The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Mm11

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Regist10
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Mm11

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Regist10

Mikaeel Kular

Page 25 of 34 Previous  1 ... 14 ... 24, 25, 26 ... 29 ... 34  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by DurhamGuy1967 20.01.14 8:41

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".
Well said. 

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.
avatar
DurhamGuy1967

Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Guest 20.01.14 9:03

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.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by DurhamGuy1967 20.01.14 9:12

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.
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.
avatar
DurhamGuy1967

Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by littlepixie 20.01.14 10:41

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.
littlepixie
littlepixie

Posts : 1346
Activity : 1392
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2009-11-29

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by PeterMac 20.01.14 11:28

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.
PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 13583
Activity : 16577
Likes received : 2064
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by DurhamGuy1967 20.01.14 12:21

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.
I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.
avatar
DurhamGuy1967

Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Miraflores 20.01.14 12:28

I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.
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.
Miraflores
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Activity : 856
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by bobbin 20.01.14 12:30

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
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.
I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.

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.
avatar
bobbin

Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by DurhamGuy1967 20.01.14 12:46

bobbin wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
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.
I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.

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.
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.
avatar
DurhamGuy1967

Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by bobbin 20.01.14 13:06

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
bobbin wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
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.
I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.

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.
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.
Is this 'suppervision' the same amount of vision that the McCs didn't have from their supper in the Tapas Bar?
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.
avatar
bobbin

Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by tasprin 20.01.14 13:06

candyfloss wrote:Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 BeYEbQSCAAA_01b

The headline is in very bad taste, but such a beautiful photo of mother & child. Truly tragic.
avatar
tasprin

Posts : 834
Activity : 896
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2013-01-30

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by DurhamGuy1967 20.01.14 13:25

bobbin wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
bobbin wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
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.
I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.

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.
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.
Is this 'suppervision' the same amount of vision that the McCs didn't have from their supper in the Tapas Bar?
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.
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.
avatar
DurhamGuy1967

Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Penfold 20.01.14 13:33

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.
avatar
Penfold

Posts : 140
Activity : 144
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-07-02
Age : 75
Location : Manchester.

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by bobbin 20.01.14 13:57

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
bobbin wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
bobbin wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
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.
I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.

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.
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.
Is this 'suppervision' the same amount of vision that the McCs didn't have from their supper in the Tapas Bar?
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.
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.
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.
That's why I challenged your dismissal of leaving a door open as 'gross negligence', not just because someone evil could statistically enter.
avatar
bobbin

Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by DurhamGuy1967 20.01.14 14:03

bobbin wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
bobbin wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
bobbin wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
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.
I don't believe leaving a door unlocked or even wide open is gross negligence.

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.
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.
Is this 'suppervision' the same amount of vision that the McCs didn't have from their supper in the Tapas Bar?
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.
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.
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.
That's why I challenged your dismissal of leaving a door open as 'gross negligence', not just because someone evil could statistically enter.
We're agreed I meant generally leaving a door open isn't negligent. Leaving young children then going off well out of sight is.
avatar
DurhamGuy1967

Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Tony Bennett 20.01.14 14:17

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

____________________

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
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by marconi 20.01.14 14:30

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?
avatar
marconi

Posts : 1082
Activity : 1104
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-05-20

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Newintown 20.01.14 14:34

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
Newintown

Posts : 1597
Activity : 1622
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2011-07-19

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Cristobell 20.01.14 14:44

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.
avatar
Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Activity : 2552
Likes received : 6
Join date : 2011-10-12

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Cristobell 20.01.14 14:48

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.
avatar
Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Activity : 2552
Likes received : 6
Join date : 2011-10-12

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Mirage 20.01.14 14:48

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.

avatar
Mirage

Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Newintown 20.01.14 14:55

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
Newintown

Posts : 1597
Activity : 1622
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2011-07-19

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by pennylane 20.01.14 15:05

tasprin wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 BeYEbQSCAAA_01b

The headline is in very bad taste, but such a beautiful photo of mother & child. Truly tragic.
That is a lovely picture, but I think it shows very poor judgment by the mother to post it up on a dating website. sad
avatar
pennylane

Posts : 2770
Activity : 4406
Likes received : 1638
Join date : 2009-12-07

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by DurhamGuy1967 20.01.14 15:07

Mirage 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 saw a Spaniel at the Kirkcaldy address
avatar
DurhamGuy1967

Posts : 138
Activity : 145
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20

Back to top Go down

Mikaeel Kular - Page 25 Empty Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by marconi 20.01.14 15:23

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
Mirage 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 saw a Spaniel at the Kirkcaldy addr
I was commenting you and I understood it wrongly. Thanks for explaining.
avatar
marconi

Posts : 1082
Activity : 1104
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-05-20

Back to top Go down

Page 25 of 34 Previous  1 ... 14 ... 24, 25, 26 ... 29 ... 34  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum