DJKillaQueen

Not clueless at all.....there are plenty of unemployed traders. My point is simply that no one person is irreplaceable... which IS the srgument that keeps getting tossed at us for such ridiculously high bonuses and payoffs EVEN AS THE BANKS WERE FAILING. Any other business would have been left to go to the wall (as indeed Lehman were) and yes I know we can't let the banking system implode and why etc (blah blah) but it doesn't change the fact that these people we keep getting told should be highly paid or they'll flee were resposible (some of them) for the worst business failure of the past 80 years....and they got away with it. The rest of us meanwhile are paying for it and have every right to criticise.

I tend to think the only measure between good and bad is compassionate vs selfish but I think Impetuous has a point in that even many good people find it hard to scarifce anything before the comfort of themselves or their family. Funnily enough I was having a similar conversation the other day with someone. We were discussing why totalitarian governements suceed in making the bulk of their populations comply, even though the wider population vastly outnumbers those in power and those doing their work of enforcement for them. And it because exactly of that. The perhaps natural instinct of self preservation, even at the expense of the greater good and others. And if someone has children it becomes even harder to 'stand up'.

Let them escape to different countries if they want to. Good riddance. Yep...it's not like we are short of unemployed to fill their boots is it? No one person is so valuable they can't be replaced by an equally effective employee. I have always found the excuse (and it is an excuse) that we have to pay to keep profiteers here ludicrous. We are after all, not talking about rocket science.....finance is not something beyond the realms of many people.

The by election on Jan 13th in Saddleworth may be an indicator of what's to come for the Lib Dems (we'll see how that pans out). And even Simon Hughes for whom I previously had huge respect and who regained some of my respect when he opposed the tuition fee rises has now blown it by accepting a position where he has to sell the new tuition rises to students...WHAT is he thinking? 'Hole' and 'digging deeper' comes to mind.

And wasn't it Anne Frank who wrote something along the lines of 'in spite of everything I still believe that people are basically good'.

Margaret Thatcher

Well given that you are sporting a view that the McCanns...one or both of them, covered up the discovered of their dead child then I think many would find that pretty distasteful and unfounded too. Yes the thread should be locked if only to stop any further discussion of your equally distasteful views.

A bit rich of you to ask a thread/ debate you started to be locked. If you can't deal with other views (no matter how insane they may be) then don't start controversial debate.

DJKQ - reading previous posts properly is not your strong point, is it? Nor it seems is logic. Oh the irony..... plenty of Substantial evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Such is the countless convictions made by such thinking only to be later overturned when forensic techniques caught up....so there's a very good reason why unsubstantiated (whether substantial or not) evidence is no longer admissable...and quite right too. Nice one Taper and DC....lol.

That's a very good point Rosie and demonstrates how media hype blinds people to truth. They believe what they want to believe irregardless of the outcome.

I say good for him. Wouldn't we all given half a chance to make that kind of money take it. It's not Beckham who makes Beckham a brand, it's us, the paying public.

Does anyone know of any Substantial evidence the McCann's or police have to support any theory? Answer - NO.......hence NO ARRESTS, NO PROSECUTION. Read the thread Juandan and you'll see just why the points you made in your first post can not be accepted as evidence.

It's no suprise. Time for Lib Dems to stop burying their heads in the sand and admit that Clegg has put his own political ambition before the good of his party. The Lib Dems are finished for the time being. But the real trouble will come after the voting reform election in April. The predictions are that the vote will fail. If that defeat comes then the lib Dems may well ask what is the point of the coalition beyond it.

Juandan clearly hasn't read the thread where most of his/ her points are discussed and dismissed. There are no overwhelming facts. If there were there would have been a prosecution bought. Time to let this thread sink.

That too ...lol....

LOL...yes but I do compensate by wearing very expensive perfume.....(my footy gals can vouch for that)....;-)

Sainsburry's basics at 46p or something is hard to beat but you'll only find it among the men's deoderants for some reason.

the forum is in a bit of a doom and gloom dip at the moment but i'm sure we'll come out the other end soon Just mirroring the country as a whole.....

Nah bring it on....the more moaning, complaining and in fighting the better I say. I can't bite if there's nothing to chew on!

The first alcohol to pass my lips in 2011 was indeed a sambucca (four arrived at once). I just got home from DJing though and am shattered. Hoping next year I won't need the money and can celebrate with friends.

Happy New Year Ms Mucky! Hope 2011 will be a fantastic year for you. Could you post a bit of that sunshine to us?

Not even worth me replying tarot...when someone is not prepared to consider any possible theory apart from her own for which she has provided NO hard evidence (and you haven't Sue...which is why no prosecution has ever been brought). All of your 'evidence' is circumstantial theorising all of which can be easily discreditted or dismissed as having no meaning beyond what it is....therefore being evidence of nothing. Until you accept that, there is no point in anyone debating this case with you.

I think Sean is right on this...that some items will stay at the 9.99 level and the lost profit will be made up elswhere by increases above the VAT rise....so 19.99 might become say 24.99. It will all depend on what is being sold and what the existing margins are.

There are potential trails to criminal gangs.....but SY can't publicise that all of that kind of information because it can jepoardise other investigations into the same gangs. There are several plausable theories and Portugal has a poor record on this...even you must acknowledge that.....which has made it a soft target for these gangs and their operations. My point on the key is that it is perfectly possible that an organised gang pre-ordered Madeliene, surveilled her and then abducted her in an organised fashion, leaving very little physical evidence. Thousands of children disappear world-wide every year at the hands of these gangs, no trace ever left. You also must admit that the procedure followed by the Portuguese Police in their failure to seal off the crime scene and properly examine it forensically in the early part of the investigation has probably destroyed any chance of forensic evidence ever being anything but contaminated and inadmissable. That's a major criticism. My issue with your argument in the early part of the thread has always been your eagerness to blame some failings of the case (and Police) on the McCanns. You did it there again, blaming the poor ferensic evidence on them letting friends into the apartment after they first saw Madeleine had gone. Well I think most people in the immediate aftermath of their child being missing would lets friends join a search, it wouldn't even occur to them that they might be affecting forensic evidence. They are not police officers after all. It is the Police's job to seal off, secure, and collect evidence. That is the crux my problem with your debate. We all agree that leaving chidlren unspervised is not a good idea but you confuse that with the mental state of someone that has lost a child and so have looked for 'deliberate meaning' in things relating to the McCanns that have no meaning at all (in order to support Amarals theory). At times you seem more intent on assigning blame to the McCanns than having a debate around evidence, or lack of, or procedure. As impetuous has said when you look at ALL the leads, devlopments etc, within the timeline of their occurance, the picture is a quagmire. There is no clear cut 'most likely' theory, but a mess of conflicting information any part of which could be possible but none of which proves any theory likely enough in either way. I also wouldn't dismiss the Wiki article out of hand. It seems to me to be a well researched and balanced attempt at presenting a fair overview. There are two acompanying pages by the author as well where he (or she) lists things omiitted or edited out either because they couldn't be corroberated or sources provided. And in itself it is a good example of just how complicated the case is.

And why assume the abductor came through an unlocked door. They could have had a key, especially if we are talking about an organisted criminal gang (not hard to get hold of the key to a holiday let and copy it after all).