Madeleine McCann

Didn't realise this was your thread. I haven't got the forensic grasp of the details that you and some others have but thank you for the compliment anyway. I've noticed you like to compliment those whose posts come up to your standards. You seem a bit condescending to me.
 
journolud said:
Didn't realise this was your thread. I haven't got the forensic grasp of the details that you and some others have but thank you for the compliment anyway. I've noticed you like to compliment those whose posts come up to your standards. You seem a bit condescending to me.
Click to expand...

Try quoting me next time or I could miss your response.

I don’t have any forensic grasp - I just listen to the experts in the way of the private investigators and what Scotland Yard think.

I seem that way because you disagree with me. Those that I’ve argued with in here have been condescending to me but because you agree with them - you don’t see it.
 
Ban-jani said:
Yes that’s exactly what I mean.

If they’ve been in this resort all week and only encountered helpful workers and other British families with small children, it may have brought them further to the belief it was OK.

For example, if you’re crossing a road you know to be very quiet, in the countryside, where cars only pass by every 15 minutes on average - whilst you’ll keep your child close and ensure they’re crossing safely - you may not do so quite as much as if you’re crossing a busy junction with cars flying past regularly.

In the first scenario you may hold their hand or walk right next to them, in the second you’ll probably pick them up.

Now obviously this isn’t comparable to leaving them in an apartment but it’s an example to highlight how you behave in two similar circumstances, just in different environments based on what you know.

I agree somewhat with the last part, they did take an unnecessary risk with injury etc. I think the punishment of hindsight is enough for them and I just disagree with the “lock them up” or “take the twins off them” mentally we see. I have a lot of sympathy for them.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you describe above regarding risk varying according to environment and even with your examples, but I do assert as I have outlined that the circumstances of the case make it somewhat irrelevant because there are categories of actions which are not rationally in the bests interests of the child (in this case their safety) in any environment.

I also have a lot of sympathy for the suffering they have endured by the loss of their daughter, but see no logical conflict between feeling sympathy for that suffering and maintaining that their actions were, potentially, negligent. I agree that removing their remaining children or to "lock them up" would further no cause, however, I do believe that suggestion is often (though not exclusively) forwarded by its proponents as a statement against a perceived class injustice (the idea that if the parents were working class it would be different) rather than as a serious consideration of punishment for actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.