby listening service and she went missing who would be to blame?

Erm

The Abductor or maybe the baby listening service.

No difference at all same scenario different listeners

Nits

This is my point though Nits, I haven't made it clear probably.
It seems the people who scream neglect, also seem to think of some kind of involvement in her disappearance being at the hands of her parents.
I can understand the problem people have with the children being left, I have had the same problem.
But when I stepped back at looked at the situation from a baby listening point of view. Would the baby listening service be held as irresponsible and held accountable for her abduction(if there was one), if it was a planned abduction that was carried out in the time between each visit.

I may be wrong but I dont think the Baby Listening service would have left the doors unlocked. Anyway I havent got a clue who is or is not guilty.hence I sit on the fence until something somewhere makes my mind up.

Nits

Whats with the fudge recipie is it in the right place ?

Nits read back in the thread, something about going off topic. big grin

by twinkle 28.12.09 23:02

Finally wrote:Yummy - fudge.

Mmm very easy to make, try it. lol!

by MaryB 28.12.09 23:03

Baby listening service is only offered within a secure complex. Where comings and goings would be strictly monitored. And certainly would not be extended to accommodation outside the complex.

by Guest 28.12.09 23:10

Finally wrote:Unfortunately Twinkle we live in a blame culture now where people tend to view even simple accidents in such a way as somebody potentially causing them harm through negligence.

If they had gone as far as putting the children in the nursery, which was available if I recall rightly, and Madeleine had been stolen from there do you honestly believe that the McCanns would have simply said, "oh well" and left it at that? I wouldn't have if it had been my child and I doubt they would either. They would have wanted to know how it occurred and whether it was caused through a member of staff's negligence. If negligence was proven I would guess that the complex and that member of staff would have felt the wrath of the McCanns and the public in general. Do you think it would have stood up to scrutiny if a member of the nursery staff had declared but I checked her every 30 minutes? Would negligence under these circumstances be judged differently than it has been when considering the McCanns own babysitting arrangements?

I don't for one minute believe that they harmed her in any way other than through sloppy babysitting arrangements but I must admit to feeling that we must never forget the result that their judgement had for one of their children. Some may view that as me being cruel towards them but if we forget there will be more Madeleines for sure.

We may have different ideas on right and wrong when looking after children and we may all have different opinions of who did what and how and why the little girl has vanished, but at the end of the day it is likely that we all want the same thing, for Madeleine McCann to be reunited with her family.

Take care

I don't think you are being cruel at all. I think there is a major misunderstanding as to what degree of irresponsibility equals neglect. I think most of us agree that it was a stupid, hapless decision to leave young children alone. A gross failure in their duty of care even. I won't leave my dogs alone - but that's just me. Some say I am over protective. I get teased mercilessly for it. I accept that others see things differently to me.

I just feel that while there are young children and babies out there, living in woeful neglectful conditions, the term neglect being applied to this case diminishes the harsh conditions that some poor kids live under, day in and day out.

Fine. If you believe that Madeleine being left alone is the cause of her demise. But if you believe the McCanns harmed her directly then the 'neglect' issue doesn't come into play and very often the two cross over and the argument is lost.

So what do we have in the 'anti' argument?

The parents are responsible for Madeleines demise/disappearance, because:

a) she and her siblings were left alone and vulnerable to a predator who abducted her
b) she and her siblings were left alone and vulnerable to a tragic accident/fall which Madeleine suffered and the parents covered up
c) the whole abduction was staged by the McCanns to cover something more sinister

by twinkle 28.12.09 23:12

MaryB wrote:Baby listening service is only offered within a secure complex. Where comings and goings would be strictly monitored. And certainly would not be extended to accommodation outside the complex.

I am sure you are correct in your statement Mary.
But unfortunately bad things CAN happen, things can be running as they are supposed to, and then BAM it happens.
There is no way of predicting someone mugging you, someone stealing your car, someone breaking in to your house or someone abducting your child.
Sadly, but on a positive note these things are not as frequent as we think, bad things do happen to people.

by twinkle 28.12.09 23:24

Cherub wrote:
Finally wrote:Unfortunately Twinkle we live in a blame culture now where people tend to view even simple accidents in such a way as somebody potentially causing them harm through negligence.

If they had gone as far as putting the children in the nursery, which was available if I recall rightly, and Madeleine had been stolen from there do you honestly believe that the McCanns would have simply said, "oh well" and left it at that? I wouldn't have if it had been my child and I doubt they would either. They would have wanted to know how it occurred and whether it was caused through a member of staff's negligence. If negligence was proven I would guess that the complex and that member of staff would have felt the wrath of the McCanns and the public in general. Do you think it would have stood up to scrutiny if a member of the nursery staff had declared but I checked her every 30 minutes? Would negligence under these circumstances be judged differently than it has been when considering the McCanns own babysitting arrangements?

I don't for one minute believe that they harmed her in any way other than through sloppy babysitting arrangements but I must admit to feeling that we must never forget the result that their judgement had for one of their children. Some may view that as me being cruel towards them but if we forget there will be more Madeleines for sure.

We may have different ideas on right and wrong when looking after children and we may all have different opinions of who did what and how and why the little girl has vanished, but at the end of the day it is likely that we all want the same thing, for Madeleine McCann to be reunited with her family.

Take care

I don't think you are being cruel at all. I think there is a major misunderstanding as to what degree of irresponsibility equals neglect. I think most of us agree that it was a stupid, hapless decision to leave young children alone. A gross failure in their duty of care even. I won't leave my dogs alone - but that's just me. Some say I am over protective. I get teased mercilessly for it. I accept that others see things differently to me.

I just feel that while there are young children and babies out there, living in woeful neglectful conditions, the term neglect being applied to this case diminishes the harsh conditions that some poor kids live under, day in and day out.

Fine. If you believe that Madeleine being left alone is the cause of her demise. But if you believe the McCanns harmed her directly then the 'neglect' issue doesn't come into play and very often the two cross over and the argument is lost.

So what do we have in the 'anti' argument?

The parents are responsible for Madeleines demise/disappearance, because:

a) she and her siblings were left alone and vulnerable to a predator who abducted her
b) she and her siblings were left alone and vulnerable to a tragic accident/fall which Madeleine suffered and the parents covered up
c) the whole abduction was staged by the McCanns to cover something more sinister

Good post Cherub!!
This for me has always been something I have found difficult to get to the bottom of.
I am in no way a "pro", firmly on the fence with a few wobbles either way.
Surely if you think they were neglectful then you wouldn't think they had an involvement in her disappearance. So that would mean you would support the abduction theory.
If they covered up an accident, then you would assume they were doing it to save their own skins. So no pre-meditated involvement, but neglectful.
If you thought the whole thing was staged by the McCanns then neglect wouldn't even be an arguement.
It would be interesting to get people's personal take on this, as the "pro" reasoning is clearer to see.

by Autumn 29.12.09 0:38

very interesting post, Cherub

However, there is a fourth possiblilty which is worth considering and that is:

The children were left in the charge of a minor (under 16 years old) and that Madeleine was fatally injured as a resultl of an accident whilst in that person's care.

by aliberte2 29.12.09 2:52

Autumn wrote:very interesting post, Cherub

However, there is a fourth possiblilty which is worth considering and that is:

The children were left in the charge of a minor (under 16 years old) and that Madeleine was fatally injured as a resultl of an accident whilst in that person's care.

What? There is No Evidence for Any of That in The Files or in Dr. Amaral's Book. Speculating in such Ridiculous Conspiracy Theories Takes Away from the Impact of Dr. Amaral's Book and his Theories.

by Guest 29.12.09 12:18

Autumn wrote:very interesting post, Cherub

However, there is a fourth possiblilty which is worth considering and that is:

The children were left in the charge of a minor (under 16 years old) and that Madeleine was fatally injured as a resultl of an accident whilst in that person's care.

There has never been one iota of truth or proof for that scenario that I have read anywhere.

by vaguely 29.12.09 12:21

Autumn wrote:very interesting post, Cherub

However, there is a fourth possiblilty which is worth considering and that is:

The children were left in the charge of a minor (under 16 years old) and that Madeleine was fatally injured as a resultl of an accident whilst in that person's care.

do you have a specific minor in mind? Is there evidence for this in the police files?

by Autumn 29.12.09 16:39

vaguely wrote:
Autumn wrote:very interesting post, Cherub

However, there is a fourth possiblilty which is worth considering and that is:

The children were left in the charge of a minor (under 16 years old) and that Madeleine was fatally injured as a resultl of an accident whilst in that person's care.

do you have a specific minor in mind? Is there evidence for this in the police files?

The possiblility that a minor may have been involved was discussed on the 3As a while back. Anyone who recalls the discussion would know which minor my post refers to but, having no wish to be carter-rucked, think best I dont say on here.

by Guest 29.12.09 16:50

aiyoyo wrote:
What The Papers Never Say wrote:

Well sorry but it is you that talks about "speculations", speculation isn't the truth, it is gossip and conjecture and betting that something is true rather than quoting an actual fact.

[

Tell us all, where did you obtain that bit where you write about Mitchell overstepping the marks by warning the McCanns they were under surveillance, and that this was supposed to have put the government in a spot so they pushed him out, where did you get this from, have you got a link?

You don't say - really?

Were you members of 3as?

How strange, but never mond, have you got the lnk to your claims? Or not?

by Autumn 29.12.09 16:58

aliberte2 wrote:
Autumn wrote:very interesting post, Cherub

However, there is a fourth possiblilty which is worth considering and that is:

The children were left in the charge of a minor (under 16 years old) and that Madeleine was fatally injured as a resultl of an accident whilst in that person's care.

What? There is No Evidence for Any of That in The Files or in Dr. Amaral's Book. Speculating in such Ridiculous Conspiracy Theories Takes Away from the Impact of Dr. Amaral's Book and his Theories.

I added it as another possiblilty as Cherub had listed 3 options under the heading of how, according to the 'antis', Madeleine may have met her demise/disaappearance - maybe it is just speculation but, nonetheless, it has been discussed on forums before now. :)

by Guest 29.12.09 17:03

Finally wrote:Unfortunately Twinkle we live in a blame culture now where people tend to view even simple accidents in such a way as somebody potentially causing them harm through negligence.

If they had gone as far as putting the children in the nursery, which was available if I recall rightly, and Madeleine had been stolen from there do you honestly believe that the McCanns would have simply said, "oh well" and left it at that? I wouldn't have if it had been my child and I doubt they would either. They would have wanted to know how it occurred and whether it was caused through a member of staff's negligence. If negligence was proven I would guess that the complex and that member of staff would have felt the wrath of the McCanns and the public in general. Do you think it would have stood up to scrutiny if a member of the nursery staff had declared but I checked her every 30 minutes? Would negligence under these circumstances be judged differently than it has been when considering the McCanns own babysitting arrangements?

I don't for one minute believe that they harmed her in any way other than through sloppy babysitting arrangements but I must admit to feeling that we must never forget the result that their judgement had for one of their children. Some may view that as me being cruel towards them but if we forget there will be more Madeleines for sure.

We may have different ideas on right and wrong when looking after children and we may all have different opinions of who did what and how and why the little girl has vanished, but at the end of the day it is likely that we all want the same thing, for Madeleine McCann to be reunited with her family.

Take care

Hi Finally
Thanks for your other post I would agree with a lot of it.

I made the analogy between the jumping off of the balcony into the swimming pool and the diving off of the cliff, as things people stupidly do when they are on holiday, which they would never attempt at home ergo going out and leaving he children unattended and popping back every so often thinking it was fine. If the McCanns were at home, I do not think for on single minute they would have thought it was a good idea to leave their children alone if they slipped off to a nearby restaurant the same distance away, popping back for checks every half hour, it would have seemed wrong, but on holiday in a holiday setting with many other parents doing just this, they seemed to think it was OK, it wasn't of course, but I do not think there was anything sinister in it, like some are trying to make out. Some seem to be suggesting that they left their children alone on purpose so they could dream up this abduction story, or they left them alone on purpose, for the purpose of some child molester to come in and molest Madeleine (an we all know who got falsely accused of that).

I just think it is time to move on because this particular argument, is not going anywhere and it never has, most people think leaving the children was wrong. I notice this subject comes up to derail threads and to divert attention away from when some people have no other answers.

by Guest 29.12.09 17:12

Tony Bennett wrote:I reproduce here verbatim and without further comment a letter sent by Detective Chief Inspoector Roe to me on 17 December 209 following my two-hour meetng with him at my home:

17 December

Dear Mr Bennett

Thank you for our very helpful and constructive meeting today where we sought to deal with:

1) Complaint matters C/933/09 concerning D C Chissel and the investigation (1)
2) A number of other complaint matters and issues you have previously raised with Essex Police (2).

Let me first state that you have my personal undertaking that I will:

a) be your single point of contact for Essex Police, where I will deal with all matters
b) seek to review and progress matters where it is appropriate for me to do so
c) seek to resolve matters within police regulations, relevant statutes and Home Office Guidance.

My position to you is you have my trust and I am confident we can both work through all of the issues which are causing you distress and concern.

As stated above, I am your point of contact for any matters concerning Essex Police and I will do my utmost to deal with these issues. This is my pledge to you.

I look forward to our continued co-operation and endeavour.

Yours sincerely

NOTES

(1) This refers to complaints about the way Essex Police have handled, so far, the allegations of Ms Butler and also their (alleged) failures to get to grips with the campaign of harassment by Ms Butler against me and others

(2) This refers to the complaints I have made to Essex Police about e.g. a specific death threat and the malicious and false messages sent out to others by Nigel Nessling of Ipswich and others wrongly stating as a fact that I had been in mental hospital or received psychiatric treatement, and other untrue allegations which I would prefer not to reproduce here for reasons of decency.

Can I ask Tony Bennett, in these days of stretched resources and an over abundance of paper work our police are saddled with, if he thinks this is a suitable thing to be wasting police time with?

Also a comment on the letter that is alleged to have been written by DCI Roe, it seems rather gushing and lovey dovey for someone in the inspector's position.

Tony Bennett, is this an exact copy of his letter to you, or have you typed it from memory, or have you scanned it in? I ask this because a short while ago, yo published what you maintained DC Chissel had said to you, only this turned out to be false and I believe the DC published a correction of what was actually said, which varied considerably from which you had written.

Log in for more topics