DJKillaQueen

LOL Tarot but LM, shame on you for nicking my Muhahahahahaha..... And I've found the perfect pressy for you too.... Now I know where you get it from!

It's here Sue Lost Child - Madeleine McCann The thread is from 2007 so a search needs to be set to 'all dates' to find it.

So James, are you saying that governments should never invest in industry? I think that has been half the problem of the last 30 years tbh. Germany on the other hand has shown what such investment can achieve. The payback to the economy would have more than exceeded the grant.....sounds like a good invesment to me......or do you think that should all go to shareholders then? It always amazes me when politicians complain about global corporations or monopolies when it is they that create the breeding grounds for such. You can't have it both ways. Deregulate and then complain when the free market produces powerful monsters that might stop you winning a election?....how typically hypocritical.

LOL HD..... What's with the apparent incapacity to understand the country will need to buy, repeatedly, this expensive component for ever more but from overseas? This is exactly the point and given the expected expansion into nuclear power by emerging economies and indeed those more closer to home (with a future decline of oil) the scope for expansion of those jobs is open ended, along with the company profits and taxes they bring. It's also a misconception that the grant actually pays for jobs...it doesn't.....it buys the technology needed to enable employees to make the components (so a capital investment). Profits from the sale of those cpomponents are what actually create and maintain those jobs. One of the problems with our economy is the ever shrinking manufacting and high tech base. This was an excellent opportunity to do what we should be doing by manufacturing high value hi-tech products that we can then export. More importantly it is a sector that can tap into the resources of many skilled and unemployed workers who will never be pen pushers or bankers. It's all very well saying the banks should stump up the money...but they aren't lending at the moment....and certainly not to industry at that level. Another fault with our economy and way of doing things perhaps. The reality is that we are never going to get away from our economic reliance on the financial sector and even there little has changed.....Will Hutton predicts that is the way things are going to be for a while yet as no government seems to have the will or balls to invest in a different way of doing things. A crash and recession every generation....that what we've had for the last 30 years....is that the best we can hope for?

Yep the decision on Rorgemasters made no economic sense to me, especially at a time when we need to create other sectors as strong as finance and the service sector for protection from single sector crashes in the future.

You stole that from another thread keef lol...I know you did lol....;-)

I hate to admit it, but I do love my brussels and could eat oodles of them.....the consequences of which I won't discuss :))

But it's not 'most likely' that's the point...it's just a theory. It could be the ONLY theory and that still doesn't make it MOST LIKELY......that is something you have decided for yourself. There's no hard evidence for any of it.... If you can't deal with counter argument without taking it personally Sue then maybe you shouldn't post in a forum. That's all I can say really to the rein you feel you have to put on yourself from making personal comments about someone you know nothing about in person.

Grow up ffs....JC.....(and stupid smiley at the end).......

you don't seem to understand what a theory IS See ...patronising. I do fully understand what a theory is, and understand that others can exist alongside. Your argument focusses on one and dismisses all others in pursuit, as you put it 'of truth'. Truth or theory...which is it Sue?

But what truth Sue...you know no more know what that is than any Police officer, journalist or us.....you are just adding to the fog. It's been raked over a million times in every corner......no one has the answers. And whilst I admire your crusade there are a ton of journalists who will be the first to know if anything new comes to light, and inform us all. It's their job after all. We all get deeply affected by different things (usually because it touches on something personal to us) but as MP alluded to...there are far more constructive things to get obsessed about where something can be made to happen (for the good of that cause), than a case that is dead in the water and from which no amount of theorising will change that.

Bellenden Belle has put is succinctly. The replies are obsessive and now patronising too. Sue, I keep replying with the same counter argument...because the theory you keep listing details of is flawed...something you seem unable to accept or comprehend (although you have conceeded that there is no DNA substantial enough to suggest anything (finally). And witnesses often think they recoginise things after the fact when it's actually their memory wanting to apply recognition. That's why it wouldn't stand up in a European court. It's an unreliable witness statement. A very good case in point was on TV last night featuring a case where a man was convicted of the murder of his mother in law and rape of his niece (in the US). There was no remarkable DNA evidence to implicate this man but the niece was sure it must have been him and it was her testimony to that, that convicted him. He escaped the death penalty on a technicality. Two years later his wife after a painstaking effort by herself (as the police weren't interested) - not only found leads to DNA evidence and an alternate theory, but also found a suspect (a convicted sexual offender who at the time turned out to be staying two doors down). The police and prosecutors finally took note and the right man is now behond bars. See what I mean about theories that are not proven by hard evidence...innocent people end up in prison (esp. in the US). Public speculation forms opinion and there is no way that a fair trial could ever take place if the McCanns were ever to be charged with anything. And lowering yourself to belittling any counter argument with comments like don't post....and what's your point?... isn't helping your debate. My points have been clear I think. Emerson, I share your sentiment entirely.....and hope for a happy outcome if one ever comes.

It is tricky but if he is lurking around the area it impacts on whether it's safe for her to go out or not too. There may well also be an injuction on him not to look for her. There's no harm in letting those that run the refuge know (without getting too involved) I think.

If you have a first name then definitely tell the refuge.....and if she lives there, a description of him might turn out to be that of the violent husband or boyfriend (she's in the refuge because of) rather than a brother. I think it would be useful for them to know that he's lurking around and it won't take him too long to find the refuge if that is the case. Maybe that's what this is all about after all. Thank goodness you didn't open the door.

Yep I absolutely agree LB.....will be buying some pies today....

The cadaver point is the only curious one for me. But in itself it's not enough to prove anything because it's impossible to know who's cadaver it is or how long it's been there. The other point of interest is the Irish couple who saw a man heading towards the beach with a child held in his arms. The former could support a theory of death, the latter a theory of abduction. But neither are enough to be sure of anything.

You are right about the bias of those sites Taper...none of them take an objective look. Sr Almara is the closest to objective because he is trying to piece together a theory that might make sense from some of the pieces......but it's all circumstantial. I can totally understand why Mrs McCann would want to beleive in abduction. There is no body and I think any parent would hold out for the hope of finding their child alive rather than accepting she must be dead. That's human instinct. I dont understand why that is so difficult to understand.

But Sue has presented NO evidence Impetuous...just a theory presented by a Portuguese Police inspector who worked on the case - who let's not forget was fired as a result. As a theory it's plausible, just like many other theories, including abduction but there is no hard evidence to back up any of those theories and so to conclude anything from it is just assumption. No-one knows what really happened that evening and probably won't until a body is found, if ever. It's perfectly normal for cases to be closed when they have nowhere further to go and then be re-opened if new evidence comes to light. That is where this case is at. Thank goodness we do have courts to decide on these things and the days of mob lynching are over.

Yes, it's the 'bring down the coalition' comment that has done the damage more than anything he said about Murdoch I think.

I never open the door unless I know the person or it's postman or plumber I'm expecting or something. I use the spy hole and ask who it is through the door so you are not alone in that LB. Sensible for any woman to do that I think.

With due respect, the point is as follows. Sue is arguing that the McCanns are responsible for their child's disappearance by leaving them in the apartment alone. And they can not be forgiven for that. My view is that leaving the children alone...and the disappearance of a child, are two seperate acts (with different people being repsonsible). As for....Speculation will remain. At the moment only little Madeline is innocent......all are innocent until evidence shows otherwise. That is a basic fundamental of the law (and a viewpoint that ignores that is a dangerous one). Speculation has a habit of forming public opinion whereby innocent people are presumed guilty by presumption, even though no charges have ever been made, or prosecution taken place (that is why the McCanns have won libel cases). The only place that can decide innocence or guilt is a court.

please don't post again unless you have something constructive to add I'll post whenever I want and whatever I want (within the forum rules), thanks. The McCanns were not responsible for the disappearnace of their child no. The perpetrator of that crime is responsible for that. And I think the law is in agreement with me on that. Mockney makes a very good point. How about this? A woman walks down a poorly lit street at night and is raped. Did she bring it on herself? The parents of Sarah Payne let her out to play in a corn field near her home out of sight and she was murdered. Did they dismally fail her too? Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Parents do not INTENTIONALLY put their children at risk from murderers, abductors and criminals. The McCanns are no different from most parents in this respect. I really can't understand Sue why you can't seperate leaving their children in what they thought was the safety of the apartment they could see from their dinner table, from the seperate criminal act that is responsible for the unexplained disappearance of their child. In fact...words fail me, really!!!!

Sigh......the only person bothered about a last word is you (JC)....we don't agree...that's all there is to it...give it up.

The only person responsible for Madeleine's disappearance is the person that took her or knows what happened to her. Thankfully it's a rare thing.

Why on earth are you continuing the debate then, if that's your opinion? Out of decency towards the McCanns. Sr Amaral also made a documentary based on his book......he summises the timeline for events in that documentary. Anyway...my final words are NO HARD EVIDENCE and not worth talking about until there is......oh and to add...'innocent until proven (beyond reasonable doubt) guilty'. And as always my sympathy remains with the McCanns for their lost child.