Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

AudreyHepburn

NTMK wrote: »

theres is a massive difference. looking away for a few second is acceptable, parents cant have their kids in sight 24 hours a day. The Mccanns repeatedly left their kids unsupervised for hours while the went off wining and dining

this is neglect there is no excuse for it

If madeline was abducted they primed her for it by leaving her unattended for hours repeatedly. did bolger do that? no

No they didn't. They checked on them at regular intervals.

Neglect would be walking away and never coming back to check them until the night out ended. They did not do that.

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Let's try this again shall we? No-one, repeat no-one is saying that what the McCanns did was right.

What we are saying is you cannot hold them solely responsible for what happened. You cannot say that it is they're the kidnapper decided to take a child, that he/she/they chose to act that night, chose their daughter,their apartment.

Nor is it reason enough to suspect them of involvement.

No-ones justifying anything.

Right, so if the McCann children were being supervised by a babysitter in their apartment, then an 'abductor' could have still taken Madeleine. Yeah, right :rolleyes:

thebullkf

Saila wrote: »

the thread was originally about mccanns on late late next week, 2 weeks have passed and its the same old conspiracy nuts and idiots who believe what papers like the daily mail say are at their usual tricks, get it moved to conspiracy theories ffs

such as

iamwhoiam

lugha wrote: »

@last 4 posters
The argument, sometimes implied, made against the McCanns is that if their child was snatched, it was solely as a result of their negligence. The cases I have cited demonstrate that this is patently not so. You can be responsible, as were the parents in the examples I cited, and still have your child snatched.
Pointing out the differences on the cases misses the point

In the Mc Cann case it was as a result of negligence ,No other case has any baring on it at all .,Of course children go missing even if parents are vigilant and doing what is right .But the chances are massive that Madeleine wouldnt now be missing if the parents had done what was right .
If she went missing on the beach because they turned their back for a second, or if she wandered while they were in a shop I think people would have a very differnt attitude . As it is they facilitated a snatch by pure selfishness and put themselves first instead of their children .
Everyone here knows the other cases and are well aware that children go missing despite our care . The Mc Canns differ because it was because of their care .

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No they didn't. They checked on them at regular intervals.

Neglect would be walking away and never coming back to check them until the night out ended. They did not do that.

Obviously not regularly enough, eh.

That you think it is OK to leave three toddlers on their own in an apartment for 20mins plus at a time is truly shocking.

Kidchameleon

sunflower27 wrote: »

Obviously not regularly enough, eh.

That you think it is OK to leave three toddlers on their own in an apartment for 20mins plus at a time is truly shocking.

There are numerous cases of kids getting raped while the parents slept in the next room. One such case happened in PDL not a year before the McCann's arrived...

TheZohanS

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What we are saying is you cannot hold them solely responsible for what happened.

Are you holding them partially responsible for what happened?

_feedback_

lugha wrote: »

As had been pointed out, it only takes a second to snatch a child. Turning away for even a minute gives a predator an opportunity. What would you say is an acceptable look away time?

And why the continuous reference to a "foreign" country? Your child can be snatched at home too you know?

This is getting a bit silly now. Of course a parent cannot be expected to never let a child out of their sight. It's not possible. It's ridiculous.

It is very "acceptable" to carry out your day to day things while doing your best to look after your kids. It's "acceptable" that they might run off down an aisle in a supermarket. It's "acceptable" that they might decide it is funny to hide behind the couch. It's "acceptable" that they are in your shadow while you are distracted paying for groceries.

It is not "acceptable" that they be left on their own in an unlocked apartment for twenty and thirty minutes at a time.

How can you not see that?

AudreyHepburn

sunflower27 wrote: »

Right, so if the McCann children were being superised by a babysitter in their apartment, then an 'abductor' could have still taken Madeleine. Yeah, right :rolleyes:

Yes she could still have been taken. The abductor could have subdued the babysitter somehow physically or frightened him/her into not attempting to stop the abduction. Perhaps the abductor could have threatened to kill the babysitter or the children. Perhaps he/she could have attacked injured the babysitter. Or perhaps the babysitter could have been in on it too.

As the case of James Bolger shows have an adult in close proximity does not guarentee anything.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Let's try this again shall we? No-one, repeat no-one is saying that what the McCanns did was right.

What we are saying is you cannot hold them solely responsible for what happened. You cannot say that it is they're the kidnapper decided to take a child, that he/she/they chose to act that night, chose their daughter,their apartment.

Nor is it reason enough to suspect them of involvement.

No-ones justifying anything.

Actually in a way it does make them responsible for it. If those three children had a babysitter that night, then those three children would still have been in that room come 22:00 that night.

The parents chose to leave the three children totally alone in an unlocked apartment. They could not have made it easier for an abductor.

Any parent who decides to go out drinking for a number of hours and leave two one year olds and a three year old totally alone in an unlocked apartment abroad is guilty of poor and negligent parenting.

If the story of an abductor is true, and it could well be, then the parents are the ones who served their child up on a platter for that person or persons.


There is nothing that can be argued in their defence on that imho. They did not even bother to lock the damn door to give their children even the most basic of protection.


I'm just hoping that Scotland Yard find something and force their hand in having to request the case be reopened.

Would love to see David Payne brought back and have to explain his "pact of silence" defence that he used during questioning the first time around.

And for Tanner and Oldfield to have to explain in detail their changing stories

thebullkf

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No they didn't. They checked on them at regular intervals.

Neglect would be walking away and never coming back to check them until the night out ended. They did not do that.

says who?

oh thats right... them .

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

Are you holding them partially responsible for what happened?

Well yes in that they should not have left the children alone for long periods of time.

But to say they and they alone caused this to happen is silly.

irelandrover

lugha wrote: »

As had been pointed out, it only takes a second to snatch a child. Turning away for even a minute gives a predator an opportunity. What would you say is an acceptable look away time?

And why the continuous reference to a "foreign" country? Your child can be snatched at home too you know?

Yes, you have pointed out it is possible for a child to be snatched in a very short period.
However, if Madeleine was snatched as claimed then it was due to the parents' negligence. They left her alone every night. They claim that they were watched. So they were only picked out because they were repeatedly negligent. If they had only left the children alone for one night then she would have been safe.

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes she could still have been taken. The abductor could have subdued the babysitter somehow physically or frightened him/her into not attempting to stop the abduction. Perhaps the abductor could have threatened to kill the babysitter or the children. Perhaps he/she could have attacked injured the babysitter. Or perhaps the babysitter could have been in on it too.

As the case of James Bolger shows have an adult in close proximity does not guarentee anything.

You are being ridiculous, totally. There was no babysitter so what is the point of imagining there was one that 'was in on it'.

NTMK

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No they didn't. They checked on them at regular intervals.

Neglect would be walking away and never coming back to check them until the night out ended. They did not do that.

according to the mccanns they check in on them dispite reports from other guest that they were crying for long periods of time and these regular check ins were what half an hour?, an hour? more? children at that age should be left unsupervised for any amount of time.

AudreyHepburn

sunflower27 wrote: »

Obviously not regularly enough, eh.

That you think it is OK to leave three toddlers on their own in an apartment for 20mins plus at a time is truly shocking.

Can we leave the self righteous indignation out of it please, it's grating.

I did not say it was ok. Only that it does not mean we should hold Kate and Gerry solely responsible.

thebullkf

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well yes in that they should not have left the children alone for long periods of time.

But to say they and they alone caused this to happen is silly.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No they didn't. They checked on them at regular intervals.

Neglect would be walking away and never coming back to check them until the night out ended. They did not do that.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

There is no genuine comparison between your "look away" time in each case or how it came about.

I am simply refuting the argument that a child can only be snatched if the parents are irresponsible.
The premise from some here is that an abduction was only possible because of the McCanns bad decisions re caring for their children. Not so. You can be as careful as is reasonably possible and a predator can still strike. Hence the two examples I cited.

walshb

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No they didn't. They checked on them at regular intervals.

Neglect would be walking away and never coming back to check them until the night out ended. They did not do that.

C'mon, you are having a laugh...

Regular intervals? Every 30 mins they say, that is disgraceful, and if the truth be known it was probably 45-60 mins.

You see no real issue with three young children alone for 30 mins at night in a foreign country? Forget the last bit of that sentence, alone anywhere is a major no no for young children.

Simple: What they did is inexcusable and indefensible.

_feedback_

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes she could still have been taken. The abductor could have subdued the babysitter somehow physically or frightened him/her into not attempting to stop the abduction. Perhaps the abductor could have threatened to kill the babysitter or the children. Perhaps he/she could have attacked injured the babysitter. Or perhaps the babysitter could have been in on it too.

:eek:

What do you think are the odds of the babysitter being an "undercover abductor" vs. the odds of the babysitter deterring a potential abductor?

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes she could still have been taken. The abductor could have subdued the babysitter somehow physically or frightened him/her into not attempting to stop the abduction. Perhaps the abductor could have threatened to kill the babysitter or the children. Perhaps he/she could have attacked injured the babysitter. Or perhaps the babysitter could have been in on it too.

As the case of James Bolger shows have an adult in close proximity does not guarentee anything.

Ah that clears them then. Having an adult to babysit them would have kept them no safe than leaving them alone in an unlocked apartment.


Locked doors would have straight away put one barrier in the path of an abductor.

An adult in the room with the kids would put a second barrier and the potential of an alarm being raised in the path of the abductor.

Having nothing in place to protect your children from harm is poor parenting and if there was an abductor, the McCanns made it easy for their child to be taken.

TheZohanS

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well yes in that they should not have left the children alone for long periods of time.

OK, that's fair enough.

Would you also agree that the chances of their daughter being kidnapped if they had a babysitter would have been pretty much nil? Babysitters always have access to phones in case of an emergency so they could have called for help if there was a disturbance. Had there been a babysitter present there would have been no need to leave doors etc unlocked in case of fire.

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Can we leave the self righteous indignation out of it please, it's grating.

I did not say it was ok. Only that it does not mean we should hold Kate and Gerry solely responsible.

Your whole take on 'responsibilty' is grating.

AudreyHepburn

Kess73 wrote: »

Actually in a way it does make them responsible for it. If those three children had a babysitter that night, then those three children would still have been in that room come 22:00 that night.

The parents chose to leave the three children totally alone in an unlocked apartment. They could not have made it easier for an abductor.

Any parent who decides to go out drinking for a number of hours and leave two one year olds and a three year old totally alone in an unlocked apartment abroad is guilty of poor and negligent parenting.

If the story of an abductor is true, and it could well be, then the parents are the ones who served their child up on a platter for that person or persons.


There is nothing that can be argued in their defence on that imho. They did not even bother to lock the damn door to give their children even the most basic of protection.


I'm just hoping that Scotland Yard find something and force their hand in having to request the case be reopened.

Would love to see David Payne brought back and have to explain his "pact of silence" defence that he used during questioning the first time around.

And for Tanner and Oldfield to have to explain in detail their changing stories

There is no way the McCanns could have known what was going to happen and no reason for them suspect anything so no they did offer up their little ones on a platter to anyone.

They did not ask the abductor/abductors to come and take Madeleine, they leave the door open specially for him/her/them.

They should not have left them alone but they cannot be held solely responsible either.

walshb

lugha wrote: »

I am simply refuting the argument that a child can only be snatched if the parents are irresponsible.
The premise from some here is that an abduction was only possible because of the McCanns bad decisions re caring for their children. Not so. You can be as careful as is reasonably possible and a predator can still strike. Hence the two examples I cited.

We know this, but that is clutching at straws. No matter how well you watch a child there is a possiblilty of danger. But, watch them less and less, and logically that danger risk increases.

AudreyHepburn

TheZohan wrote: »

OK, that's fair enough.

Would you also agree that the chances of their daughter being kidnapped if they had a babysitter would have been pretty much nil? Babysitters always have access to phones in case of an emergency so they could have called for help if there was a disturbance. Had there been a babysitter present there would have been no need to leave doors etc unlocked in case of fire.

No because as I said above the babysitter could have be subdued in some way, or not been physically able to tackle the abductor.

The chances would have been less alright, but not nil.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well yes in that they should not have left the children alone for long periods of time.

But to say they and they alone caused this to happen is silly.

They and they alone did not cause it to happen if there was an abductor.


But they and they alone are responsible for making it so easy for that abductor. Nobody else bar them is at fault for that part.

AudreyHepburn

Kess73 wrote: »

Ah that clears them then. Having an adult to babysit them would have kept them no safe than leaving them alone in an unlocked apartment.


Locked doors would have straight away put one barrier in the path of an abductor.

An adult in the room with the kids would put a second barrier and the potential of an alarm being raised in the path of the abductor.

Having nothing in place to protect your children from harm is poor parenting and if there was an abductor, the McCanns made it easy for their child to be taken.

:rolleyes:

I did not say that.

AudreyHepburn

Kess73 wrote: »

They and they alone did not cause it to happen if there was an abductor.


But they and they alone are responsible for making it so easy for that abductor. Nobody else bar them is at fault for that part.

I agree.

I was disagreeing with those saying only they are to blame.

walshb

Let's see? Hmm, leave them with babysitter and there is a chance of abduction, and it costs money. Ok, leave them alone and there is a dnager of abduction, but it's free, no money, yes, leave them alone. Sure it's all the same:rolleyes: