[2011-2012] What really happened to Madeleine McCann?

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

The mccann's wasn't in their back garden thought was they?! No they was in the Tapas bar with their lovely Friend's & inbetween was a swimming pool amongst other thing's! So your question is irrelevant!

Exactly my point! Being in the pub seems like it should be entirely different that being in your garden, if your process it emotively. If you process it rationally, there is no practical difference. Or at least no one so far has pointed out one.

Mezcita wrote: »

There's a big difference between leaving your kid alone while you are in the back garden and leaving it alone in an unlocked apartment while you are 120 metres away.

Well my essential point is that there isn’t a difference, even a small one. It might feel different but in practice it isn’t. Whatever happened to Madeleine, whether it was an accident or an abduction, just as easily happen if you are too far away from your children to hear them crying. Whether than is 12, 120 or 1,200 metres makes no material difference.

lugha wrote: »

Exactly my point! Being in the pub seems like it should be entirely different that being in your garden, if your process it emotively. If you process it rationally, there is no practical difference. Or at least no one so far has pointed out one.
Well my essential point is that there isn’t a difference, even a small one. It might feel different but in practice it isn’t. Whatever happened to Madeleine, whether it was an accident or an abduction, just as easily happen if you are too far away from your children to hear them crying. Whether than is 12, 120 or 1,200 metres makes no material difference.

Actually there is a huge difference between 12 metres and 120 meters , the difference is 108 metres . Too much . And if you are in your back garden with the hall door locked and a baby monitor and so can hear your babies there is a huge difference .Most of us know that and dont need explaining so I am presuming you are as clued in as we are and dont need explaining either .So if you do need explaining why the Mc Canns were outside exceptable range I dont think any of us can help you .You should have figured it out yourself as an adult
Because if you were to leave your children where the Mc Canns left theirs you would be considered to be negligent in care of minors .

As an adult you most certainely cant be there 24 /7 and some accidents happens despite you trying your best .,Some accidents happen because you dint try your best . So it is with the Mc Canns , they didnt do their best , they failed .

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

To be fair, being down the street at a bar is not being in your "backyard".

So everyone keeps saying. But no one can explain why. If your child calls for you and you cannot hear them, then what does it matter where you are?

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Me, I think the child may have been deep fried and served up with the tapas.

Depressingly, by no means the maddest suggestion being made in this saga. :pac:

lugha wrote: »

Well my essential point is that there isn’t a difference, even a small one. It might feel different but in practice it isn’t. Whatever happened to Madeleine, whether it was an accident or an abduction, just as easily happen if you are too far away from your children to hear them crying. Whether than is 12, 120 or 1,200 metres makes no material difference.

Of course there is a difference though. Think about it. Would somebody have walked in and taken the kid if the parents were sitting say outside the back of the apartment? Possibly. Would they have taken her if the front door was locked and therefore would have to break into the apartment? Doubt it.

My point is that the McCann's behaviour in being 120 metres away while their children slept in an unlocked apartment facilitated the disappearance of their child.

People lock doors these days and take simple precautions so that people can't just walk into their houses and steal things. By ignoring these precautions the McCann's unfortunately made it a lot easier for this child to disappear.

Mezcita wrote: »

People lock doors these days and take simple precautions so that people can't just walk into their houses and steal things. By ignoring these precautions the McCann's unfortunately made it a lot easier for this child to disappear.

Agreed. Not locking door was seriously irresponsible.

But that is not really relevant to the point I am making. People would still be accusing the McCanns of negligence even if they had locked their doors.
Do the problem remains. Tapas bar or back garden? What is the material difference? (and of course people do not necessarily lock their house when they sit in the back garden)

All about Eve wrote: »

I would liken the Mcann case to going next door to your neighbours house for dinner and drinking and pompous chat.

Do you know the chat was pompous or is that just a supposition.

This is the third supposition I've asked for clarification on in 4 pages (without reply). I suspect this reflects more on our preconceptions and how opinions on high profile cases become polarized through the lens of media and public opinion.

lugha wrote: »

But what if you are in your back garden or the next room. I'm sorry but you are ducking the question.

Not the McCanns obviously. I don't argue that their behaviour was responsible, and it is not behaviour I would recommend.
But it was not an act of gross negligence that it is thought to be by many. For me it is essentially on a par with parents who dine in their back garden out of ear shot of their children. But few would label the latter as gross negligence.

No i'm not ducking any question at all I have clearly stated we live in the year 2011 not the ice age! We have Baby Monotor's which are very very effective! They are also very very cheap to buy just a couple of Pound's You can hear your baby breath so any decent parent would have this device & use it for which it was intended & that would include the Garden...Unless you live in Buckingham Palace!!

Their action's we're irresponsible no question in my mind & this distance thing is just utter Rubbish...& you know this too... This question was ignored by yourself because you realised how silly your trying to make this sound>>>> So if I am in the Kitchen & making a cup of tea & turn my back & my child reaches up & grab's the Lead of the Kettle...On your understanding I would have as much chance of stopping them being Scolded if I was stood right next to them...Or 1,200 Metres away?MMMM doesn't work somehow!!!
Please feel free to explain in your own time who would be likely faster to the child in this Case?!

lugha wrote: »

You could help me if you could answer my question but you cannot.
The BBQ scenario you describe is not the one I outlined. I suggested a case where there is no monitor and the children are out of ear shot? Would you consider this behaviour to be as negligent as the McCanns? You continually evade the question.



Irrelevant to the point I am making. You might argue that these elements make their negligence worse. But I think you would still argue that they were negligent without these (correct me if I am wrong?)

As a matter of fact tis is posted by me on the previos page

I quote myself here
if in fact parents sat in their garden and left three kids in an unlocked house and no monitors on and no way of hearing them in distress I would question the suitablity as well .
There is safe and there safe and you do your damnest to be doubly safe and overly safe
I have had nieces stay over here with young children .They are upstaris in bed and we have a monitor on and the stair gate on and the hall door secure and we are only in the kitchen .
For heavens sake how on earth can that be the same as down the road in a bar

iamwhoiam wrote: »

If you think that its on par with dining in your own back garden then non of us can help you .I ask you this question then .If you were to have friends over and have BBQ in your back garden , kids in bed , door locked and monitor on or eat out with them down the road with your back to your house , door unlocked and no monitor .Which one would you consider safer ??If you think they are the same in safety and care its actually pointless even discussing it with you .

?

And speaking of evading questions I asked you this Lugha in a previous post .

iamwhoiam wrote: »

And speaking of evading questions I asked you this Lugha in a previous post .

I did answer that. The BBQ scenario you describe is NOT the one I proposed.

lugha wrote: »

I did answer that. The BBQ scenario you describe is NOT the one I proposed.

Fine , I am out of here ,.I think you are on a wind up to be honest ,You enjoy argueing where there is non .I actually cant be botherd now the tennis is far more entertaining
Every responsible parents and that now includes the Mc Canns know it was unsafe and that it is nothing like being in your garden .On that note i leave you do argue as you see fit .

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I haven't thrown any fishes or Strawmen around anywhere!! You keep refering to other poster's as not answering your question's!! I suggest you do as you keep preaching & answer some question's yourself...Like the Kettle question for instance!! But I do understand why you haven't addressed it because you know how utterly Ridiculous the point you made that distance make no difference is...Again we live in the year 2011 not the iceage...every responsible parent would buy a baby Moniotor they aren't expensive so it's reasonable any decent parent would add this device just as they would buy Clothing to keep the Child warm & give said child food! It's not rocket science it's called parenting! & Commen sense...It doesn't matter how you try & twist this situation into your BBQ garden fiasco....Because no one cares about what if's...They only care about children being k]left to their own devices in the years 2007...Your argument doesn;'t exist only in your Mind...

I’m sorry but you are straw manning. You are refuting a point I am not making.

I do not dispute that that it is reasonable that parents make use of monitoring equipment. I do not dispute that a parent can provide better protection against hazards like kettle when they are close by. You have made it clear that you do not approve of the McCanns skills and you have expressed many views on how you feel children should be cared for, and I wouldn’t disagree with a lot of what you say. But you have not answered the question I have asked
I put my question very clearly in the post you quoted. I outlined two scenarios which I think are for all practical purposes the same, and asked was in reasonable to regard only one of them as constituting child neglect. This is the question I have asked.

And only iamwhoiam has even partially answered that by conceding that she would not approve of the BBQ behaviour either. Regrettably the tennis restarted before she could clarify whether she considered is child neglect or not.

You have not answered that question. Does the BBQ scenario I outlined (not your one, not the kettle or anything else) constitute neglect to the same degree at the McCanns behaviour? And if not, why not?

The truth I believe is that you want them to be different but you cannot actually find a good reason (and saying a bar is not the same as a garden is not a good reason) why they are different.

lugha wrote: »

I’m sorry but you are straw manning. You are refuting a point I am not making.

I do not dispute that that it is reasonable that parents make use of monitoring equipment. I do not dispute that a parent can provide better protection against hazards like kettle when they are close by. You have made it clear that you do not approve of the McCanns skills and you have expressed many views on how you feel children should be cared for, and I wouldn’t disagree with a lot of what you say. But you have not answered the question I have asked
I put my question very clearly in the post you quoted. I outlined two scenarios which I think are for all practical purposes the same, and asked was in reasonable to regard only one of them as constituting child neglect. This is the question I have asked.

And only iamwhoiam has even partially answered that by conceding that she would not approve of the BBQ behaviour either. Regrettably the tennis restarted before she could clarify whether she considered is child neglect or not.

You have not answered that question. Does the BBQ scenario I outlined (not your one, not the kettle or anything else) constitute neglect to the same degree at the McCanns behaviour? And if not, why not?

The truth I believe is that you want them to be different but you cannot actually find a good reason (and saying a bar is not the same as a garden is not a good reason) why they are different.

Here we go again, The question you want me to answer has nothing to do with this, it's just your way of trying & failing to twist a situation that DID happen, & a PRETEND one that Didn't happen!! The Mccann's wasn't I repeat Wasn't in any Garden having a BBQ or anything else...There was nooooo Garden!!so your question again as I said earlier is Irrelevant & keep asking the same question is just proving you have no come back to the "REAL" Situation these children "WE'RE" left in.!!
This is about a little girl who has disappeared NOT point scoring at it's worst level & while we have silly supposed scenarios we're not moving on!!

Also refering IamwhoIam... This poster couldn't be bothered debating this any longer with you...Someone else who kept asking you question's you didn't & couldn't answer so off you go on your Pretend BBQ Rant again can we all be wrong?? I think not!