Fergies Gum
Full Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2011
- Messages
- 13,774
Has the person who the Smith family saw that night still not come forward?
Agree or disagee...bit irrelevant really. The aim of this new investigation is to find the person who took Madeleine isn't it.So... for the record, who actually agrees with what the McCanns did (leaving the kids unattended)? because you get the idea that some caftards think this is a perfectly fine choice....
Agree or disagee...bit irrelevant really. The aim of this new investigation is to find the person who took Madeleine isn't it.
All I did was question your assertion that people think 'its perfectly fine', I haven't seen anyone actually say that.
Neither have I. I've seen much worse mind no matter the outcome of this event.
And the actual point, being that people seem far angrier about a bit of sub-optimal parenting that they do about a very small kid being kidnapped and possibly raped/murdered. I wonder if this is why knee jerk right wing politics and gutter tabloid journalism is so successful. People love simple answers that allow them to point at something, blame it and then relax and move on.
The absence of a child is the big giveaway.
The best research data we have indicate that only a very small percentage of missing children were abducted by a nonfamily member. Of these cases, most of the abducted children were teenagers. And of the nonfamily-abducted children, almost all of them were returned alive and relatively uninjured a short time later. Understanding that the terms missing and abducted are not synonymous and interchangeable is important in awareness and prevention efforts.
In addition, sexually motivated nonfamily abduction is probably the only aspect of sexual victimization of children that people think occurs more often than it actually does. People tend to underestimate the likelihood that a family member or trusted acquaintance will sexually victimize their child, but overestimate the likelihood of stranger abduction. I am aware of no research that indicates that children today are any more likely to be abducted by sexual predators than they were 50 years ago.
In a 1998 study of parents' worries by pediatricians at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, nearly three-quarters of parents said they feared their children might be abducted. One-third of parents said this was a frequent worry -- a degree of fear greater than that held for any other concern, including car accidents, sports injuries, or drug addiction.
And the idea that the McCann's killed or covered up the death of Maddie is ludicrous. Zero evidence combined with the almost impossibility of them behaving normally while covering up such a thing and disposing of the body, followed by many years of failing to melt into the background after "getting away with it". It is just totally and utterly implausible.
The Portuguese cops only considered them suspects because of their "the butler did it" approach and stunning incompetence. Of course now they how have a new suspect who is dead, thus avoiding them doing anything yet again.
It is strange how concerns are shaped - presumably by current events and the media. There is no logical reason to worry about your child being kidnapped more than them being involved in a car accident - but I guess this is human nature.
Maybe parents feel they can do more to prevent one than the other?
It was the British police who first advised the Portuguese police to consider the McCanns as suspects.
How much evidence is there that Madeline was abducted - aside of Kate knowing immediately that she had been? Even the McCann's PR spokesman has said that the abduction is a purely a hypothesis that they're running with.
Even the McCann's PR spokesman has said that the abduction is a purely a hypothesis that they're running with.
Humans are rubbish at assessing risk. Which is why we drive everywhere without a care yet stress about flying. What the McCann's did was less risky than driving your kid around the block to help them sleep. Yet I'd do the later without a thought but I doubt I'd do exactly what they did.
it is impossible to accurately put yourself in that situation.....
Yet it's fine to judge the Mccanns and make all sorts of accusations based on how you think you might have reacted or on how you think they should have reacted, even though its impossible to put yourself in the situation.
Yet it's fine to judge the Mccanns and make all sorts of accusations based on how you think you might have reacted or on how you think they should have reacted, even though its impossible to put yourself in the situation.
The question you're all arguing seems to me to be: was this a serious case of neglect on the part of the McCanns?
I think anyone will agree that the children were indeed neglected, but it's the scale of neglect that's in question here.
Personally I believe that it was a serious case of neglect. Fate can only be tempted so far before the law of averages falls out of your favour, and since these various sets of children were routinely left alone for a number of consecutive nights then the chances of something going wrong were not negligible. The fact that they were left alone for selfish reasons only serves to emphasise the poor standards by which they were being 'looked after'.
Whether the child was indeed kidnapped or if instead she suffered a serious accident which was covered up by the McCanns, the McCanns themselves are without doubt in some part to blame either way.
Since you are paying attention to every turn of phrase, can you tell me where in that post I made "all sorts of accusations" against the McCanns?
That's true. And this is not to try and bash the McCann's, but doesn't that make it even more surprising that they would leave their kids - given that you could say the majority of parents have an irrationally high fear about their children being abducted?
With regard to what you said about it being ludicrous that the McCann's could have been involved given their actions. I agree it is unlikely, but there are several aspects of the abduction theory that don't sit well with me.
Even just to look at one aspect - Kate's reactions to finding Madeline not in her bed. Now I know it is impossible to accurately put yourself in that situation...but my impulse upon seeing an empty bed would be that my child had gotten out of bed. My first thought would be to search every room in the apartment, look in wardrobes frantically, shout out his/her name outside, etc.
Apparently Kate did not do this. As soon as she saw the empty bed she knew Madeline had been abducted. Her first action was to run down to her friends and tell them that Madeline had been taken.
In the above scenario, if I DID instantly think my child had been abducted, then the first thing I would do would be to make sure my other children were OK. I cannot fathom the idea of deciding one of your children has been abducted after having been left alone...then leaving your other children alone while you go and tell your friends that she has been taken. If I felt one of my children had been taken, I can guarantee that my other children would not leave my sight.
I cannot understand how Kate and Gerry were so certain that she had been abducted, that they didn't even search for Madeline. I am also stunned that none of their friends offered or were asked to help search. Instead the friends all went back to their rooms and went to bed.
I know none if this is evidence of guilt, but they are just some of the aspects that my gut has an issue with.
I've seen people react under extreme circumstances relating to their children. There is no point expecting rational behavior or extrapolating anything from it's abscence.
Sarcastic? Not at all. Simple statement of fact.
The instance that isn't too personal to recount involves a young kid killed playing chicken with a motorbike. His mother was calling for a doctor/ambulance while trying to scoop his brain matter back in. There was zero doubt he was killed on impact but ........
Yes. Wasn't good.
Neither have I. I've seen much worse mind no matter the outcome of this event.
And the actual point, being that people seem far angrier about a bit of sub-optimal parenting that they do about a very small kid being kidnapped and possibly raped/murdered. I wonder if this is why knee jerk right wing politics and gutter tabloid journalism is so successful. People love simple answers that allow them to point at something, blame it and then relax and move on.
Has the person who the Smith family saw that night still not come forward?
I haven't seen anyone that is angrier about neglect than the kidnapping or murder of such a small child, but it's one aspect of the situation which people should be allowed to comment on if they wish. In fact the angriest person in this thread by a country mile is you Wibble, judging by the sheer number of posts you're making.
Another one was when my friend was knocked down and killed by a (presumably) drunk driver in Chorlton when I was a kid. His mother kept going to the bus stop for months in the forlorn hope that he would get off the usual bus.