Madeleine McCann

Ban-jani said:
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.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I don't feel condescended to by everyone that I disagree with. Your condescending response illustrates my point.

Anyway, let's not get into too much of a spat. In respect of listening to the experts seems that there is still plenty of room for debate if this thread is anything to go by.
 
Dr.Faustus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I’m struggling to disagree with any of that.

It’s a very well-thought out post.

I reckon that’s drawn it to a conclusion for me.
 
journolud said:
Funnily enough I don't feel condescended to by everyone that I disagree with. Your condescending response illustrates my point.

Anyway, let's not get into too much of a spat. In respect of listening to the experts seems that there is still plenty of room for debate if this thread is anything to go by.
Click to expand...

I’m not saying you do, or I do for that matter.

I’m saying that people perhaps can see such tone more often when it’s someone they’re disagreeing with.

I’d argue that I’ve at the very least given as much as I’ve got on here and in some cases have been spoken down to more than I have to them.

I agree, I’m ready to park this thread for now.

Dr.Faustus has given the best arguments for me, despite the fact I probably disagreed with his general sentiment to begin with.
 
uQuWeAS.jpg
 
Not sure if it's already been mentioned but there's a documentary out there by Sr Amaral who headed the case at the beginning. Think it's called The Truth Of The Lie, there is also a book of the same name. Worth a watch and a read if you can still get hold of it.
 
Ban-jani said:
I’m not saying you do, or I do for that matter.

I’m saying that people perhaps can see such tone more often when it’s someone they’re disagreeing with.

I’d argue that I’ve at the very least given as much as I’ve got on here and in some cases have been spoken down to more than I have to them.

I agree, I’m ready to park this thread for now.

Dr.Faustus has given the best arguments for me, despite the fact I probably disagreed with his general sentiment to begin with.
Click to expand...

I think as with most things in life there is more agreement to be found in discussion and debate than disagreement.
 
Ban-jani said:
And here you go barging in with that condescending tone whilst not making nearly as good points as the other poster who disagrees with me.

“Tried to help you” - I don’t need help, we’re having a discussion and it’s ok to disagree.

I feel there’s a case to be had, it was lax and they should have used the crèche or made it more difficult to enter/leave the apartment by locking it but I don’t believe leaving them 77m away whilst checking on them every 20 minutes is gross negligence.

Your language in the rest of the post shows an element of bias against them and I don’t believe this helps.
Click to expand...

There’s no need to produce ‘points’ that disagree with you.

You’re wrong and the vast majority of the posters on the recent parts of the thread have explained to you why that is.

You’re entitled to your view but your view makes you look daft.
 
Stoned Rose said:
There’s no need to produce ‘points’ that disagree with you.

You’re wrong and the vast majority of the posters on the recent parts of the thread have explained to you why that is.

You’re entitled to your view but your view makes you look daft.
Click to expand...

It’s not the vast majority at all.

There’s 4/5 that agree with you and 2/3 that agree with me. It isn’t a topic where there is a clear correct answer as it’s subjective.

You think I look daft but I think you look daft so what’s the point?

If you read my last few posts, I’ve parked this discussion and have given some ground.

I’ve no idea why you’re still trying to entice an argument again when we’ve done it to death.
 
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.
 
inchy14 said:
The problem i have in all of this talk of they thought she would be safe, no real risk etc, is that this is all about her being abducted. Now to be honest, i wouldn't expect any child to be abducted and don't think anyone should live their and their children's lives with this in mind all the time otherwise we'd strap our kids to ourselves permanently, (although we know it does go on) my issue is that in leaving the patio door unlocked they left her in a vulnerable state, as has been stated, she could have wandered out and gone into the road, she could have fell into the pool.

This alone makes me feel they were negligent in their duty as parents, they never looked out for her well-being in my opinion.

Who on here would leave a 4 year old alone near either of the 2 above risks?

Think we all know the answer to that.
Click to expand...

And the twins who were even younger.
 
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