Madeleine McCann

johnmc said:
Just finished the doc. I don’t get the Tanner sighting and the subsequent coming forward of the guy who says it was probably him.

This happened 3 years after the likely abduction. How does that happen? One of the biggest cases of its type. You were a UK citizen holidaying there with a child of a similar age using the hotel crèche. And it takes 3 years to rule the sighting as innocent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've mentioned exactly this a couple of times on the thread. Wasn't it more like 6 years after the event as well? She went missing in May 2007 and it wasn't until the Crimewatch programme in Autumn 2013 that the Met confirmed the guy had come forward.

I put up a link earlier in the thread about the Tanner "sighting" and the guy supposedly coming forward years later. Granted, it was from one of the many amateur sleuths but it doesn't result in necessarily pointing fingers at the McCanns and Tanner. It explains why, with the layout of the apartments, creche, etc, why it makes little sense for "Tannerman" and a holidaymaker to be taking his child home from the night creche to be one and the same person.

The conclusion this person draws is that the Crimewatch programme and the explanation given re the Tanner sighting was a fishing expedition by the Met
 
Proy said:
Your new mate is very good at sitting on the fence.

I’ve got his number.

Sometimes life is very black and white. For the final time on this thread I’m going to say this and then I’m done with you.

What they did was negligent. You don’t leave your kids unattended, out of view, in an unlocked apartment. Society says you don’t do that and that’s the fucking end of it.

If you think that’s ok then just fucking wow.

God help you man.

That’s me out with you. Cheers.
Click to expand...

If I am the target of that caustic tone, I fear you are about to dial a disconnected line. I know you are keen to help, so let me help you understand my position, espoused many times on this thread. I do not believe they were in any way involved with the disappearance of their daughter. I do believe they were negligent in their duty of care towards their children (all of them- regardless of the consequential outcome of each) given full consideration of the facts surrounding the case. On this I think we agree. I don't believe retributive punishment for those actions serves any purpose and that is no reflection of their employment or perceived class. I have not sat on any fence.

I would contend that most debates, including this one, are not binary. I would further add that I have complete contempt for the view that the popular inclination of society at a particular point in time can be an arbiter of the reasons someone ought to act in a particular way; with this type of relativism any action can be justified. Their actions, I believe, were in breach of their duty of care to their children- but not because 'society says' so.
 
Dr.Faustus said:
If I am the target of that caustic tone, I fear you are about to dial a disconnected line. I know you are keen to help, so let me help you understand my position, espoused many times on this thread. I do not believe they were in any way involved with the disappearance of their daughter. I do believe they were negligent in their duty of care towards their children (all of them- regardless of the consequential outcome of each) given full consideration of the facts surrounding the case. On this I think we agree. I don't believe retributive punishment for those actions serves any purpose and that is no reflection of their employment or perceived class. I have not sat on any fence.

I would contend that most debates, including this one, are not binary. I would further add that I have complete contempt for the view that the popular inclination of society at a particular point in time can be an arbiter of the reasons someone ought to act in a particular way; with this type of relativism any action can be justified. Their actions, I believe, were in breach of their duty of care to their children- but not because 'society says' so.
Click to expand...

good post mate, pretty much agree with what you say, i would say though that all possible options are still open to debate as to what actually happened

what is without doubt is poor madeline has been without her parents ever since, that is the tragedy, i say it like that because until she is found we just don't know
 
tonea2003 said:
good post mate, pretty much agree with what you say, i would say though that all possible options are still open to debate as to what actually happened

what is without doubt is poor madeline has been without her parents ever since, that is the tragedy, i say it like that because until she is found we just don't know
Click to expand...

In this post, I was only stating what I believe in response to the poster that inferred I had sat on the fence- I do hope it wasn't taken as an attempt to shut down debate on the circumstances of the case.
 
Dr.Faustus said:
In this post, I was only stating what I believe in response to the poster that inferred I had sat on the fence- I do hope it wasn't taken as an attempt to shut down debate on the circumstances of the case.
Click to expand...

wasn't taken like that mate, i was only making the point all options are open until such time madeline is found or some new compelling evidence is brought to light.

your opinion is your opinion, i certainly wasn't trying to shut it down
 
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.