This case - if you know what happened then comment but as for comparing it to a kid being left in a council block of flats while the mother went out partying is totally different to what happened here....
What they did was no different to what goes on in many of these places - it was a family destination and soemone came in and took that kid away thats the person that needs to be found and taken to task, not the parents. I wonder if you can understand what happened here or if you are trying to make a class division where there isnt one.
Madeleine McCann Met police take on investigation
William
william wrote:
> This case - if you know what happened then comment but as for
> comparing it to a kid being left in a council block of flats
> while the mother went out partying is totally different to what
> happened here....
It really isn't. The McCanns left their three children aged three or under alone while they went out boozing with friends. I'll say that again in case it doesn't sink in: the McCanns left their three children aged three or under alone while they went out boozing with friends.They are a disgrace and should have been prosecuted by social services.
>
> What they did was no different to what goes on in many of these
> places -
So what? That doesn't make it right or acceptable.
it was a family destination and soemone came in and
> took that kid away thats the person that needs to be found and
> taken to task, not the parents.
The parents left their vulnerable children alone. I'd say they should be taken to task.
I wonder if you can understand
> what happened here or if you are trying to make a class
> division where there isnt one.
Of course there is a class distinction. Butlins is a family destination but, unlike Mark Warner, is for working class families. If a working class couple left their their children alone and one was taken, there would be uproar ? social services and the police would be crawling all over them. There would be no visits to the Pope.
> This case - if you know what happened then comment but as for
> comparing it to a kid being left in a council block of flats
> while the mother went out partying is totally different to what
> happened here....
It really isn't. The McCanns left their three children aged three or under alone while they went out boozing with friends. I'll say that again in case it doesn't sink in: the McCanns left their three children aged three or under alone while they went out boozing with friends.They are a disgrace and should have been prosecuted by social services.
>
> What they did was no different to what goes on in many of these
> places -
So what? That doesn't make it right or acceptable.
it was a family destination and soemone came in and
> took that kid away thats the person that needs to be found and
> taken to task, not the parents.
The parents left their vulnerable children alone. I'd say they should be taken to task.
I wonder if you can understand
> what happened here or if you are trying to make a class
> division where there isnt one.
Of course there is a class distinction. Butlins is a family destination but, unlike Mark Warner, is for working class families. If a working class couple left their their children alone and one was taken, there would be uproar ? social services and the police would be crawling all over them. There would be no visits to the Pope.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Essex Lad
Your post is a classic example of misrepresentation and insinuation.
"The McCanns left their three children aged three or under alone while they went out boozing with friends. I'll say that again in case it doesn't sink in: the McCanns left their three children aged three or under alone while they went out boozing with friends.They are a disgrace and should have been prosecuted by social services"
Let's analyse the insinuations.
1. "The McCanns left their three children aged three or under alone while they went out boozing with friends."
This implies that the McCanns went out with their friends, possibly a long way away, had no contact with their kids and got pissed. None of this is true.
2 "Boozing". They went with friends to have a meal at a tapas bar and surprise, surprise they had a drink with that meal. There is no evidence whatsoever that they drank alcohol in large quantities and were in any way pissed.
3. "Left their children alone". The tapas bar was about 50 metres from the apartment as the crow flies. The McCanns apparently checked on their kids every half hour or so.
4. "They are a disgrace and should have been prosecuted by social services."
If that is correct then Social Services should prosecute every mother/father in the land that feeds and puts their tired children to bed after which they go into their decent sized garden to do a bit of weeding and planting or have a barbecue with friends whilst checking every half hour or so that their kids are okay.
We have all got plenty of hindsight and I am sure that the McCanns feel guilty for their actions.
However, your post is mean-spirited, full of insinuation and misleading.
"The McCanns left their three children aged three or under alone while they went out boozing with friends. I'll say that again in case it doesn't sink in: the McCanns left their three children aged three or under alone while they went out boozing with friends.They are a disgrace and should have been prosecuted by social services"
Let's analyse the insinuations.
1. "The McCanns left their three children aged three or under alone while they went out boozing with friends."
This implies that the McCanns went out with their friends, possibly a long way away, had no contact with their kids and got pissed. None of this is true.
2 "Boozing". They went with friends to have a meal at a tapas bar and surprise, surprise they had a drink with that meal. There is no evidence whatsoever that they drank alcohol in large quantities and were in any way pissed.
3. "Left their children alone". The tapas bar was about 50 metres from the apartment as the crow flies. The McCanns apparently checked on their kids every half hour or so.
4. "They are a disgrace and should have been prosecuted by social services."
If that is correct then Social Services should prosecute every mother/father in the land that feeds and puts their tired children to bed after which they go into their decent sized garden to do a bit of weeding and planting or have a barbecue with friends whilst checking every half hour or so that their kids are okay.
We have all got plenty of hindsight and I am sure that the McCanns feel guilty for their actions.
However, your post is mean-spirited, full of insinuation and misleading.
Re: Essex Lad
So it still boils down to leaving there children in another building across a street in a neighbourhood you dont know while out with friends.
I suppose a nice bistro dinner seems more palatable than popping out for some fags down at the Pakis at the corner when it comes to child endangerment.
Just wondering how this would have been thought of If it had been under these circumstances the kid had an accident in the room rather than being a playmate for jimmy savile I bet there wouldn't have been the industrialised sympathy from the chattering classes then.
Everybody would have then seen it for what it is parents having a jolly good time at expense of their child's safety.
I suppose a nice bistro dinner seems more palatable than popping out for some fags down at the Pakis at the corner when it comes to child endangerment.
Just wondering how this would have been thought of If it had been under these circumstances the kid had an accident in the room rather than being a playmate for jimmy savile I bet there wouldn't have been the industrialised sympathy from the chattering classes then.
Everybody would have then seen it for what it is parents having a jolly good time at expense of their child's safety.
Re: Essex Lad
David Johnson wrote:
> Your post is a classic example of misrepresentation and
> insinuation.
>
> "The McCanns left their three children aged three or under
> alone while they went out boozing with friends. I'll say that
> again in case it doesn't sink in: the McCanns left their three
> children aged three or under alone while they went out boozing
> with friends.They are a disgrace and should have been
> prosecuted by social services"
>
> Let's analyse the insinuations.
>
> 1. "The McCanns left their three children aged three or under
> alone while they went out boozing with friends."
>
> This implies that the McCanns went out with their friends,
> possibly a long way away, had no contact with their kids and
> got pissed. None of this is true.
No it doesn't.
Let's analyse my post.
Did the McCanns leave their three children aged three or under alone?
YES.
Were the children in sight at all times?
NO.
Did the McCanns drink alcohol?
YES.
Did I say that they were drunk?
NO.
>
> 2 "Boozing". They went with friends to have a meal at a tapas
> bar and surprise, surprise they had a drink with that meal.
> There is no evidence whatsoever that they drank alcohol in
> large quantities and were in any way pissed.
Show me where I said that they were drunk.
>
> 3. "Left their children alone". The tapas bar was about 50
> metres from the apartment as the crow flies. The McCanns
> apparently checked on their kids every half hour or so.
50 metres or 54 yards or 162 feet. They still left their three children under three alone.
>
> 4. "They are a disgrace and should have been prosecuted by
> social services."
>
> If that is correct then Social Services should prosecute every
> mother/father in the land that feeds and puts their tired
> children to bed after which they go into their decent sized
> garden to do a bit of weeding and planting or have a barbecue
> with friends whilst checking every half hour or so that their
> kids are okay.
That's not the same thing at all and you know it. Unless of course those parents leave the front door open for anyone to wander in. Anyway, how many people do you know who have a garden 162 feet long?
>
> We have all got plenty of hindsight and I am sure that the
> McCanns feel guilty for their actions.
So they should.
>
> However, your post is mean-spirited, full of insinuation and
> misleading.
No it isn't.
> Your post is a classic example of misrepresentation and
> insinuation.
>
> "The McCanns left their three children aged three or under
> alone while they went out boozing with friends. I'll say that
> again in case it doesn't sink in: the McCanns left their three
> children aged three or under alone while they went out boozing
> with friends.They are a disgrace and should have been
> prosecuted by social services"
>
> Let's analyse the insinuations.
>
> 1. "The McCanns left their three children aged three or under
> alone while they went out boozing with friends."
>
> This implies that the McCanns went out with their friends,
> possibly a long way away, had no contact with their kids and
> got pissed. None of this is true.
No it doesn't.
Let's analyse my post.
Did the McCanns leave their three children aged three or under alone?
YES.
Were the children in sight at all times?
NO.
Did the McCanns drink alcohol?
YES.
Did I say that they were drunk?
NO.
>
> 2 "Boozing". They went with friends to have a meal at a tapas
> bar and surprise, surprise they had a drink with that meal.
> There is no evidence whatsoever that they drank alcohol in
> large quantities and were in any way pissed.
Show me where I said that they were drunk.
>
> 3. "Left their children alone". The tapas bar was about 50
> metres from the apartment as the crow flies. The McCanns
> apparently checked on their kids every half hour or so.
50 metres or 54 yards or 162 feet. They still left their three children under three alone.
>
> 4. "They are a disgrace and should have been prosecuted by
> social services."
>
> If that is correct then Social Services should prosecute every
> mother/father in the land that feeds and puts their tired
> children to bed after which they go into their decent sized
> garden to do a bit of weeding and planting or have a barbecue
> with friends whilst checking every half hour or so that their
> kids are okay.
That's not the same thing at all and you know it. Unless of course those parents leave the front door open for anyone to wander in. Anyway, how many people do you know who have a garden 162 feet long?
>
> We have all got plenty of hindsight and I am sure that the
> McCanns feel guilty for their actions.
So they should.
>
> However, your post is mean-spirited, full of insinuation and
> misleading.
No it isn't.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Gentleman
"So it still boils down to leaving there children in another building across a street in a neighbourhood you dont know while out with friends."
I repeat they were 50 metres as the crow flies from the apartment. It was near the end of their week's holiday in a holiday apartment part of the Ocean Club resort so they did have knowledge of the area around the apartment. It was a family holiday complex which they had spent the week in.
"I suppose a nice bistro dinner seems more palatable than popping out for some fags down at the Pakis at the corner when it comes to child endangerment".
Maybe it seems more palatable to you, not to me. I would feel the same if someone popped out for a packet of fags. No more blame would attach to them than to the McCanns.
"Just wondering how this would have been thought of If it had been under these circumstances the kid had an accident in the room rather than being a playmate for jimmy savile I bet there wouldn't have been the industrialised sympathy from the chattering classes then."
You appear totally obsessed by class. I suspect the reaction to a kid having an accident would have been no different from rich, poor etc. Any one with kids and a couple of brain cells to rub together would know that it is impossible to prevent kids having accidents unless you refuse to let them do anything and instead wrap them in cotton wool 24/7, never leaving their side. Kids can have accidents when parents are sleeping in a bedroom yards away.
"Everybody would have then seen it for what it is parents having a jolly good time at expense of their child's safety."
The McCanns have never said that they do not regret or feel guilty about that night.
I repeat they were 50 metres as the crow flies from the apartment. It was near the end of their week's holiday in a holiday apartment part of the Ocean Club resort so they did have knowledge of the area around the apartment. It was a family holiday complex which they had spent the week in.
"I suppose a nice bistro dinner seems more palatable than popping out for some fags down at the Pakis at the corner when it comes to child endangerment".
Maybe it seems more palatable to you, not to me. I would feel the same if someone popped out for a packet of fags. No more blame would attach to them than to the McCanns.
"Just wondering how this would have been thought of If it had been under these circumstances the kid had an accident in the room rather than being a playmate for jimmy savile I bet there wouldn't have been the industrialised sympathy from the chattering classes then."
You appear totally obsessed by class. I suspect the reaction to a kid having an accident would have been no different from rich, poor etc. Any one with kids and a couple of brain cells to rub together would know that it is impossible to prevent kids having accidents unless you refuse to let them do anything and instead wrap them in cotton wool 24/7, never leaving their side. Kids can have accidents when parents are sleeping in a bedroom yards away.
"Everybody would have then seen it for what it is parents having a jolly good time at expense of their child's safety."
The McCanns have never said that they do not regret or feel guilty about that night.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Essex Lad
"Boozing"
You need to look up the meaning of the word "boozing". To drink alcohol excessively and chronically.
"Pissed" intoxicated with drink. Similar meaning as "boozing" then.
Like I said, insinuation.
"If that is correct then Social Services should prosecute every
> mother/father in the land that feeds and puts their tired
> children to bed after which they go into their decent sized
> garden to do a bit of weeding and planting or have a barbecue
> with friends whilst checking every half hour or so that their
> kids are okay.
Essex Lad's reply
That's not the same thing at all and you know it. Unless of course those parents leave the front door open for anyone to wander in. Anyway, how many people do you know who have a garden 162 feet long?
No. It is exactly the same. What is the difference between being sat in your garden 50 metres away from the bedroom where your kids are which you cannot see whilst you have a barbecue with friends and a glass of wine?
In terms of your argument, none whatsoever. It is still leaving your kids alone whilst you enjoy yourself. No difference at all.
Maybe you can get the EU to introduce a law that states parents must not sit in their gardens of a certain size whilst their kids are in the house?
You need to look up the meaning of the word "boozing". To drink alcohol excessively and chronically.
"Pissed" intoxicated with drink. Similar meaning as "boozing" then.
Like I said, insinuation.
"If that is correct then Social Services should prosecute every
> mother/father in the land that feeds and puts their tired
> children to bed after which they go into their decent sized
> garden to do a bit of weeding and planting or have a barbecue
> with friends whilst checking every half hour or so that their
> kids are okay.
Essex Lad's reply
That's not the same thing at all and you know it. Unless of course those parents leave the front door open for anyone to wander in. Anyway, how many people do you know who have a garden 162 feet long?
No. It is exactly the same. What is the difference between being sat in your garden 50 metres away from the bedroom where your kids are which you cannot see whilst you have a barbecue with friends and a glass of wine?
In terms of your argument, none whatsoever. It is still leaving your kids alone whilst you enjoy yourself. No difference at all.
Maybe you can get the EU to introduce a law that states parents must not sit in their gardens of a certain size whilst their kids are in the house?
Re: Essex Lad
David Johnson wrote:
> "Boozing"
>
> You need to look up the meaning of the word "boozing". To
> drink alcohol excessively and chronically.
>
> "Pissed" intoxicated with drink. Similar meaning as "boozing"
> then.
>
> Like I said, insinuation.
>
> "If that is correct then Social Services should prosecute every
> > mother/father in the land that feeds and puts their tired
> > children to bed after which they go into their decent sized
> > garden to do a bit of weeding and planting or have a
> barbecue
> > with friends whilst checking every half hour or so that
> their
> > kids are okay.
>
> Essex Lad's reply
>
> That's not the same thing at all and you know it. Unless of
> course those parents leave the front door open for anyone to
> wander in. Anyway, how many people do you know who have a
> garden 162 feet long?
>
> No. It is exactly the same. What is the difference between
> being sat in your garden 50 metres away from the bedroom where
> your kids are which you cannot see whilst you have a barbecue
> with friends and a glass of wine?
Don't be such a moron. Of course, it's not the same. Assuming someone has a garden 162 feet long, presumably they would only invite people known to them to this hypothetical barbecue or do they let all and sundry into their house. Or would the abductor break down the front door? The apartment door was not broken down.
>
> In terms of your argument, none whatsoever. It is still
> leaving your kids alone whilst you enjoy yourself. No
> difference at all.
So you think someone sitting in their home is exactly the same as sitting in a restaurant in a foreign country?
>
> Maybe you can get the EU to introduce a law that states parents
> must not sit in their gardens of a certain size whilst their
> kids are in the house?
That is such a pathetic point, it's not even worth answering.
> "Boozing"
>
> You need to look up the meaning of the word "boozing". To
> drink alcohol excessively and chronically.
>
> "Pissed" intoxicated with drink. Similar meaning as "boozing"
> then.
>
> Like I said, insinuation.
>
> "If that is correct then Social Services should prosecute every
> > mother/father in the land that feeds and puts their tired
> > children to bed after which they go into their decent sized
> > garden to do a bit of weeding and planting or have a
> barbecue
> > with friends whilst checking every half hour or so that
> their
> > kids are okay.
>
> Essex Lad's reply
>
> That's not the same thing at all and you know it. Unless of
> course those parents leave the front door open for anyone to
> wander in. Anyway, how many people do you know who have a
> garden 162 feet long?
>
> No. It is exactly the same. What is the difference between
> being sat in your garden 50 metres away from the bedroom where
> your kids are which you cannot see whilst you have a barbecue
> with friends and a glass of wine?
Don't be such a moron. Of course, it's not the same. Assuming someone has a garden 162 feet long, presumably they would only invite people known to them to this hypothetical barbecue or do they let all and sundry into their house. Or would the abductor break down the front door? The apartment door was not broken down.
>
> In terms of your argument, none whatsoever. It is still
> leaving your kids alone whilst you enjoy yourself. No
> difference at all.
So you think someone sitting in their home is exactly the same as sitting in a restaurant in a foreign country?
>
> Maybe you can get the EU to introduce a law that states parents
> must not sit in their gardens of a certain size whilst their
> kids are in the house?
That is such a pathetic point, it's not even worth answering.
Re: Gentleman
50 metres as the crow flys? Slightly different from 50 metres as a person can see/hear and have any idea of what's happening in that area.
It's like saying I know what's happening in my neighbours, neighbours home inside one of his rooms.
I feel superman may even feel justifying leaving your child 50 metres away as taking the piss even with his advantages over the mcanns.
It's like saying I know what's happening in my neighbours, neighbours home inside one of his rooms.
I feel superman may even feel justifying leaving your child 50 metres away as taking the piss even with his advantages over the mcanns.
Re: Gentleman
David Johnson wrote:
> "So it still boils down to leaving there children in another
> building across a street in a neighbourhood you dont know while
> out with friends."
>
> I repeat they were 50 metres as the crow flies from the
> apartment.
"50 metres as the crow flies" ? so in fact further than that.
>
> "I suppose a nice bistro dinner seems more palatable than
> popping out for some fags down at the Pakis at the corner when
> it comes to child endangerment".
>
> Maybe it seems more palatable to you, not to me. I would feel
> the same if someone popped out for a packet of fags. No more
> blame would attach to them than to the McCanns.
How naive can you be? Very it would seem in your case.
>
> "Just wondering how this would have been thought of If it had
> been under these circumstances the kid had an accident in the
> room rather than being a playmate for jimmy savile I bet there
> wouldn't have been the industrialised sympathy from the
> chattering classes then."
>
> You appear totally obsessed by class. I suspect the reaction
> to a kid having an accident would have been no different from
> rich, poor etc. Any one with kids and a couple of brain cells
> to rub together would know that it is impossible to prevent
> kids having accidents unless you refuse to let them do anything
> and instead wrap them in cotton wool 24/7, never leaving their
> side. Kids can have accidents when parents are sleeping in a
> bedroom yards away.
What are you talking about? A kid did not have an accident. A kid was abducted. It is not the same.
> "So it still boils down to leaving there children in another
> building across a street in a neighbourhood you dont know while
> out with friends."
>
> I repeat they were 50 metres as the crow flies from the
> apartment.
"50 metres as the crow flies" ? so in fact further than that.
>
> "I suppose a nice bistro dinner seems more palatable than
> popping out for some fags down at the Pakis at the corner when
> it comes to child endangerment".
>
> Maybe it seems more palatable to you, not to me. I would feel
> the same if someone popped out for a packet of fags. No more
> blame would attach to them than to the McCanns.
How naive can you be? Very it would seem in your case.
>
> "Just wondering how this would have been thought of If it had
> been under these circumstances the kid had an accident in the
> room rather than being a playmate for jimmy savile I bet there
> wouldn't have been the industrialised sympathy from the
> chattering classes then."
>
> You appear totally obsessed by class. I suspect the reaction
> to a kid having an accident would have been no different from
> rich, poor etc. Any one with kids and a couple of brain cells
> to rub together would know that it is impossible to prevent
> kids having accidents unless you refuse to let them do anything
> and instead wrap them in cotton wool 24/7, never leaving their
> side. Kids can have accidents when parents are sleeping in a
> bedroom yards away.
What are you talking about? A kid did not have an accident. A kid was abducted. It is not the same.