Re: See you in Court Mr and Mrs McCann

by Otium 20.01.10 17:51

Autumn wrote:
I am not well up on other forums, what does PFA stand for?

Pro Fence Anti

Considering that they have a sub forum entitled 'Anti's Bloomers' I think it would be fair to say that they lean towards the 'Pro' stance quite heavily.

by Autumn 20.01.10 17:58

Otium wrote:
Autumn wrote:
I am not well up on other forums, what does PFA stand for?

Pro Fence Anti

Considering that they have a sub forum entitled 'Anti's Bloomers' I think it would be fair to say that they lean towards the 'Pro' stance quite heavily.

ok thanks, I'l make a point of avoiding it lol!

by Pascal 20.01.10 18:12

PFA should have changed their name a long time since. They have an open section to non members which is nothing short of an attack fest on other fora and posters. I read the open bit (Madeleine section) occasionally as there are one or two posters there worth the time.

Would be great to have a forum where all opinions were welcome without fear of ridicule, but the divide is way too deep.

by simplyme 20.01.10 20:33

He did however serve his time for his crime. The only court case to come about regarding Madeleine McCann was against the only person who actually looked for her!

Dont forget the McCanns would have us believe they are not responsible for what happened to Madeleine. They were well within the bounds of responsible parenting. Its these 2 facts that really stick in my throat. They are responsible as if they were looking after her properly she would still be with them. And they most definately were NOT within the bounds of responsible parenting!! Who do they think they are?????

nemesis wrote:
Autumn wrote:

The point I was making was that, now information from the police files is coming to the attention of the public at long last, many people are hearing for the first time things that those who read the files have known for a long time.

The information of the Police Files has been there. It is just that certain people mis-translated it and also decided to miss bits out that did not suit them.

Going back on track. JHL or the Axe Murderer as he is known as, has shown NO REMORSE WHATSOEVER FOR WHAT HE DID.So in other words he is please with killing someone.

And as for not "losing a case" as he puts it. HE HAS ONLY DONE CASES FOR PRISONERS RIGHTS AGAINST THE STATE. HE HAS DONE NOTHING LIKE THIS. And he is wrong in what he says.

by vaguely1 20.01.10 21:14

simplyme wrote:He did however serve his time for his crime. The only court case to come about regarding Madeleine McCann was against the only person who actually looked for her!

Dont forget the McCanns would have us believe they are not responsible for what happened to Madeleine. They were well within the bounds of responsible parenting. Its these 2 facts that really stick in my throat. They are responsible as if they were looking after her properly she would still be with them. And they most definately were NOT within the bounds of responsible parenting!! Who do they think they are?????

The parents of a missing child.

Bad things happen to kids - even to kids who are constantly supervised. I'm sure we'd all like to pretend that isn't the case. But it is.

So a man who has taken the life of a woman, a woman who had provided a roof of his head and trusted him, by smashing her over the head with an axe handle, until she took her last breath - and then went on to calmly make himself a cup of coffee, and who has never, ever shown any remorse for this act is better than the two doctors who left their child in an apartment alone for an evening?

Sometimes I think people have lost perspective.

Take the names and the prejudice out of the comparison and tell me that if you found out that someone who was dear to you had done one of the above, that you didn't have to approve, but you did have to accept it - which would come harder to you?

Sometimes we all have strong feelings about things, and sometimes we align ourselves with dubious people because they share our views and we see a kindred spirit.

But really....have standards slipped *this* low?

ETA: Sorry, error in the above post. He didn't make himself a cup of coffee
after he had caved her head in. He made a cup of coffee whilst he
waited for her to die from her head injuries and then later went on to make jokes about how she must have had a headache now.

Apologies for any confusion.

by Kololi 20.01.10 22:04

You make a very fair point Vaguely.

I struggle, as it seems simplyme does too, however, with this idea that we should be all forgiving of the McCanns part in this. Whilst I would not put them on an equal footing with the guy that you speak of, I find it extremely distasteful the efforts by some to whitewash their part in Madeleine's disappearance.

If she has been abducted and it transpires that some pervert had been pleasuring himself on her and eventually she had been cruelly murdered would all those that scream from the rooftops that Mr and Mrs McCann have paid a price already not have one little part of them that would stop and think it might not have occurred had they not left those children alone?

They do have to live with their actions day in and day out and it must be very difficult for them but it was likely that it was avoidable. I think I might have found more compassion for them had they banged on Parliaments door and demanded a law to be introduced that clearly sets out what is acceptable and what isn't with regards leaving children alone so that it at least lessens the likelihood of other parents and most certainly other children from having to go through this in the future.

The nonsense about responsible parenting and every parent does it is, in my opinion, damage limitation for their own reputations.

Take care

by Autumn 20.01.10 22:34

Under our present laws, the McCanns could and should have been prosecuted for neglect - it isn't so much that we need new laws, the problem seems to be enforcing the ones we have.
No sane person would leave 3 children very young children alone as they did - how on earth 2 supposedly intellegent doctors coudd do such a thing is beyond belief.
As for the 'every parent does it' mantra chanted by the McCann apologists, the simple answer to that is NO THEY DON'T. Whatismore, people in other countries believe this is how parents in the UK treat their children - it is so unfair that, thanks the McCanns, decent parents in Britain are getting a bad reputation.

by nemesis/muratfan 20.01.10 23:26

Autumn wrote:
Under our present laws, the McCanns could and should have been prosecuted for neglect - it isn't so much that we need new laws, the problem seems to be enforcing the ones we have.

No sane person would leave 3 children very young children alone as they did - how on earth 2 supposedly intellegent doctors coudd do such a thing is beyond belief.
As for the 'every parent does it' mantra chanted by the McCann apologists, the simple answer to that is NO THEY DON'T. Whatismore, people in other countries believe this is how parents in the UK treat their children - it is so unfair that, thanks the McCanns, decent parents in Britain are getting a bad reputation.

No laws govern what happens abroad. I believe Tony Bennett looked into this and found only an obscure early 20th Century law which would not stand up in court.

As for the every parent does it quote, can you show me where all the McCann apologists (as you put itO say this please. I struggle to find it. I can honestly say i have not seen or heard one person say that British Parents are useless and always leave their kids home alone. Once again find me quotes where it says it please, instead of just making stupid quotes or lines up .;

by vaguely1 21.01.10 7:34

Autumn wrote:Under our present laws, the McCanns could and should have been prosecuted for neglect - it isn't so much that we need new laws, the problem seems to be enforcing the ones we have.
No sane person would leave 3 children very young children alone as they did - how on earth 2 supposedly intellegent doctors coudd do such a thing is beyond belief.
As for the 'every parent does it' mantra chanted by the McCann apologists, the simple answer to that is NO THEY DON'T. Whatismore, people in other countries believe this is how parents in the UK treat their children - it is so unfair that, thanks the McCanns, decent parents in Britain are getting a bad reputation.

I have never seen anyone say every parent does it. I have certainly never heard anyone chanting this?

by vaguely1 21.01.10 7:52

Kololi wrote:You make a very fair point Vaguely.

I struggle, as it seems simplyme does too, however, with this idea that we should be all forgiving of the McCanns part in this. Whilst I would not put them on an equal footing with the guy that you speak of, I find it extremely distasteful the efforts by some to whitewash their part in Madeleine's disappearance.

If she has been abducted and it transpires that some pervert had been pleasuring himself on her and eventually she had been cruelly murdered would all those that scream from the rooftops that Mr and Mrs McCann have paid a price already not have one little part of them that would stop and think it might not have occurred had they not left those children alone?

They do have to live with their actions day in and day out and it must be very difficult for them but it was likely that it was avoidable. I think I might have found more compassion for them had they banged on Parliaments door and demanded a law to be introduced that clearly sets out what is acceptable and what isn't with regards leaving children alone so that it at least lessens the likelihood of other parents and most certainly other children from having to go through this in the future.

The nonsense about responsible parenting and every parent does it is, in my opinion, damage limitation for their own reputations.

Take care

Thank you Kololi.

My thoughts on this - I don't obsessively watch interviews with/on/about the McCanns, but even I've seen two occasions where they say they made a mistake in leaving the children alone that night.

I don't think we need a march on Parliament to establish whether it's right to leave small children on their own, because it isn't. There are clear guidelines on the matter written by experts, these are available for people who need to be told what to do.

If people leave their children, having guidelines won't stop them doing it. There are already laws to prosecute people who leave their children in positions of danger.

I can't speak for what was going through the head of the McCanns that night - but if I had to think why two intelligent people could leave their children in the apartment seemingly without concern it would be that the apartment was within view of where they were sitting - perhaps this has some bearing on their mindset.

I've never even used a babysitter, other than direct family, so I'm not chanting the mantra that Autumn claims she hears, and I've never heard anyone else chant it either.

Having said that - It was done. the children were left. the parents haven't been prosecuted. So does dwelling on it help find the truth of what happened to Madeleine? Or does dwelling on it just cause blind alleys and prevent people from looking further.

I think the latter.

And I think that's proven by the fact that people welcome and accept the intervention of a man who has callously taken a life and shows no remorse. There is no perspective any more.

by ufercoffy 21.01.10 12:37

vaguely1 wrote:I don't think we need a march on Parliament to establish whether it's right to leave small children on their own, because it isn't. There are clear guidelines on the matter written by experts, these are available for people who need to be told what to do.

If people leave their children, having guidelines won't stop them doing it. There are already laws to prosecute people who leave their children in positions of danger.

These laws don't work for the McCanns though, and I think that's why people are shocked by what's going on. People are in jail for having done what the McCanns did but the McCanns are protected by the law and government in full view of the public. It's not even being done on the quiet.

If the McCanns can get this kind of protection, then all child neglectors should be afforded the same treatment and should be allowed to raise money to pay their mortgage and be allowed to hold celebrity parties.

And if the government won't allow this, then why do they allow the McCanns to do it?

by vaguely1 21.01.10 12:59

Yet there are hundreds of cases of people leaving their children alone. Sadly it happens. A lot. Some people face legal charges, and others don't. There are a million and one factors that affect which route is taken I would guess .

I can't personally find a case that matches the events of that night. There are tragic cases where children have been harmed in fires, there is a recent case where a child fell from a window.....and there are probably more cases than we'll ever know where children are left and nobody finds out. We only hear about these cases if the press consider them 'newsworthy'. but I can't find a case where a child was taken whilst unsupervised (apart from the little girl in the bath, and she was in a house with her mother at the time so this wouldn't apply)

re the raising money. Had the McCanns have left their children and been prosecuted for neglect, with all children safe and well then they wouldn't be raising money.

They're raising money for a specific cause.

I think to rule that they are not allowed to fund a search for their child because they left her alone would be a bizarre move. I don't understand where you're coming from there, or perhaps I just feel detached from it because it's not something I would donate to.

by simplyme 21.01.10 13:08

I agree entirely ufercoffy.

The mccanns make me sick. What Mr Hirst did also makes me sick however at least he paid some price and he was judged by a jury of his peers. The McCanns have not really paid any price in law. Ok you may think that they have paid a price as they have lost their daughter but it is most definately cause and effect here. It is a parents responsibility to safeguard children. Now I realise there are accidents which are 'acts of god' but in this case the children were abandoned while the parents were out partying. They almost immediately turned this into a media campaign with dubious purposes. Was this campaign designed to find their daughter? If so then why did Kate McCann not answer the questions put to her by the police force? Why did they not publicise and still do not publicise the substantial reward? Why the discrepancies in their statements? Why was their mobile phones wiped? Why did the LP not forward the gasper statements? I wold be perfectly happy if some sort of trial takes place with a jury of peers.
If they are then found innocent then fair enough. The problem I have is that they have not been brought to book for this and they should be.

[quote="ufercoffy]These laws don't work for the McCanns though, and I think that's why people are shocked by what's going on. People are in jail for having done what the McCanns did but the McCanns are protected by the law and government in full view of the public. It's not even being done on the quiet.

If the McCanns can get this kind of protection, then all child neglectors should be afforded the same treatment and should be allowed to raise money to pay their mortgage and be allowed to hold celebrity parties.

And if the government won't allow this, then why do they allow the McCanns to do it?[/quote]

by vaguely1 21.01.10 13:15

Simplyme said: If they are then found innocent then fair enough. The problem I have is
that they have not been brought to book for this and they should be.

And at that point would you consider that there may be a child alive out there, or would you consider that they got lucky and they still know what happened to her?

I think that if there's a possibility of a child being alive then the condemning of her parents actions can, and should, wait. The child takes precedence. imvho.

by Autumn 21.01.10 13:27

vaguely1 wrote:Yet there are hundreds of cases of people leaving their children alone. Sadly it happens. A lot. Some people face legal charges, and others don't. There are a million and one factors that affect which route is taken I would guess .

I can't personally find a case that matches the events of that night. There are tragic cases where children have been harmed in fires, there is a recent case where a child fell from a window.....and there are probably more cases than we'll ever know where children are left and nobody finds out. We only hear about these cases if the press consider them 'newsworthy'. but I can't find a case where a child was taken whilst unsupervised (apart from the little girl in the bath, and she was in a house with her mother at the time so this wouldn't apply)

re the raising money. Had the McCanns have left their children and been prosecuted for neglect, with all children safe and well then they wouldn't be raising money.

They're raising money for a specific cause.

I think to rule that they are not allowed to fund a search for their child because they left her alone would be a bizarre move. I don't understand where you're coming from there, or perhaps I just feel detached from it because it's not something I would donate to.

You say that you can't find a case which matches events from that night - where a child was taken whilst unsupervised.

Vaguely, this is your opinion on what happened to Madeleine, please do not state it as fact.

by vaguely1 21.01.10 13:30

says the author of Hindleygate.

Everything on here is opinion Autumn. It is only me that's required to state that in my posts?

And it isn't my opinion. It was in answer to a post that specifically picked up on a comment regarding leaving children in danger.

as you were.

by simplyme 21.01.10 13:32

imho there is no living child out here

imho there was an accident which needed to be concealed

We need a proper investigation of the parents and the rest of the Tapas then a jury trial.

by vaguely1 21.01.10 13:47

imho there is no living child out here
Sadly after all this time that's probably the most likely scenario, but there are of course children recovered after long periods of time have elapsed.

We need a proper investigation of the parents and the rest of the Tapas then a jury trial.
I'm not sure 'we' do, but there does need to be a proper investigation FULL STOP.

by ufercoffy 21.01.10 13:53

There is no evidence to support that Madeleine was taken whilst unsupervised.

Just because the McCanns say so isn't evidence.

by vaguely1 21.01.10 13:56

ufercoffy wrote:There is no evidence to support that Madeleine was taken whilst unsupervised.

Just because the McCanns say so isn't evidence.

No, I was relying more on the fact she was missing. She was either taken, or she wasn't taken. I haven't reached any conclusion that fixates me one scenario. I haven't written either one off.

by ufercoffy 21.01.10 14:03

vaguely1 wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:There is no evidence to support that Madeleine was taken whilst unsupervised.

Just because the McCanns say so isn't evidence.

No, I was relying more on the fact she was missing. She was either taken, or she wasn't taken. I haven't reached any conclusion that fixates me one scenario. I haven't written either one off.

Does the scent of death in the apartment and hire car not sway you towards a scenario at all?

by vaguely1 21.01.10 14:08

ufercoffy wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:There is no evidence to support that Madeleine was taken whilst unsupervised.

Just because the McCanns say so isn't evidence.

No, I was relying more on the fact she was missing. She was either taken, or she wasn't taken. I haven't reached any conclusion that fixates me one scenario. I haven't written either one off.

Does the scent of death in the apartment and hire car not sway you towards a scenario at all?

It so easily could, couldn't it.

by Autumn 21.01.10 14:14

vaguely1 wrote:says the author of Hindleygate.

Everything on here is opinion Autumn. It is only me that's required to state that in my posts?

And it isn't my opinion. It was in answer to a post that specifically picked up on a comment regarding leaving children in danger.

as you were.

says the author of Supporting Child Neglect.

by Kololi 21.01.10 14:15

Actually Vaguely that is a good thought.

I think several of us are miffed by the scenario of two parents neglecting their children and one disappears, probably abducted by perverts according to her father, but no justice seemingly being dished out.

If Madeleine was to be found, and let's hope that still is a possibility, and Social Services or the Police then take action against the McCanns I would guess that us moaners Wink

would feel that it was fair and reasonable and that they were facing what they deserved for the choices that they made and what ordinary folks are likely to face under similar circumstances.

Of course, would the McCann supporters still, in that scenario, scream that they had been punished enough and now Madeleine needed them so, therefore, they should be free to carry on about their business without need to face consequences for their choices?

One of the areas of law that I had to study for my diploma was tort; negligence. One thing I learned is that there are certain presumed relationships where a duty of care will be applied by the courts and does not need proving. I think the McCanns didn't give a hoot about their duty of care towards the three children that night when they compared it to a bit of good fun with their adult mates.

I seem to recall that it was Mr Mitchell who seemed to think that all British mums and dads put their "me time" before the safety of their children and so, therefore, what was all the fuss about as we all do it!

Take care

by vaguely1 21.01.10 14:18

Autumn wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:says the author of Hindleygate.

Everything on here is opinion Autumn. It is only me that's required to state that in my posts?

And it isn't my opinion. It was in answer to a post that specifically picked up on a comment regarding leaving children in danger.

as you were.

says the author of Supporting Child Neglect.

Please provide a link to this.

Log in for more topics