Mikaeel Kular
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Other Crimes and Mysteries :: Other Fake Abductions, Hoaxes, Appeals and Crocodile Tears
Page 25 of 34 • Share
Page 25 of 34 • 1 ... 14 ... 24, 25, 26 ... 29 ... 34
Re: Mikaeel Kular
Well said.PeterMac wrote:If your house is burgled it is the FAULT of the burglar.
You may have contributed by your leaving the door unlocked but essentially it is the FAULT of the burglar.
The local Crime Prevention officer might certainly have given you better or more detailed advice about closing your doors when you went out
The local council might certainly have ensured that the street light outside your front door was brighter
a whole range of different people might have done a whole range of different things
BUT
The GUILTY party is the Burglar.
And so it is with Social workers.
The GUILTY parties who killed Baby Peter were the 'parents'.
Lots of people might have done lots of things, but that does not in anyway excuse the parents
And nor does it in any way diminish their responsibility, by trying to "share it out amongst professionals".
It is also all of our social duty to report crimes and help these professional services prevent and solve crimes, and keep innocent people safe.
I once saw and reported some criminal damage that resulted in a conviction. There were dozens of witnesses , no one else reported the incident or came forward, but I bet many of these would complain about criminal damage in the area.
DurhamGuy1967- Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20
Re: Mikaeel Kular
PeterMac wrote:If your house is burgled it is the FAULT of the burglar.
You may have contributed by your leaving the door unlocked but essentially it is the FAULT of the burglar.
The local Crime Prevention officer might certainly have given you better or more detailed advice about closing your doors when you went out
The local council might certainly have ensured that the street light outside your front door was brighter
a whole range of different people might have done a whole range of different things
BUT
The GUILTY party is the Burglar.
And so it is with Social workers.
The GUILTY parties who killed Baby Peter were the 'parents'.
Lots of people might have done lots of things, but that does not in anyway excuse the parents
And nor does it in any way diminish their responsibility, by trying to "share it out amongst professionals".
All true. However in our society there is more compensation to be had from making things the fault of large, publicly funded organisations than blaming the kind of individuals who cannot afford the top lawyers to get them off.
Guest- Guest
Re: Mikaeel Kular
Yes , and the danger is it becomes profitable to be reckless and take no responsibility for you own actions or lack of action then sue when something goes wrong.Popcorn wrote:PeterMac wrote:If your house is burgled it is the FAULT of the burglar.
You may have contributed by your leaving the door unlocked but essentially it is the FAULT of the burglar.
The local Crime Prevention officer might certainly have given you better or more detailed advice about closing your doors when you went out
The local council might certainly have ensured that the street light outside your front door was brighter
a whole range of different people might have done a whole range of different things
BUT
The GUILTY party is the Burglar.
And so it is with Social workers.
The GUILTY parties who killed Baby Peter were the 'parents'.
Lots of people might have done lots of things, but that does not in anyway excuse the parents
And nor does it in any way diminish their responsibility, by trying to "share it out amongst professionals".
All true. However in our society there is more compensation to be had from making things the fault of large, publicly funded organisations than blaming the kind of individuals who cannot afford the top lawyers to get them off.
DurhamGuy1967- Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20
Re: Mikaeel Kular
I agree with PeterMac on this one. I too am a foster carer and spend a lot of time around Social Workers. I sat in a Joint Supervision Meeting last year where the head of the Department was almost in tears because of the proposed budget cuts and said they really didn't know how they would cope. There are cuts proposed again this year.
I should imagine they do not have the resources to trace a family if they do a runner.
At the end of the day the blame lies with the person who caused this boys death and hid his body.
I should imagine they do not have the resources to trace a family if they do a runner.
At the end of the day the blame lies with the person who caused this boys death and hid his body.
littlepixie- Posts : 1346
Activity : 1392
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2009-11-29
Re: Mikaeel Kular
Of course nothing I have said diminishes the professional responsibility of those on whom the burden has been placed.
If a social worker was supposed to visit - but didn't; a police officer was supposed to patrol - but didn't; a doctor was supposed to examine - but didn't
then clearly that is a matter of censure and of professional misconduct proceedings
But it is, in my view, a totally separate issue from the harm caused by the principal offender.
Just assume that a couple left a door unlocked, and a child were taken by person or persons unknown.
The taking of the child is Wholly the responsibility of the perpetrator
BUT the parents would clearly be guilty of gross negligence - independently of whether the chid had been taken or not,
If this child were found unharmed hiding in a cupboard they would still be guilty
If there were no intruder they would still be guilty
The fact of no intruder merely means that they "got away with it" because it was never reported.
If a social worker was supposed to visit - but didn't; a police officer was supposed to patrol - but didn't; a doctor was supposed to examine - but didn't
then clearly that is a matter of censure and of professional misconduct proceedings
But it is, in my view, a totally separate issue from the harm caused by the principal offender.
Just assume that a couple left a door unlocked, and a child were taken by person or persons unknown.
The taking of the child is Wholly the responsibility of the perpetrator
BUT the parents would clearly be guilty of gross negligence - independently of whether the chid had been taken or not,
If this child were found unharmed hiding in a cupboard they would still be guilty
If there were no intruder they would still be guilty
The fact of no intruder merely means that they "got away with it" because it was never reported.
Re: Mikaeel Kular
I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.PeterMac wrote:Of course nothing I have said diminishes the professional responsibility of those on whom the burden has been placed.
If a social worker was supposed to visit - but didn't; a police officer was supposed to patrol - but didn't; a doctor was supposed to examine - but didn't
then clearly that is a matter of censure and of professional misconduct proceedings
But it is, in my view, a totally separate issue from the harm caused by the principal offender.
Just assume that a couple left a door unlocked, and a child were taken by person or persons unknown.
The taking of the child is Wholly the responsibility of the perpetrator
BUT the parents would clearly be guilty of gross negligence - independently of whether the chid had been taken or not,
If this child were found unharmed hiding in a cupboard they would still be guilty
If there were no intruder they would still be guilty
The fact of no intruder merely means that they "got away with it" because it was never reported.
DurhamGuy1967- Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20
Re: Mikaeel Kular
I think this must depend on the age and behaviour of the child. Some two to three year olds can get into trouble the minute your back is turned, so for these you need eyes in the back of your head. Others will sit on the one spot happily playing with toys and cause no anxiety to anyone.I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.
Miraflores- Posts : 845
Activity : 856
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20
Re: Mikaeel Kular
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.PeterMac wrote:Of course nothing I have said diminishes the professional responsibility of those on whom the burden has been placed.
If a social worker was supposed to visit - but didn't; a police officer was supposed to patrol - but didn't; a doctor was supposed to examine - but didn't
then clearly that is a matter of censure and of professional misconduct proceedings
But it is, in my view, a totally separate issue from the harm caused by the principal offender.
Just assume that a couple left a door unlocked, and a child were taken by person or persons unknown.
The taking of the child is Wholly the responsibility of the perpetrator
BUT the parents would clearly be guilty of gross negligence - independently of whether the chid had been taken or not,
If this child were found unharmed hiding in a cupboard they would still be guilty
If there were no intruder they would still be guilty
The fact of no intruder merely means that they "got away with it" because it was never reported.
It is if it leaves defenseless little children 'unguarded' and 'exposed' to a dangerous individual who can come in and rape, poison, stab, kill or any other verb, any 'exposed' child.
Leaving a door wide open is NOT the issue here, or don't you want to address the fact that the children were left 'vulnerable' by leaving the door open.
ETA Leaving a door locked is also not an issue here if it's children or dogs etc. locked in a car, for hours on end, in a heat wave so that the outcome is they will die unless some well meaning passer-by happens to think of calling the police, or break a window themself.
bobbin- Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05
Re: Mikaeel Kular
Young children need supervising 24/7 ( that's why parents of young children are nearly always exhausted, and often stressed ) But surely this suppervision is to protect them from getting into difficulties themselves, and having accidents. The chance of a stranger coming into a home and attacking a young child is so so rare as to be an insignificant risk.bobbin wrote:DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.PeterMac wrote:Of course nothing I have said diminishes the professional responsibility of those on whom the burden has been placed.
If a social worker was supposed to visit - but didn't; a police officer was supposed to patrol - but didn't; a doctor was supposed to examine - but didn't
then clearly that is a matter of censure and of professional misconduct proceedings
But it is, in my view, a totally separate issue from the harm caused by the principal offender.
Just assume that a couple left a door unlocked, and a child were taken by person or persons unknown.
The taking of the child is Wholly the responsibility of the perpetrator
BUT the parents would clearly be guilty of gross negligence - independently of whether the chid had been taken or not,
If this child were found unharmed hiding in a cupboard they would still be guilty
If there were no intruder they would still be guilty
The fact of no intruder merely means that they "got away with it" because it was never reported.
It is if it leaves defenseless little children 'unguarded' and 'exposed' to a dangerous individual who can come in and rape, poison, stab, kill or any other verb, any 'exposed' child.
Leaving a door wide open is NOT the issue here, or don't you want to address the fact that the children were left 'vulnerable' by leaving the door open.
ETA Leaving a door locked is also not an issue here if it's children or dogs etc. locked in a car, for hours on end, in a heat wave so that the outcome is they die.
DurhamGuy1967- Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20
Re: Mikaeel Kular
Is this 'suppervision' the same amount of vision that the McCs didn't have from their supper in the Tapas Bar?DurhamGuy1967 wrote:Young children need supervising 24/7 ( that's why parents of young children are nearly always exhausted, and often stressed ) But surely this suppervision is to protect them from getting into difficulties themselves, and having accidents. The chance of a stranger coming into a home and attacking a young child is so so rare as to be an insignificant risk.bobbin wrote:DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.PeterMac wrote:Of course nothing I have said diminishes the professional responsibility of those on whom the burden has been placed.
If a social worker was supposed to visit - but didn't; a police officer was supposed to patrol - but didn't; a doctor was supposed to examine - but didn't
then clearly that is a matter of censure and of professional misconduct proceedings
But it is, in my view, a totally separate issue from the harm caused by the principal offender.
Just assume that a couple left a door unlocked, and a child were taken by person or persons unknown.
The taking of the child is Wholly the responsibility of the perpetrator
BUT the parents would clearly be guilty of gross negligence - independently of whether the chid had been taken or not,
If this child were found unharmed hiding in a cupboard they would still be guilty
If there were no intruder they would still be guilty
The fact of no intruder merely means that they "got away with it" because it was never reported.
It is if it leaves defenseless little children 'unguarded' and 'exposed' to a dangerous individual who can come in and rape, poison, stab, kill or any other verb, any 'exposed' child.
Leaving a door wide open is NOT the issue here, or don't you want to address the fact that the children were left 'vulnerable' by leaving the door open.
ETA Leaving a door locked is also not an issue here if it's children or dogs etc. locked in a car, for hours on end, in a heat wave so that the outcome is they die.
Namely, None.
As was demonstrated, the 'rare' incidence is one that does occur, albeit 'rarely' which is why looking after children involves 'responsibility' and not 'taking risks in gaming odds, calculating the chances of winning versus losing'.
Would you let your child play Russian roulette, with the gun pointing either at its own head or anybody elses for that matter.
This is the case of 'negligence' which the McCs have claimed for their actions, albeit, possibly another lie.
bobbin- Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05
Re: Mikaeel Kular
candyfloss wrote:
The headline is in very bad taste, but such a beautiful photo of mother & child. Truly tragic.
tasprin- Posts : 834
Activity : 896
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2013-01-30
Re: Mikaeel Kular
The McCs didn't supervise their children for a substantial time period. This was wrong and negligent. The chance of a child waking up and being extremely upset or having an accident are fairly high. It has not been concluded that a stranger came in and took her.bobbin wrote:Is this 'suppervision' the same amount of vision that the McCs didn't have from their supper in the Tapas Bar?DurhamGuy1967 wrote:Young children need supervising 24/7 ( that's why parents of young children are nearly always exhausted, and often stressed ) But surely this suppervision is to protect them from getting into difficulties themselves, and having accidents. The chance of a stranger coming into a home and attacking a young child is so so rare as to be an insignificant risk.bobbin wrote:DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.PeterMac wrote:Of course nothing I have said diminishes the professional responsibility of those on whom the burden has been placed.
If a social worker was supposed to visit - but didn't; a police officer was supposed to patrol - but didn't; a doctor was supposed to examine - but didn't
then clearly that is a matter of censure and of professional misconduct proceedings
But it is, in my view, a totally separate issue from the harm caused by the principal offender.
Just assume that a couple left a door unlocked, and a child were taken by person or persons unknown.
The taking of the child is Wholly the responsibility of the perpetrator
BUT the parents would clearly be guilty of gross negligence - independently of whether the chid had been taken or not,
If this child were found unharmed hiding in a cupboard they would still be guilty
If there were no intruder they would still be guilty
The fact of no intruder merely means that they "got away with it" because it was never reported.
It is if it leaves defenseless little children 'unguarded' and 'exposed' to a dangerous individual who can come in and rape, poison, stab, kill or any other verb, any 'exposed' child.
Leaving a door wide open is NOT the issue here, or don't you want to address the fact that the children were left 'vulnerable' by leaving the door open.
ETA Leaving a door locked is also not an issue here if it's children or dogs etc. locked in a car, for hours on end, in a heat wave so that the outcome is they die.
Namely, None.
As was demonstrated, the 'rare' incidence is one that does occur, albeit 'rarely' which is why looking after children involves 'responsibility' and not 'taking risks in gaming odds, calculating the chances of winning versus losing'.
Would you let your child play Russian roulette, with the gun pointing either at its own head or anybody elses for that matter.
This is the case of 'negligence' which the McCs have claimed for their actions, albeit, possibly another lie.
DurhamGuy1967- Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20
Re: Mikaeel Kular
Negligence is, in my opinion, the failure to look around all situations that could occur and do your best to prevent tragedies, problems etc happening. This applies to children, the elderly, the disabled, vulnerable people and even to animals. Literally super-vision.
Penfold- Posts : 140
Activity : 144
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-07-02
Age : 75
Location : Manchester.
Re: Mikaeel Kular
Such as waking, wandering out of the open door, climbing onto the balcony to look for Mummy, and falling onto hard ground, which could either have broken a neck or caused concussion, brain swelling and subsequent death.DurhamGuy1967 wrote:The McCs didn't supervise their children for a substantial time period. This was wrong and negligent. The chance of a child waking up and being extremely upset or having an accident are fairly high. It has not been concluded that a stranger came in and took her.bobbin wrote:Is this 'suppervision' the same amount of vision that the McCs didn't have from their supper in the Tapas Bar?DurhamGuy1967 wrote:Young children need supervising 24/7 ( that's why parents of young children are nearly always exhausted, and often stressed ) But surely this suppervision is to protect them from getting into difficulties themselves, and having accidents. The chance of a stranger coming into a home and attacking a young child is so so rare as to be an insignificant risk.bobbin wrote:DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.PeterMac wrote:Of course nothing I have said diminishes the professional responsibility of those on whom the burden has been placed.
If a social worker was supposed to visit - but didn't; a police officer was supposed to patrol - but didn't; a doctor was supposed to examine - but didn't
then clearly that is a matter of censure and of professional misconduct proceedings
But it is, in my view, a totally separate issue from the harm caused by the principal offender.
Just assume that a couple left a door unlocked, and a child were taken by person or persons unknown.
The taking of the child is Wholly the responsibility of the perpetrator
BUT the parents would clearly be guilty of gross negligence - independently of whether the chid had been taken or not,
If this child were found unharmed hiding in a cupboard they would still be guilty
If there were no intruder they would still be guilty
The fact of no intruder merely means that they "got away with it" because it was never reported.
It is if it leaves defenseless little children 'unguarded' and 'exposed' to a dangerous individual who can come in and rape, poison, stab, kill or any other verb, any 'exposed' child.
Leaving a door wide open is NOT the issue here, or don't you want to address the fact that the children were left 'vulnerable' by leaving the door open.
ETA Leaving a door locked is also not an issue here if it's children or dogs etc. locked in a car, for hours on end, in a heat wave so that the outcome is they die.
Namely, None.
As was demonstrated, the 'rare' incidence is one that does occur, albeit 'rarely' which is why looking after children involves 'responsibility' and not 'taking risks in gaming odds, calculating the chances of winning versus losing'.
Would you let your child play Russian roulette, with the gun pointing either at its own head or anybody elses for that matter.
This is the case of 'negligence' which the McCs have claimed for their actions, albeit, possibly another lie.
That's why I challenged your dismissal of leaving a door open as 'gross negligence', not just because someone evil could statistically enter.
bobbin- Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05
Re: Mikaeel Kular
We're agreed I meant generally leaving a door open isn't negligent. Leaving young children then going off well out of sight is.bobbin wrote:Such as waking, wandering out of the open door, climbing onto the balcony to look for Mummy, and falling onto hard ground, which could either have broken a neck or caused concussion, brain swelling and subsequent death.DurhamGuy1967 wrote:The McCs didn't supervise their children for a substantial time period. This was wrong and negligent. The chance of a child waking up and being extremely upset or having an accident are fairly high. It has not been concluded that a stranger came in and took her.bobbin wrote:Is this 'suppervision' the same amount of vision that the McCs didn't have from their supper in the Tapas Bar?DurhamGuy1967 wrote:Young children need supervising 24/7 ( that's why parents of young children are nearly always exhausted, and often stressed ) But surely this suppervision is to protect them from getting into difficulties themselves, and having accidents. The chance of a stranger coming into a home and attacking a young child is so so rare as to be an insignificant risk.bobbin wrote:DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.PeterMac wrote:Of course nothing I have said diminishes the professional responsibility of those on whom the burden has been placed.
If a social worker was supposed to visit - but didn't; a police officer was supposed to patrol - but didn't; a doctor was supposed to examine - but didn't
then clearly that is a matter of censure and of professional misconduct proceedings
But it is, in my view, a totally separate issue from the harm caused by the principal offender.
Just assume that a couple left a door unlocked, and a child were taken by person or persons unknown.
The taking of the child is Wholly the responsibility of the perpetrator
BUT the parents would clearly be guilty of gross negligence - independently of whether the chid had been taken or not,
If this child were found unharmed hiding in a cupboard they would still be guilty
If there were no intruder they would still be guilty
The fact of no intruder merely means that they "got away with it" because it was never reported.
It is if it leaves defenseless little children 'unguarded' and 'exposed' to a dangerous individual who can come in and rape, poison, stab, kill or any other verb, any 'exposed' child.
Leaving a door wide open is NOT the issue here, or don't you want to address the fact that the children were left 'vulnerable' by leaving the door open.
ETA Leaving a door locked is also not an issue here if it's children or dogs etc. locked in a car, for hours on end, in a heat wave so that the outcome is they die.
Namely, None.
As was demonstrated, the 'rare' incidence is one that does occur, albeit 'rarely' which is why looking after children involves 'responsibility' and not 'taking risks in gaming odds, calculating the chances of winning versus losing'.
Would you let your child play Russian roulette, with the gun pointing either at its own head or anybody elses for that matter.
This is the case of 'negligence' which the McCs have claimed for their actions, albeit, possibly another lie.
That's why I challenged your dismissal of leaving a door open as 'gross negligence', not just because someone evil could statistically enter.
DurhamGuy1967- Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20
Re: Mikaeel Kular
Somali drug gang killed Mohamed Abdi (former boyfriend of Rosdeep Kular) - allegedly.
All Muslims:
https://cpnagasaki.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/somalian-drug-gang-linked-to-scottish-murder-of-imams-son/
No post-mortem yet.
Police still asking for info, amid suggestions that Mikaeel might have been dead for some considerable time before being found
All Muslims:
https://cpnagasaki.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/somalian-drug-gang-linked-to-scottish-murder-of-imams-son/
No post-mortem yet.
Police still asking for info, amid suggestions that Mikaeel might have been dead for some considerable time before being found
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: Mikaeel Kular
Terrible, no post mortem yet and pathologists must know why. They could be waiting for the mother's statement.
Somebody here commented that Keela, the dog, was present at the scene. Wasn't that dog dead?
Somebody here commented that Keela, the dog, was present at the scene. Wasn't that dog dead?
marconi- Posts : 1082
Activity : 1104
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-05-20
Re: Mikaeel Kular
Tony Bennett wrote:Somali drug gang killed Mohamed Abdi (former boyfriend of Rosdeep Kular) - allegedly.
All Muslims:
https://cpnagasaki.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/somalian-drug-gang-linked-to-scottish-murder-of-imams-son/
No post-mortem yet.
Police still asking for info, amid suggestions that Mikaeel might have been dead for some considerable time before being found
I think many people on the forum and elsewhere came to that conclusion very early on but did not want to put it in print. Seeing that Mikaeel hadn't been to nursery for some weeks and hadn't been seen by independent people for a while, unfortunately he could have been dead from a week up to 3 weeks. Poor child. The thought of him laying in the woods in the cold, wet, dark environment all alone makes me feel very tearful and sends shivers down my body thinking about it.
____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........
"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"
Newintown- Posts : 1597
Activity : 1622
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2011-07-19
Re: Mikaeel Kular
Penfold wrote:Negligence is, in my opinion, the failure to look around all situations that could occur and do your best to prevent tragedies, problems etc happening. This applies to children, the elderly, the disabled, vulnerable people and even to animals. Literally super-vision.
Very well said Penfold. Its not a case of what is legal or illegal, morally it is our duty to protect the vulnerable and be aware of all any potential danger. I was going to say that is what makes us human, but even if we look towards the Animal kingdom, we see the caring and nurturing way in which the adults protect their young - they do it instinctively, they have no need for statutes.
The McCanns have interpreted the Law to protect themselves, not the 3 vulnerable children they left in that apartment.
Cristobell- Posts : 2436
Activity : 2552
Likes received : 6
Join date : 2011-10-12
Re: Mikaeel Kular
marconi wrote:Terrible, no post mortem yet and pathologists must know why. They could be waiting for the mother's statement.
Somebody here commented that Keela, the dog, was present at the scene. Wasn't that dog dead?
I did see a spaniel on the scene that looked like Eddie (or Keela), but they could be next generation. I don't know whether it was the scene in Edinburgh or Fife though.
Cristobell- Posts : 2436
Activity : 2552
Likes received : 6
Join date : 2011-10-12
Re: Mikaeel Kular
marconi wrote:Terrible, no post mortem yet and pathologists must know why. They could be waiting for the mother's statement.
Somebody here commented that Keela, the dog, was present at the scene. Wasn't that dog dead?
If you are referring to my earlier post marconi you are wrong. I said a Springer Spaniel had been sent in to the Edinburgh address. Nowhere, have I seen anyone say that Keela was sent in.
Mirage- Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: Mikaeel Kular
Cristobell wrote:Penfold wrote:Negligence is, in my opinion, the failure to look around all situations that could occur and do your best to prevent tragedies, problems etc happening. This applies to children, the elderly, the disabled, vulnerable people and even to animals. Literally super-vision.
Very well said Penfold. Its not a case of what is legal or illegal, morally it is our duty to protect the vulnerable and be aware of all any potential danger. I was going to say that is what makes us human, but even if we look towards the Animal kingdom, we see the caring and nurturing way in which the adults protect their young - they do it instinctively, they have no need for statutes.
The McCanns have interpreted the Law to protect themselves, not the 3 vulnerable children they left in that apartment.
That sentence is spot on and the crux of why this whole charade is still being played out after nearly 7 years.
____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........
"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"
Newintown- Posts : 1597
Activity : 1622
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2011-07-19
Re: Mikaeel Kular
That is a lovely picture, but I think it shows very poor judgment by the mother to post it up on a dating website.tasprin wrote:candyfloss wrote:
The headline is in very bad taste, but such a beautiful photo of mother & child. Truly tragic.
pennylane- Posts : 2770
Activity : 4406
Likes received : 1638
Join date : 2009-12-07
Re: Mikaeel Kular
I saw a Spaniel at the Kirkcaldy addressMirage wrote:marconi wrote:Terrible, no post mortem yet and pathologists must know why. They could be waiting for the mother's statement.
Somebody here commented that Keela, the dog, was present at the scene. Wasn't that dog dead?
If you are referring to my earlier post marconi you are wrong. I said a Springer Spaniel had been sent in to the Edinburgh address. Nowhere, have I seen anyone say that Keela was sent in.
DurhamGuy1967- Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20
Re: Mikaeel Kular
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:I saw a Spaniel at the Kirkcaldy addrMirage wrote:marconi wrote:Terrible, no post mortem yet and pathologists must know why. They could be waiting for the mother's statement.
Somebody here commented that Keela, the dog, was present at the scene. Wasn't that dog dead?
If you are referring to my earlier post marconi you are wrong. I said a Springer Spaniel had been sent in to the Edinburgh address. Nowhere, have I seen anyone say that Keela was sent in.
I was commenting you and I understood it wrongly. Thanks for explaining.
marconi- Posts : 1082
Activity : 1104
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-05-20
Page 25 of 34 • 1 ... 14 ... 24, 25, 26 ... 29 ... 34
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Other Crimes and Mysteries :: Other Fake Abductions, Hoaxes, Appeals and Crocodile Tears
Page 25 of 34
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum