Madeleine McCann

Originally Posted by peanutkp

Wow, that's intelligent. You can't make the connection yourself? Would you like me to simplify it just for you?

Now that's what I call patronizing.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Now that's what I call patronizing.

It's ok, I've been slapped on the wrist for it.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Have you read the article Mrmistoff linked to?

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 ----------



It's a superb read, and I think everyone who has contributed anything to this thread should read every last word of it.

I haven't got round to reading the article yet, but whether I read it or not, I will still be of the same opinion that parents leaving their kids (especially kids who are still very young eg - under 4) alone while they go out should be investigated by social services.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

This is a very long read, but' it's very interesting. ...

Very interesting.

With the McCann story, this has, for the first time, resulted in a complete blurring of the boundaries between news and gossip. Sky News lists Madeleine McCann as a “category� on its interactive content screen: news, business, sport, Madeleine.

I think this "blurring between news and gossip" is what makes me feel most uncomfortable.

While i don't support anyone that is making accusations about their involvement in the death of their daughter that article has done nothing to change my view on the negligence aspect of this case. Also to be honest that article seemed more interested in absolving the press of responsibility in anyway for what is now happening and putting it firmly onto the public. Yes there is wild speculation flying around on some internet sites about this but in fairness the mc'canns themselves are a little to blame for this. Thier initial accounts of events that night have been blurred at best this has opened the way for some to go to town on them.

As for the "havn't they suffered enough" brigade for god's sake when is it going to sink in they are suffering because of a self inflicted injury. Maddie is the only one in this that is totally innocent and it is depressing in the least that she will be the only real sufferer from this incident. It would make my day to turn on the television and see her in the arms of someone taking her to safety but unfortunately that doesn't look like it is going to happen and that and that alone is the only thing that i have any sadness for in this incident.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Very interesting.



I think this "blurring between news and gossip" is what makes me feel most uncomfortable.

I agree, again the public responds to the media, that's how it generally works.

The first couple of lines on that article

The public is to blame for the heartless abuse being heaped on Kate McCann. The internet has blurred the lines of news and hearsay and the result is trial by global gossip

Now I would disagree with that to some extent. And I don't like the way she's exonerating the media in the article, like they are all blameless (in certain places she even praising them). Rich coming from the media itself.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

As for the "havn't they suffered enough" brigade for god's sake when is it going to sink in they are suffering because of a self inflicted injury. Maddie is the only one in this that is totally innocent and it is depressing in the least that she will be the only real sufferer from this incident. It would make my day to turn on the television and see her in the arms of someone taking her to safety but unfortunately that doesn't look like it is going to happen and that and that alone is the only thing that i have any sadness for in this incident.

Of course you've never made a bad decision in your life.

Do you have no compassion for parents that made a bad decision, and will have to live with that for the rest of their lives whilst persons such as yourself continually stick the boot in.

They made a bad decision and they were unlucky in the most extreme way, they are to blame for what happened but they are not bad people or bad parents.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Of course you've never made a bad decision in your life.

Do you have no compassion for parents that made a bad decision, and will have to live with that for the rest of their lives whilst persons such as yourself continually stick the boot in.

They made a bad decision and they were unlucky in the most extreme way, they are to blame for what happened but they are not bad people or bad parents.

Now we're going back to the start. The question is what is a bad decision? Can you prove what they did was a bad decision, a one off or the norm for them? Would that still fit the bad decision or verge into the neglectful area? Can you prove that they didn't sedate the kids whilst they went out on the razz? Would that still be a bad decision then? None of it so far can be proved, nor disapproved, and therefore it's hard to be defensive on their part just yet.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by peanutkp

Now we're going back to the start. The question is what is a bad decision? Can you prove what they did was a bad decision, a one off or the norm for them? Would that still fit the bad decision or verge into the neglectful area? Can you prove that they didn't sedate the kids whilst they went out on the razz? Would that still be a bad decision then? None of it so far can be proved, nor disapproved, and therefore it's hard to be defensive on their part just yet.

Well this is exactly the kind of thing that the Times Journo is writing about.

1. I am not, as nor is anyone else, in possession of the facts.

2. I am, however, firstly and foremostly believing that they are innoccent unless otherwise proved, so it is not hard for me to be defensive on their part.

3. I am also making part of my judgement based on what I have seen of their character and that they are both professional people, they wouldn't fit into my profile of neglective parents.

As you say it cannot be proved, and until something is brought out contrary to that, then they will always get the B.O.D from me.

A bad decision is a one off this wasn't a one off it was every night they were on holiday. Pierre no i don't have compassion for them because where my kids are concerned i never take a chance so i am judging them by my standards shoot me.

Originally Posted by peanutkp

Now we're going back to the start. The question is what is a bad decision? Can you prove what they did was a bad decision, a one off or the norm for them? Would that still fit the bad decision or verge into the neglectful area? Can you prove that they didn't sedate the kids whilst they went out on the razz? Would that still be a bad decision then? None of it so far can be proved, nor disapproved, and therefore it's hard to be defensive on their part just yet.

If you cannot prove it either way then the default position should be innocent until proven guilty. You cant disprove a negative so under that logic people would always remain possibly guilty.

"3. I am also making part of my judgement based on what I have seen of their character and that they are both professional people, they wouldn't fit into my profile of neglective parents" Oh right so professional people cannot be neglectful glad we got that sorted. You do realise how stupid that sounds neglect doesn't have a social or demographic class.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well this is exactly the kind of thing that the Times Journo is writing about.

1. I am not, as nor is anyone else, in possession of the facts.

2. I am, however, firstly and foremostly believing that they are innoccent unless otherwise proved, so it is not hard for me to be defensive on their part.

3. I am also making part of my judgement based on what I have seen of their character and that they are both professional people, they wouldn't fit into my profile of neglective parents.

As you say it cannot be proved, and until something is brought out contrary to that, then they will always get the B.O.D from me.

If they had been a couple of 'chavs' on benefits, on holiday, hitting the clubs everynight whilst leaving their kids in a apartment alone, I bet they'd fit most peoples profiles of being neglective parents.

You cannot say someone is not a neglective parent based on their profession. And yes you might be right in that we dont know how they are with their kids at home, but based on the evidence that they left their kids alone, unsupervised on more than one occassion, (i.e not a one off so you can call it a bad decision or a mistake) I can reach my assumption that they have been neglective and for that I'd have no problem with them being investigated.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

This is a very long read, but' it's very interesting. I also feel a bit guilty now

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2459924.ece

Well I read every last word of it, and I could feel my blood pressure rising as I did so!

What a load of (mostly) claptrap. There is so much in that article that I would like to pull apart, that it would last all day.

So, the British newspapers have "acted pretty responsibly" have they. So the front page headlines about the large quantities of hair found in the car, the front page headlines that she was over sedated, the front page headlines that her body was weighed down with stones and dumped at sea, etc. etc. If thats responsible journalism, what would the headlines be if they were irresponsible?

As for criticising Sky News about their "Madeleine McCann" category, what's that box next to your article Ms. Knight? Yes, that's right, the box with the headline "MCCANN FAMILY". The one that says underneath "Madeleine McCann. Full coverage and analysis of the latest twists in the investigation".

She is somehow blaming the general public for the criticism against the McCanns, yet what fuels that criticism? It wouldn't be the newspaper headlines by any chance, would it? It seems to me that the point of this article was just to make the author feel better about herself, and her fellow journalists, and heap all of the blame onto the general public.

I am increasingly reminded of these two well-known commentators upon people with a high public profile: