Madeleine McCann cops ask Home Office for more money to continue search for missing child

Of cause they are responsible.

Ok a kidnapping might be a 1 in 10m or whatever but she was also left with 1 year old twins, had one of them been sick and chocked to death would they be responsible for leaving them unattended, damn right? What about another accident eg fire in the building? what they did was a discrase

https://www.gov.uk/law-on-leaving-your-child-home-alone

and thats in a controlled environment (the family home) in your own country. They should have be charged with negligence along with having social services on their back about the 2 twins as clearly they are unfit parents

stockhausen said:
Didn't our revered Prime Minister walk out of a Pub near Chequers without one of his children some time ago? The Chandos Arms I believe it was.
Click to expand...

Theres vast difference between a genuine mistake and purposeful abandonment
 
stuie said:
. . . There's vast difference between a genuine mistake and purposeful abandonment
Click to expand...
Of course there is, when you have fathered as many children as Boris Johnson must have done, it would be easy to forget where you have left one of them.
I'm sure he didn't actually mean to abandon his child, he is just absent-minded ;)
 
stuie said:
Of cause they are responsible.

Ok a kidnapping might be a 1 in 10m or whatever but she was also left with 1 year old twins, had one of them been sick and chocked to death would they be responsible for leaving them unattended, damn right? What about another accident eg fire in the building? what they did was a discrase

https://www.gov.uk/law-on-leaving-your-child-home-alone

and thats in a controlled environment (the family home) in your own country. They should have be charged with negligence along with having social services on their back about the 2 twins as clearly they are unfit parents


Theres vast difference between a genuine mistake and purposeful abandonment
Click to expand...

When you say "she" you mean they right? They are both responsible for leaving their kids unattended.

Honestly the judge, jury and executioners in here are as bad as on social media. They made a terrible mistake. They have paid a terrible price for that mistake. Nothing anyone says will make them feel any worse than I'm sure they do. I'm sure they've received death threats, I wouldn't be surprised if their other children have had terrible things said to them by people who thought they'd killed her.

Parents make mistakes, if we took the children off every parent who made a bad decision there would be a lot of kids in social care.
 
Devilman said:
Allow me to induce pressure changes in your ear large enough to cause pain and make you cry and see if you think it's all gravy.

It demonstrates their character, they cared more for themselves, their holiday and their Tapas time than their children or other people.
Click to expand...

You are talking like its torture or something. The act of crying very probably aides their ears popping. Do you go up to everyone on a flight with young children and tell them they are terrible parents and terrible human beings or just sit their judging them? Honestly some of the people on this forum make me wonder wtf!
 
Apparently in the logbook of the Tapas restaurant there is a note saying the Tapas 7 wanted to sit as close to their kids as possible so they could keep checking in on them.
I also wonder if the other parents that were with them are having the same backlash for leaving their kids?
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
You are talking like its torture or something.
Click to expand...

Then you should have no problem with me inducing a large enough pressure change to cause you to cry from the pain, right?

Shall we set a date and stream it?

Colonel_Klinck said:
The act of crying very probably aides their ears popping.
Click to expand...

"PROBABLY"....

Do you actually have any evidence to backup this assertion? I prefer to make the logical assumption that crying from the pain is not so it "aids their ears popping", it's because it ****ing hurts!

Colonel_Klinck said:
Do you go up to everyone on a flight with young children and tell them they are terrible parents and terrible human beings or just sit their judging them? Honestly some of the people on this forum make me wonder wtf!
Click to expand...

No, because that would be as obnoxious and rude as they are being to everyone else on the flight who DIDN'T bring screaming kids onto the flight.

Interesting that you should bring up "judging them", since that is precisely what you are doing right now. Judging people. Don't throw stones in glass houses.

More to the point... Children that young should not really be on a high-altitude air liner regardless. There are pretty much ZERO provisions for crash / forced landing safety towards young infants, who typically become projectiles around the cabin.

Why anyone would willingly take a young infant / baby onto an aircraft just so they could have their holiday in the sun, I find frankly bizarre.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
You are talking like its torture or something. The act of crying very probably aides their ears popping. Do you go up to everyone on a flight with young children and tell them they are terrible parents and terrible human beings or just sit their judging them? Honestly some of the people on this forum make me wonder wtf!
Click to expand...

Young children shouldn’t be allowed on planes in the first place.

They ruin my flying experience.
 
Devilman said:
Then you should have no problem with me inducing a large enough pressure change to cause you to cry from the pain, right?

Shall we set a date and stream it?



"PROBABLY"....

Do you actually have any evidence to backup this assertion? I prefer to make the logical assumption that crying from the pain is not so it "aids their ears popping", it's because it ****ing hurts!



No, because that would be as obnoxious and rude as they are being to everyone else on the flight who DIDN'T bring screaming kids onto the flight.

Interesting that you should bring up "judging them", since that is precisely what you are doing right now. Judging people. Don't throw stones in glass houses.

More to the point... Children that young should not really be on a high-altitude air liner regardless. There are pretty much ZERO provisions for crash / forced landing safety towards young infants, who typically become projectiles around the cabin.

Why anyone would willingly take a young infant / baby onto an aircraft just so they could have their holiday in the sun, I find frankly bizarre.
Click to expand...

No you are judging people who bring kids on flights.

FFS its just your ears popping so yeah if you want to pay for me to take a flight somewhere so my ears can pop or a scuba diving trip I'm all in, I'll record it in 4k quality as well. Christ you make it sound like its something that will leave permanent trauma and PTSD :rolleyes:

All it needs to make your ears pop is the tube leading from your throat to your ear to allow air to move one way or the other so the pressure can equalise. So yeah, swallowing, yawning, moving your jaw, and I would imagine crying would have a very similar effect. Its recommended you either give your child a drink or a snack so their ears will pop.

Now kids are a heath and safety risk if a plane comes to an abrupt halt :rolleyes: Yeah because when a plane crashes a kid on a ballistic path down the cabin is really your biggest problem.
 
And you are attempting to judge me, see how this works?

You cannot sit there trying to act like you are holier than thou, when you are also making judgement's of others.

I suggest you look up the statistics for survival rates of air crashes.... It's a lot higher than you might think. That is for adults who are strapped in.

For babies and young infants... well, they just die, every time.

You wanna be lucky enough to survive a plane crash, only to discover your infant child is dead because they were flung into the front of the cabin?

You have a baby seat for a car doing 70, but your happy to have the baby sitting on your lap doing 500?

Planes should to be made entirely transparent... :p It might give people some actual perspective as to what they are actually doing, while sitting in their chair inside a metal tube, doing 500mph, 38,000ft above the ground.

As for your other nonsense... "FFS It's just your ears popping"..

Have you ever actually watched a kid cry their eyes out in pain because of their ears?

But hey, it's "just their ears popping"... doesn't matter that they are in tears from the pain right?


Shall I burn you with a hot coal until you cry from the pain, because "FFS, It's just a hot coal!"?


Your attempts to dismiss the pain and distress young infants undergo due to the pressure changes (and reduced pressure in the cabin at altitude, compared to Sea-Level) is nothing short of willful stupidity or deliberate ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Devilman said:
And you are attempting to judge me, see how this works?

You cannot sit there trying to act like you are holier than thou, when you are also making judgement's of others.

I suggest you look up the statistics for survival rates of air crashes.... It's a lot higher than you might think. That is for adults who are strapped in.

For babies and young infants... well, they just die, every time.

You wanna be lucky enough to survive a plane crash, only to discover your infant child is dead because they were flung into the front of the cabin?

You have a baby seat for a car doing 70, but your happy to have the baby sitting on your lap doing 500?

Planes should to be made entirely transparent... :p It might give people some actual perspective as to what they are actually doing, while sitting in their chair inside a metal tube, doing 500mph, 38,000ft above the ground.
Click to expand...


Cheaper holiday next time though?


Just sayin
 
Devilman said:
Your attempts to dismiss the pain and distress young infants undergo due to the pressure changes (and reduced pressure in the cabin at altitude, compared to Sea-Level) is nothing short of willful stupidity or deliberate ignorance.
Click to expand...

You’re making it sound like torture, if it was a bad as you’re making out then young children wouldn’t be allowed in flights due to the trauma.

I’ve been on many flight and some children cry, some don’t, even the ones that do cry usually settle after a few minutes once there ears have popped. I think you making a mountain out of a molehill to support your argument, in fact I’m not really sure what your argument is, banning flights for young children?

Last time I checked flying was still the safest form of transport.
 
Last edited:
HEADRAT said:
You’re making it sound like torture, if it was a bad as you’re making out then young children wouldn’t be allowed in flights due to the trauma.

I’ve been on many flight and some children cry, some don’t, even the ones that do cry usually settle after a few minutes once there ears have popped. I think you making a mountain out of a molehill to support your argument, in fact I’m not really sure what your argument is, banning flights for young children?

Last time I checked flying was still the safest form of transport.
Click to expand...

Trains.

Also worth noting light aircraft are the most dangerous form.
 
According to the Telegraph

There's some debate over whether planes or trains are safer, and it all depends on how you measure it. If it's deaths per billion miles flown, then planes win, but planes fly a very long way. But if it's deaths per journey, then trains are nearly six times safer. Both forms of transport are, of course, very safe.
 
Last edited:
Bluecube said:
If I put my address up here, told you when the doors are unlocked, and one of you turned up and shot me, who would be responsible for my death? Me or the psycho who shot me?
Click to expand...

both of you. That's the point. You would both shoulder blame.

A better example is one that gets used in law courses:

Person X sleeps with person Y who infects her with herpes. She sues. Who is at fault?

And to cut off a long argument the answer is BOTH OF THEM. Things are rarely black and white.
 
ik9000 said:
both of you. That's the point. You would both shoulder blame.

A better example is one that gets used in law courses:

Person X sleeps with person Y who infects her with herpes. She sues. Who is at fault?

And to cut off a long argument the answer is BOTH OF THEM. Things are rarely black and white.
Click to expand...

It's a tricky one, as I'm of the opinion that it's solely the fault of the person breaking the law. That said, since we know we live in a messed up world, I guess the expectation is on us to protect ourselves as best as possible.

It's not right, in fact it's very wrong, but when has anything ever been right these days.
 
Bluecube said:
Which completely misses the point... If you remove the kidnapper from the equation, no kidnapping would have occurred. The McCanns were not responsible for the death of their child.
Click to expand...

If she'd got up and walked outside and drowned in a pool would it be her fault or the parents? (Was there any evidence that she didn't go outside and get abducted in a public space?)

HEADRAT said:
According to the Telegraph

There's some debate over whether planes or trains are safer, and it all depends on how you measure it. If it's deaths per billion miles flown, then planes win, but planes fly a very long way. But if it's deaths per journey, then trains are nearly six times safer. Both forms of transport are, of course, very safe.
Click to expand...

Both comparisons would be misleading. The fairest comparison would be time spent travelling as time spent in an activity is what generally increases risk. So Number of deaths per year of travel.
Car travel is also a bit more complicated as there are significantly different risks depending on what roads are being used, international air travel is regulated to a pretty similar standard so the risks are more consistent.
 
German officials have confirmed that Madeleine is dead.

The prosecutor leading the investigation into the prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has written to her parents to confirm she is dead.

Hans Christian Wolters confirmed he sent the letter to Kate and Gerry McCann but said he was unable to explain why his officers had come to that conclusion.

“We have re-established contact with the McCann family in writing,” Mr Wolters, who is based in the German city of Braunschweig, told the Mirror.

“We, of course, really consider the fact that it is going to be very hard for the family when we tell them we assume Madeline is dead.

“But we can’t say why she is dead. It is more important that we are successful and we are able to get the culprit, as opposed to just putting our cards on the table and tell them why we think she might be.”
Click to expand...

(Source).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom