Madeleine McCann

[pokerjoke]

Not unbelieveable as I believe it. Their actions did not lead to the disappearance of their child. By their actions they may not have prevented the unforeseen happening - and that is as far as I will go on that.

Their actions[leaving their kids alone]may not have led to the disapearence of their child.
However their actions[not being there]gave someone the chance to abduct her.
If they were there Maddie would still be with them today.
Shocking but true.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Anyhow, I will leave it at that, you are right and I am wrong. But please take in to account that I am not trying yo villify anyone, just merely point out that your actions can make you responsible without necissarily being guilty of a crime.

I am saying two very simple things:

1) The McCanns could not have foreseen the disappearance of their child;
2) They McCanns are given what we know completely innocent of being in any way involved in the disappearance of their child.

Please tell me where I am wrong in either of the above.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Their actions[leaving their kids alone]may not have led to the disapearence of their child.

Indeed

However their actions[not being there]gave someone the chance to abduct her.

Indeed they did - See Jamie Bulger case - abductions can happen in the most innocent and apparently low risk circumstances - and be carried out by the most unlikely of perpetrators. But it was someone else's actions and not those of the McCanns that actually resulted in her disappearance.

If they were there Maddie would still be with them today.
Shocking but true.

Where - in her room? Otherwise pure conjecture on your part.

 

[chrisd]

Why don't we start a witch hunt,? what about James Bulgers mum for not looking out for him at that shopping centre that day. Was she as negligent as the McCanns ?

I was going to post that question but decided that I felt I knew the answer

 

[pokerjoke]

Indeed


Indeed they did - See Jamie Bulger case - abductions can happen in the most innocent and apparently low risk circumstances - and be carried out by the most unlikely of perpetrators. But it was someone else's actions and not those of the McCanns that actually resulted in her disappearance.



Where - in her room? Otherwise pure conjecture on your part.

The door was open
The lights would have been on
The tv might have been on.
If they were being targeted,and watched over a period of time,the abducter
would have known they were there,and imo would more than likely not have risked climbing in and
taking her that night.
Of course I could be wrong however,but I believe there presence would have deterred the abducter.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

I was going to post that question but decided that I felt I knew the answer

Just drawing parallels , but one is seen as a wronged woman, the other is being vilified in some quarters
Both were negligent, both had dire consequences

Time to stop the bandwagon methinks

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Why don't we start a witch hunt,? what about James Bulgers mum for not looking out for him at that shopping centre that day. Was she as negligent as the McCanns ?

IMHO, isn't the issue is that James Bulgers mother lost him accidentaly? Whereas the McCanns took the pre planned action to go and eat, and therefore leave their children behind.

Every parent has lost a child briefly in a supermarket (I am led to believe, no direct experience), due to the nature of children, but planning to leave your children every night for 6 nights is a concious decision to do so.

I think the cases are pretty different in that respect.

For what its worth (similar amounts to what you pay for this...) I can see both sides, and like many, there seem to be a fair few reasons not to completely believe the McCanns official statement of events. I'm not saying that they did it, or anything like that, but I do think that what happened that night is very unlikely to be the exact same story as being reported.

I can see why people are blaming them, in respect of leaving their child, and I do kind of agree with that, in the respect of that I'm surprised no outcome of child neglect came from it, or investigation from Social Services.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

James Bulgers mum didn't leave her child to go and have a meal and drinks

James Bulgers mum was momentarily distracted in a butchers with her son - she didn't go out and decide to leave her child alone leaving him open to be abducted.

The McCanns decided to leave their kids alone - they weren't momentarily distracted like all parents are , they didn't take their eye of their kids for a split second and momentarily loose sight of them

They had a choice and their choice every night was to leave their kids alone

There is no comparison at all

 

[GreiginFife]

I am saying two very simple things:

1) The McCanns could not have foreseen the disappearance of their child;
2) They McCanns are given what we know completely innocent of being in any way involved in the disappearance of their child.

Please tell me where I am wrong in either of the above.

Umm, ok where do I start...?
I never said they could know it would happen or foreseen it, what I am saying is that conditions were created to increase the probability of something happen. Whether you agree or not, which I don't care either way, by not being in a position to sufficiently monitor the situation this increased the risk. That is basic risk mitigation stuff and common sense.
Secondly, and this is important, where do I say they are guilty of anything? As I said before, being responsible for something doesn't make you guilty.

In my supermarket example (which was merely extending an example used by someone else) it is relevant in that it is highly likely that you would be monitoring the loaction of your child to know that they had gone out of sight and then act swiftly and accordingly. By creating a condition where that was not possible the propensity for risk to manifest increased. Again, this is risk mitigation 101 stuff.
So, the point I make is not one of guilt SLH, it's one of responsibility in reaction to the publicised claims (and supported in some quarters) that they are without responsibility here (again, NOT GUILT!)

And you will find that I said you were right, so why would I point out where your OPINION on the matter was wrong?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I was going to post that question but decided that I felt I knew the answer

Indeed Chris - could the fact that one event happened in a ordinary shoppoing centre in Liverpool to a 'working class' family and the other event in an expensive holiday complex in Portugal to a 'middle class' family have anything to do with perceptions? Or do both events display they the same level of negligence on the part of the parents.

Anyway - as said - I find the whole 'negligence' and 'fault' side-issue debate frankly rather distasteful. We all know that the parents did not check their children for half an hour, and know that this time period was exploited by person(s) unknown to abduct Madeline McCann. And that is what really matters as far as I am concerned in respect of the McCanns involvement in the circumstances of their daughter's disappearance.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Is it an age dependent/cultural change, thing here. Remember:- (Butlins tannoy operator):- There is a baby crying in chalet 147 in blue camp. Where were them parents, probably in the French bar getting bevvied. It was seen as ok in the 50/60/70's. Just a thought.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Indeed Chris - could the fact that one event happened in a ordinary shoppoing centre in Liverpool to a 'working class' family and the other event in an expensive holiday complex in Portugal to a 'middle class' family have anything to do with perceptions? Or do both events display they the same level of negligence on the part of the parents.

Anyway - as said - I find the whole 'negligence' and 'fault' side-issue debate frankly rather distasteful. We all know that the parents did not check their children for half an hour, and know that this time period was exploited by person(s) unknown to abduct Madeline McCann. And that is what really matters as far as I am concerned in respect of the McCanns involvement in the circumstances of their daughter's disappearance.

Do you know the James Bulger story ? I would definitely suggest you read up on it and then you can point out the negligence from his mum

Also do you have children of your own

 

[GreiginFife]

Indeed Chris - could the fact that one event happened in a ordinary shoppoing centre in Liverpool to a 'working class' family and the other event in an expensive holiday complex in Portugal to a 'middle class' family have anything to do with perceptions? Or do both events display they the same level of negligence on the part of the parents.

Anyway - as said - I find the whole 'negligence' and 'fault' side-issue debate frankly rather distasteful. We all know that the parents did not check their children for half an hour, and know that this time period was exploited by person(s) unknown to abduct Madeline McCann. And that is what really matters as far as I am concerned in respect of the McCanns involvement in the circumstances of their daughter's disappearance.

Sorry, HOW do you (or we all) know this. I thought the whole issue was still being investigated with the police themselves using the words "we think" an awful lot.
So if you KNOW all of this, I think you better get on to Scotland Yard as they would probably like to know what and how you know.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

We all know that the parents did not check their children for half an hour, and know that this time period was exploited by person(s) unknown to abduct Madeline McCann. And that is what really matters as far as I am concerned in respect of the McCanns involvement in the circumstances of their daughter's disappearance.

I hate to be pedantic, but we don't know anything. We have been told that it was half an hour. And we (and the police, although they have done so on the basis of evidence) have assumed that this was exploited by person(s) unknown.

 

[chrisd]

IMHO, isn't the issue is that James Bulgers mother lost him accidentaly? Whereas the McCanns took the pre planned action to go and eat, and therefore leave their children behind.

Every parent has lost a child briefly in a supermarket (I am led to believe, no direct experience), due to the nature of children, but planning to leave your children every night for 6 nights is a concious decision to do so.

I think the cases are pretty different in that respect.

For what its worth (similar amounts to what you pay for this...) I can see both sides, and like many, there seem to be a fair few reasons not to completely believe the McCanns official statement of events. I'm not saying that they did it, or anything like that, but I do think that what happened that night is very unlikely to be the exact same story as being reported.

I can see why people are blaming them, in respect of leaving their child, and I do kind of agree with that, in the respect of that I'm surprised no outcome of child neglect came from it, or investigation from Social Services.

Clearly there are differences between the two cases, but similar enough to raise questions.

Social Services are probably barred from acting on matters from abroad even if the people involved are British

The story that I saw last night was not only from the McCanns but the other families story as well on the night, that is, who and when, different people went to check their children. If there were lies being told I think other diners at the table would not collude and we'd soon know.

How anyone can look at the McCanns on a tv show and decide that they are hiding something is beyond my comprehension

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Umm, ok where do I start...?
I never said they could know it would happen or foreseen it, what I am saying is that conditions were created to increase the probability of something happen. Whether you agree or not, which I don't care either way, by not being in a position to sufficiently monitor the situation this increased the risk. That is basic risk mitigation stuff and common sense.
Secondly, and this is important, where do I say they are guilty of anything? As I said before, being responsible for something doesn't make you guilty.

In my supermarket example (which was merely extending an example used by someone else) it is relevant in that it is highly likely that you would be monitoring the loaction of your child to know that they had gone out of sight and then act swiftly and accordingly. By creating a condition where that was not possible the propensity for risk to manifest increased. Again, this is risk mitigation 101 stuff.
So, the point I make is not one of guilt SLH, it's one of responsibility in reaction to the publicised claims (and supported in some quarters) that they are without responsibility here (again, NOT GUILT!)

And you will find that I said you were right, so why would I point out where your OPINION on the matter was wrong?

But where am I wrong? I am putting aside for a moment what others may be saying and asking that simple question on my two statements - are they factually correct or incorrect. Then other than my 'factual' statements, what other facts do we know? Everything else I read here is based upon supposition or conjecture. I would rather discussions were based upon fact.

I have said that my gut instinct reaction was one of blame and suspicion - but on reflection I realised how shameful and unfair on the parents that that reaction was - and hence my current stance. In such serious cases as this, opinion based upon supposition or conjecture is dangerous and should be rebutted strongly.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Clearly there are differences between the two cases, but similar enough to raise questions.

Social Services are probably barred from acting on matters from abroad even if the people involved are British

The story that I saw last night was not only from the McCanns but the other families story as well on the night, that is, who and when, different people went to check their children. If there were lies being told I think other diners at the table would not collude and we'd soon know.

How anyone can look at the McCanns on a tv show and decide that they are hiding something is beyond my comprehension

Good point about Social Services. I hadn't considered that.

With regards the other diners, I think it's easy enough for certain memories to be swayed, with a bit of suggestion. I can't imagine anyone was checking precisely on the time.

I'm not doing so based on a TV interview (although others may be). I'm doing so based on scepticism, and the belief that people have poor memory, easy to be influenced after an event to believe what you want to believe. if you tell a lie enough times, convincingly, you get to the point where you start to believe it yourself. (and no, before anyone says it, I'm not convincing anyone of lying deliberately)

 

[GreiginFife]

But where am I wrong? I am putting aside for a moment what others may be saying and asking that simple question on my two statements - are they factually correct or incorrect. Then other than my 'factual' statements, what other facts do we know? Everything else I read here is based upon supposition or conjecture. I would rather discussions were based upon fact.

I have said that my gut instinct reaction was one of blame and suspicion - but on reflection I realised how shameful and unfair on the parents that that reaction was - and hence my current stance. In such serious cases as this, opinion based upon supposition or conjecture is dangerous and should be rebutted strongly.

Ok, how do you FACTUALLY know that they didn't know that the "abduction" (if that is what we are dealing with) was not going to happen? Do you know them personally and have been told this as fact? If not then your opinion is as based on as much fact as any other.
Do you FACTUALLY know that they are not involved? Again, unless you have evidence that says no (bearing in mind that people are PRESUMED innocent, not that they ACTUALLY are) then again, it is just an opinion that is neither right nor wrong.

The facts and evidence are very sparse and have trained detectives confused and scrabbling about, yet you seem to be able to assert a clear statemnet of innocence on all counts around the family.
For why? You felt guilty becuase you thought ill of someone based on information that you read/saw? Presumption is supposition and conjecture as well as it is not the FACT of being innocent, just because presumption of innocence isn't a negative it doesn't make it any less so.

 

[Deleted member 17920]

Not unbelieveable as I believe it. Their actions did not lead to the disappearance of their child. .

I cant believe you wrote that! So you are telling us that if they had stayed in that night instead the little girl would have still gone missing as easily as she did. Come on! Get real!

 

[richy]

When Maddie woke up crying the night before with her brother and then asked her mother where she was the following morning why didn't they decide that at least one of them would stay in I case the poor thing woke upset again looking for her parents. Probably because going out and drinking was more important. Bad parenting IMO