Re: Fairy tales

by **PeterMac** 12.08.11 22:01

Possibly a quesiton of making sure the ~~novel~~ book appeals to all sectors of the unthinking public and that no one could be too critical of their habits.
(Drinking habits, that is, not abandoning-children habits)
The inclusion of the exact label might just have stuck in the craws of some readers. This was on pages 52 and 69, so a full 60 pages before everyone's craws became blocked with their own vomit.

by lj 13.08.11 5:06

Kate is such a prol, she keeps on trying to sneek in that she is used to, and only want the best.

Sadly she gives herself away in an awful manner, clearly thinking that what the yuppie world tells her is the best.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by russiandoll 17.09.11 11:42

ah peter mac.....indeed indeed, but did a not yet 4 yr old have wonderful grammar for her age......"why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?" not only by putting herself second and not first as the joint subject of this plural verb, she did not say what most kids of ehr age would say...." me" insead of " I " !

by **tigger** 17.09.11 13:56

russiandoll wrote:ah peter mac.....indeed indeed, but did a not yet 4 yr old have wonderful grammar for her age......"why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?" not only by putting herself second and not first as the joint subject of this plural verb, she did not say what most kids of ehr age would say...." me" insead of " I " !

Gerry said she was 'very articulate' but early on in the affair I read that her speech was below average for her age. don't know where, sorry.
Yes, it struck me that children do not remark things 'in passing', they ask, they tell you. When I see these two sitting there waffling on about 'it was just a passing remark, you know...'

Other things children don't say are: 'Mummy, I've had the best day ever'. Also in the bewk. This awareness of time, past and future does not occur to a 4 yr. old.
They say, ' Can we do it again tomorrow, Mummy'

Also in the book, Maddie had learned a little dance and she said she would show Mummy the next day. Children do not wait to show any new thing, even less likely to make an appointment with their mother to demonstrate new dance steps some time in the future.

by **PeterMac** 17.09.11 23:37

russiandoll wrote:ah peter mac.....indeed indeed, but did a not yet 4 yr old have wonderful grammar for her age......"why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?" not only by putting herself second and not first as the joint subject of this plural verb, she did not say what most kids of her age would say...." me" insead of " I " !

And incidentally what both Kate and Gerry would have said, "... why didn't you come when Sean and ME cried." Their backgrounds are clear, and in case anyone thinks that is a minus, quite the contrary. For children from poor and ill-educated backgrounds to aspire to and then to achieve education and membership of a profession is wonderful.
But the McCanns' grammar betrays their roots.
You can rise above it. My father did.
Good grammar and RP are the answer to social mobility in Britain.

But what it also reveals is that the book was very, VERY, heavily edited after proof reading. The grammar was largely sorted out, the content was no doubt vetted by C-R, and other interested people, which leaves as a surprise why so much stuff was left in.

by Guest 18.09.11 9:53

This originally started out as "me and Sean" or "Sean and me" as a child would say but, as PeterMac says, the grammatically correct version appears in the book. Here's a link to an article from 2008 with the original version.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **PeterMac** 18.09.11 23:12

Marian wrote:This originally started out as "me and Sean" or "Sean and me" as a child would say but, as PeterMac says, the grammatically correct version appears in the book. Here's a link to an article from 2008 with the original version.
[url=http://truthformadeleine.com/2008/04/where-were-you-that-night-kate-what-grandmother-said-after-she-was-told-that-madeleine-had-been-snatched/]

exactly.
"Mrs McCann’s leaked witness statement revealed Madeleine and Sean were crying in their bedroom on the night of May 2, and that Madeleine asked the next morning: ‘Mummy, why didn’t you come when Sean and me were crying?’"
That is how the parents speak, and therefore how their children speak. And that is how Kate would have reported it, and put it in a witness statement.
I suppose we have to be thankful she didn't say "When Sean and me was crying."
The book has been cleaned up. "Education" and standard English grammar have been added by someone. And some of the facts have probably gone missing in the process.

by jd 19.09.11 0:12

PeterMac wrote:
Marian wrote:This originally started out as "me and Sean" or "Sean and me" as a child would say but, as PeterMac says, the grammatically correct version appears in the book. Here's a link to an article from 2008 with the original version.
[url=http://truthformadeleine.com/2008/04/where-were-you-that-night-kate-what-grandmother-said-after-she-was-told-that-madeleine-had-been-snatched/]
exactly.
"Mrs McCann’s leaked witness statement revealed Madeleine and Sean were crying in their bedroom on the night of May 2, and that Madeleine asked the next morning: ‘Mummy, why didn’t you come when Sean and me were crying?’"
That is how the parents speak, and therefore how their children speak. And that is how Kate would have reported it, and put it in a witness statement.
I suppose we have to be thankful she didn't say "When Sean and me was crying."
The book has been cleaned up. "Education" and standard English grammar have been added by someone. And some of the facts have probably gone missing in the process.

All of which has been verified by the responsible and professional company Carter Ruck!

by Gillyspot 19.09.11 8:03

Carter-Ruck would only have been looking at whether Kate was libelling anyone I am sure. Mind they let her get away with abusing the Portuguese Police - wish they would sue her!

by russiandoll 19.09.11 18:30

Kates insulting comparison of 2 portuguese police officers to Tweedle dum and Tweedle dee got me thinking, I feel after reading her book that I have fallen down a rabbit hole into a parallel universe. and who would play the characters at the mad hatters tea party I wonder ...

actually, lets get all life on mars here.....get the gene genie on the case.

by Gillyspot 19.09.11 22:11

Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum were from Alice through the Looking Glass

My choice of character for Kate is The Queen of Hearts "Off with her head" tongue

Gerry could be the Cheshire Cat - he has that type of smirk that makes you want to slap him sometimes.

by jd 19.09.11 22:22

Gillyspot wrote:
Gerry could be the Cheshire Cat - he has that type of smirk that makes you want to slap him sometimes.

by Guest 19.09.11 22:25

Didn't the Cheshire Cat disappear until only its smile was left? In the case of Gerry that is still a horrible prospect but I suppose it's better than all of him!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I see Clarence as the Mad Hatter.

by frank zappa 19.09.11 23:23

Sleeping beauty spings to mind for me. If I remember correctly the Queen has her trolls searching for an infant despite the fact time has gone on and she (sleeping beauty) has reached adulthood. Ring any bells?

by Joss 19.09.11 23:28

As the thread title asks "Why do innocent parents of a missing child need to lie"? There is no reason in such a case to lie to authorities when a child goes missing. Not unless you are trying to cover up the truth of what really happened. I really don't even think that guilt of leaving your child or children unattended in such a scenario would be a reason to lie. Lying is only necessary when there is something to hide, unless the McCanns are just pathological liars and have a history of telling lies? Liars are people that can't be trusted, IMO.

by Gillyspot 20.09.11 8:05

They clearly have lied!. The shutters episode (which the pro's deny) is evidence or how did so many of Team McCann make the same "innocent" mistake in saying the shutters were broken/damaged/jemmied/jimmied. Just because shutters weren't really damaged and this fact was confirmed before the official PJ statements on 4/5/07 were taken doesn't make it not true that they said this.