Bruce_Shark Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 They are correct. No, the parents "allegedly" checking every now and then is not the same as a recognised scheme in a closed secure environment. Also, what was good in the '50s is not necessarily the correct practice for now. Additionally, they were drinking, in a bar, with no line of site to the doors of the accommodation, which was a considerable distance away. They did not adequately supervise, or ensure the safety of, their children... ...the results of their negligent actions prove beyond any doubt this point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 The ifs and buts can be argued over forever and accusations of blame directed at the parents but the fact is a child is missing and the person to blame is the person or persons who took her. If the thief was intent on stealing the child they could and would have done it at any opportune time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce_Shark Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 ...but at the time the risk for the McCanns was clearly seen as very low. No, no, no, no, no... ...any reasonable parent when given the situation that they had would not choose to leave their children in this way. No hindsight was needed. It really is that clear cut, they were negligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 and this is the very sad truth of it - all of us , with the benefit of hindsight can see that the choice made was incorrect but at the time the risk for the McCanns was clearly seen as very low. When Laddo (And his half-brother) were youngsters, (and indeed, the grandies, if they were stopping over with me and the ex- Mr PT) were never, ever left alone. If we were supposed to be going somewhere, and they couldn't come with us, we didn't go. We'd never dream of leaving the boys unsupervised. When Laddo was young, I had one "night out" a week, (If you can actually call it such) which involved me and Ex- mr PT going out on the 1/4 to 8 bus to Shiregreen, to ExMr's best mate and mate's Missus's place, for a couple of hours, where we'd have a bite to eat, and watch a video. (living the high-life lol) then we'd catch the bus back. Brother in law would sit for Laddo for the short time we were out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce_Shark Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 ...If the thief was intent on stealing the child they could and would have done it at any opportune time. If someone is intent on stealing my car they will certainly succeed more easily if I park it 130 yards away, out of sight, while I get drunk... ...whereas, if it's in clear sight, being watched responsibly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madasfish Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 No, the parents "allegedly" checking every now and then is not the same as a recognised scheme in a closed secure environment. Also, what was good in the '50s is not necessarily the correct practice for now. Additionally, they were drinking, in a bar, with no line of site to the doors of the accommodation, which was a considerable distance away. They did not adequately supervise, or ensure the safety of, their children... ...the results of their negligent actions prove beyond any doubt this point! Nanny watch at Mark Warner was exactly the same as what the McCanns did - it involved staff walking around the complexes listening at doors. A circuit would take 15/20 minutes. So this was recognised practise in 2007 - not just in the 1950,s 60, 70, 80 and 90s ; when it also happened at Mark Warner, Butlins etc At other resorts evening childcare consisted of baby monitors in rooms, or nannies sat the end of corridors. As previously said thousands and thousands of children have been "supervised" in this way - I am only aware of Maddie having been taken - the risks were very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 If it were Kylie or Vicki from chavington they would have been hung drawn and quartered by everybody and their great aunt nellie yet because its someone from the middle class there are people who still defend their actions If it was, the thread would have been pulled by the Stasi, we can't be seen to be upsetting the Chardonnays and Waynes can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikita Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 The ifs and buts can be argued over forever and accusations of blame directed at the parents but the fact is a child is missing and the person to blame is the person or persons who took her. If the thief was intent on stealing the child they could and would have done it at any opportune time. Thats true . I have been reading a book- The child taker . It was scary how easily they did it just a little diversion and they were gone ,i was so shook by the book i never finished it but it will stick in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madasfish Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 When Laddo (And his half-brother) were youngsters, (and indeed, the grandies, if they were stopping over with me and the ex- Mr PT) were never, ever left alone. If we were supposed to be going somewhere, and they couldn't come with us, we didn't go. We'd never dream of leaving the boys unsupervised. When Laddo was young, I had one "night out" a week, (If you can actually call it such) which involved me and Ex- mr PT going out on the 1/4 to 8 bus to Shiregreen, to ExMr's best mate and mate's Missus's place, for a couple of hours, where we'd have a bite to eat, and watch a video. (living the high-life lol) then we'd catch the bus back. Brother in law would sit for Laddo for the short time we were out. and perhaps Maddie's in laws did the same for her? I have no idea how the McCanns socialised in England but I am well aware of how parents / holidays companies supervised chidren in resorts of the type the McCanns were at abroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddie Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Sorry- the McCanns did the same as what the nanny patrol did at Mark Warner....check in at the door every 15/20 minutes or so. That's the point in PDL there isn't a listening service, there never has been. The OC is a set of different Vilas and apartments set in a small village (Some privatly owned), it isn't a hotel complex. The Tapas bar was in a gated off area where you have to show your OC card to enter, ie the pool areas. Would you leave you kids in Parson Cross and go to the pub? That is exactly what the McCanns did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.