Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Owlswing on August 09, 2016, 09:54:13 AM
-
Police have ended the forensic investigation into Madeline McCann's disappearance.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/forensic-investigation-into-madeleine-mccann-1489408027074614.html
Now I just know that I am about to become the most villified person on this forum, but, frankly, in this instance, I don't give a shit!
Her parents took their kids on holiday with them and then left them unattended while they went out for a meal, yet they have consistently denied any resposibility for her disappearance/abduction and, in the process of publicising their demands for ever more pointless police action to find her - Moderator: content removed.
Why were they never charged with child neglect? Why instead were they feted by the press for their weepy weepy pleas for OTHER people to find their child that they left alone.
-
It was a high price for Madeleine to pay for her parents' mistake. The investigation was as much for her as for them.
If every parent who did something like what the McCanns did was put in prison, I doubt if there would be many parents who have not done gaol time. They have already been punished by the loss of their daughter. It wouldn't achieve anything to do anything else to them.
-
Police have ended the forensic investigation into Madeline McCann's disappearance.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/forensic-investigation-into-madeleine-mccann-1489408027074614.html
Now I just know that I am about to become the most villified person on this forum, but, frankly, in this instance, I don't give a shit!
Her parents took their kids on holiday with them and then left them unattended while they went out for a meal, yet they have consistently denied any resposibility for her disappearance/abduction and, in the process of publicising their demands for ever more pointless police action to find her - Moderator: quoted content removed.
Why were they never charged with child neglect? Why instead were they feted by the press for their weepy weepy pleas for OTHER people to find their child that they left alone.
No parents are perfect.
They left them for a very short period of time.
Some holiday resorts offer baby listening services so parents can pop,down to the bar.
Not that I would have used it, but sometimes things go wrong.
It must have been incredibly painful for them.
People are always ready to point the finger and be holier than thou.
All you can do in such circumstances is let the police get on with it.
I think the mcCanns searched high and low for their daughter, themselves they did't just leave it to other people.
I think having the experience of your child going missing while your back is turned is going to stay with you for the rest of your life.
I have no desire to increase their woes by charging them with neglect because like many parents, they are just human and fallible.
No matter how good a parent we consider ourselves, there is always room for a misjudgement at the wrong time.
-
I remember reading about some parents who had never let their child out of sight and when he turned 11 the mum thought she would allow her son to walk to the local shop for the first time, because it didn't involve crossing any roads or anything.
The boy didn't come back, because he met the wrong person on the way. Even though he knew not to speak to strangers.
The police worry more about children that are not " streetwise" and unfortunately no matter how hard you try, it's possible to make the wrong choice.
Sometimes, it's not choice so much as chance.
I expect that mother will beat herself up every day, for allowing him to walk the short distance to the local shop. :(
If it goes wrong, parents are always blamed.
:(
-
The McCanns were very negligent parents to have left their very young children in an apartment on their own, that is a FACT.
-
My sympathies are with Madeline, her parents and family - to a lesser extent, to the people who were holidaying with them because, let's face it, it could easily have been one of their children who was taken while the adults were eating and the parents took turns in checking on the kids.
Being judgemental is not helpful in this instance, the McCanns have been sufficiently vilified. I don't know how they will ever get over it.
It's perfectly normal for the police to close a case after so long but that doesn't mean they will never re-open it if some new evidence comes to light. Though I believe Madeline is dead it would give the parents a measure of closure if they knew for certain. In the meantime they have to get on with their lives and do the best for their two other children. Members of the public who were not there and, frankly, don't really know or care what it was like at the time, continually having a go at them, is not doing any good but it may make them feel self righteous.
-
The McCanns were very negligent parents to have left their very young children in an apartment on their own, that is a FACT.
Are there any parents who can honestly say they have never done anything similar?
-
The McCanns were very negligent parents to have left their very young children in an apartment on their own, that is a FACT.
No Floo, it's not a fact!
It's your opinion on it.
-
I said that I would be vilified and I am being.
As I have said I don't give a shit!
Paragraph withdrawn
If you have children you make sacrifices - like going out in the piss at night with your friends and leaving your children on their own! Unguarded!
For only a short time? Others here have stated that it only takes seconds to abduct a child - thus any time measured in more than seconds is too long to leave your children unguarded.
To Hell with the parents feelings - I suggest that you instead try to imagine what the child, Madeline, went through! I would suggest for a child as young as she was it was far far worse than what her parents went or are going through and serve them right as far as I am concerned.
I am not suggesting that they be charged with anything now - it should have been done within seconds of the fact that they had, effectively, abandoned their child had become known to the police - Portugese or British!
They are Catholic - what was their God thinking when their child was abducted?
I hope that he was thinking "I'll teach you to leave your kids alone!"
Edited for typo's made because I am typing in anger not only at the McCanns but at those who now seek to defend them andf their actions!
-
Floo,
The McCanns were very negligent parents to have left their very young children in an apartment on their own, that is a FACT.
No, it's your opinion on the matter.
Can you honestly say that you never turned your back on your children even for a short time when they were young? The only difference between you (and me for that matter) and the McCanns is dumb luck.
-
I said that I would be vilified and I am being.
Who has vilified you on this thread? I see several posts disagreeing with you but no vilification.
They have profited hugely from her disappearance, had an audience with the Pope - they left the child in a foreign land,they put theior pleasure before the safety of their child!
I'm sure that an audience with the Pope makes up for the loss of their daughter. Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
If you have children you make sacrifices - like going out in the piss at night with your friends and leaving your children on their own! Unguarded!
They weren't out on the piss. They were eating in a restaurant next door to the apartment complex.
For only a short time? Others here have stated that it only takes seconds to abduct a child - thus any time measured in more than seconds is too long to leave your children unguarded.
Have you ever been a parent?
Again, nobody is vilifying you, just disagreeing.
-
Owls,
Moderator: quoted content removed..
The McCanns behaved no differently from countless other loving parents. The only difference is, they were unlucky.
-
Have you ever been a parent?
Three times! And my children were never left alone until they were considerably older than Madeline!
Parental sacrifices even at a restaurant next-door where the kids were out of sight and, IMO, out of mind!
-
Three times! And my children were never left alone until they were considerably older than Madeline!
So there was never a moment when they were out of your sight. I find that incredible to believe.
Parental sacrifices even at a restaurant next-door where the kids were out of sight and, IMO, out of mind!
They weren't out of mind. The parents were going back and checking on the children every 20 to 30 minutes.
-
Owlswing,
Why do you take the fact that some posters disagree with you as evidence that they are vilifying you?
-
Owls,
No accounting has ever been made of the many tens of thousands (if not more) that were donated to the various funds that were created after the abduction!
But your statement was that they - ie, the McCanns - made a "fortune" out of it. Whether or not "no accounting" was made of the "various funds" is a different matter (though it seems unlikely I'd have thought). Your accusation is that the McCanns themselves made a fortune.
Again, what's your evidence for this?
-
I said that I would be vilified and I am being.
As I have said I don't give a shit!
Moderator: quoted content removed.
If you have children you make sacrifices - like going out in the piss at night with your friends and leaving your children on their own! Unguarded!
For only a short time? Others here have stated that it only takes seconds to abduct a child - thus any time measured in more than seconds is too long to leave your children unguarded.
To Hell with the parents feelings - I suggest that you instead try to imagine what the child, Madeline, went through! I would suggest for a child as young as she was it was far far worse than what her parents went or are going through and serve them right as far as I am concerned.
I am not suggesting that they be charged with anything now - it should have been done within seconds of the fact that they had, effectively, abandoned their child had become known to the police - Portugese or British!
Threy are Catholic - what was their God thinking when their child was abducted?
I hope that he was thinking "I'll teach you to leave your kids alone!"
Edited for typo's made because I am typing in anger not only at the McCanns but at those who now seek to defend them andf their actions!
I don't think you are being vilified, just that people are discussing it, as you wanted them too.
I don't think people are defending their actions so much as some people realise how easily things can go wrong.
A parent can leave a window open and a child can be snatched.
I think most of us realise we are only human.
You can look away on a crowded beach and you small child runs off ( or while shopping) how many of us have seen a crying child looking for parents?
It happens often enough that events often have a place for parents to go to collect lost children.
Fortunately 99.99% of children are found safe and well, but most parents know that feeling of panic that can happen because of a distraction.
Sometimes, people are unlucky.
Something bad happens.
The parents of those children who something bad happens to, are no worse than all those parents who breathe a sigh of relief when they are reunited with their children.
So much is just chance.
I'm not recommending leaving children in apartments on their own, but thousands of parents let hotels listen with a babysitting service while they eat their meal downstairs. ( if they were next door in a restaurant, checking every 30 minutes or so, then they are not so very different, really. )
All can go very wrong, if you are unlucky.
:(
-
First time I've ever heard that the McCanns have made a lot of money for themselves out of Madeline's disappearance ???. Where did that come from? It's quite slanderous. The McCanns have enough to cope with without that accusation.
Saw your post Rose; yes!
-
Three times! And my children were never left alone until they were considerably older than Madeline!
Parental sacrifices even at a restaurant next-door where the kids were out of sight and, IMO, out of mind!
Didn't they have their own bedrooms then?
-
Didn't they have their own bedrooms then?
Oh yes. Upstairs - with the large windows welded shutand windows that were too small for either a adult or a child to get through with a ventilator fitted!
We took all the precautions we could to the samllest detailthat we coi=uld envisage - our children were out on reins and then with a hand held. If children were not allowed ito any shop only one of us went in.
Yes, it was bloody annoying at times but it was worth it!
Oh and they all attended self-fdefence classes from age four! Not martial arts classes - self-defence classes!
As to the money, Brownie, just where was the money spent? Have you ever seen anything to show where it went? And, I seem to remember, from some radio programme a few months ago, there are still monies being paid into the various collections in her (Madeline's) name.
I have said all I intend to say on this, as I say, not one word of sympathy for the child! That is what sickens me to my stomach!
-
That's a point Rose. Also, playing in the garden - there have been cases of children snatched from their own back gardens. I remember once reading of a case of an intruder coming into a garden and molesting or abducting a child who was in a tent with a friend, also someone staying at a b&b who sneaked into the owners' private rooms, found their way into the child's bedroom..... etc. I daresay all the parents concerned in those stories would do something different if they had their time over again.
Here are details of the Madeline fund, doesn't look as though anyone is lining their pockets. Why are people so flipping suspicious and resentful? :
http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
-
No Floo, it's not a fact!
It's your opinion on it.
It is a fact they left their young children (4 years and under) in an apartment on their own, whilst they were wining and dining elsewhere! I reckon they would have been prosecuted if that had happened in the UK. What parents in their right mind would leave such young children by themselves?
-
Owls,
Oh yes. Upstairs - with the large windows welded shutand windows that were too small for either a adult or a child to get through with a ventilator fitted!
We took all the precautions we could to the samllest detailthat we coi=uld envisage - our children were out on reins and then with a hand held. If children were not allowed ito any shop only one of us went in.
Yes, it was bloody annoying at times but it was worth it!
Oh and they all attended self-fdefence classes from age four! Not martial arts classes - self-defence classes!
And you have no reason to suppose that the McCann's were any less careful with their children - maybe even more so. All parents though find their backs turned from time-to-time, you included. Imagine (heaven forbid) that a child had been taken from you and someone said, "bloody Owlswing - fancy talking to the girl at the checkout counter like that in Tesco. It's all his fault little Chardonnay was snatched". Would you apply the same standard you apply to the McCanns and agree with them, or instead argue that you were a careful parent 99% of the time who was just very unlucky?
As to the money, Brownie, just where was the money spent? Have you ever seen anything to show where it went? And, I seem to remember, from some radio programme a few months ago, there are still monies being paid into the various collections in her (Madeline's) name.
That's pretty disgraceful. That you personally happen not to know where the money was spent (why not just look it up by the way?) as the basis of your accusation that the McCanns themselves made their fortune out of it is contemptible.
You should be ashamed of yourself or that.
I have said all I intend to say on this, as I say, not one word of sympathy for the child! That is what sickens me to my stomach!
There's plenty of sympathy for the child, but also for her parents. As it was you OP though with no mention of sympathy for Madeleine, the discussion has responded to that.
-
Floo,
It is a fact they left their young children (4 years and under) in an apartment on their own, whilst they were wining and dining elsewhere! I reckon they would have been prosecuted if that had happened in the UK. What parents in their right mind would leave such young children by themselves?
But you claimed that their supposed negligence was a "FACT". It wasn't - that's just your opinion on the matter.
From memory they and others in the group put their children to bed, and various parents took it in turn to check on them. Many children have been left unattended in similar circumstances with no harm coming to them, and some children have been more carefully observed and been snatched in a brief moment of distraction nonetheless.
The McCanns were unlucky, and have suffered horribly as the result. Why vilify them for it?
-
Oh yes. Upstairs - with the large windows welded shutand windows that were too small for either a adult or a child to get through with a ventilator fitted!
We took all the precautions we could to the samllest detailthat we coi=uld envisage - our children were out on reins and then with a hand held. If children were not allowed ito any shop only one of us went in.
Yes, it was bloody annoying at times but it was worth it!
Oh and they all attended self-fdefence classes from age four! Not martial arts classes - self-defence classes!
As to the money, Brownie, just where was the money spent? Have you ever seen anything to show where it went? And, I seem to remember, from some radio programme a few months ago, there are still monies being paid into the various collections in her (Madeline's) name.
I have said all I intend to say on this, as I say, not one word of sympathy for the child! That is what sickens me to my stomach!
Owlswing
The trouble is, as you make efforts to prevent one threat happening to children you increase the dangers of another one.
For example, did you never consider you might need those windows functional, in case of fire?
Because you overreacted to the fear of someone being able to get in, you exposed them to another risk entirely.
Being a parent, and getting it right isn't as easy as some people think.
Can you see, if your children had died in a house fire, and firemen couldn't get in because you had welded the windows shut, you yourself could have been accused of being a bad parent?
The risk of a fire is greater than a child being carried off through a window.
As parents we sometimes have to balance our fears on probability.
Sometimes parents get it wrong.
The MCanns got in wrong in this instance. Had luck not been in your favour, you too could have got it wrong.
You ran the risk of getting it wrong by welding the Windows shut.
Thank god you never got the bad luck some other parents get.
The McCanns were very unlucky that someone carried off Madelaine.
You could have been just as unlucky had you had a house fire and the firemen needed to get through a window you welded shut.
We all have our particular fears when it comes to our children, they make us make bad decisions or sometimes not see hidden dangers.
The McCanns obviously didn't see the unlikely event of someone taking their children, just like you don't see the dangers of welding Windows shut.
You are not so very different from the McCanns, Owlswing.
You just perceive the dangers as being different.
In all honesty Owlswing, which is most common?
A house fire? Or someone taking your child through their bedroom window?
Understanding that parents can make choices based on their perception of danger to their children , and get it wrong helps you understand something about other Parents.
Including the Mcanns.
Fortunately you don't have to go through life, known as the father who welded the children's windows shut so the fire brigade couldn't get in.
All it takes is some bad luck, and a moments misjudgment of the dangers.
-
Of course they were negligent as they left their young children unattended, with no adult on the premises. We don't know what happened to their daughter, and of course it is possible that they were responsible for her disappearance.
I feel very sorry for their two other children who have had to live their young lives in the shadow of the mystery surrounding their sister.
-
What the McCanns did was no more than many do, sit in the garden in summer with friends whilst their children are upstairs, asleep (if they have children who sleep).
Anyone can "Tut tut" and say, "I would never have done....", but have probably done or not done other things. I know I said it already but there are some who enjoy being angrily self righteous which achieves absolutely nothing. As for suggesting the McCanns were responsible for their child's abduction - why????? It beggars belief how peoples' minds work, are they jealous of the McCanns in some way? There's certainly a lot of personal resentment which has nothing to do with sympathy for little Madeline, it has a life of its own.
As to the implication that the McCanns have made money for themselves out of this tragedy, that is beneath contempt. If anyone is unsure where the fund money has been spent, they only have to make enquiries.
The same sort of vitriol poured out on the McCanns apparently often happens in America with high profile cases of child abduction where parents keep the child in the public eye and raise money to continue searching. One particular case springs to mind, that of a fourteen year old girl called Elizabeth Smart who was kidnapped from the bedroom she shared with her sister. Apparently the abductor entered by a route that was usually locked, on this occasion the parents hadn't secured it. One can only imagine the guilt they felt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Smart
There is a quite harrowing but very good book and a film about her ordeal.
The Smarts came in for endless, vicious criticism from the public.
-
Floo,
Of course they were negligent as they left their young children unattended, with no adult on the premises. We don't know what happened to their daughter, and of course it is possible that they were responsible for her disappearance.
I feel very sorry for their two other children who have had to live their young lives in the shadow of the mystery surrounding their sister.
There were adults adjacent to the premises who looked in on them regularly. "Negligence" is a value judgement, not a "FACT".
The only person "responsible" was the person who took her. At worst you might accuse the McCanns of contributory negligence, but that's a charge after the fact. Had you looked away from your child for a brief time and she'd been taken, would you have been "responsible" for that too?
-
The McCanns weren't on the premises, they were in a restaurant, that is also a fact. It might have been nearby, but they weren't near enough to hear their kids if they were in distress, so they were negligent.
-
Of course they were negligent as they left their young children unattended, with no adult on the premises. We don't know what happened to their daughter, and of course it is possible that they were responsible for her disappearance.
I feel very sorry for their two other children who have had to live their young lives in the shadow of the mystery surrounding their sister.
Floo,
We used to take our children abroad to these kinds of complex's in Portugal and Spain and they were generally regarded as 'safe'. I know many offered an 'official' baby-sitting service - but when you looked into it, it actually consisted of nothing more than someone checking the child every hour or so - pretty much what the McCanns had been doing themselves.
The McCanns were incredibly unlucky and have suffered tremendously for their mistake, but it's a mistake that countless thousands must have made without realising it.
-
Just to note that over-protecting children can have unintended consequences too. If they're brought up to think that the world is a risk-free place, loving parents can actually do more harm than good in the longer run when they're unable to respond appropriately to the risk of bad things happening.
And the problem with exposing children to controlled risk is that sometimes that risk event will happen - that's what "risk" means. That's why, albeit with hearts in mouths, sometimes you just have to let little Timmy climb that tree to find out for himself where the boundaries of safety are.
Would the Owls and Floos of this world be just as condemnatory when once in a blue moon a little Timmy falls out of the tree and injures himself?
Would those parents be "negligent", "responsible" etc in their views?
-
Floo,
The McCanns weren't on the premises, they were in a restaurant, that is also a fact. It might have been nearby, but they weren't near enough to hear their kids if they were in distress, so they were negligent.
Only with the benefit of hindsight. Statistically the children were more at risk from the journey to the resort - would the McCanns have been negligent in your opinion if one of them had been killed in a car crash, or do you reserve your judgementalism for just one type if risk event?
How about you? What if you'd chatted to your neighbour in the street for a few minutes and while your back was turned one of your children had been taken? Would you have been "responsible", "negligent" etc too?
-
They left their young children on their own whilst they were away from the apartment, that is negligence. I have no idea why people are making excuses for a couple who should have known better!
Anyway I have no more to say on the topic.
-
it is possible that they were responsible for her disappearance.
That was investigated by the Portuguese Police with no evidence being found to incriminate them. It was also the subject of a libel case that the McCanns won.
It's the reasonable conclusion that they were not responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. I think it would reflect better on you if you didn't bring this up.
-
I had excellent parents who loved me. And yet at the age of two I was left for long enough to paint most of a floor, painting myself into a corner literally, and then painting myself.
At the same age I was left in the car while my parents and siblings got an ice cream, which was long enough for me to let the hand break off allowing the car to start moving to the dick.(dock but predictive text left in as too good)
At four, the Elim Pentecostal church kidnapped me with the promise of cake and singing, while I was playing outside.
I wouldn't have done what the McCanns did but the tragedy is caused by the person who took the child. Punishing them is almost laughable given their daily punishment.
-
I have no idea why people are making excuses for a couple who should have known better!
Because every parent does similar things. Are you claiming that you never let your children out of your sight for half an hour? If so, I don't believe you.
-
Floo,
They left their young children on their own whilst they were away from the apartment, that is negligence. I have no idea why people are making excuses for a couple who should have known better!
And in the scenario I described you'd have left your young child unattended while you chatted to your neighbour so that too would (according to you) have been negligence. Why then would anyone have made "excuses" for your behaviour when you "should have known better"?
The only difference between you (and me) and the McCanns was luck. Do you not think that they've suffered enough without people like you weighing in to make them feel even worse?
Anyway I have no more to say on the topic.
Probably just as well.
-
Agree with all the last posts (blue, jeremy, NS). I typed another post and then saw that there had been umpteen in the interim which I read and decided that you said it better than I would have done.
Very sad business.
-
I had excellent parents who loved me. And yet at the age of two I was left for long enough to paint most of a floor, painting myself into a corner literally, and then painting myself.
At the same age I was left in the car while my parents and siblings got an ice cream, which was long enough for me to let the hand break off allowing the car to start moving to the dick.
At four, the Elim Pentecostal church kidnapped me with the promise of cake and singing, while I was playing outside.
I wouldn't have done what the McCanns did but the tragedy is caused by the person who took the child. Punishing them is almost laughable given their daily punishment.
LOL
Did the Elim Pentecostal church know what it was letting itself in for ? ;)
You sounded like hardwork for your poor mum ;)
It's true though, when children go quiet, worry.
My two redecorated the hall with crayons, stripped the wallpaper off a bedroom wall, and threw muddy water and mud at the outside wall of the bungalow when the estate agent and potential buyer was about to arrive.
On another occasion pushed toilet rolls into the upstairs toilet of a friends house, and repeatedly pulled the flush, till we noticed water dripping.
Kids!
;D
-
LOL
Did the Elim Pentecostal church know what it was letting itself in for ? ;)
You sounded like hardwork for your poor mum ;)
It's true though, when children go quiet, worry.
My two redecorated the hall with crayons, stripped the wallpaper off a bedroom wall, and threw muddy water and mud at the outside wall of the bungalow when the estate agent and potential buyer was about to arrive.
On another occasion pushed toilet rolls into the upstairs toilet of a friends house, and repeatedly pulled the flush, till we noticed water dripping.
Kids!
;D
There is a passing irony that I ran away at 4 to join a church.
Their songs were jollier than I was used to in church - no 'By The Blood That Flowed From Thee In Thy Bitter Agony'
I think I was quite disappointed by the cake though.
-
Police have ended the forensic investigation into Madeline McCann's disappearance.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/forensic-investigation-into-madeleine-mccann-1489408027074614.html
Now I just know that I am about to become the most villified person on this forum, but, frankly, in this instance, I don't give a shit!
Her parents took their kids on holiday with them and then left them unattended while they went out for a meal, yet they have consistently denied any resposibility for her disappearance/abduction and, in the process of publicising their demands for ever more pointless police action to find her - Moderator: quoted content removed.
Why were they never charged with child neglect? Why instead were they feted by the press for their weepy weepy pleas for OTHER people to find their child that they left alone.
So, having lost a child through stupidity, negligence or accident whatever, would you not utilize every accessible resource to try to find her again? How do you suggest they should have gone about trying to find her?
-
Owls,
And your evidence for this statement is what exactly?
The McCanns behaved no differently from countless other loving parents. The only difference is, they were unlucky.
I submit the followig:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
This report on the finances of the McCann fund shows that there were, and, as far as I can find out, still are serious questions about the financial matters relating to the fund.
-
Owls,
I submit the followig:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
This report on the finances of the McCann fund shows that there were, and, as far as I can find out, still are serious questions about the financial matters relating to the fund.
It's a long document. As I assume that you read it prior to linking to it, could you point me to the part that says that the McCanns "made a fortune" from it please, which was your accusation.
Thanks.
-
That was what I was wondering. The fund may have been managed unwisely for all I know (they often are), that report was from 2012 which is quite a while ago so there needs to be something more up date, however where is the evidence that the McCanns personally made a fortune out of it? That is a pretty vile accusation and the only reason I can think of that anyone would think, let alone say, such a thing without proof, is that they dislike/resent the McCanns. From what we've seen and read of them, the McCanns seem to be fairly 'ordinary people', they don't 'present' or project themselves. Do others know something dark and criminal about them that the rest of them don't?
-
Moderator:
I'll leave the last three posts preceding this one alone, in that they are referring to a Owlswing's recently posted link where the contents of this can, of course, be discussed.
However, there are comments earlier in this thread that appear to be overt and unsupported accusations of illegality and these (and any quotes of them) I am going to edit out.
-
One of the criticisms I have read of the funds is that they were used to fund their mortgage.
This doesn't shock me, because they can't work to pay their mortgage while going back to Portugal to hunt for their daughter and keep abreast of latest developments.
This is not, in my opinion a misappropriation of funds, they needed that support at that time.
It's not unreasonable, IMO.
Plus they are not financial experts therefore they would have used funds as needed.
If you are going to support parents, then it might involve in supporting all sorts of things including babysitting and looking after the other children.
Those parents used the funds to keep them afloat as a family and so that they could pursue what happened to their daughter.
So many family members are effected by a tragedy like this.
:(
-
Anyway I have no more to say on the topic.
TFFT
-
That's a good post Rose. People seem to forget that the couple are ordinary people who need to earn a crust, Kate had only worked a few sessions as a locum GP before the abduction happened and didn't go back to it (she might have done so by now), Gerry took a lot of time off, unpaid leave, from his consultant job so they had no income while they were going to and from Portugal.
-
Owls,
It's a long document. As I assume that you read it prior to linking to it, could you point me to the part that says that the McCanns "made a fortune" from it please, which was your accusation.
Thanks.
There is evidence that the finaces were NOT strictly above bpard and logical and the accounts are not completely in line with what is considered to be proper.
And, If you bothered to lok you will find that I have withdrawn ther offending paragraph!
It was stated as my opinion after 50 years working in accounts - thus I withdrew it and added the link which clearly states the inconsistancies in the operation of the fund and its acconts.
My main point was and is that these people have been guilty, by my standards, of serious neglect and yet people are still willing to see them as the victims instead of their daughter when the only thing of which they are victims is their own stupidity. It has been stated on this thread that it only takes seconds for a child to 'disappear', they only checked on their children once every half an hour - just how many seconds is that?
I see them on TV etc weepily telling the world how bad they feel - a high price to pay for a meal out while on holiday! 'Find her! 'Find her!' and expect others to find their child for them, a child they lost through their selfishness and stupidity!
I have, as above, withdrawn my comment about personal profit but I stand by my belief that, ultimately THEY and ONLY THEY are resposcible for Madeline's disappearance and nothing, absolutely nothing, will change my opinion on that score.
-
I agree. It all looked very odd to me from day one and the appeals seem to be more about their egos than Madeleine. They never looked sad or distraught by her kidnap.
-
You cannot be serious. They were almost frozen with grief, had great difficulty speaking except in a deadpan way. What ego are you talking about? The couple were stripped to the bone. Kate particularly looked as though she hadn't stopped crying and hadn't slept for goodness knows how long but they managed to sort of pull themselves together and be dignified and coherent when interviewed. You must be thinking of two different people. The memory of their interviews is still quite vivid in my mind, I can picture them now.
-
You cannot be serious. They were almost frozen with grief, had great difficulty speaking except in a deadpan way. What ego are you talking about? The couple were stripped to the bone. Kate particularly looked as though she hadn't stopped crying and hadn't slept for goodness knows how long but they managed to sort of pull themselves together and be dignified and coherent when interviewed. You must be thinking of two different people. The memory of their interviews is still quite vivid in my mind, I can picture them now.
Frozen with grief or guilty conscience?
I know which I think it is/was!
-
Owls,
There is evidence that the finaces were NOT strictly above bpard and logical and the accounts are not completely in line with what is considered to be proper.
And, If you bothered to lok you will find that I have withdrawn ther offending paragraph!
It was stated as my opinion after 50 years working in accounts - thus I withdrew it and added the link which clearly states the inconsistancies in the operation of the fund and its acconts.
My main point was and is that these people have been guilty, by my standards, of serious neglect and yet people are still willing to see them as the victims instead of their daughter when the only thing of which they are victims is their own stupidity. It has been stated on this thread that it only takes seconds for a child to 'disappear', they only checked on their children once every half an hour - just how many seconds is that?
I see them on TV etc weepily telling the world how bad they feel - a high price to pay for a meal out while on holiday! 'Find her! 'Find her!' and expect others to find their child for them, a child they lost through their selfishness and stupidity!
I have, as above, withdrawn my comment about personal profit but I stand by my belief that, ultimately THEY and ONLY THEY are resposcible for Madeline's disappearance and nothing, absolutely nothing, will change my opinion on that score.
If you decided to withdraw the accusation then you should have said so. You cannot expect people to keep going back to your OP just in case you've done that.
As for the rest, what you describe a their "stupidity" is the kind of thing parents do every day with no harmful consequences. On the basis of an informal risk assessment, it wasn't particularly irresponsible either - what happened was vanishingly rare; rarer for example than deaths caused in road traffic accidents. What you've done here is to look at what happened and then to back-ft that onto their actions?
You say you worked in finance. What if you'd put in place all the industry standard protections for your company's money, but someone had found a way to steal it anyway. Should you be responsible for your "negligence" and "stupidity" too?
-
Owls,
Frozen with grief or guilty conscience?
I know which I think it is/was!
Possibly we should have an award for the most unfeelingly contemptible post ever?
You win.
-
Of course they felt guilt, Kate McCann has said so since, if only she could go back in time etc. Who wouldn't? I would think the friends who were holidaying with them also feel guilt and have horrible thoughts about it being one of their kids who was taken. Doesn't help for any of us to revel in or add to it.
-
You cannot be serious. They were almost frozen with grief, had great difficulty speaking except in a deadpan way. What ego are you talking about? The couple were stripped to the bone. Kate particularly looked as though she hadn't stopped crying and hadn't slept for goodness knows how long but they managed to sort of pull themselves together and be dignified and coherent when interviewed. You must be thinking of two different people. The memory of their interviews is still quite vivid in my mind, I can picture them now.
That's not what I saw.
-
Of course they felt guilt, Kate McCann has said so since, if only she could go back in time etc. Who wouldn't? I would think the friends who were holidaying with them also feel guilt and have horrible thoughts about it being one of their kids who was taken. Doesn't help for any of us to revel in or add to it.
Words are cheap.
-
That's not what I saw.
So pray tell us, what you saw?
-
Words are cheap.
Indeed they are so what do you mean? (after all it's not going to cost you much to explain)
-
I submit the followig:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
This report on the finances of the McCann fund shows that there were, and, as far as I can find out, still are serious questions about the financial matters relating to the fund.
Nothing on that website is surprising or demonstrates illegality. Obviously, they wanted to do everything in their power to find their daughter, and to do that they needed money. As a professional couple they had access to good advise on the best way to raise and manage funds and presumably, followed it.
What else could anyone in their position have done?
Clearly, they have not succeeded, but that should not be something for people to gloat over.
-
I agree. It all looked very odd to me from day one and the appeals seem to be more about their egos than Madeleine. They never looked sad or distraught by her kidnap.
Ah the old reverse snobbery. They didn't grieve like I would, I would have done... etc etc. What do the chips on your shoulders taste of?
-
I submit the followig:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
This report on the finances of the McCann fund shows that there were, and, as far as I can find out, still are serious questions about the financial matters relating to the fund.
So to back up your unevidenced libel, you submit a 4 year old website that doesn't support your claims.
-
Seriously Jack, who would not grieve and suffer acute anxiety over the abduction of their daughter ? They were a couple who wanted children and who initially had difficulty conceiving, Madeline was extremely precious.
-
I agree. It all looked very odd to me from day one and the appeals seem to be more about their egos than Madeleine. They never looked sad or distraught by her kidnap.
That ought to simplify our justice system then - all we need to rely on is how the defendant is perceived on video clips!
Maybe they could make a 'Reality TV show' out of it!
-
That was done in Law & Order (the US one); the public vote was 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. Whether it was based on a real life story I don't know. It was well tacky.
-
NS,
Ah the old reverse snobbery. They didn't grieve like I would, I would have done... etc etc. What do the chips on your shoulders taste of?
Angostura bitters at a guess.
I'm finding the attitudes of Owls, Floo etc to be despicable here. The McCanns took an exceptionally low level risk, much lower than the risks good and loving parents take with their children all the time. Only with the benefit of hindsight though have they decided that the risk was unacceptable, and that they were therefore "negligent", "stupid" etc. Heaven forbid that one of them takes a risk one day that leads to a very unlikely bad outcome.
Then they compound their callousness by suggesting that the McCanns were somehow less feeling at their catastrophic loss than they would have been. If anything the McCanns would have been more distraught I'd have thought because of the knowledge that had they stayed in that night it would never have happened (though may well have happened to a different family).
The total misunderstanding of risk is just ignorance; the callousness towards the suffering of others is much worse than that though.
-
Picking up from bhs's post and mine earlier, can I ask those posters who think the McCanns were wrong, would you have wanted my parents prosecuted for my painting? Or being about to drive the car into the sea?
-
My neighbour whose 2 year old boy went out of the back door while she was doing housework and managed to find his way out of the back garden, ending up in the playground at his sister's school wearing only a vest.
Me, whose four year old cut himself shaving with my disposable leg razor. My fault for leaving it out though it was supposed to be a safety razor. He went upstairs to the bathroom and came down with blobs of foam all over his face and blood pouring down one side.
My parents for taking the fire guard away so I put my hand in the open fire (very briefly I hasten to say).
I can think of many examples of lack of judgement just from people I have known.
We can't all be perfect.
Back in the old days, holiday camps like Butlins had a child monitoring service which consisted of women walking around the chalet areas listening for a child crying, then an announcement was made in all the communal areas, such as ballroom, restaurant, that there was a baby crying in chalet 12. That was considered to be adequate.
The McCanns and their friends could see the windows of their apartments from where they were seated and took it in turns to go and check on the children at half hourly intervals.
-
The McCanns were very negligent parents to have left their very young children in an apartment on their own, that is a FACT.
No, it's an opinion, albeit one I agree with.
-
Steve,
No, it's an opinion, albeit one I agree with.
Why?
-
From the age of six I used to walk to and from school by myself. On Tuesdays and Thursdays it was my responsibility to pick up my four year old brother from playgroup on my way home.
Times have changed.
-
Back in the old days, holiday camps like Butlins had a child monitoring service which consisted of women walking around the chalet areas listening for a child crying, then an announcement was made in all the communal areas, such as ballroom, restaurant, that there was a baby crying in chalet 12. That was considered to be adequate.
The McCanns and their friends could see the windows of their apartments from where they were seated and took it in turns to go and check on the children at half hourly intervals.
That's exactly the point I made earlier.
When we went abroad years ago with our young children, the complex advertised a 'baby sitting service' and we contemplated using it, but when we looked into it, we discovered that it just consisted of someone checking the rooms every so often. In the end we decided just to take the kids out with us, but of course, there were people who criticised us for that, though the kids loved it and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
A friend of mine came up with a novel approach. He rigged up two hand-held CB radios to act as a baby alarm so they could go out to a near-by restaurant. The one in the child's room had the Press to Talk key taped down so he could hear every sound in the room.
-
A friend of mine came up with a novel approach. He rigged up two hand-held CB radios to act as a baby alarm so they could go out to a near-by restaurant. The one in the child's room had the Press to Talk key taped down so he could hear every sound in the room.
Wouldn't that be the same as jamming the frequency?
-
Wouldn't that be the same as jamming the frequency?
Of course it was totally illegal, but there weren't many users in those days and he had the sense to use low power, so the chances of anyone complaining were pretty low.
-
LA you were quite right to take the kids out with you in the evening. I never put mine to bed early either (not that he'd have stayed in bed if I had). The concept of children's bedtimes is typically British, on the continent kids are up late eating with the rest of the family, running around laughing, screaming, joining in with everything. The Spanish, Portugese etc think we are cold in our attitude towards children just from observing that trait in the British.
Well I'm sure we are all agreed that it is a great pity the McCanns and their friends did not adopt the continental approach to dining out with young children - I expect they do now! From what I've heard loads of people with young children have completely changed their practices since little Madeline's abduction.
However we can't change the past which, in this instance, is a great shame - but there is no need to add to the tragedy by being hateful towards people who, with hindsight, acted unwisely with no ill intent, the consequence of which was and having someone so precious snatched away from them.
-
From the age of six I used to walk to and from school by myself. On Tuesdays and Thursdays it was my responsibility to pick up my four year old brother from playgroup on my way home.
Times have changed.
At the age of three, I would be told to go out into the street and play. We lived in Hyson Green, in Nottingham, Not far (perhaps a quarter of a mile) from our house was the River Leen and on a day in 1945 I decided to go and explore. I do not have any recollection of this but, apparently, I fell into the river and walked home soaking wet. It was the day my brother was born.
When I was five I started school. To get there I had to cross Radford Road and I think my mother took me to school in the morning, but it was not long before I was expected to find my own way home. I have a memory of running across Radford Road in front of a trolley bus.
A year later, we had moved to Grantham. Again I would be told to "go out and play". Nobody came to see where I was. I could be in the fields or up Halls Hill. I would be scolded if I was late for tea - even though I had no way of knowing what the time was. At eight I was walking into town and going to the park by myself, crossing busy roads. It was usual.
How times have changed.
I think that the McCanns need compassion not scorn.
-
Yes they do. However ten years ago when the incident in question happened, people were far more careful with their children than twenty, thirty, fifty years ago. In the last ten years, since Madeline McCann was kidnapped, I've noticed people have gone further and are ten times more careful, especially with small children. Very understandable.
-
At the age of three, I would be told to go out into the street and play. We lived in Hyson Green, in Nottingham, Not far (perhaps a quarter of a mile) from our house was the River Leen and on a day in 1945 I decided to go and explore. I do not have any recollection of this but, apparently, I fell into the river and walked home soaking wet. It was the day my brother was born.
When I was five I started school. To get there I had to cross Radford Road and I think my mother took me to school in the morning, but it was not long before I was expected to find my own way home. I have a memory of running across Radford Road in front of a trolley bus.
A year later, we had moved to Grantham. Again I would be told to "go out and play". Nobody came to see where I was. I could be in the fields or up Halls Hill. I would be scolded if I was late for tea - even though I had no way of knowing what the time was. At eight I was walking into town and going to the park by myself, crossing busy roads. It was usual.
How times have changed.
I think that the McCanns need compassion not scorn.
I too went out to play, and we would be out all day roaming quite a lot over the pit hill (slag piles) that were huge, and impervious to damage. We of course did what all normal boys did at the time, we made weedkiller bombs to blow stuff up.
Great fun, and yes a little bit dangerous but great fun!
-
I too went out to play, and we would be out all day roaming quite a lot over the pit hill (slag piles) that were huge, and impervious to damage. We of course did what all normal boys did at the time, we made weedkiller bombs to blow stuff up.
Great fun, and yes a little bit dangerous but great fun!
Very similar for me, but I always liked to make weedkiller rockets. They generally exploded at some stage but sometimes managed to get airborne first.
-
Very similar for me, but I always liked to make weedkiller rockets. They generally exploded at some stage but sometimes managed to get airborne first.
Exactly my situation. We were really rocket scientists, but found that they blew up more often than flew.
In the end, we just accepted we were good at bombs (cos they are really easy).
-
The point here for those who accuse the McCanns of negligence, stupidity etc is that they cannot understand what these words mean. To be negligent for example entails being careless, remiss, failing to take proper care etc. What the McCanns did though based on the information available to them at the time was to be careful, not remiss, to take proper care. The incidence of someone breaking in to a locked room and snatching a child was as close to zero as makes no difference, and moreover they ensured that regular checks were made.
The only way to make a charge of negligence is to look after the vanishingly rare event and to conclude that they should have guarded against it nonetheless. There was a horrible case a while back of children on holiday dying because a boiler was wrongly installed and carbon monoxide entered their room. Were their parents "negligent" too for not demanding to see the qualifications of the gas fitter? After all, chances are wrongly installed boilers happen no less frequently than a kidnapper breaking in so what's the difference?
Or how about aeroplanes pre-9/11 that didn't have locking doors to the cockpits. Were the authorities negligent too for not anticipating the very rare event of suicide bombers breaking in?
The point is that it's irrational to shout "negligent" post facto when a very rare event that no-one could reasonably be expected to anticipate with added security measures happens anyway.
-
Exactly my situation. We were really rocket scientists, but found that they blew up more often than flew.
In the end, we just accepted we were good at bombs (cos they are really easy).
Try that today and you'd probably be attracting the attention of MI5 - no wonder kids spend all their time in their bedrooms.
-
A very sensible post bluehillside.
From what I have read over the last ten years, there are many people who resent the McCanns. I cannot fathom the reason but that is how it appears to be.
-
So pray tell us, what you saw?
Not some parents who had lost their child. People who were hiding something...
-
Well Jack, it takes one to know one.
-
Indeed they are so what do you mean? (after all it's not going to cost you much to explain)
At great expense to myself I'll explain to you what I meant. Anyone can say they are sorry or have regret or feel ashamed or whatever and not actually feel it. That is what is meant by words are cheap.
-
A very sensible post bluehillside.
From what I have read over the last ten years, there are many people who resent the McCanns. I cannot fathom the reason but that is how it appears to be.
Yes, it's an odd example of abnormal collective psychology, almost as if people envied them the attention, their way of life, and so on. Plus of course, the usual barking mad conspiracy theories, products of sick minds.
-
Ah the old reverse snobbery. They didn't grieve like I would, I would have done... etc etc. What do the chips on your shoulders taste of?
Not as bad as your neurosis.
-
Seriously Jack, who would not grieve and suffer acute anxiety over the abduction of their daughter ? They were a couple who wanted children and who initially had difficulty conceiving, Madeline was extremely precious.
Well they seemed quite calm and composed like psychotics might.
-
That ought to simplify our justice system then - all we need to rely on is how the defendant is perceived on video clips!
Maybe they could make a 'Reality TV show' out of it!
Not everyone is as perceptive as I am, so sadly it can't be utilized.
-
JK,
Not some parents who had lost their child. People who were hiding something...
So the fact of a couple heartbroken and distraught but not spilling their guts in a public forum so as to demonstrate to your personal satisfaction that were suffering enough translates in your mind to "people who were hiding something"?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
-
What's this Jack? Tit for tat?
------------------
Wigginhall, it does seem like that though there's no sense to it.
It's such a horrible, heartbreaking case. Since we've been talking about it I can't stop imagining the little girl being terrified and hurt. Her parents must have such thoughts all the time! Those who are being, frankly, vicious about the McCanns are not thinking about Madeline's pain at all, they are just enjoying being nasty.
--------------------
Jack again: "..they "seemed quite calm and composed like psychotics might."
Again I say, it takes one to know one.
Or are you merely a WUM?
-
JK,
Well they seemed quite calm and composed like psychotics might.
You have no idea how they were in private. Which would be the better way to maximise he likelihood of reuniting with their daughter: public appeals that were rational and coherent, or wailing and crying?
That's not "psychotic", it's sensible.
There's something very odd going on here. When a couple who are middle class, professional and educated go about finding their daughter the way all their instincts and training tell them will be most effective they're vilified for not being Jeremy Kyle enough for the ravenous masses. They're doctors: they knew full well that the best way to help in terrible circumstances was to work the problem in the most effective way possible. You should only hope that they're just the type of people you encounter if ever you're in desperate straits. If you really would prefer a doctor who takes one look then starts sobbing and tearing her hair out though, perhaps you should say so on the way to A&E?
-
In my day we had to lick rood cleen with tong before we got a clip round ear and sent down tu mines....but they were happy days.
-
Conforming to type now.
Definitely a WUM.
-
JK,
So the fact of a couple heartbroken and distraught but not spilling their guts in a public forum so as to demonstrate to your personal satisfaction that were suffering enough translates in your mind to "people who were hiding something"?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
It was more than that. Their response to it was not normal and I got the same feeling every time they were on TV etc. years afterwards.
I'm fine thanks.
-
What's this Jack? Tit for tat?
------------------
Wigginhall, it does seem like that though there's no sense to it.
It's such a horrible, heartbreaking case. Since we've been talking about it I can't stop imagining the little girl being terrified and hurt. Her parents must have such thoughts all the time! Those who are being, frankly, vicious about the McCanns are not thinking about Madeline's pain at all, they are just enjoying being nasty.
--------------------
Jack again: "..they "seemed quite calm and composed like psychotics might."
Again I say, it takes one to know one.
Or are you merely a WUM?
I don't agree about there being no sense to it. It's quite common, a mixture of voyeurism, envy, scape-goating, and then the weird stuff from sick minds. I suppose the scape-goating is the most important element, here is a witch, I'm so glad I'm not like her, because I am virtuous, burn her.
-
Jack again: "..they "seemed quite calm and composed like psychotics might."
Again I say, it takes one to know one.
Or are you merely a WUM?
It takes one to know oneself to see these things it does not take one to be one to do so.
No!
-
Wigginhall: I'm so glad I'm not like her, because I am virtuous, burn her.
Reminds me of Luke 18:11-14:
11The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
New International Version (NIV)
So very apt.
-
See under Christianity, burning people.
-
Ooh I'd rather not thanks, wouldn't sleep for a year :(.
Yet in a way that typifies what we were saying - people (some of whom would consider themselves to be at least nominally Christian), thinking they are so far above others that they are entitled to sit in judgement and condemn. I am thankful not to be like them ;).
-
See under Christianity, burning people.
Not to mention other philosophies, wiggi. See Under leninism/Stalinism/Maoism/etc. Oddly enough, though, Christianity makes no mention of burning people, though RC-ism and early Anglicanism did at one stage.
-
Not as bad as your neurosis.
No answer, just an insult. Still since by your logic I am allowed to judge you from tiny things. It would appear... fill in blank. Indeed take the worst thing you can imagine and ask your cynical friend about it...
-
In my day we had to lick rood cleen with tong before we got a clip round ear and sent down tu mines....but they were happy days.
Why are you misrepresenting what people have said?
-
It was more than that. Their response to it was not normal and I got the same feeling every time they were on TV etc. years afterwards.
I'm fine thanks.
What is the normal response for having a child abducted? Present your working. Have you had a child abducted? Have you had a child?
What is your expertise in judging what is normal? If you had expertise, would you judge people for behaving not as you define normally? Why would you do that? Is there significance to your judgement, or their behaviour? Can you evidence that ?
-
Well they seemed quite calm and composed like psychotics might.
And your qualifications for this professional judgement are?
-
I'm reluctant to discuss this matter on the forum because when previously mentioned (on a couple of occasions) a member has said he is related to the McCanns. So, although said member hasn't posted for sometime they may still be reading comments. In this respect I just feel a sense of sensitivity.
-
Sweet Pea, nice to see you.
You'll find most people on this thread are sympathetic to the McCann family. I didn't know there was a member of R&E who was related to them and am sure the poster who started the thread didn't. I'm sorry for them, it's very hard when an issue discussed on a forum is something that affects you personally; I've known that to happen on forums before on a few occasions.
If you are reluctant to discuss this matter, no-one is going to say you have to.
-
Oddly enough, though, Christianity makes no mention of burning people, though RC-ism and early Anglicanism did at one stage.
What is Rev 21.8 all about then?
-
When I quoted the Biblical passage earlier in which Jesus chides self righteous hypocrites, I was not preaching. The sentiment expressed seemed highly appropriate at the time - and would have been equally apt had the same been expressed by Shakespeare (it might have been but I can't think of anything off hand). So please let's not sidetrack into Christian/non-Christian argument, the gist of the quotation applies to anyone at any time when they encounter folk who are glad to have someone to look down on.
Here's something sobering for me to chew on:
“Some virtues, when they become fashions, also become exaggerated. Just because nobody likes a judgmental attitude does not mean that there isn't a sort of spoiled, self-righteous hypocrisy when one man obsessively commands other men not to judge without knowing the circumstances without himself, too, knowing their circumstances behind their judgments.”
― Criss Jami, Killosophy
-
Frozen with grief or guilty conscience?
I know which I think it is/was!
Very easy to judge people from the outside and to jump to conclusions which can to lead to great distress and issues for the people involved though isn't it.
-
It's depressing how people can be so spiteful and spread gossip.
" No smoke without fire" and all that.
The trouble is things can be completely wrong, total lies from the bottom gutter of some dregs of people's minds, and the views that the Mcanns disposed of their daughter is malicious gossip of the worst sort.
The poster who used to post here with them as relatives, is aware anyway of what is being posted on R&E
I expect he's read it all before, and probably worse. Pity he can't be here to refute it.
To give a more knowledgable picture of how the McCanns coped privately.
But that's an intrusion on their grief and they owe us nothing, let alone to their private thoughts and griefs.
It's awful how people enjoy spreading malicious untrue gossip.
It's like they enjoy being nasty.
:o
One website claims Madelaine was a long time victim of Satanic abuse by her parents, really sick stuff.
It shows how some people's minds work and what nastiness lies behind their facade.
Even the milder ones, that think it was an accident, I don't think it's very likely that they disposed of her body with the help of their friends.
Would you hide a child's body because she fell down the stairs?
Because I wouldn't be prepared too.
Not even for a very good friend.
Facing up to the accident would be much easier than spending years looking and pretending.
Why would anyone do that?
It's nonsense!
-
Not everyone is as perceptive as I am, so sadly it can't be utilized.
. How do you manage to get your tongue quite so far up your own arse?
-
Short answer: he's a short-arse.
-----------
Rose, your post sums it up accurately (imo).
-
It was more than that. Their response to it was not normal
You weren't there when they found out. You have no idea what their response to it was. By the time they were on TV they had had plenty of time to compose themselves.
-
I'm reluctant to discuss this matter on the forum because when previously mentioned (on a couple of occasions) a member has said he is related to the McCanns. So, although said member hasn't posted for sometime they may still be reading comments. In this respect I just feel a sense of sensitivity.
The member in question is currently unable to access the forum and has been unable to access the forum for some time. He is posting in the ex-BBC religion group on Facebook though.
-
No answer, just an insult. Still since by your logic I am allowed to judge you from tiny things. It would appear... fill in blank. Indeed take the worst thing you can imagine and ask your cynical friend about it...
I see your neurosis is getting worse...
-
What is the normal response for having a child abducted? Present your working. Have you had a child abducted? Have you had a child?
What is your expertise in judging what is normal? If you had expertise, would you judge people for behaving not as you define normally? Why would you do that? Is there significance to your judgement, or their behaviour? Can you evidence that ?
Well, my neoteric friend, it was just a personal assessment. Reactions to these traumas vary widely but that was not what I was commenting on. I was referring to an underlining disposition which in essence are ineffable to convey fully.
-
And your qualifications for this professional judgement are?
More so than yours.
-
. How do you manage to get your tongue quite so far up your own arse?
Your neurosis has taken a turn for the worst. Real infantile issues here, NS.
-
You weren't there when they found out. You have no idea what their response to it was. By the time they were on TV they had had plenty of time to compose themselves.
I'm not talking about what people see on the 'surface'. We're talking unconscious factor here.
-
Well, my neoteric friend, it was just a personal assessment. Reactions to these traumas vary widely but that was not what I was commenting on. I was referring to an underlining disposition which in essence are ineffable to convey fully.
A number of words which say you have no justification or evidence.
-
JK,
I'm not talking about what people see on the 'surface'. We're talking unconscious factor here.
You can read people's unconscious minds?
Blimey!
-
Your neurosis has taken a turn for the worst. Real infantile issues here, NS.
so you gave no evidence, ah well.
-
More so than yours.
I'm not making claims as you are. My qualifications are irrelevant, your's are relevant. Do you have any relevant ones?
-
NS, it is beneath a modern (neoteric) man like yourself to allow a neanderthal with a short colon to get under his skin.
(No offence intended to any neanderthals on this forum)
-
NS, it is beneath a modern (neoteric) man like yourself to allow a neanderthal with a short colon to get under his skin.
(No offence intended to any neanderthals on this forum)
off singing Frank Sinatra now
-
I'll have to think about that one :D.
-
I'll have to think about that one :D.
https://www.youtube.com/?gl=GB&hl=en-GB#/watch?v=FefLFnjqm_0
-
I got football ???. Having trouble with Youtube today. However - this may be appropriate:
For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels;
And not the words of one who kneels.
Night night.
-
A number of words which say you have no justification or evidence.
Define justification?
-
JK,
You can read people's unconscious minds?
Blimey!
You do this all the time to a given degree. It is sometimes referred to as body language but it goes further than that and involves the instincts - something I doubt you know very little about.
-
Define justification?
Yes, it's got five syllables in it. I'm not surprised you don't know what it means.
-
so you gave no evidence, ah well.
Non was asked for.
-
I'm not making claims as you are. My qualifications are irrelevant, your's are relevant. Do you have any relevant ones?
So on what basis are you judging me then?
-
You do this all the time to a given degree. It is sometimes referred to as body language but it goes further than that and involves the instincts - something I doubt you know very little about.
So you are claiming that you can accurately read the body language of the McCanns off a TV screen in a highly stressful and formalised scenario.
I call bullshit.
-
So on what basis are you judging me then?
On the basis of the garbage you are posting.
-
Yes, it's got five syllables in it. I'm not surprised you don't know what it means.
Justify that post!
-
So you are claiming that you can accurately read the body language of the McCanns off a TV screen in a highly stressful and formalised scenario.
I call bullshit.
I never said accurate. It was just my impression of them.
-
On the basis of the garbage you are posting.
But that is your subjective judgement.
-
So on what basis are you judging me then?
He never said it was accurate.
Probably it was just his impression of you. ::)
-
Justify that post!
It was an insult, no further justification needed.
-
Non was asked for.
And you had non
-
I never said accurate. It was just my impression of them.
That's fine as long as you make it clear it was only your impression. The problems only arise when you express your impressions as fact.
-
It was an insult, no further justification needed.
So that's the level of your discussion is it? Well that explains tonnes.
-
So that's the level of your discussion is it? Well that explains tonnes.
You're the insult king. Stop being so hypocritical.
-
So just to sum up, there's no rational argument to suggest that the McCanns were negligent, stupid etc but nonetheless there are some who so don't like the way they present themselves that they feel it's appropriate to throw filthy accusations at them.
Nice.
-
So just to sum up, there's no rational argument to suggest that the McCanns were negligent, stupid etc but nonetheless there are some who so don't like the way they present themselves that they feel it's appropriate to throw filthy accusations at them.
Nice.
That is pretty much the conclusion that I had come to.
-
You're the insult king. Stop being so hypocritical.
I'm King. That bit you got right which by your performance is an improvement as you are usually totally wrong.
-
So just to sum up, there's no rational argument to suggest that the McCanns were negligent, stupid etc but nonetheless there are some who so don't like the way they present themselves that they feel it's appropriate to throw filthy accusations at them.
Nice.
I couldn't have put it better.
It is a very long time since my brief studies in clinical psychology and it is not an area in which I have subsequently shown a great interest, but I do recall that the McCann's grief and shock and guilt were almost textbook in their appearance. The McCanns needed then, and still do now, compassion.
What does all this say about Jack Knave's humanity?
-
I couldn't have put it better.
It is a very long time since my brief studies in clinical psychology and it is not an area in which I have subsequently shown a great interest, but I do recall that the McCann's grief and shock and guilt were almost textbook in their appearance. The McCanns needed then, and still do now, compassion.
What does all this say about Jack Knave's humanity?
What does it say about your 'blind' humanity? A lot if you had some to make such a telling judgement, though you do seem to rely too much on the soulless textbook as your guide.
-
HH,
It is a very long time since my brief studies in clinical psychology and it is not an area in which I have subsequently shown a great interest, but I do recall that the McCann's grief and shock and guilt were almost textbook in their appearance. The McCanns needed then, and still do now, compassion.
Oh well if you're going to bring clinical studies and facts and evidence and research into it you can prove anything. Do you not realise that you're up against Jack Knave's intuition here, so all that stuff has to be junked and we must just take his word for it? Why I've already called The Lancet to tell them to publish an article saying we should abandon all medical research while we just wait for our Jack to intuit his way to a cure for cancer.
Should be any day now I reckon.
What does all this say about Jack Knave's humanity?
Assuming he ever had any, it's clearly gone AWOL.
-
JK,
What does it say about your 'blind' humanity?
What makes you think his humanity is "blind" rather than well-informed by good medical research?
A lot if you had some to make such a telling judgement, though you do seem to rely too much on the soulless textbook as your guide.
First, whether you find a textbook to be "soulless" or not says nothing to whether or not it's accurate.
Second, do you find all textbooks to be "soulless" or only those that happen to disagree with your personal "intuition"? How "soulful" for example would you find an "A" level physics textbook to be? Would that be wrong too in your view if you happen to "intuit" that - say - light isn't travelling photons at all but rather is invisible pixies chucking around very small lightbulbs?
-
What does it say about your 'blind' humanity? A lot if you had some to make such a telling judgement, though you do seem to rely too much on the soulless textbook as your guide.
?
It's you making a judgement with no evidence!
It says you like to believe the worst about other people who you don't even know, without have any evidence for your poisonous allegations, whatsoever.
Other than you being a spiteful git!
( sorry other posters, but Jacks posts are starting to sicken me >:( :( )
-
I can't help thinking he's a wind up merchant. We've had other people on this thread who feel somewhat conflicted about the McCanns but I will go so far as to say that I think they would like to be proved wrong; no-one else has gone as far as Jack in 'doing them down' and he gives the impression that he would be delighted to be right!
-
he gives the impression that he would be delighted to be right!
That's because he is desperate to be right, at something, anything, for once! ::)v
-
HH,
Oh well if you're going to bring clinical studies and facts and evidence and research into it you can prove anything. Do you not realise that you're up against Jack Knave's intuition here, so all that stuff has to be junked and we must just take his word for it? Why I've already called The Lancet to tell them to publish an article saying we should abandon all medical research while we just wait for our Jack to intuit his way to a cure for cancer.
Should be any day now I reckon.
Have you ever tried ironic sarcasm as a method of dialogue? My intuition seems to be indicating to me that you'd be pretty good at it - sadly little else seems to be in your favour.
Assuming he ever had any, it's clearly gone AWOL.
And on what basis do you make that judgement?
-
JK,
Have you ever tried ironic sarcasm as a method of dialogue? My intuition seems to be indicating to me that you'd be pretty good at it - sadly little else seems to be in your favour.
Little else other that is than reason. You are of course entitled to your opinion that your personal intuition in some unexplained way trumps that, but personally I'll stick with research and evidence and argument and practical experience if that's ok.
And on what basis do you make that judgement?
On the basis that you seem quite relaxed at throwing despicable accusations at people already suffering deep grief with no evidence to support you. That's what "lack of humanity" pretty much means.
-
JK,
What makes you think his humanity is "blind" rather than well-informed by good medical research?
He said so - the little he did years ago.
First, whether you find a textbook to be "soulless" or not says nothing to whether or not it's accurate.
Whether it is accurate or not is just the first stage. It then needs to be understood in the correct manner. We have seen that people who have read Marx or Nietzsche, say, have come to totally different conclusions and assessments of what they have read and what it means, and so forth. Words are highly fallible which is why the legal system have such a difficult task in writing legal documents.
Second, do you find all textbooks to be "soulless" or only those that happen to disagree with your personal "intuition"? How "soulful" for example would you find an "A" level physics textbook to be? Would that be wrong too in your view if you happen to "intuit" that - say - light isn't travelling photons at all but rather is invisible pixies chucking around very small lightbulbs?
The context is psychology, something that deals with human nature and emotional contents. Anyone who thinks it's sufficient for them to write a book to cover such a vast, complex and multifarious subject is an idiot - someone who thinks they can get it from a book is doubly so. Experience is the key here; a heuristic approach.
I warned you about those pixies, but no one listen to me. :(
-
?
It's you making a judgement with no evidence!
It says you like to believe the worst about other people who you don't even know, without have any evidence for your poisonous allegations, whatsoever.
Other than you being a spiteful git!
( sorry other posters, but Jacks posts are starting to sicken me >:( :( )
No, it was just my opinion, my subjective judgement. I wasn't demanding that people should take what I said as the gospel truth.
-
I can't help thinking he's a wind up merchant. We've had other people on this thread who feel somewhat conflicted about the McCanns but I will go so far as to say that I think they would like to be proved wrong; no-one else has gone as far as Jack in 'doing them down' and he gives the impression that he would be delighted to be right!
We all love to be right, even you!!!
-
JK,
Little else other that is than reason. You are of course entitled to your opinion that your personal intuition in some unexplained way trumps that, but personally I'll stick with research and evidence and argument and practical experience if that's ok.
And how would you use that to assess the McCann's?
On the basis that you seem quite relaxed at throwing despicable accusations at people already suffering deep grief with no evidence to support you. That's what "lack of humanity" pretty much means.
But that is your subjective judgement of what I said, which was more than just mere words.
-
JK,
He said so - the little he did years ago.
The “little he did” what?
Whether it is accurate or not is just the first stage.
But that was your argument - that the textbook was “soulless” as if that in some way had anything to do with the accuracy or otherwise of its content. If you didn’t mean that, why use the word?
It then needs to be understood in the correct manner. We have seen that people who have read Marx or Nietzsche, say, have come to totally different conclusions and assessments of what they have read and what it means, and so forth. Words are highly fallible which is why the legal system have such a difficult task in writing legal documents.
None of which is relevant to the point under discussion. Harrowby told us that the McCann’s response was pretty much “textbook” – ie, consistent with the clinical understanding of how some grieving parents will do their best to arrive at a coping strategy. Your critique was that they didn’t look sufficiently like genuinely grieving parents to you, and you tried some alternatives cod psychological diagnostics on the fly.
What is it that you think you know that the people who study the subject, work with people suffering deep loss, and have their findings peer reviewed and published don’t know?
The context is psychology, something that deals with human nature and emotional contents. Anyone who thinks it's sufficient for them to write a book to cover such a vast, complex and multifarious subject is an idiot - someone who thinks they can get it from a book is doubly so. Experience is the key here; a heuristic approach.
Straw man. No-one does say that it does cover human nature in all its complexity. What is being said though is that the McCann’s response was entirely consistent with the understanding psychology gives us of how grieving parents can behave. What then makes you think that you know better?
And how would you use that to assess the McCann's?
First, the burden of proof here is with you: you’re the one who said that they don’t look like genuinely grieving parents to you.
Second, I’d use it by deciding that the personal opinions of amateur observers probably offer less of value than the published research by qualified specialists on the subject, based as it will be on the study of representative samples of people who have suffered heart-rending loss.
But that is your subjective judgement of what I said, which was more than just mere words.
No, it’s what you actually said and – so far at least – you’ve offered noting to suggest that what you actually said is “more than mere words”. Expressing your intuited opinion on something is “mere words” until and unless you can provide a rationale to suggest that it’s anything other than that.
-
I wonder if we have all gone a bit far in assessing the McCanns. The thread title refers to the police closing the forensic investigation and whether or not it should have closed long ago. I don't know the answer to that one but files on missing children aren't kept open forever, I doubt there is much more the police can do. If new evidence comes to light it will be reopened.
We aren't detectives. It is a terribly tragic business, that is something we can all agree on.
-
Brownie,
I wonder if we have all gone a bit far in assessing the McCanns. The thread title refers to the police closing the forensic investigation and whether or not it should have closed long ago. I don't know the answer to that one but files on missing children aren't kept open forever, I doubt there is much more the police can do. If new evidence comes to light it will be reopened.
We aren't detectives. It is a terribly tragic business, that is something we can all agree on.
Probably. What we've established is that there's no reason to think the McCanns to have been negligent or stupid, and that Jack Knave's intuition on the subject has about as much evidential value as my Gran's intuition that there are aliens living in her TV.
There's nothing else to say really.
-
JK,
The “little he did” what?
You didn't read his post and you're criticising me on my reply to him!!!
His "little he did" knowledge on the subject.
None of which is relevant to the point under discussion. Harrowby told us that the McCann’s response was pretty much “textbook” – ie, consistent with the clinical understanding of how some grieving parents will do their best to arrive at a coping strategy. Your critique was that they didn’t look sufficiently like genuinely grieving parents to you, and you tried some alternatives cod psychological diagnostics on the fly.
What is it that you think you know that the people who study the subject, work with people suffering deep loss, and have their findings peer reviewed and published don’t know?
I've explained the textbook fallacy. HH has never done psychology all he did was read a little at Uni.
This is what happens when someone comes in halfway through it. I'm now having to repeat myself. I was not referring to what one sees on the 'surface' - not physical stuff etc. It was just what I intuited. This hasn't changed from all the times I have seen them when they have appeared on TV over the years.
As I have said about psychology it is not an exact science, you can't study it in an academic way. Anyone who does is an idiot.
Straw man.
No it's not, it's just that you don't understand the subject matter so you erroneously think it's a straw man.
Second, I’d use it by deciding that the personal opinions of amateur observers probably offer less of value than the published research by qualified specialists on the subject, based as it will be on the study of representative samples of people who have suffered heart-rending loss.
You're totally missing my point and the point in general.
Are you saying people shouldn't give their opinions unless they are one of the assigned experts? Look at the mess the world is in which is all down to these so called wankers experts. You do realise I've just moved this on to one of my favourite topics - The EU.
No, it’s what you actually said and – so far at least – you’ve offered noting to suggest that what you actually said is “more than mere words”. Expressing your intuited opinion on something is “mere words” until and unless you can provide a rationale to suggest that it’s anything other than that.
Are you saying these experts have a rationale for their opinions? How often have these experts said Mr Psycho-killer is safe enough to enter society again only for said psycho-killer to kill again? You what to use your rational approach to deal with the irrational - you're a fool - and that's why the Western world's shit is hitting the fan.
-
You didn't read his post and you're criticising me on my reply to him!!!
His "little he did" knowledge on the subject.
I've explained the textbook fallacy. HH has never done psychology all he did was read a little at Uni.
Where does he say that?
This is what happens when someone comes in halfway through it. I'm now having to repeat myself. I was not referring to what one sees on the 'surface' - not physical stuff etc. It was just what I intuited. This hasn't changed from all the times I have seen them when they have appeared on TV over the years.
As I have said about psychology it is not an exact science, you can't study it in an academic way. Anyone who does is an idiot.
So could you be wrong?
-
JK,
You didn't read his post and you're criticising me on my reply to him!!!
His "little he did" knowledge on the subject.
Your sentence didn't scan, and it failed in any case as an answer to the question you were asked - ie, why you though his humanity was "blind".
I've explained the textbook fallacy.
No you haven't because there is no fallacy. Textbooks describe the consensus positions on the phenomena they describe. No-one claims them to be all-encompassing, absolute etc but in practice they are more reliable guides to the facts than guessing (or as you call it, "intuition").
HH has never done psychology all he did was read a little at Uni.
Yes. Does that mean that the textbooks he remembers do not say that the McCann's response was consistent with that of genuine grief? Your only way out here is to find a textbook (or other research) that says that their response was abnormal. That at least would have some evidential value, whereas your personal intuition on the matter has none.
This is what happens when someone comes in halfway through it. I'm now having to repeat myself. I was not referring to what one sees on the 'surface' - not physical stuff etc. It was just what I intuited. This hasn't changed from all the times I have seen them when they have appeared on TV over the years.
No it isn't. What it actually is is what happens when someone points out that your personal intuition has no evidential value whatever, even more so when that intuition contradicts the orthodox position.
As I have said about psychology it is not an exact science, you can't study it in an academic way. Anyone who does is an idiot.
Did you actually mean to say that psychology can't be studied "in an academic way" there?
Really?
Well, there's a whole academic discipline that needs to pack its bags and find something more useful to do then I guess.
Do you want to tell them that your intuition means they're wasting they're time or shall I?
No it's not, it's just that you don't understand the subject matter so you erroneously think it's a straw man.
Yes is is. That's what "straw man" means. You criticise psychology for something it does not purport to be.
QED
You're totally missing my point and the point in general.
Actually what I've done is to falsify rather than to ignore it, but ok.
Are you saying people shouldn't give their opinions unless they are one of the assigned experts? Look at the mess the world is in which is all down to these so called wankers experts. You do realise I've just moved this on to one of my favourite topics - The EU.
You're confusing the right to speak with the right to be listened to here. You can give your opinion on anything you like. Knock yourself out. Absent evidence or reason to support that opinion though, you cannot also expect others to respond with anything but a "so what?"
Are you saying these experts have a rationale for their opinions? How often have these experts said Mr Psycho-killer is safe enough to enter society again only for said psycho-killer to kill again? You what to use your rational approach to deal with the irrational - you're a fool - and that's why the Western world's shit is hitting the fan.
Yes of course they have a rationale. As you noted though, psychology isn't an exact science. We can all point to examples of people who have been released who shouldn't have been, but there are also many more cases of people who have been correctly incarcerated and correctly released. The fact of the very low incidence of "Mr Psycho-killer" should tell you that.
What method would you propose instead? All people with mental illness, who had expressed violent thoughts etc should undergo the "Jack Knave intuition test?" maybe? Perhaps you could use the Hogwarts hat to indicate "you're safe", "you're not" etc to add a little colour to events?
-
No you haven't because there is no fallacy. Textbooks describe the consensus positions on the phenomena they describe. No-one claims them to be all-encompassing, absolute etc but in practice they are more reliable guides to the facts than guessing (or as you call it, "intuition").
You think intuition is guessing? In that case there isn't much advantage in pointing things out to the blind.
And you think the consensus position is the correct one? Look at history and you will find this approach flawed, as I'm sure you would make clear to our theist friends when God was the consensus.
Yes. Does that mean that the textbooks he remembers do not say that the McCann's response was consistent with that of genuine grief? Your only way out here is to find a textbook (or other research) that says that their response was abnormal. That at least would have some evidential value, whereas your personal intuition on the matter has none.
It was an opinion. That at least I'm allowed to air, am I not? Is this too hard for you to understand?
No it isn't. What it actually is is what happens when someone points out that your personal intuition has no evidential value whatever, even more so when that intuition contradicts the orthodox position.
...and now I'm having to repeat myself again. It was an opinion. And orthodox positions have been shown to be wrong in the past; they aren't gospel.
Did you actually mean to say that psychology can't be studied "in an academic way" there?
Really?
Well, there's a whole academic discipline that needs to pack its bags and find something more useful to do then I guess.
That's pretty much it.
Do you want to tell them that your intuition means they're wasting they're time or shall I?
Could you? I'm pretty busy at the moment.
You're confusing the right to speak with the right to be listened to here. You can give your opinion on anything you like. Knock yourself out. Absent evidence or reason to support that opinion though, you cannot also expect others to respond with anything but a "so what?"
So what!
-
JK,
You think intuition is guessing?
Yes, of course. If you want to test your intuited beliefs against objective criteria to distinguish then from just guessing though then by all means try to do so.
In that case there isn't much advantage in pointing things out to the blind.
“Pointing out” something that’s just a personal opinion is an abuse of the term “pointing out”. All you're actually pointing out is that you happen to have an unqualified personal opinion about something.
And you think the consensus position is the correct one? Look at history and you will find this approach flawed, as I'm sure you would make clear to our theist friends when God was the consensus.
No, but I do think it to be more probably correct than the personal intuitions that happen to contradict it. If however those intuitions were consistently shown to be correct then they would become the consensus.
It was an opinion. That at least I'm allowed to air, am I not? Is this too hard for you to understand?
No – I’ve already said that you are of course free to “air” it a much as you like, just as for example Sassy is free to air her personal opinion that the moon landings were faked. What neither of you are entitled to demand though is anyone else thinking your personal opinions are evidentially useful.
...and now I'm having to repeat myself again. It was an opinion. And orthodox positions have been shown to be wrong in the past; they aren't gospel.
Gospel isn’t “gospel” either, but that’s a different matter. Yes, of course orthodoxies have been shown to be wrong in the past. That always though requires more than someone’s personal intuition to happen
That's pretty much it.
Good grief. You’re right and the whole academic study of human psychology is wrong eh? Well, I’ll give you this – you sure don’t suffer from an overendowment of modesty.
Could you? I'm pretty busy at the moment.
Busy “intuiting” presumably?
So what!
So everything – you’re just wasting your breath until you can demonstrate that your intuition isn’t just guessing.
Good luck with it though.
-
I've explained the textbook fallacy. HH has never done psychology all he did was read a little at Uni
I have been travelling for the past day or so and have only just caught up with this.
For information: my first degree is Psychology and I have life membership of the British Psychological Society. I studied clinical psychology along with a number of other, appropriate, subject areas as an undergraduate. I have made no further formal study of clinical psychology since then. I was more interested in other facets of a huge subject area.
Incidentally, Mr Knave, academic psychology, certainly in the UK and English speaking countries, is largely an experiment-based biological science - which does have links to philosophy, physiology, sociology and other academic areas. If your view of psychology has been determined by questionnaires in women's magazines - then you should question whether your perceptions have any validity.
-
I offer this not as any conclusive evidence but as anecdotal.
My partner and I have talked about this issue when it has appeared on TV or in the press.
My reaction has been that they were extremely unlucky and that they were innocent of any wrong doing by intent. And, like others on here I think the only wrong doing is down to a small risk that we all take from time to time on various matters. That thought alone must be punishment enough for them.
My partners reaction is that they are, in some way, intentionally involved in the disappearance and he cites exactly the same sort of emotional responses displayed by Jack Knave (let me add that usually the partner does not jump to strange conclusions about issues).
I wonder if there is not something about their (the McCanns) demeanour that for some reason; in some people, triggers an instinctive mistrust. It's the only thing I can think of to explain some peoples responses over this very sad and tragic case.
-
There may be, but I don't see anything odd in their behaviour personnally. I certainly wouldn't therefore firmly claim and protest their innocence based on that feeling, and engage in arguements about it on a discussion forum. My opinion is that they were not involved in any direct way but I don't know that for certain and accept that others have an alternative view and would be happy for my opinion to be challenged by facts - but not on the basis of someone claiming superior intuition!
-
Hi Trent,
I offer this not as any conclusive evidence but as anecdotal.
My partner and I have talked about this issue when it has appeared on TV or in the press.
My reaction has been that they were extremely unlucky and that they were innocent of any wrong doing by intent. And, like others on here I think the only wrong doing is down to a small risk that we all take from time to time on various matters. That thought alone must be punishment enough for them.
My partners reaction is that they are, in some way, intentionally involved in the disappearance and he cites exactly the same sort of emotional responses displayed by Jack Knave (let me add that usually the partner does not jump to strange conclusions about issues).
I wonder if there is not something about their (the McCanns) demeanour that for some reason; in some people, triggers an instinctive mistrust. It's the only thing I can think of to explain some peoples responses over this very sad and tragic case.
Oddly, there seem to be two completely different issues here that are being entangled.
The first is that the McCann's were in some way negligent or stupid, although there's no reason at all that I can see to think that to be the case.
The second is that some just don't like the cut of their jib, so on that basis alone think it's OK to make disgusting accusations about their supposedly deliberate involvement in the disappearance.
I find this tendency of some to join a witch hunt on the basis of no evidence whatever very strange and not a little unsettling.
-
“Pointing out” something that’s just a personal opinion is an abuse of the term “pointing out”. All you're actually pointing out is that you happen to have an unqualified personal opinion about something.
That wasn't what I meant. I was referring to your lack of understanding of psychology and human nature. And your blind insistence of your scientific rational approach to everything, even the irrational.
No, but I do think it to be more probably correct than the personal intuitions that happen to contradict it. If however those intuitions were consistently shown to be correct then they would become the consensus.
I don't think "more probably correct" cuts it. That's just guessing on the matter; shear speculation. Intuition isn't something you necessarily choose to do in all, if very many, occasions. It is something that is just there if and when it occurs. Your idea of applying the scientific repetition criteria to it just shows you do not understand what it is.
No – I’ve already said that you are of course free to “air” it a much as you like, just as for example Sassy is free to air her personal opinion that the moon landings were faked. What neither of you are entitled to demand though is anyone else thinking your personal opinions are evidentially useful.
I never made that claim within the post in question - show me where I did?
In fact show me that your posts are evidentially useful.
Gospel isn’t “gospel” either, but that’s a different matter. Yes, of course orthodoxies have been shown to be wrong in the past. That always though requires more than someone’s personal intuition to happen
But it often starts there, which shows they are useful.
Good grief. You’re right and the whole academic study of human psychology is wrong eh? Well, I’ll give you this – you sure don’t suffer from an overendowment of modesty.
That outburst is trying to hide an unfounded assumption that the consensus must be true. As you have agreed that is not always the case. Note I'm broadly referring to academic psychology here; those which have are/have been trendy fads and so on.
-
I have been travelling for the past day or so and have only just caught up with this.
For information: my first degree is Psychology and I have life membership of the British Psychological Society. I studied clinical psychology along with a number of other, appropriate, subject areas as an undergraduate. I have made no further formal study of clinical psychology since then. I was more interested in other facets of a huge subject area.
This is part of your #149 :-
"It is a very long time since my brief studies in clinical psychology and it is not an area in which I have subsequently shown a great interest, but I do recall that the McCann's grief and shock and guilt were almost textbook in their appearance."
You call your degree brief? And there has been no follow up in this line of studies since, which took place 'a very long time' ago. That is what I went on.
-
You call your degree brief? And there has been no follow up in this line of studies since, which took place 'a very long time' ago. That is what I went on.
So did your intuition on that turn out to be wrong?
-
So did your intuition on that turn out to be wrong?
That's just lame. I read what you wrote about your past reading exploits, which were vague and sparse in detail, giving the impression of just a cursory dabbling.
-
That's just lame. I read what you wrote about your past reading exploits, which were vague and sparse in detail, giving the impression of just a cursory dabbling.
I didn't post that - it was HH - and he never mentioned reading he said studies. My point was that you seem to be claiming superior intuition but failed on comprehension of a post, and have now failed to recognise a poster. Not wanting to get into a petty debate but perhaps you should reconsider your claims at superior intuition and understanding and be a little less certain.
-
JK,
That wasn't what I meant. I was referring to your lack of understanding of psychology and human nature.
You can "refer" to it if you like, but you've yet to demonstrate it. What "lack of understanding" do I have exactly, other that is from not agreeing with your personal opinion on the matter which - so far as I can tell - rests on no knowledge whatever of the subject you blithely dismiss?
And your blind insistence of your scientific rational approach to everything, even the irrational.
What makes my insistence on rationality "blind" in your opinion? And what would a non-rational approach to the irrational look like do you think - killing a chicken and reading the entrails? Counting the raindrops running down a window? What?
Of course I think the rational approach is the only way to deal with the irrational - what other way is there?
I don't think "more probably correct" cuts it. That's just guessing on the matter; shear speculation.
No it isn't. It's actually a probabilistic evaluation of the truth values of propositions based on inter-subjective experience. The text book says that apples fall - I observe that apples fall - everyone I know observes that apples fall. I conclude therefore that it's probably true that apples fall.
Fred on the other hand intuits that apples fly sideways.
Then what?
Intuition isn't something you necessarily choose to do in all, if very many, occasions. It is something that is just there if and when it occurs. Your idea of applying the scientific repetition criteria to it just shows you do not understand what it is.
Actually I do understand better than you it seems what it is - it's called "guessing".
I never made that claim within the post in question - show me where I did?
You made the claim about your right for your views to be "aired". I was merely responding to that: the right to speak and the right to listened to are not the same thing.
In fact show me that your posts are evidentially useful.
Which ones?
It's simple enough: test my rational belief that the lift will probably take you to the ground floor safely; now test Bill's intuition that jumping out of the 22nd storey window will do the job.
What were your findings?
But it often starts there, which shows they are useful.
No, it shows that they are useless until and unless to do more than "start there". "Starting there" is just guessing.
That outburst is trying to hide an unfounded assumption that the consensus must be true. As you have agreed that is not always the case. Note I'm broadly referring to academic psychology here; those which have are/have been trendy fads and so on.
It's doing no such thing, as I've explained to you more than once already.
-
Hindsight is a wonderful thing...
Had she not took a short cut home through the park she would not have been raped.
Had he got his fags on the way home he would not have been harmed in a robbery of the local late shop.
Has they not driven home in the bad weather and stayed the night when offered, they would not have had an car acccident.
Many elements make up an incident where people harmed.
But in all cases the only real element to blame is the rapist, the robber and the weather.
In the case of Madeleine the person/s who took her are to blame.
The people who are left behind to live with the actions of those who did these things need our support and love to cope with the devastation of those elements we cannot control.
I do not know if many of you know this but my own nephew was a victim of a brutal attack which cost him his life. The people who did this are the persons to blame. I am sure we wish could be there to protect and we weren't. But the evil in the world and even elements of nature sometime takes it's toll on families. We may suffer anger and even immense hurt and sadness we can only help others through it, and pray for them. Judging them cannot hurt them more than they already hurt.