They placed more importance on their dining out than to the safety of their children, who among us would ever leave their most treasured possessions in a unlocked ground floor apartment in a foreign country. This is child neglect at its worst.

No, you are willfully twisting what I said. I merely pointed out that the PLANNING of the crime is not what makes it a crime, as you were insisting. With murder, the PLANNING will constitute aggravating circumstances and result in a stiffer sentence.

Most bank robberies may be planned, but robberies of convenience shops or other small retail outlets are often committed impulsively when an opportunity suddenly presents itself.

Your so-called argument falls apart anyway, because Gerry claims that they decided to institute a checking system after considering the hotel’s own checking system. That sounds like “planned negligence” to me — not impulsive or momentary negligence, which might result in a child snatched from a supermarket, for example.

According to their own statements, the McCanns knew in advance that they would be neglilgent on a nightly basis.

They have put EVEN MORE PLANNING into their excuses, alibis, and fabrications. Maybe that is why, for you, the negligence itself did not appear to be well-planned. LOL

YOU are wrong. An impulsive unplanned bank robbery is still a crime. Whether or not a robbery (or any other crime) is planned IS a consideration when determining the degree of culpabilitiy — but not in determining whether or not a crime has been committed.

“Bank robbers know the consequences of their actions and they know their actions to be wrong.”

False. Bank robbers may NOT know all of the consequences of their actions, and they may believe that what they are doing is right.

“There has never been a single reported case of a robber pleading poor judgement …”

And I submit to you that it is ridiculous for the McCanns to plead poor judgement in the case of their gross child neglect.

“…or claiming that they thought it was alright to rob that bank. ”

You are wrong here. Bank robberies have had various motives, including political motives. Robbers in those cases do claim that is is “alright to rob that bank. ”

“The McCanns on the other hand felt at that time that they had a system in order, not unlike that provided by the hotel itself. That was error of judgement.”

This argument is EXACTLY the same as the poster “Real Stig”. The claim is that the McCanns declined to use the resort’s available “checking” service, but went ahead and devised their own checking procedure.

As I said previously, this argument should be presented in court, at a trial of the child neglectors. The court can determine guilt/innocense as well as mitigating factors.

But if you want to compare the hotel service with the procedure supposedly enacted by the Tapas9, you have to consider all aspects. For example, did the hotel procedure involve leaving all the doors unlocked?

Wrong Hideki…Bank robberies have in the past always been planned and hence premeditated theft and therefore a crime. Bank robbers know the consequences of their actions and they know their actions to be wrong. There has never been a single reported case of a robber pleading poor judgement or claiming that they thought it was alright to rob that bankThat is unless you know ofsuch a case.
The McCanns on the other hand felt at that time that they had a system in order, not unlike that provided by the hotel itself. That was error of judgement.
Now we can all look back in hind sight and criticise, but did anybody contact the hotel prior to the alleged abduction and state their concerns for the system inplace ,which was advertised on the website and copied by the McCanns and their friends? Well nobody has come forth and said so. Has anybody ever criticised the fact that less than 20 years ago babies were parked in their prams outside houses and shops whilst their mothers got on with chores or shopping? These same children would sometimes be found crying and being comforted by strangers until their mothers returned. This is fact and I have seen it many many times even on my own street.No. Has anybody mentioned that many hotels the British Isles operated the same system and did not allow children into the adult dining room. This is fact and feel free to check it out. I am not saying what the McCanns did was clever. In hindsight we see the consequences .Considering that that particular type of babysitting service has been removed from the offers by the hotel in question, The consequences have provided a brutal lesson. In law, the mccanns have not commited a crime.
However slander is a crime and those who moot sick allegations without proof ,not only tell something about their own minds and characters but leave themselves open to litigation.In my opinion these are the true criminals until that time if it ever comes, that the mccanns are proven to have commited something more than an error of judgement. There is nothing wrong with debate using informed opinion, but beware and take note this has not always been the case with some.

Even if Mark Warner didn’t like children in the restaurants, that doesn’t excuse the McCanns one bit. What’s the matter with staying in for a meal or having one out earlier with the children and then enjoying the evening in together?

As a single mother, when my children were small we used to go on cruises where there would be a children’s club where you could leave them all day if you wanted to. Some people did, and at least the children were attended to. I could never understand why people wanted to leave them all day - after a hour or so I would miss the warmth and comfort of their company and go and join them in the nursery. I could then watch them having fun - what greater joy for any mother?

Now my children are nearly grown up and, happy as I am that they are doing well and going out into the world, I miss so much the lovely days we had when they were tiny. We talk about them often. I cry for the days gone by (which is selfish of me because my children are at the moment having a great time). I loved it when they needed me near them all the time.

I’m not expecting everyone to be the same as me - it would be a boring world if we were all the same. But I just can’t fathom how the McCanns could have left the kids in that room every night - and the unlocked bit I absolutely refuse to believe, that has to have been made up. Children waking in a strange room in the dark would be terrified. If they have any feeling at all, I suspect the McCs would have made well and truly sure that the children didn’t wake up.

What were the pair doing all day and all night that was better than being with the children?
Why did they have them?

I know all this has been said before, but I keep going over it in my mind. On the one hand, I don’t want to be unfair to the pair of them, and there is no proof that we know of that shows their guilt. On the other hand, my intuition, intelligence and common sense strongly tells me that they know M will not be found. Gerry is reported yesterday as saying that, apart from M being found, they are not expecting any developments in the near future. Why on earth does he keep making these equivocal remarks?

Stig: “I don’t think they should have left the kids like that. I would never do so myself. I don’t think it was neglect - I think it was an error of judgment. ”

It was criminal neglect. AND, yes, it was an error of judgement. When someone robs a bank, THAT could be construed as an “error of judgement” but it is still a crime.

Peter O: “You’re [stig] like a broken record with this aren’t you? No matter how many times you and others repeat rubbish like this from your database of ‘ready responses’ it will not make leaving young children on their own acceptable.”

Stig is obviously a TEAM MCCANN member employing their strategy. Maybe he is Clarence himself, or someone imitating Clarence. The “broken record” strategy works in the media, for brain-washing purposes, but it is not so effective in a properly moderated debate forum. The result is that Stig simply sounds like a broken record — and his arguments are very hollow the first time you read them, and they get hollower and hollower each time you see it repeated.

Leaving toddlers alone for hours is criminal neglect in just about any country that has a modern system of law. The Tapas9 attempt at mitigation with a cock-and-bull story about taking turns monitoring falls flat. But, yes, I agree their lawyer should be free to present that argument in court, at the trial.

Stig: ” I think Mark Warner has a lot to answer for in offering and promoting the self same ’service’…”

Maybe they do. I would like for the McCann’s lawyers to present that argument in court during the McCanns’ trial.

Peter O:”The fact that Mark Warner offers [such] a service doesn’t absolve the parent or carer from taking responsibility for making an appropriate choice for their children. Mark Warner also offer a crèche service and a babysitting service.”

True, and I would add that possibly TEAM MCCANN actually manufactured their bogus cock-and-bull story of checking on the kids by modelling it on the similar service offered by Mark Warner. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that any of the Tapas9 ever checked on their children, on any of the nights. If they had used the service, they would at least have had some credible evidence that the children had been checked regularly.

Peter O:”Do you [stig] have any evidence that moderately behaved and properly supervised children were unwelcome in the restaurant?”

This would be another interesting line of defense at the McCanns’ trial. However, I think they would have to show that their particular children were not welcome. Even so, they had the creche service and babysitting services available.

The problem with the TEAM MCCANN “defense” of the neglect charges, is that the defense is not being made at a trial, in court. There is NO REASON that charges should not be brought against the McCanns and their friends, for criminal neglect of children, child endangerment, etc.

I would agree that the provision of services involving the checking of unattended children, use of listening devices in lieu of attending a todder, etc should not be legal. Right now we have a group of negligent parents who are claiming that they decided themselves to provide a minimal service that was offered by the resort.

Stig, you seem like a clever, if somewhat glib, lawyer. I hope to see you in court defending the Tapas9. Personally , I think the McCanns deserve a severe sentence, but I hope that your arguments could result in Mark Warner being prosecuted for something as well. Or perhaps, after their conviction the McCanns could sue Mark Warner for causing them to act in a criminal manner.

This whole sage just gets better and better it seems no matter what happens we’re supposed to accept it and go along with it… Its ok I’m sure the majority of the british working population won’t mind.

November 2nd 2007 By Jerry Lawton

Gerry McCann is getting £75,000 a year for working one-and-a-half days a week.
Health chiefs decided to pay the heart consultant, 39, his full salary.
He returned to work yesterday almost six months after his daughter vanished.
But he stepped into separate rows over patients’ worries about being treated by a crime suspect and his wage.
Gerry will initially only do three half-days a week on research at Glenfield Hospital in Leicester.
But one outpatient said: “It’s unbelievable. He’s still an official suspect.”

McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “He is entitled to receive his salary in whatever way the hospital trust deems appropriate.’’
****************************

Oh no Clarence……He is entitled to a pro-rata payment for hours worked.
The NHS is still a Public Service.
And tax-payers do not like to see their contributions mis-spent. IMO

I did not begin following this story until summer. I posted on a site that was infested with pro-McCann people and that is how I began to think it strange that so many people were defending their neglect.

“But more worrying to me was that even then I thought there was no abduction and these people were responsible for something truly terrible. Now because of everything since and all these actual indicators becoming present (though not proof) I feel convinced this is all very bad indeed… But please all you pro McCanners- stop insulting people for their views. Paedophilia is in the news all the time and however much you dislike it, its a very valid theory here.”

It is odd that their own TEAM MCCANN is the one proffering a pedophilia/abduction theory. What kind of people populate such pedophilia networks? Amongst these moral monsters are there not lawyers, doctors, carpenters, laborers — people from all walks of life? If they themselves are contemplating that pedophiles have taken their daughter, why is it that NO ONE ELSE can contemplate this horror?

The McCanns story is full of holes and contradictions. They’ve never shown any feeling toward Madeleine, and their actual statements (the words) are shockingly cold and self-absorbed. And this comes on top of their being natural suspects — as would all parents in such a case.

The McCanns have presented a very very strong case against themselves. And they did this with the backing of a high power legal and PR team. Truly remarkable.

From today’s Metro:

“But we feel we have done everything we can do to establish the search for Madeleine on an ongoing basis and we have the proper infrastructure to find her. That, in turn, allows me to concentrate on returning to work properly.” Oh if you’re returning to work properly how come you’re being phased back in slowly. You better pray the PJ don’t manage to pin this on you, you’ll be getting your own bum surgeon in the Lisbon equivalent of Strangeways.

Yeah whatever mate. Yawn. I may have found a cure for all insomniacs, just play back the dirge that flows forth from this bloke, honestly if you could smell through the net the odour coming from anything relating to GM would be total and utter horsesh1t.

I wonder if charged by the PJ the “diminished responsibility” card will be played at trial, especially if the PJ try to nail KM for this. Do the Portuguese have such a thing as “diminished responsibility”?

Yes, you’re right. That story is unsubstantiated.

And so is the original story.

The papers print any rubbish they want. She probably said neither thing.

However, I liked that link you gave the other day for a source with a good summary of events to date. Was in something with London in the title? Less sensationalist than some!

I’d be grateful if you could give it again.

Thanks if you do read this and can give the link.

Work now,

November 1st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
433 Hideki
“When have you ever seen a released moving footage of any missing child? ”
Stevo answered you; there are plenty of cases. And complicated lengthy videoes are not necessary. A short video showing the child walking, running or kicking a ball would suffice. It would show the movement of the child, and show the head/face at several angles. The McCanns have no such normal videoes in their collection???

“There are probably many legal reasons for that.”

No, there are NO legal reasons for not providing a video. If you think there are, go find out what legal problems you mean, and tell us. Otherwise, yours is GROUNDLESS SPECULATION designed to AVOID THE ISSUE.

“Don’t be silly. Also every photo I have seen of Madeleine looks like what she is, a regular little 3 year old girl. ”

Yours is the silly comment. How do you know that those few photos adequately represent what Madeleine looked like when she disappeared? Only TWO of the photos were recent, and the quality of the photos for ID purposes was very poor. Again, the McCanns had nothing better to show the public???

“They released the final image of Madeleine on holiday and one very clear front on shot which clearly shows the mark in her eye…”

The “fianl image” was worthless for ID purposes: that leaves ONE recent photo. Just one!!! Interesting how you, like the McCanns, keep emphasizing the rare appearance of Madeleine’s eye. From what distance will that condition be recognizable? Why did the McCanns NOT provide any other information on medical conditions whatsoever? Why no answers to the rumors of autism, for example.

“not to mention a number of other photos.”

None of the other photos were recent, none were dated, and some were obviously at least a year old.

“How many more photos of her do you need to see. ”

Well, then, why did the McCanns plaster their website with old and useless (for ID purposes) photos of Madeleine? If you are going to show many photos, why not make ALL OF THEM recent photos that serve the purpose of identifying the child in case she is seen? Instead, the photos were on the website only for some purpose of stirring up sympathy.

To give you a number, I have already challenged the McCanns to publish 100 normal photos of Madeleine, taken between January and May, 2007. I guess they can’t do it, because they don’t have that many normal photos.

“You really are reading way more into things for the sole purpose of creating and spreading false claims. I agree with coolandcalm your mind is offensive.”

Both of you are unable to debate without turning to personal attack and personal insult. Supposedly people who entertain the possiblity that Madeleine was raped by pedophiles are “nasty”, “obsessed”, etc — meanwhile, who are the ones ONLY CONTEMPLATING A SINGLE THEORY OF ABDUCTION THAT INVOLVES A PEDOPHILIA NETWORK? That’s right… it is TEAM MCCANN. I guess you think this is a team of nasty individuals, eh?

Even for those of you who think the McCanns are innocent — how would you know if Madeleine was not being raped every night in that apartment while the parents were busy drinking and playing games? You don’t know! Maybe the pedophile had been having his way with all the children every night, and then on May 3rd something went wrong and Madeleine died.

You people are really off your rocker to come around insulting those of us who are speculating as to what happened, when the ONLY STORY proffered by the McCanns MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL, and, as I said, ALSO INVOLVES A PEDOPHILIA NETWORK that had been supposedly planning to abduct Madeleine.

How strange, that EVEN IF the McCanns wild story is correct, THEY ARE STILL GUILTY of allowing Madeleine to be abducted, due to the absolutely inexcusable and unforegiveable neglect of their children.

I dont think he is a good liar and he really ought to consider taking a polygraph (is that what its called?) test.