McCann Parents Lose Appeal

12467736

Comments

  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    eggchen wrote: »
    Partying, or simply eating together at the hotel complex restaurant a hundred or so yards away?

    I'm not saying I condone or agree with it, but the deliberate misrepresenting has been a staple of this case for the last ten years.

    Gerry has been the main culprit for misrepresenting how far away it was. As the crow flies, it may well have been a hundred or so yards away and, as he said, "like eating dinner at the bottom of your garden", but in reality, it was far from it because it was, if memory serves, something like a 5 minute walk back to get to the bottom of the stairs that led up to the apartment.

    You had to leave the restaurant and then exit the complex out in to the main street and then walk up the road and round the corner, i think, before you got to the stairs. A Sky news reporter sat in the very same bar they did that night and made the same journey they would have had to have made to get back to the apartment and it was very far removed from "having dinner at the bottom of the garden".
    aggs wrote: »
    I must confess to being hazy about the ECHR, but isn't it more about the actions of the member states - so any action taken wouldn't be against the person concerned but the country the judgement came from?

    I wouldn't honestly know to be fair. I'm just assuming that to go higher than a country's supreme court, you'd then have to go to a european-wide body and that one seemed to make sense.
  • Pisces CloudPisces Cloud Posts: 30,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    benjamini wrote: »
    Well they have paid one hellish price one way and another. I'm beyond bored with the constant rehashing of this tragic story. It's been done to death. RIP Madeline.

    Agreed. What more punishment do people wish to dish out on this poor family?
  • ElyanElyan Posts: 8,781
    Forum Member
    When my kids were small, and we went on holidays to hotels and apartment complexes, there was often the offer of a 'watching' service for kids left in rooms. Staff from the hotel would apparently walk around listening for kids crying, and alert the parents who were drinking downstairs.

    Did I take advantage of this service? No chance. My kids were right beside me when I was at the bar. If it became too noisy we'd go to another bar. If we couldn't find one we'd go back to the room. It's what you do when you have kids.

    What you don't do is leave them unsupervised in a room on the far side of an apartment block that's 120 yards away, while you go out with your friends.

    Whether they are directly responsible for whatever happened to their child, I don't know. But if they didn't play an active part, they certainly made it easy for whomever did.
  • eggcheneggchen Posts: 2,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Gerry has been the main culprit for misrepresenting how far away it was. As the crow flies, it may well have been a hundred or so yards away and, as he said, "like eating dinner at the bottom of your garden", but in reality, it was far from it because it was, if memory serves, something like a 5 minute walk back to get to the bottom of the stairs that led up to the apartment.

    You had to leave the restaurant and then exit the complex out in to the main street and then walk up the road and round the corner, i think, before you got to the stairs. A Sky news reporter sat in the very same bar they did that night and made the same journey they would have had to have made to get back to the apartment and it was very far removed from "having dinner at the bottom of the garden".

    They weren't exactly "partying" though were they Jason?
  • Paul_DNAPPaul_DNAP Posts: 25,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    egghead1 wrote: »
    Cmon! You think UK police would ignore it if there was any real proof the McCann's were responsible for the death?

    I am sure the UK police will treat any allegation the same way as any other - wait until the weather is nicer, then all pile off to Portugal for a free fortnight in the sun, dig up a random garden and come back with nothing conclusive again.
  • aggsaggs Posts: 29,458
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭



    I wouldn't honestly know to be fair. I'm just assuming that to go higher than a country's supreme court, you'd then have to go to a european-wide body and that one seemed to make sense.

    I have seen an appeal to ECHR mooted as next step - but not how it would work. My admittedly extremely hazy and a bit woolly memory seems to jog that a case would be against the decision of the member state rahther than the individual involved? More than happy to be put right, though.
  • aggsaggs Posts: 29,458
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    eggchen wrote: »
    They weren't exactly "partying" though were they Jason?

    Guess it depends on your own definition of 'party/ing'.
    Friends, food, alcohol - I've been to worse.
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    eggchen wrote: »
    They weren't exactly "partying" though were they Jason?

    That's not the point. The point is that the children were left alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country every night while their respective parents went out to socialise and that it was a far cry from being "at the end of the garden" as has been claimed.
  • JulesFJulesF Posts: 6,461
    Forum Member
    That's not the point. The point is that the children were left alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country every night while their respective parents went out to socialise and that it was a far cry from being "at the end of the garden" as has been claimed.

    Why not just come right out and say 'Serves them right'? That is the clear implication of any discussion of what they were doing that night. As someone else has pointed out on this thread, people seem almost gleeful that they received such a dreadful punishment for their failings as parents.
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JulesF wrote: »
    Why not just come right out and say 'Serves them right'? That is the clear implication of any discussion of what they were doing that night. As someone else has pointed out on this thread, people seem almost gleeful that they received such a dreadful punishment for their failings as parents.

    I certainly wouldn't wish what happened to them on anyone, and I wouldn't. The loss of a child, under any circumstances, is an agony I couldn't begin to imagine for a parent so certainly in that respect them have my sympathies.

    My objection is this constant portrayal of what they did as a "mistake".
  • ElyanElyan Posts: 8,781
    Forum Member
    I certainly wouldn't wish what happened to them on anyone, and I wouldn't. The loss of a child, under any circumstances, is an agony I couldn't begin to imagine for a parent so certainly in that respect them have my sympathies.

    My objection is this constant portrayal of what they did as a "mistake".

    Absolutely.

    It was not a mistake. They left their kids unattended deliberately. It was neglect.
  • eggcheneggchen Posts: 2,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That's not the point. The point is that the children were left alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country every night while their respective parents went out to socialise and that it was a far cry from being "at the end of the garden" as has been claimed.

    It's only not the point now because you have been called out on your own addition to the myriad of misrepresentation surrounding this story in the pursuit of further vilifying them. Eating at the apartment complex's restaurant with the other adults in their group is hardly partying, but serves to paint a picture of them doing something else entirely.
  • thefairydandythefairydandy Posts: 3,235
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JulesF wrote: »
    Why not just come right out and say 'Serves them right'? That is the clear implication of any discussion of what they were doing that night. As someone else has pointed out on this thread, people seem almost gleeful that they received such a dreadful punishment for their failings as parents.

    For myself, I see more people who are determined to find glee in what people are saying about this case more than any 'glee' itself.

    It is wholly possible to wish this situation were not the case, and to ascribe blame for it.

    I agree with Jason that there are worlds of difference between 'mistake' and negligence. A mistake is something anyone can do by accident without deliberate intent. There was negligence here in that they knowingly took a risk - however small it debatably was - with their childrens' safety.
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    eggchen wrote: »
    It's only not the point now because you have been called out on your own addition to the myriad of misrepresentation surrounding this story in the pursuit of further vilifying them. Eating at the apartment complex's restaurant with the other adults in their group is hardly partying, but serves to paint a picture of them doing something else entirely.

    Fair enough. I will completely and unreservedly withdraw the claim of "partying" and replace it with "socialising" or "having dinner" and will strive to do so from now on.

    It still doesn't change the situation regarding the children.
  • eggcheneggchen Posts: 2,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I agree with Jason that there are worlds of difference between 'mistake' and negligence. A mistake is something anyone can do by accident without deliberate intent. There was negligence here in that they knowingly took a risk - however small it debatably was - with their childrens' safety.

    I think that 'mistake', or an error in judgment is possibly a reasonable enough representation as well as negligence, or the failure to take proper care. They aren't as far removed from each other in this case as you suggest.

    You can often be lulled into a false sense of security on holiday. You feel more relaxed, your guard can often be down. They did have some safeguards in place in that they were making regular checks on the children whilst they slept, but maybe got the feeling that the resort felt "safe".

    They made a massive error of judgment, and have paid the price for that.
  • James FrederickJames Frederick Posts: 53,184
    Forum Member
    eggchen wrote: »
    They weren't exactly "partying" though were they Jason?

    No just out getting pissed with their mates
  • eggcheneggchen Posts: 2,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No just out getting pissed with their mates

    It's no wonder you like Amaral's book, the sensationalist approach seems to be your bag.
  • sofieellissofieellis Posts: 10,327
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Elyan wrote: »
    Absolutely.

    It was not a mistake. They left their kids unattended deliberately. It was neglect.

    Even after one of the children had told them she and her brother had cried the night before and no one had come to comfort them :(
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Oh this is good, lets hope all the old favourites come back to go over it all again, and maybe even create their own websites again to put the boot in. Very nostalgic.
  • aggsaggs Posts: 29,458
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    eggchen wrote: »
    It's only not the point now because you have been called out on your own addition to the myriad of misrepresentation surrounding this story in the pursuit of further vilifying them. Eating at the apartment complex's restaurant with the other adults in their group is hardly partying, but serves to paint a picture of them doing something else entirely.

    I'm breaking my own rule here of not just talking about this present ruling ... but imagine ...
    You <generic> have a small child who has recently been in hospital for an operation on their foot.
    You <generic> have a small child with a stomach upset such they have to be bathed rather than just changed.
    You <generic> have small children, one of whom you know woke up and cried such that another child questioned you about where you were.

    Do you:
    a) decide on balance it might be best to sort out other socialising arrangements
    b) plough on regardless
  • James FrederickJames Frederick Posts: 53,184
    Forum Member
    sofieellis wrote: »
    Even after one of the children had told them she and her brother had cried the night before and no one had come to comfort them :(

    They claimed they went back to keep checking but other witnesses inc other guests and staff at the restaurant said they didn't.
  • aggsaggs Posts: 29,458
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Oh this is good, lets hope all the old favourites come back to go over it all again, and maybe even create their own websites again to put the boot in. Very nostalgic.

    Just for completeness, I believe that more than one 'side' set up splinter groups ...
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    aggs wrote: »
    Just for completeness, I believe that more than one 'side' set up splinter groups ...

    The fact there were sides over a tragic incident like this says it all. I never saw so much hatred over anything on a forum.

    Hopefully this will be binned soon, because the same old stuff is being repeated already.
  • eggcheneggchen Posts: 2,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    aggs wrote: »
    I'm breaking my own rule here of not just talking about this present ruling ... but imagine ...
    You <generic> have a small child who has recently been in hospital for an operation on their foot.
    You <generic> have a small child with a stomach upset such they have to be bathed rather than just changed.
    You <generic> have small children, one of whom you know woke up and cried such that another child questioned you about where you were.

    Do you:
    a) decide on balance it might be best to sort out other socialising arrangements
    b) plough on regardless

    The problem with the internet, and forums like this is that everything is dissected, analysed, pored over and debated anonymously by people who all want to have an opinion, and who are all self-proclaimed experts in whatever it is they are discussing.

    With the omission of the nuances of how families interact, or their particular social dynamic, small issues suddenly become big issues to outsiders looking in coldly, often armed with only a small percentage of the facts.

    I'm no great lover of the McCanns, I don't think they do themselves many favours publicly and both come across as a bit odd. I'm happy to take the piss out of them as much as anybody, but what I won't do is pass moral judgment on them as a family, because I don't know them or have any kind of insight into how their family unit works.
  • TouristaTourista Posts: 14,338
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    eggchen wrote: »
    , but serves to paint a picture of them doing something else entirely.

    No, it simply "paints" the truth, as they deliberately left their kids alone while they went out.

    Stop trying to "paint" them as some sad couple who simply nipped out for a minute and had their daughter snatched. These were a couple who cared so much for their children that they thought it perfectly fine to swan off with their mates for dinner. They were not in full line of sight of their apartment, so had no idea what (or who) was approaching their room.

    I hate saying this, but I have to agree with what some posters have written when they say that if this had been a working class couple they would have been crucified by the press. Anyway, enough said before I become the one to get the thread locked.
This discussion has been closed.