Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

firefly08

thats like comparing a twelve year old and a two year old being knocked down by a car when crossing the road alone. the parents should not let a two year old cross a road alone whereas a twelve year old is perfectly capable of crossing the road alone.

See, comparing the two or trying to even say they are similar is really absurd. It's completely different. As a child grows, a parent's hold lessens.
Doesn't disappear, just lessens. A three year old and two toddlers being left alone is not remotely the same as two 11 year old children walking into a shop without a guardian. To even bring it up seems very silly IMO.

There is no comparison at all and you know it between two 11 year old going to the shop and three kids under four being left in an unlocked unsupervised apartment . Its a daft comparison to be honest .

No - there is one point on which they are comparable: the children disappeared and something terrible happened to them, in both cases. What this tells us is that sometimes children are taken and murdered even when the parents have done nothing wrong.

Let's go with CK2010's analogy - suppose a stupid parent allows their 2 year old to cross the road, and the child is killed by a reckless drunk driver. Many of the posters here, if they are consistent in their logic, will say that the parents are totally responsible.

Now wind back the clock a minute, and replace the child with a 12 year old. The 12 year old tries to cross, and does everything right, but they are still killed, because the driver is that reckless. Consider a third scenario, where the parent crosses with the toddler, and they're both hit by the car, again because the driver is so unbelievably dangerous.

So then, in what way has the negligence of the parent in the first instance contributed to the end result? The answer is, in no way whatsoever. It was wrong, it was stupid, but it did not affect the outcome.

walshb

firefly08 wrote: »

No - there is one point on which they are comparable: the children disappeared and something terrible happened to them, in both cases. What this tells us is that sometimes children are taken and murdered even when the parents have done nothing wrong.

Let's go with CK2010's analogy - suppose a stupid parent allows their 2 year old to cross the road, and the child is killed by a reckless drunk driver. Many of the posters here, if they are consistent in their logic, will say that the parents are totally responsible.

Now wind back the clock a minute, and replace the child with a 12 year old. The 12 year old tries to cross, and does everything right, but they are still killed, because the driver is that reckless. Consider a third scenario, where the parent crosses with the toddler, and they're both hit by the car, again because the driver is so unbelievably dangerous.

So then, in what way has the negligence of the parent in the first instance contributed to the end result? The answer is, in no way whatsoever. It was wrong, it was stupid, but it did not affect the outcome.

No offense or disrespect meant, but again, pure red herrings and mumbo jumbo.

Toddlers and older children do not generally require the same level of care.
Why keep trying to create scenarios to say they do, or can?

Also, how do you arrive at the conclusion that whether or not the McCann's
were with the child had no impact on what happened. Are you seriously saying
that the child still disappears on that night with both parents in the room watching?

BTW, here is one for you. If a two year old is knocked down by a joyrider who
is driving dangerous and the child was not being supervised at the time, I blame the parent.

Simple: Young children need supervising, and at pretty much all times.

So, you let your two year old out to play on a road and he/she is killed by a car
driving safe or not, it still is the parent who is responsible for their well being.

Now, if the driver kills the child when the parent is supervising, say the car mounts
the path and ploughs into the, NO, I lay the blame with the driver.

How many young children have been mauled to death by dogs?
Dogs owned by parents, uncles, and in some cases, grandmothers?
Blame the dog do we?

iamwhoiam

We cant save our children from all risks , we cant save them from drunk drivers or murderers or abducters .We can do our best to protect them and keep them safe and still it will happen . BUT and a very big BUT we dont have to take more risks than need be , we dont have to facilitate harm . They M c Canns were at fault in not protecting their children someone took advantage of it and Madeleine paid the ultimate price for her parents lack of care .

We do our best , we try our hardest , we do all we can to be the very best we can be and the Mc canns did not .

lugha

walshb wrote: »

I have said in previous posts that abduction was the worst scenario. To leave them alone like they did is/was a disgrace. No matter what they had to do, they did not need to do it.

I also said that they made a very poor call and have now paid dearly. I would call it obscene, disgraceful and disgusting for ANY parent to do what they did on holiday. Forget intruder. What about all the other dangers? And, forget even danger, what about the children being frightened, scared and longing for their guardians?

I think there is little point in continuing with this. I am evidently failing completely to clarify the point I am making. I have on a a number of occasions said that they parents were negligent to leave their children and I even cited the very reasons you did above. There is no disagreement here on that score.

Where we disagree is that I content that the abduction was possible as a consequence of their failure. You say it was part of their failure.

It would be akin to a child failing to put their bicycle safely away to prevent rain damage or theft and then insisting that they are to blame when it is struck by lightening.

firefly08

No offense or disrespect meant, but again, pure red herrings and mumbo jumbo.

And this is not a point or argument of any kind.

Toddlers and older children do not generally require the same level of care.
Why keep trying to create scenarios to say they do, or can?

Who's creating scenarios? The Soham murders really happened. That is the point - there is no need to create them. I extended an analogy presented by anther poster as a last resort because my previous explanation of the point was ignored or not understood.

Also, how do you arrive at the conclusion that whether or not the McCann's
were with the child had no impact on what happened.

Where did I say I arrived at that conclusion? I specifically said I did not, and could not arrive at any such conclusion:

At the other end of the scale, it may very well have been the deciding factor for the abductor. Had they not been quite so negligent, maybe he would have gone elsewhere. Equally, the truth could be anywhere in between. We don't know

This business of arguing with things that no one has actually said seems to be a recurring theme in this thread. I wonder why.

Are you seriously saying
that the child still disappears on that night with both parents in the room watching?

Watching? No. No one is saying that. But everyone needs to sleep. Anyone can be distracted by an emergency.

BTW, here is one for you. If a two year old is knocked down by a joyrider who
is driving dangerous and the child was not being supervised at the time, I blame the parent.

Simple: Young children need supervising, and at pretty much all times.

So, you ley your two year old out to play on a road and he/she is killed by a car
driving safe or not, it still is the parent who is responsible for their well being.

Now, if the driver kills the child when the parent is supervising, say the car mounts
the path and ploughs into the, NO, I lay the blame with the driver.

But you acknowledge that in the second instance, which can and does happen, that no amount of supervision on the part of the parent makes any difference to the end result?

How many young children have been mauled to death by dogs?
Dogs owned by parents, uncles, and in some cases, grandmothers?
Blame the dog do we?

We do not blame the dog because a dog lacks the ability to commit a crime. If you see this as analogous to Madeleine's disappearance, then I worry. A lot.

Spanish Eyes

There is a lot of supposition in the last few posts.

Suppose this, suppose that etc.

At the end of the day, the kids were babies. No way they could defend themselves in any dodgy circumstances.

Doesn't matter about the semantics of what if, who, why, maybe, and so on.

Any parent I know would NEVER leave their child in an apartment, with doors unlocked, asleep, while they went on the raz a good walk away from them.

So, does anyone think that if the kids had been supervised this would not have happened? And don''t give me that cr^p about an "abductor" threatening the babysitter with a knife or whatever unless they handed over the child.

Bullsh1t.

That kid woke up in the night (like before). Cried her eyes out, no one was there, got out, wandered and was either stolen or fell into a drain or something.

Either way. The parents are responsible. For their children. No one else is. They are.

Anyway, to another point, The parents did not check as they said, that is my view. Think about it. Holidays, drinks during the day, get the kids asleep, over to the bar, loadsa wine.

"your turn to check now", right, right, I'll go in a minute. Another drink, "I better go check on the babies", if all the group were tiddly, no one would really care. It happens.

Swingers the lot of em. For their own enjoyment, and the kids were in the way of that. Or maybe the kids were the cover story for responsible parents lol so no one would suspect why 4 couples would go away together and all leave their kids alone at night. Think about it.

There I've said it. Make of it what you will.

CK2010

firefly08 wrote: »

No - there is one point on which they are comparable: the children disappeared and something terrible happened to them, in both cases. What this tells us is that sometimes children are taken and murdered even when the parents have done nothing wrong.

firefly08 wrote: »

Let's go with CK2010's analogy - suppose a stupid parent allows their 2 year old to cross the road, and the child is killed by a reckless drunk driver. Many of the posters here, if they are consistent in their logic, will say that the parents are totally responsible.

the parents would be totally responsible if a 2 year old child got knocked down while crossing the road alone. drunk driver or no drunk driver. the parents weren't there to at least try to prevent it happening.

firefly08 wrote: »

Now wind back the clock a minute, and replace the child with a 12 year old. The 12 year old tries to cross, and does everything right, but they are still killed, because the driver is that reckless. Consider a third scenario, where the parent crosses with the toddler, and they're both hit by the car, again because the driver is so unbelievably dangerous.

if the twelve year old did everything right and was still run over of course its the drivers fault. it was out of the victims hands. they did everything toprevent it.

in the third instance the parent could not prevent the accident but they actually did everything in their power to keep their child safe so of course i couldnt blame them.
in the McCanns case they did not do everything in their power to protect their child.

firefly08 wrote: »

So then, in what way has the negligence of the parent in the first instance contributed to the end result? The answer is, in no way whatsoever. It was wrong, it was stupid, but it did not affect the outcome.

the fact is that the parents could have prevented it in the first instance if they were there to help the child cross safely/see the driver/keep the child in the cul de sac where they belonged etc.etc. but they werent there to do so.

in the other two scenarios it is obvious the outcome definitely could not have been prevented.

if the McCanns could prove without a doubt that Madeleine would still be gone had they been there that night i would not hold them completely responsible but until then i believe they are responsible as they were not there to even try to prevent it.

every parent should at least try their very best to keep their child out of harms way- can the McCanns say they did this? that they did everything in their power to keep their kids safe?
thats the difference between the scenarios. the parents/responsible twelve year old tried. the parents of the 2 year old who needed their parents to look after them didnt stand a chance.

Spanish Eyes

Any time the Mc were challenged about leaving the kids home alone, the said something along the lines of " it was within the boundaries of responsible parenting" or something similar.

They were justifying their behaviour. And the more they said it, the less import it had.

But people just got used to it, because I do not recall many journalists actually tackle them on that fact, and when they were asked about it, the mantra was repeated, but never challenged.

We are ruled by the media all the same.

firefly08

There is a lot of supposition in the last few posts.

Suppose this, suppose that etc.

Anyway, to another point, The parents did not check as they said, that is my view. Think about it. Holidays, drinks during the day, get the kids asleep, over to the bar, loadsa wine.

"your turn to check now", right, right, I'll go in a minute. Another drink, "I better go check on the babies", if all the group were tiddly, no one would really care. It happens.

Swingers the lot of em. For their own enjoyment, and the kids were in the way of that.

There's quite a bit of supposition in this post^^ too. The difference is we were using it for analogy - to clarify logic of the points we're making. I am not presenting supposition as fact. You, on the other hand, are.

firefly08

in the third instance the parent could not prevent the accident but they actually did everything in their power to keep their child safe so of course i couldnt blame them.

...

the fact is that the parents could have prevented it in the first instance if they were there to help the child cross safely/see the driver/keep the child in the cul de sac where they belonged etc.etc. but they werent there to do so.

No - the only difference between the first and third scenarios was the presence of the parent. If they could not prevent it in the third instance then they could not have prevented it in the first instance, had they been there.

Why do you allow the possibility of the parent seeing the car and thus preventing the accident in the first example, but not in the third?

sunflower27

Their parenting skills are atrocious.

How often does a small child get abducted on holiday? Says it all really.

They will blame, blame, blame to save face, but the bottom line is their child died (?) through their - and their alone - negligence.

GT_TDI_150

their neglegance facilitated something to happen to madeline, thing is no-one knows what that something is.

If their story was a fish, you wouldnt eat it as it stinks!!

CK2010

firefly08 wrote: »

No - the only difference between the first and third scenarios was the presence of the parent. If they could not prevent it in the third instance then they could not have prevented it in the first instance, had they been there.

Why do you allow the possibility of the parent seeing the car and thus preventing the accident in the first example, but not in the third?

the only way you can say the parents could definitely not have prevented it is if we knew the first hypothetical situation was definitely identical to the third one. but we cant compare these because obviously they are only hypothetical identical situations, if you get me? we could never know what could have been.
we will never know if they could have stopped it. BUT if they were there to at least try to prevent it then they could genuinely say they were not to blame. they could say we tried our best. but because they werent there to at least try to save their child, they are to blame, they didnt do everything in their power to keep that little girl out of harms way.


ETA: lets put it this way (yet another pointless analogy!):

a guy goes to hit your child- you jump in front of him/push the guy/do whatever it takes to stop your child being hurt. even if its all in vain.
you dont stand there and watch even though you think it cant be prevented. the outcome may be the same but as a parent you always try.

Mr.Micro

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

their neglegance facilitated something to happen to madeline, thing is no-one knows what that something is.

If their story was a fish, you wouldnt eat it as it stinks!!

Their whole story of leaving the children alone is pure red herring. It was done to detract from the other possibility that they were responsible for the child's disappearance, them alone. It gives credence to their story of abduction by actually admitting that they left their children as she could not have been taken if she was not left alone, otherwise how could they create the abduction story? Spin, spin and more spin.

Aishae

no one seems to be arguing that abductions will not take place if the parent is nearby. of course they can happen like that. all the more reason not to leave such young kids - toddlers - alone. parents know that abductions take place even with someone there, and yet still leaving them. this is the thing that's getting at people.
as someone already said - abduction is way down the list. you need eyes on the back of your head with toddlers. they can fill a bath and fall in, stick things in sockets, fall etc. i dont know if their apartment had any tea/coffee facilities or a small kitche. EITHER could be very hazardous with toddlers.

iamwhoiam

Aishae wrote: »

no one seems to be arguing that abductions will not take place if the parent is nearby. of course they can happen like that. all the more reason not to leave such young kids - toddlers - alone. parents know that abductions take place even with someone there, and yet still leaving them. this is the thing that's getting at people.
as someone already said - abduction is way down the list. you need eyes on the back of your head with toddlers. they can fill a bath and fall in, stick things in sockets, fall etc. i dont know if their apartment had any tea/coffee facilities or a small kitche. EITHER could be very hazardous with toddlers.

Not if you knock them out with a good big spoonful of Dozol or Vallergan or Valium .They will be good as gold then .

CK2010

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Not if you knock them out with a good big spoonful of Dozol or Vallergan or Valium .They will be good as gold then .

dozol gets my little one hyper for some reason! although i doubt valium would!

firefly08

the only way you can say the parents could definitely not have prevented it is if we knew the first hypothetical situation was definitely identical to the third one. but we cant compare these because obviously they are only hypothetical identical situations, if you get me? we could never know what could have been.

But that is the point of hypothetical reasoning. In these scenarios, you're being asked to consider the case where they are identical, except for the presence of the parent. Only by doing that can you demonstrate how the presence of the parent would make a difference to the outcome. If you change something else about the scenario as well, then the whole thing becomes meaningless.

we will never know if they could have stopped it. BUT if they were there to at least try to prevent it then they could genuinely say they were not to blame. they could say we tried our best. but because they werent there to at least try to save their child, they are to blame, they didnt do everything in their power to keep that little girl out of harms way.

Yes, you're right there in that they could have done more, and if they had, they would not have attracted so much blame. They failed in their duty as parents, but that does not mean they are to blame for the crime. The blame must lie ever and always with the perpetrator.

ETA: lets put it this way (yet another pointless analogy!):

a guy goes to hit your child- you jump in front of him/push the guy/do whatever it takes to stop your child being hurt. even if its all in vain.
you dont stand there and watch even though you think it cant be prevented. the outcome may be the same but as a parent you always try.

Yes I agree - this would be a great argument if someone was trying to defend the Mcanns actions, and say that there is nothing wrong with the way they acted, and that they should not have acted differently. But no one is saying that. No one is saying they shouldn't have tried.

CK2010

firefly08 wrote: »

But that is the point of hypothetical reasoning. In these scenarios, you're being asked to consider the case where they are identical, except for the presence of the parent. Only by doing that can you demonstrate how the presence of the parent would make a difference to the outcome. If you change something else about the scenario as well, then the whole thing becomes meaningless.



Yes, you're right there in that they could have done more, and if they had, they would not have attracted so much blame. They failed in their duty as parents, but that does not mean they are to blame for the crime. The blame must lie ever and always with the perpetrator.



Yes I agree - this would be a great argument if someone was trying to defend the Mcanns actions, and say that there is nothing wrong with the way they acted, and that they should not have acted differently. But no one is saying that. No one is saying they shouldn't have tried.

my heads too frazzled now to go through the hypothetical argument sorry! looong day! :rolleyes:

basically a two year old shouldnt be allowed near a road without a parent because a parent increases the chance of crossing safely. it never guarantees it. however if they are not there at all then the risk only increases. hence the blame being on them. if they were there to try and reduce the risk then obviously they cant take the blame. but they werent.

by leaving them alone though they werent there to even try and thats why they are to blame. they gave the perpetrator free reign. they werent there to try. they chose not to be ready to try and defend their child. its basically the same as standing by and watching someone hit your child. you choose toleave them alone,you choose to put them in danger- sometimes you're lucky enough for that danger not to be realised but its always there and by leaving them alone you may as well just stand by and watch it happen.

metrovelvet

When I was pregnant I took an infant CPR, safety and first aid course at the hospital I was registered with.

According to the nurse who was teaching us, 90% of accidents or fatalities happen when BOTH parents are present. This is because of the false sense of security togetherness can bring and also because no one is quite sure who is responsible.

It is evident from the way they talk they still dont consider that they were 'absent' from those three toddlers, they saw the restaurant like some kind of continnuum from the apartment even though it was 100 meters away.

Those kids had TWO parents. And TWO parents who failed them. I cant believe they didnt even have an argument over whether they should go out and abandon those kids, they didnt even debate it. THey didnt even consider taking turns going to and from the restaurant. Ive seen couples argue over whether to give a child and ice cream or not. Thats why I find this so amazing.

K-9

People don't leave 3 toddlers in houses 50 yards away, when they are at home and just check them every half hour at best. I've never seen it myself anyway!

That's what the situation was. I don't understand trying to compare it and whataboutery. It doesn't need any comparing.

It doesn't mean they killed her or anything like that, people are basing what they think happened on plenty of other stuff, not just that.

They increased the chances of loads of things happening by not staying in with her or at a bare minimum, getting baby monitors or a babysitter. With either of those there is a good chance somebody might have heard something.

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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

How do you know this? Were you there?

AudreyHepburn

Kess73 wrote: »

For not ensuring their children's safety in even the most basic of fashion, yes.
They are certainly responsible for that and that is totally on them, imho of course.

Beyond that we cannot know for sure what they are or are not responsible for.


But don't feel that you, as a poster, have to agree with it. I disagree with some of what you have siad on that particular topic, but I respect your decision to do so and you have done so in a non insulting manner.

From reading WalshB's posts in other forums I have little doubt that he would feel the same way on it, and that he is just arguing his beliefs/opinions on this as strongly as you would your own.


I just felt from the tone of your post that you feel a little brow beaten/put upon/irritated/fill in your own word:) by some of using debating/arguing against you, and wanted to say that whilst you and I don't agree on everything in this thread, I have enjoyed reading your posts and hope you keep posting as opposing views are always useful and often help a person notice something they had not noticed before on a set topic.

Thank you Kess

To be honest I am not bothered that Walshb was disagreeing with me at all.

The issue is he has, from what I can see, decided he is right and refuses to even attempt to see other people's points. That is what frustrated me.

I also don't take kindly to people being agressive, telling me am desperate, ludicris, clutching etc.

walshb wrote: »

Hey, I am not trying to sound aggressive, if so, I am sorry. It just seems really desperate to somehow say that "even if the parents were there in the room minding the children it doesn't mean that Madeleine lives," or words to those effect.

BTW, yes, they are damn guilty or neglect, reckless endangerment, or any other crime that could fit the bill for leaving their young children alone and unsupervised.

You've been nothing but agressive toward me and you know it.

You have, as I said above, decided you are right and so will not accept any other viewpoint but your own.

firefly08 wrote: »

Except that that is not what was originally under discussion; all she said originally was that the parents are not solely responsible for what happened. This is in fact correct. If they were solely responsible, then no one else can share in the responsibility, which would mean that the perpetrator would be innocent, which is ridiculous.

You can blame someone for acting in an irresponsible way - a way that is likely to lead to an unfortunate incident, or increases the likelihood. But the unfortunate incident actually taking place does not make them more guilty than they would otherwise be. The Mcanns, as far as anyone knows, did not do anything significantly differently from their 7 companions, or indeed many parents throughout the world - but they are not being blamed, because they were lucky, and their children were not taken. That is wrong.

Furthermore, as lugha has pointed out, we do not actually know that their negligence, while reprehensible, actually contributed to the disappearance. It is easy to show that extreme negligence is not necessary for such a crime to take place. Perhaps she would have been taken anyway.

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make all along. You have managed to make it clearer than I might have, so thank you .

Also, as seen in the James Bolger case and the Baby P case (different kinds of cases I know but the issue of parental protection covers both) , the presence of the parents does not guarentee anything. It is not as simple as saying 'if the parent is present the child will come to no harm'.

Does it dramatically reduce risks? Of course without a doubt yes. But does erradicate the risk? No.

AudreyHepburn

lugha wrote: »

You could make the exact same argument about the Soham girls. The only reason they were taken was because they were allowed to walk to the shop alone. Does that logically point to their parents being responsible?

And James Bolger was only taken because his mother turned her back for a moment. Does that make her responsible?

metrovelvet

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And James Bolger was only taken because his mother turned her back for a moment. Does that make her responsible?

No. The McCanns took a huge uncalculated risk. If Madeleine wasnt kidnapped but had a nosebleed in the middle of the night and choked to death because no one was there who's fault would that be?

No one was there.

AudreyHepburn

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. The McCanns took a huge uncalculated risk. If Madeleine wasnt kidnapped but had a nosebleed in the middle of the night and choked to death because no one was there who's fault would that be?

No one was there.

They are to blame for leaving the babies alone, of course. I keep saying this.

They are not to blame for the abdcutor choosing their daughter.

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And James Bolger was only taken because his mother turned her back for a moment. Does that make her responsible?

There is no comparison in the two cases. The McCanns made a conscious decision to leave their babies unattended every night. Even after Madeleine & Seán cried and asked where their parents were, they still left them. Denise Bulger was with her child when he was taken. Huge difference.

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They are to blame for leaving the babies alone, of course. I keep saying this.

They are not to blame for the abdcutor choosing their daughter.

There is no evidence of an abductor.

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They are to blame for leaving the babies alone, of course. I keep saying this.

They are not to blame for the abdcutor choosing their daughter.

altough I do see your point and if there was an abductor he is to blame for his part of course . But maybe they were to blame for his choosing their daughter, maybe he knew how long they were being left unsupervised and chose the easy option . Poor Madeleine , poor little scrap I hope she is not suffering .

AudreyHepburn

maebee wrote: »

There is no comparison in the two cases. The McCanns made a conscious decision to leave their babies unattended every night. Even after Madeleine & Seán cried and asked where their parents were, they still left them. Denise Bulger was with her child when he was taken. Huge difference.

But surely this case shows that the McCanns presence might not have made a difference?