Jump to content

Recommended Posts

How about instead of crocodile tears for the parents you think of that poor child.

What she has gone through whether dead or alive in captivity... which ever it is - it is ALL the fault of the parents. Why is that difficult to understand?


Did they leave three kids alone? Yes.

Did they leave Maddie alone again just a night after waking up crying and scared as no one was there? Yes.

Would she have gone missing had they not been out on the piss/employed somesort of child care? No.


Forgive me for not feeling sorry for those two despicable characters. Yes, I am sure they are hurting at their loss - but it was all self inflicted. And we all know if it was Wayne and Bernadette from a council estate, there would have been a totally different reaction to this.

In this country it is against the law to leave toddlers unattended at home. Perhaps if they were from a 'poor' family they might have had their other kids taken in by social services (if it happened in this country).


If the child was abducted they must have suffered enough but if they killed her, that's different.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "What she has gone through whether dead or alive

> in captivity... which ever it is - it is ALL the

> fault of the parents."

>

> I'm inclined to put more blame on the person(s)

> who abducted her myself


What an idiotic view. They gave the abductor the opportunity to take her... The proximate cause of all the events unfolding the way they have is the FACT that they left her and two younger children on their own.


Can you agree with that??? Answer the simple question - if they hadn't done so, would she have been taken?

The fact remains that your are substantially more likely to be killed in an air accident than to lose your children to a random child murderer (as opposed to the far more common one of having a known friend or relative do it).


Does that make anyone who puts their children on a plane massively irresponsible who should be blamed if the plane crashes?


Hundreds of thousands of people every summer have (or certainly had) a little tipple yards away from apartments in family friendly holiday resorts, because they are specifically designed to make you feel safe and of course are overwhelmingly so.


Personally I think holier than thou judgemental arseholes deserve to have a piano fall on their head ... and it'll be just desserts i tell ya ... THEIR OWN FAULT ... THEIR OWN FAULT!!!

"Can you agree with that??? Answer the simple question - if they hadn't done so, would she have been taken?"


but you can apply that logic to any situation that goes wrong - so it isn't a simple question


If something happens to my child when visiting a friends house, is that my fault - after all I could simply not have taken her to that house. I hadn't vetted the police files 100% or made them produce 3 certificates. And now it's my fault??


Do I think they were enormously wreckless sitting downstairs a short distance away? Not really...


Theey were at a family resort. They didn't leave them at home and drive miles into town to a 24 hour disco. The chances of someone being abducted from that environment are negligible


You are projecting some nasty stuff onto them

Don't you think there is the possibility she wasn't abducted and one or the other of the parents were physically responsible for her 'death'? They could have given the kids something to make sure they slept. Maybe something went wrong with what was given to Madeleine.

I think if most parents were totally honest with themselves they'd remember a number of occasions with their own kids where it would have been possible (perhaps to a lesser degree than in this case but still possible nonetheless) for such a thing to happen. I know I can.


I'm afraid I haven't googled an aerial view of the resort and approximated the distance from where they were eating to the apartment - factoring in the travel of soundwaves in air adjusted for ambient temperature etc etc because I'm not ghoulishly obsessed with a tragic event.

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The fact remains that your are substantially more

> likely to be killed in an air accident than to

> lose your children to a random child murderer (as

> opposed to the far more common one of having a

> known friend or relative do it).

>

> Does that make anyone who puts their children on a

> plane massively irresponsible who should be blamed

> if the plane crashes?

>


You seemed quite intelligent until using that comparison.

I'm not trolling.

It's my opinion and I am 100% entitled to have it and share it... as is everyone else contributing to the thread. Just beaucse you don't agree, it doesn't give you the right to be rude about it.


I strongly believe that the McCann's got an easy ride after their neglect towards their children resulted in the disappearance to Maddie.

Why weren't they charged with child neglect?

as I said


"Do I think they were enormously wreckless sitting downstairs a short distance away? Not really...


Theey were at a family resort. They didn't leave them at home and drive miles into town to a 24 hour disco. The chances of someone being abducted from that environment are negligible


You are projecting some nasty stuff onto them"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2649404/I-left-son-car-five-minutes-dragged-courts-two-years.html


Two years of legal wranglings and 100 hours of community service for leaving her kid in a car for 5 mintues.

Imagine if they kid had been taken... she'd have been rightly slaughtered.

And so should the McCanns.

I wasn't particularly interested in this case anymore than your average Joe Soap. However I looked up stats on missing/abducted kids in the UK and the number is a lot, yet we rarely hear about them. Maybe for a few days in some cases. However on this site there was a link which caught my attention. It was the 48 questions that Mrs McCann refused to answer when questioned by the police and the 1 question she did answer.


This made me question my own assumption that the child was abducted that most on here seem to assume. I've been in the situation where my son at that age went 'missing' in East Dulwich. I drove around like a lunatic trying to find him. As it turned out the little bugger was hiding at home. So I'm not at all unsympathetic to one losing a child in any circumstances.


I disagree with leaving kids unattended in the way they did but I understand you can't wrap them up in cotton wool either. When my son was a kid he broke his arm falling off something in the kids playground in Dulwich Park. I don't blame myself for that. But that was not the case here.


I don't have any particular feeling about the McCann's, but I now think that the child may not have been abducted. When I was a babbie, one of many in my family, I'm told an old trick to get us to sleep was to let us suck a finger after dipping it in a glass of whiskey. Not very correct but those were different times. What might a doctor have done to get the same result?

SCSB79 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2649404/I-

> left-son-car-five-minutes-dragged-courts-two-years

> .html


Are there other crackpot legal one-off stories like this The Mail has dredged-up from several thousand miles away?


Or is more likely that the actual real world is filled with everyday occasional circumstances where parents eg leave their kids in a car for few minutes with nothing baaaaad happening and no-one being prosecuted?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...