Confidemus Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 The neglect, imo, is made worse by the fact that Madeleine McCann said to Mrs M "Why did you leave us alone last night, Shaun and I were crying" or words to that effect.. (source - my Mrs). If you want to go out on the lash and have meals with your mates, don't take your kids with you. Simple as that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Yup - by that definition, it looks like they were negligent. Isn't it bad enough, though, to have to live with the knowledge that your negligence led to the abduction of your child? That would be torture, imo. (assuming that they weren't involved in the abduction) I understand where folk are coming from with this, but I can't share the point of view. As I have said before IMO no punishment will ever be enough. Whatever happened that night ultimately they are to blame, and a wee girl will never get her life back, all because they neglected their parental responsibilities for some wine and tapas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 It needs Columbo on the case, he would get to the bottom of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I understand where folk are coming from with this, but I can't share the point of view. As I have said before IMO no punishment will ever be enough. Whatever happened that night ultimately they are to blame, and a wee girl will never get her life back, all because they neglected their parental responsibilities for some wine and tapas. I know - it's horrible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Parr Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Ultimately I would blame the abduction on whoever carried out the abduction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pub car king Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 if indeed there was an abduction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Have the Met discounted the sniffer dogs, the refusal to answer questions and body language etc.? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Have the Met discounted the sniffer dogs, the refusal to answer questions and body language etc.? I think they are conveniently only going on what the McCann's say happened. Big mistake imo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 (edited) Employing a lawyer should definitely be seen as the same thing as guilt imo. Same with winning injunctions - clearly if the court finds that someone has libelled you, you must be guilty. And while we're at it, the same goes for refusing to answer questions. Right to remain silent? Me arse, right to remain guilty more like. (Incase it's not coming across, I'm being sarcastic). "My Team: Celtic" Have the Met discounted the sniffer dogs, the refusal to answer questions and body language etc.? The sniffer dogs the McCanns demanded be brought over at great taxpayers expense, only for them & their team to start rubbishing publicly their accuracy the moment the dogs started detecting a recent smell of death behind the sofa in the apartment. Funny that. Edited October 15, 2013 by WaffenThinMint -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Why are the Met even involved? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Why are the Met even involved? because those foreign police are useless... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 The dogs smelt death in the apartment, on the mother's clothes, which she said was due to working with corpses, on the toy which had been washed, very strange thing to do and in the hired car. They also hired good lawyers and a spokesperson, how would they help find their daughter? Then they swan off and meet the Pope acting like celebrities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 The dogs smelt death in the apartment, on the mother's clothes, which she said was due to working with corpses, on the toy which had been washed, very strange thing to do and in the hired car. They also hired good lawyers and a spokesperson, how would they help find their daughter? Then they swan off and meet the Pope acting like celebrities. Meeting the Pope! Proof positive of their guilt (of something, if only illegal parking). Take them down! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Seemingly, investigations were conducted into the alleged negligence of the McCanns - the result of these investigations were that no actual laws were broken. Most people seem to think that they were negligent, but the investigations concluded otherwise. Drink driving is against the law, as is shooting your gran in the face - the reason you haven't been prosecuted is that you made it up. If the mccanns were investigated for neglect and it came to nothing then its a different argument altogether What a select few are saying on here that even if the mccanns did commit a crime, punishing them for it is harsh as they have suffered enough, which is utter bollocks hence my pisstake off the luck mccormick case 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Nothing wrong with meeting the Pope but I'd rather be searching for my missing daughter however fruitless it was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Nothing wrong with meeting the Pope but I'd rather be searching for my missing daughter however fruitless it was. You'd think the pope could have sorted it out for them considering he apparently has a direct line to god. Strange that >_> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 You'd think the pope could have sorted it out for them considering he apparently has a direct line to god. Strange that >_> It was the old pope, not the new one 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Parr Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Nothing wrong with meeting the Pope but I'd rather be searching for my missing daughter however fruitless it was. Meeting the Pope generated publicity and kept the story in the news. Using a spokesperson affords them a vehicle to put across their views with a degree of care and eloquence, as well as dealing with all the mud that has been thrown their way. Hiring decent lawyers means they will be advised that not answering questions under interrogation is quite often a perfectly reasonable course of action. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Meeting the Pope generated publicity and kept the story in the news. Using a spokesperson affords them a vehicle to put across their views with a degree of care and eloquence, as well as dealing with all the mud that has been thrown their way. Hiring decent lawyers means they will be advised that not answering questions under interrogation is quite often a perfectly reasonable course of action. All valid points but I feel there's more to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 It was the old pope, not the new one Shouldn't they be seeking an audience with the new one then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.