Yeah I'm taking this too seriously.
No cider, you're doing what you usually do, buzz around, craving attention. Now that you take seriously.
Madeleine McCann
- Thread starter Fergies Gum
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
No cider, you're doing what you usually do, buzz around, craving attention. Now that you take seriously.
Or heavily implies you've read about the last 5 pages of the thread.
But it's ok, apparently I don't need to actually say something to say it.
Right, I'll just feck off and let you carry on making up my arguments for me.
We're talking about how people don't have a fecking clue what your standpoint is. Up until the last few posts you seemed to be very against the idea that they had neglected their children by leaving them alone in a hotel for five nights in a row. Before that you said they'd fecked up. I'm not making anything up, I'm just commenting on what you've posted and how it's come across. You don't half have a flair for drama.
Careful, he'll storm out again if you're not careful.
Am pretty sure he declared himself done with this "joke of a thread" earlier today...yet he still can't leave.
He still manages to ignore every request for him to share his thoughts on why the abduction is the most likely, or what evidence he feels there is to support that hypothesis.
The McCann's own PR person has admitted that the entire focus of the their investigation has been based on an assumption and it merely a hypothesis.
Yet all you seem to do is castigate anyone who suggest the McCann's are not entirely without any semblance of guilt.
Popper has been entirely consistent. If you think this was child abuse/negelect you have never experineced child abuse/negelect. Just because it wasn't a choice that you would have made doesn't make it negelect. And of course many of you a) don't have kids so you are guessing what your choices might have been and b) are using hindsight which is a wonderful thing. In hindsight the McCann's wouldn't have left the kids alone. Mainly because Maddie was taken.
And even if leaving them alone was neglect WTF does that have to do with her being kidnapped? Because the idea that they had anything to do with their daughters disappearance is silly. Policing of a "the butler did it" standard. You lot love your moral outrage and blaming.
And even if leaving them alone was neglect WTF does that have to do with her being kidnapped? Because the idea that they had anything to do with their daughters disappearance is silly. Policing of a "the butler did it" standard. You lot love your moral outrage and blaming.
There's a difference between saying it was neglect in the legal sense and saying it was neglect in that they didn't competently perform their duties as parents. There's also a difference between saying they had an active role in her abduction and that some of the blame lies with them in that she probably wouldn't have been kidnapped had they not decided leaving three young children alone in an apartment in Portugal was a good idea.
Spot on. Why does he keep getting thread banned again?
Also, what's all this hindsight bollocks? Leaving kids as young as them alone was shit parenting before Madeline was abducted and it's still shit parenting now. Hindsight changes feck all.
Slight diversion here but...
If somebody gets attacked on a night out, would we say some of the blame lies with them for being alone in a dangerous area? Or do we 100% blame the attacker? I'm thinking of the infamous cases of women being partially blamed when they are raped. Surely if someone makes the decision to rape someone they're 100% to blame? Similarly, if someone did abduct Maddie surely that person is equally 100% to blame?
I mean, what's the difference between what you said there and someone saying "At least some of the blame lies with her for getting that drunk"? Both are cases of blaming the victims for the actions of others, no?
I think they neglected their children. I don't care if that meets the criteria you seem to have established for neglect, but in my mind they did.
I do have kids myself. I am not guessing as to what my choices would have been, nor am I using hindsight. I would not have left them alone in an apartment while I went out for dinner with friends. Simple as that. They chose to leave their kids alone - even after it appears that one of them was crying the night before.
As for "WTF does them leaving Madeline alone have to do with her being kidnapped"...I would argue quite a lot, actually. Unless you believe that she would have been kidnapped if she was not left alone.
You and topper also appear to enjoy your outrage at anyone who doesn't share your views. No one else in the thread seems to be getting outraged.
Totally agree.
That's not really the same, what you're essentially asking here is if we can blame the child.
They put Madeleine in danger by leaving her and twins alone for several nights in a row. If I drove a person who doesn't know the city to its most dangerous zone, I'd be partially blamed if something happened to them - it's the same here. You don't leave a 3-year old unattended for a prolonged period of time because she's not capable of taking care of hereself.
I knew this would come up. If someone gets attacked when walking alone through a dangerous area, then no blame lies with them because the chances are they didn't decide it was a good idea to go for a late night stroll through Moss Side, but more that they had to. As for the rape thing, there are absolutely no actions a woman can take that lead to rape. Women get raped sober, they get raped drunk, they get raped in skirts, they get raped in jeans, they get raped during the day, they get raped at night, they get raped in places with other people, they get raped in places when they're alone, they get raped by people they know, they get raped by strangers. There's no set course of actions that a woman can take to ensure that she doesn't get raped other than having literally no contact with the outside world and locking themselves in a secure location. The same basically applies to getting attacked in a dangerous area. People don't always have money for taxis when they need them, don't always have a friend to walk home with. Even when people can get taxis there's still the chance that something could happen in the short walk between the taxi and the door.
Conversely, there were steps that could have been taken to ensure that Madeline wasn't abducted. Namely not leaving her alone in an unlocked apartment. There's also the fact that parents have a legal responsibility to look after and care for their children, which clearly wasn't what was happening with the McCanns.
Edit: Sarni's response to this is spot on
Well done. Have a biscuit.
Not heard of controlled crying? You don't react every time a kid cries otherwise they do it forever because it achieves the results they desire. I have friends who have a kid of nearly school age who has never been to pre-school because they cave every time he turns the water works on. He is a confident little kid but he knows what works. And if/when you have kids you will find that there are many things you think you won't do that you will. Ranging from the simple like not using dummies or letting kids play with toy guns upwards. My son travels alone 2 hrs on public transport into Sydney on his own 3 or 4 days a week and has done since just after his 13th birthday. Many parents think we are mad to risk this but you can cosset them too much and unless he wants to abandon his sport there isn't much choice. And there is risk in everything.
And if they died in a car crash you could have avoided it by not letting them travel in that car. Or if they drowned in a neighbour's pond you could have prevented it by never letting them out of the house or .....
Before you shout "its not the same thing" the point is that the results of something don't make the original act inherently bad. It probably isn't a choice I'd have made but there are lots of times in my son's life where if bad things had happened a different action would have prevented it. You can't watch them 24/7 - you have to sleep and live etc
I hate stupidity and many people don't seem to be able to think rationally about this. They would rather engage in moral outrage directed at the parents rather than find the girl (or her remains
)Well done. Have a biscuit.
Thank you
Not heard of controlled crying? You don't react every time a kid cries otherwise they do it forever because it achieves the results they desire. I have friends who have a kid of nearly school age who has never been to pre-school because they cave every time he turns the water works on. He is a confident little kid but he knows what works. And if/when you have kids you will find that there are many things you think you won't do that you will. Ranging from the simple like not using dummies or letting kids play with toy guns upwards. My son travels alone 2 hrs on public transport into Sydney on his own 3 or 4 days a week and has done since just after his 13th birthday. Many parents think we are mad to risk this but you can cosset them too much and unless he wants to abandon his sport there isn't much choice. And there is risk in everything.
Agree 100% about your views on the dangers/problems of cosseting them too much. And yes - it's probably the first hard lesson a parent has to go through - being able to let their baby cry and not keeping going in the room to check that everything is ok.
And if they died in a car crash you could have avoided it by not letting them travel in that car. Or if they drowned in a neighbour's pond you could have prevented it by never letting them out of the house or .....
Before you shout "its not the same thing" the point is that the results of something don't make the original act inherently bad. It probably isn't a choice I'd have made but there are lots of times in my son's life where if bad things had happened a different action would have prevented it. You can't watch them 24/7 - you have to sleep and live etc
I agree - but would draw the line at leaving them alone at that age.
I hate stupidity and many people don't seem to be able to think rationally about this. They would rather engage in moral outrage directed at the parents rather than find the girl (or her remains
I am not venting outrage at their parents, I simply do not believe their version of events.
That is the problem. Why would it need explaining?
The total lack of evidence, the lack of motive, the impossibility of the all of the possible scenarios that would involve the parents, the stupidity of the idea that they could have behaved normally at dinner if they had killed and disposed of their daughter, the necessity of a large group of people covering up for them (why would they even if the could pull it off) and the McCann's refusal to let the case drop - they would have faded away once the initial fuss had blown over if they were guilty - why on earth wouldn't they?
The public witch hunt reminds me very much of the Azalia Chamberlain case here in Australia where the mother went to prison in a famous miscarriage of justice largely die to the same sort of mindless public prejudice that is following the McCanns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Azaria_Chamberlain
My two cents..
Both in this case, and in the rape example, there's more than 100% blame to be apportioned. The two different blameworthy behaviours are independent and should be judged separately.
A rape victim can be 'blamed' for putting herself in harm's way. Rightly. But many of us are occasionally incautious about our own safety. It is, in a real sense, our right to do so. We own our own lives. It's not a 'crime' about which we're generally inclined to be overly censorious. We recognise the right of others to take their own risks.
This doesn't dilute the guilt or mitigate the crime of her attacker. He's 100% to blame for his actions.
The same logic applies to the McCann case, except in one crucial respect. The McCanns were careless of their children's safety rather than their own. So much more blame attaches to them.
But, as in the rape case, the abductor (if there was an abductor) is 100% responsible for the horrific crime he committed. The McCanns negligence is no mitigation.
Right, I'll change approach here a bit...
Let's say I'm on a night out. I get so drunk I can barely stand. I then decide to walk home alone through an area I know is really dangerous, even though I have the money to get a cab home, because I'm a drunk idiot. In that situation, am I partially to blame if I get attacked? I mean, I'm doing something very irresponsible that I really don't need to do, right? I'm also greatly increasing my chance of being attacked too, no?
If I am partially to blame in that situation, surely a girl who did the same thing would be equally to blame if they got attacked? Same actions, same risk. If I'm not partially to blame in that situation, and we blame the attacker 100% as they were the ones who committed the crime, then surely that principle can equally be applied to the McCann case. After all, they also did something really irresponsible that greatly increased the chances of someone else committing a crime.
Surely the principle here is the same? If someone decides to commit a crime (whether it's rape or abduction), then they are 100% to blame.
Yeah, I'd tend to agree with this post. I was just asking Alex as I suspect he disagrees with the bit I've bolded, so it seems like a flaw in his logic.
Well done. Have a biscuit.
Not heard of controlled crying? You don't react every time a kid cries otherwise they do it forever because it achieves the results they desire. I have friends who have a kid of nearly school age who has never been to pre-school because they cave every time he turns the water works on. He is a confident little kid but he knows what works. And if/when you have kids you will find that there are many things you think you won't do that you will. Ranging from the simple like not using dummies or letting kids play with toy guns upwards. My son travels alone 2 hrs on public transport into Sydney on his own 3 or 4 days a week and has done since just after his 13th birthday. Many parents think we are mad to risk this but you can cosset them too much and unless he wants to abandon his sport there isn't much choice. And there is risk in everything.
And if they died in a car crash you could have avoided it by not letting them travel in that car. Or if they drowned in a neighbour's pond you could have prevented it by never letting them out of the house or .....
Before you shout "its not the same thing" the point is that the results of something don't make the original act inherently bad. It probably isn't a choice I'd have made but there are lots of times in my son's life where if bad things had happened a different action would have prevented it. You can't watch them 24/7 - you have to sleep and live etc
I hate stupidity and many people don't seem to be able to think rationally about this. They would rather engage in moral outrage directed at the parents rather than find the girl (or her remains
There's a marked difference between letting a 13 year old use public transport in an area he's familiar with and leaving three children aged 3 and below alone in an unlocked apartment, at night, in a foreign country. As for the crying thing, the crying was reportedly while the parents were out and the kids found themselves alone. It's part of the reason people think they sedated them the following night. The car crash comparison is just absurd. Millions of people make car journeys every day and it's seen as a part of modern life. As is taking public transport for that matter. Leaving your young children alone in an apartment on holiday while you go out on the piss is not a part of modern life and is in fact extremely irresponsible parenting. They also didn't watch their children 24/7 because we know they were booked into the hotel creche pretty much all day, every day; the twins were even left there after Maddie's disappearance.
The McCanns arrived at the restaurant somewhere between half eight and nine in the evening, and Maddie was discovered missing at ten when Kate went to check on her. Kate checking on her at this time is quite notable I think because it shows that they hadn't just nipped out for a quick bite to eat, and were planning on staying out later. At this point the kids had been alone for the best part of an hour to an hour and a half, and had Maddie still been there during Kate's check they would have been alone for longer. This wasn't a one night incident either; the kids were left alone for five nights while the parents went out for tapas.
I don't really understand your point about people preferring to engage in moral outrage directed at the parents rather than finding her. What do you expect people to do? Go and physically search for her? The only real thing to talk about is the case and what we know about it, and her parents and their actions are a big part of that. I'm sure everyone would much prefer her to turn up alive and well tomorrow than further engage in debates about the case, but the sad fact is there isn't really anything anyone but the investigating team can do. I also don't think there's any real moral outrage, more people pointing out shitty parenting to people who seem to think what they did was a perfectly normal thing to do.
I wouldn't say you were partially to blame at all though. Everyone's entitled to a night out and to get drunk. It's not your fault if you get mugged on your way home, regardless of whether you could have got a taxi or not. There's nothing really out of the ordinary about going out and getting drunk, there is however something incredibly irresponsible about leaving three children unattended in an unlocked holiday apartment.
A rape victim can be blamed for putting herself into harms way? What kind of disgusting bullshit is this? As I said, there are no foolproof measures to avoid being raped (or mugged for that matter). I don't know how I could have put that any clearer. Women get raped sober, drunk, alone, with others, by strangers, by friends, by husbands, at home, in parks, in alleyways, at parties, in skirts, in jeans, in head-to-toe Muslim dress. People also get mugged sober, drunk, when alone, when in a group, in crowded places, in 'safe' places, in dangerous places, on their doorstep, in taxis. Children however, tend not to get abducted when sat in restaurants with their parents, or sat at home with their parents, or in the hotel room with their parents.
As Sarni pointed out, your parallel isn't in fact parallel. Kate and Gerry McCann have a responsibility to look after their children as their parents. This would involve not leaving them alone at night, in an unlocked apartment. You also don't seem to have grasped that Madeline is the direct victim here. She is the one that was abducted. As he said, your parallel would have to involve someone else doing something that put you in danger unbeknownst to you.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say the abductor isn't to blame. S/He is 100% to blame for the abduction, but because Kate and Gerry failed in their responsibility to look after their children correctly, a separate portion of blame is partitioned on to them. They are to blame for shit parenting, not for the abduction of their child. They were guilty of that before Madeline was abducted, it's just been highlighted more by the tragic event. Had Madeline been abducted by being snatched off the street and dragged into a car in a split-second incident while with her parents, I don't think there'd be any debate surrounding the parenting, but that's not what happened. So to make it clear, the abductor is 100% to blame for their actions, the McCann's are to blame for shitty, neglectful parenting which was probably a contributing factor in the abduction. To bring this back to your parallel, people being drunk then possibly alone is a part of modern life. You can just as easily get mugged when walking home drunk and alone at night as you could if you were walking through a busy street with friends in the middle of the day. Leaving children alone in an unlocked holiday apartment for hours is not something that is a part of modern life. The children would have been much safer with their parents at the restaurant, or even just in a locked apartment.
Agree, I wouldn't say I was to blame either. Would you say my actions in that situation were irresponsible though? Forget about the mugging, would you say that getting absolutely hammered and wandering on my own through a place I know is dangerous is an irresponsible thing to do?
Agree there too.
No. I’m saying that if a person chooses to do something stupid and that stupid action is the cause of something bad happening to them then they’re to blame. However, if somebody else chooses to attack them then it doesn’t matter what the victim was doing. So, if I’m drunk, start walking along the edge of a really high bridge and fall in, that’s my fault. However, if someone chooses to push me over the ledge, it’s their fault. The fact that I was on a ledge doesn’t matter. Basically if people decide to commit a crime they’re totally to blame, regardless of whether the victim made it easier for them or not.
So, apply that principle to the McCanns. The McCanns did something unbelievably irresponsible and put their daughter in a dangerous situation, no question about that. If Maddie had an accident and was killed while they were away then they would be to blame as they are responsible for her, no question. However, if somebody decides to kidnap Maddie then they are 100% responsible as they're the ones who made that choice. Any actions by the McCanns up to that point don't matter. If you abduct someone, you're 100% to blame.
No, I get that. I'm not saying it's an exact parallel, just that the basic principle is the same. Also, is it not fair to see the McCanns as victims of the kidnapper's actions too?
That's not how percentages work. If the kidnapper is 100% to blame then the McCanns take no blame. Yet in the first post I replied to you say "some of the blame" for the abduction lies with them. That's my point. Either the kidnapper is 100% to blame for the kidnapping or the McCanns have to take some of blame. It's impossible to have it both ways.
Not just as easily though. Statistically you're more likely to get mugged if you're on your own. Obviously what the McCanns did made it way, way more likely that the kid could've been kidnapped but again, the principle is the same. If you make it easier for someone to commit a crime against you (or someone else) are you partially to blame for the crime?
I'm not saying what the McCanns did was comparable to my examples in terms of scale, just in principle.
It seems very odd indeed that people are keener to judge the McCann's parenting skills than they are to find Maddie dead or alive. Easy target for people's emotional response I guess.
No empathy or compassion mind.
No empathy or compassion mind.
Damn those foreigners.
And of course I wasn't saying the 2 things were equivalent. I was saying that people are far too quick to judge other people's parenting. Leaving the kids alone isn't something I'd probably have done but in the scheme of things this is an irrelevant distraction. A bit like worrying that a victim of a hit and run drunk driver was parked on double yellow lines.
On the piss? Really? Any evidence? Or we they perhaps eating a meal. If they had a lgass of wine with this this is hardly being "on the piss".
They put them in a creche? Kinell. Lock them up and throw away the key.
So an hour or so in which time they were checked on. Doesn't sound that bad to me.
Their parenting skills are of so little importance in the scheme of things that I can't see why people are so hung up on them. Some evil fecker took their kid. That is what the outrage should be about.
When women get raped when drunk in short skirts the same bullshit logic is used.
People make less than perfect choices but when rape or abduction follows it takes a special kind of cnut to berate them for it.
Couldn't have done it in that instance if, you know, her parents were actually looking after her. They are to blame one way or another. End of story.
Nonsense. Since the incident happened a number of years ago, I think most people have moved on from the initial emotional response and are interested in finding out what happened. Not sure why you find that so surprising?
As for trying to paint everyone who doesn't subscribe to your notion of events as having no empathy or compassion is ridiculous.
Try adding something to the discussion, rather than simply dismissing different perspectives to your own.
I would argue that their parenting actions had a direct impact on the outcome - if you believe the abduction theory. To dismiss the fact that they left 3 very young children alone in an apartment purely so they could socialise with friends as an irrelevant distraction is nonsense and can't understand how you are not able to grasp that.
It's hard to sympathise apparently, because they don't show remorse when they appear on the telly or in the papers.
feck losing a child, the public wants remorse.
Am not concerned about whether I feel they have demonstrated enough grief/sorrow/remorse, I just don't believe their hypothesis of what happened.
Am sure I, and many others have said that a number of times, but you seem to ignore that.
In fairness, on redcafe only one of those is possible.
There has become a very clearly divided line in this thread, which is not the case. Nobody is saying that the level of neglect shown by the parents in leaving the children unattended night after night is akin to abuse, but personally I'd never do it, I'd be shitting myself something would happen. Neglect is defined as not giving proper care, and in my mind you can't give proper care if you are not there.
Anything after that is just speculation and in my mind pointless. I have no interest in whether they are good or bad people and other than this case they may be exemplary parents, but what they did here was too risky in my opinion.
As for empathy, I have lots, any kid related stuff in the news really shakes me and makes me even less inclined to leave them alone in a building.
I can stand being labelled 'stupid' (along with others)...but lacking in empathy & compassion? Cheers for that.
As it happens, I have great sympathy for Kate McCann, regardless of my opinions as to what actually happened; she seems utterly haunted and broken by events. Gerry appears more stoic (for the want of a more suitable description) and this makes it a little harder for me to sympathise with him...although it could well be that he feels that he simply has to be strong, in order for the couple to survive this situation. These are all mere subjective observations, for sure, but that is how I feel. No-one here, even those who suspect that they may not have told the truth, is asking for them to be strung up or stoned to death; it's a cheap & disingenuous argument to suggest otherwise.
As it happens, I have great sympathy for Kate McCann, regardless of my opinions as to what actually happened; she seems utterly haunted and broken by events. Gerry appears more stoic (for the want of a more suitable description) and this makes it a little harder for me to sympathise with him...although it could well be that he feels that he simply has to be strong, in order for the couple to survive this situation. These are all mere subjective observations, for sure, but that is how I feel. No-one here, even those who suspect that they may not have told the truth, is asking for them to be strung up or stoned to death; it's a cheap & disingenuous argument to suggest otherwise.
Everything they did can be argued to have an impact on the outcome, but how are we to know what other and more relevant factors are at play. We can judge the action on it's own merits, but we really are in dangerous areas to go any further.
Sorry, I don't want to get involved in the whole McCanns as parents debate/argument but I have to pull you up on that.
Of course everybody has heard of controlled crying but it doesn't mean it is the right way to do things. Personally as a parent I could never use that form of upbringing and disagree with it wholeheartedly as a parenting method - although I would never castigate anyone for using it as parenting is very much "each to their own".
It's a bad example in this case though as the difference between controlled crying and this particular instance is that with "controlled crying" you are still there to hear it and to make the decision not attend or not attend your screaming obviously distressed child.
Still baffles me how anyone can do that, but hey?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Smart_kidnapping#Abduction_timeline
Kidnapped out of her own house, with her sister in the room and parents in the house also. Turns out kidnapping committed by homeless man that the parents had hired to do odd jobs around the house. The parents it seems did this often as a way to try and help the homeless.
Obviously no connection to the McCann case, but there was some criticism of the parents for bringing strangers whose background was unknown and impossible to check on, around their home and family.
Kidnapped out of her own house, with her sister in the room and parents in the house also. Turns out kidnapping committed by homeless man that the parents had hired to do odd jobs around the house. The parents it seems did this often as a way to try and help the homeless.
Obviously no connection to the McCann case, but there was some criticism of the parents for bringing strangers whose background was unknown and impossible to check on, around their home and family.
You would seriously leap every time a child cries? Obviously you don't ignore all crying by all kids from birth onwards under any circumstamce. A really upset baby needs calming and soothing at the very least but a toddler doesn't need to be attended to every time they wimper when trying to sleep. There is a balance.
I brought it up because people were talking as if a kid previously crying was a reason to be with them 24/7. Which is bullshit.
When I was a baby I was asleep upstairs, bawling my little head off. My mum told my dad to leave me, but he decided to go upstairs, luckily as it happens, I had somehow managed to get my body through the bars of the cot but my head was stuck inside and I was choking.
I guess if dad had left me cry for a while longer they'd be guilty of neglect.
What if something did happen? And your folks said they heard you bawling and decided to continue watching the TV? Personally if a kid whimpers it's ok, but if a kid is bawling, you check it?
Yes because guess what, I don't like the idea that my child is upset for whatever reason. I don't have a sliding scale and tending to them doesn't seem to much of an inconvenience. "wimpering when trying to sleep" is entirely different and not what you were referring to with controlled crying.
Explains a lot actually
Is that how you came up with the name Eyepopper too?